Sitting of 23 October 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD HEATH took the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order No. 1 (Election of the Speaker).

Election of Speaker
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have to inform the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the resignation of the right hon. Betty Boothroyd, lately Speaker of this House, gives leave to the House to proceed forthwith to the election of a new Speaker.
Sir Edward Heath: The House may be assisted if I make a short statement about the procedure this afternoon. The first business of the House must be to elect a Speaker. Under Standing Order No. 1, whenever it is necessary to proceed forthwith to the choice of a Speaker, it falls to the Member with the longest continuous service in the House to preside. It is also laid down that when a motion has been made that a certain Member do take the Chair, further nominations are to be made in the form of amendments to that motion.
The Standing Order therefore means that all I can preside over is the election of a Speaker by the means laid down in the Standing Order. Although that procedure may sound complex, it is exactly the same as that adopted by the House in deciding on any motion to which amendments are offered. First, the motion is moved. If there are amendments, they are then moved and decided on. Once an amendment has been carried, the main question, as amended, is put to the House for decision. If no amendment is carried and no more are forthcoming, the main question is put for decision. I hope that that will be helpful.
Mr. Tony Benn: Sir Edward, you and I have sat under eight Speakers in 15 Parliaments over
2
50 years, and you know, better than any of us, the importance of the Speaker to the work of Parliament. We are in some difficulty today. We do not know the names of the candidates because they have never been put on the Order Paper. We do not know who will move them or second them. We did not know what statement you would make until you made it. Officially, we will not know of any proposal of the kind that I hope you will allow me to make until I have the chance to make it.
I draw your attention, Sir Edward, to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 1, which says:
A Member taking the chair—
that is yourself, Sir Edward—
under the provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall enjoy all those powers which may be exercised by the Speaker during proceedings…
Therefore you have absolute power, as the Speaker has, to accept an amendment if you choose to do so.
I am not asking you, Sir Edward, to support the proposal, but the House should have the opportunity to do so. There was very wide consultation at a meeting this morning and out of 150 people, only one was opposed to the idea of a ballot. We are a sovereign body, and when the House wishes it can pass an Act though both Houses in a single day and get Royal Assent, and there is no reason why we should not tackle the question now.
The Clerk advises me that the form of words that I should use in making my proposal are as follows:
That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Election of Speaker), the process of nomination and election shall be as follows:

(a) That nominations for the position of Speaker be opened immediately and be submitted to the Clerk of the House, each one to be supported by a Mover and Seconder and accompanied by a consent form signed by each person nominated.

(b) That Ballot papers be printed immediately containing the names of all the nominated candidates together with the names of the movers and seconders of each.

(c) That each Mover and Seconder be then invited to speak in support in support of their candidate, in alphabetical order by name of that candidate, followed by others who may wish to speak and ending with the candidates themselves also in alphabetical order.

3

(d) That the House then adjourn to allow ballot papers to be issued in the No Lobby and members having marked them with the name of the person for whom they wish to vote, signed with their own names, would then place them in Ballot Boxes in the Aye Lobby.

(e) That the Clerk of the House would act as the Returning Officer for the counting of the Votes and would report the result to the Father of the House showing the votes cast for each candidate and the names of those members who had voted for each.

(f) That the House would proceed to a division to decide which of the two candidates with the largest number of votes would become Speaker.

(g) The successful candidate would then take the Chair as Speaker Elect in the normal way.

I am not suggesting that that is a perfect system—some Members have suggested alternative votes and exhaustive ballots—but it is practical.
I have given the Clerk nomination forms and ballot papers and know that he has prepared them in case the proposal is carried. I hope that you, Sir Edward, will allow the House to decide. The House must have the Speaker it wants and the Speaker must enjoy the authority that he or she needs to do the job that we are about to elect him or her to do.
Mr. David Davis: May I support the point of view put by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? This is the most important vote that the House faces in this Parliament, and two arguments have been put against altering the procedure in the way that he suggests. One is that there has been a previous opportunity to do so and that the Procedure Committee has considered that. However, I am quite sure that the Procedure Committee did not consider the possibility of there being 12 candidates and the complexity that we face, so that we now have to make a game theory decision on who we vote for at each point.
The second argument is that we should not change the rules midway through a contest. Probably the House was surprised when Speaker Boothroyd chose to stand down—disappointed, perhaps, as well—but it seems to me that it is more important that the House can choose by a transparent and visibly fair procedure that it supports overwhelmingly rather than stick with an antiquated procedure, which would bring the House into disrepute.
Mr. Paul Marsden: May I support the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? We are about to take a momentous decision and I urge you, Sir Edward, not to go down the route of antiquated precedent but, rather, to abide by what I think is a substantial majority in the House who support your allowing us to have a free, fair, open and democratic ballot.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Sir Edward. As someone who does not support this last-minute change to the rules, may I seek your guidance for those of us who are prepared to stick with the existing rules until they are properly changed? I ask you to guide the House as to your thoughts on the sequence in which you propose to put the main proposition and, more important, the amendments. Some indication of that would help those of us who wish to give consideration to the votes that we are about to cast.
Sir Edward Heath: I should like to deal with the point that has just been raised, among others. I quite understand
4
the anxiety that many Members have about the present system. I not only understand but have considerable sympathy with it. On the other hand, I believe that my powers under the Standing Order do not extend to presiding over a debate and a decision on other possible methods of election. In any case, even if I had the authority to act in that way, I believe that we would become very confused if we tried to change the rules in the middle of our proceedings. However, as I am sympathetic to the concern of Members, there may be a way in which I can help without straining the limits of my powers.
It may assist the House if I announce in advance the order in which I shall call Members to propose candidates—that is, the order of all those who have notified me that they wish to take part in the debate. I do so with two provisos. First, if any amendment is carried and the main question as amended thereafter is agreed to, no subsequent amendments can be proposed. Secondly, the list that I am about to read out is not necessarily exhaustive. If no amendment moved by a Member whose name is on the list is carried, other Members may catch my eye to put forward other candidates. Perhaps I may now give the list of those who have notified me already.
I will first call Mr. Snape to move that Mr. Martin do take the Chair. That will be seconded and debated. Thereafter, we may proceed to other candidates. Mr. Winnick is to propose, as an amendment, Sir Alan Haselhurst; Mr. Wigley is to propose, again as an amendment, Mr. Beith; Mr. David Davis is similarly to propose Mrs. Dunwoody; Mr. MacGregor is to propose Sir George Young; Mr. O'Neill is to propose Mr. Menzies Campbell; Mr. Maxton is to propose Dr. David Clark; Mr. Wilkinson is to propose Mr. Nicholas Winterton; Mr. Cann is to propose Mr. McWilliam; Mr. Tom King is to propose Mr. Lord; Mrs. Shephard is to propose Sir Patrick Cormack; and Mr. Martin Bell is to propose Mr. Shepherd. That covers all those who have notified me of their wish to speak.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Notwithstanding the statement that you have just made, Sir Edward, I hope that you recognise that when the procedures of the House do not even reflect the views of its Members, let alone those who send us here, we have a problem.
As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) said, the Procedure Committee examined the question following the previous election of a Speaker in 1992. I was a member of the Procedure Committee. It was then thought inappropriate to examine the issue soon after a large majority had elected the Speaker—the bulk of the House voted in that Division. I put it to you, Sir Edward, that it is always an inappropriate time to do so; it is no more inappropriate today than it was then. Indeed, we all have a collective responsibility for not examining the issue at the time. Even the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who spoke in the previous debate, did not raise questions about the procedure.
This time, it is clearly the view of the House that the procedure that we are about to follow is not likely to result in a clear statement. Even if we proceed as you have indicated, Sir Edward, we are likely to leave a sense of dissatisfaction and frustration in the House, whoever is elected. I know that I will not be popular with whoever takes the Chair some time this afternoon—or, perhaps, in the early hours of the morning—but I still believe it is important that we review the procedure.

5
We are fortunate that we are likely to be back in the Chamber electing a Speaker following the dissolution of Parliament in a matter of months, so the appointment is a temporary one. I hope that, during that period, the House will agree that my colleagues on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons should be given a remit to look again at the procedures and make them more democratic.
Mr. Joe AshtonUsually, I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and I do so on this occasion with one proviso.
We are approaching the season of gunpowder, treason and plot, as always at this time of the year. I estimate that as many as 100 Members of Parliament, including Ministers, cannot be present but ought to be aware of any proposed change to the procedure. I know of at least three Ministers who have had to go abroad on Government business and very much regret that they cannot be present.
There is no proxy vote; there is no pairing system; there is nothing on the Order Paper; and nothing has come from the Whips to say that the change will be made or the debate will be held. There has been no indication other than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield's rising to his feet. Making such a change would be out of order in any other parliamentary business. Suddenly, the House, ad hoc, says that it is going to debate and vote on the issue. I put it to you, Sir Edward, that that would be out of order. We should carry on and debate any changes later.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Sir Edward. I believe that there is almost certainly a majority in the House now in favour of a change in the rules to allow the ballot to go ahead on a fully democratic basis. That being the case, and although you have said that you are not permitted to allow a debate and a vote to take place on the proposal of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), we in this House make our own rules: Standing Orders exist only to guide us. Therefore, I should like to move that we set aside Standing Order No. 1 until the House has had an opportunity to arrive at a view and vote on the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
Sir Edward Heath: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that such a motion requires notice.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Sir Edward. May I ask you a question of fact? On what basis and by what criteria was the sequence of names decided?
Sir Edward Heath: It was done at my discretion. That has always been the case, but my predecessors have never announced in advance who has been chosen and where they are placed. I was hoping that my doing so would be helpful to the House.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On a point of order, Sir Edward. It is indeed helpful for the House to know the order in which you will call the candidates, and it is, of course, open to you to use your discretion. However, the problem with comparing today's procedures with those over which your predecessors presided is that they are not comparable—today, the House faces an unprecedented number of contenders for
6
the speakership. That is why I support the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that, because we face an unprecedented situation, the House itself should control the way in which this extremely important matter is handled.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Sir Edward. We know that you are in an extremely difficult position, but, on the important issue facing us today, it would be entirely wrong to go ahead on the stated basis when it is quite clear that the majority of the House is not in favour of doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some Members say no, but let us put it to the test and have a vote on the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
If you cannot do that, Sir Edward, I put it to you that when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), resigned on the lawn of No. 10 Downing street, several points of order were raised and it was ruled from the Chair that it was in order to move, as an emergency resolution, That this House do now adjourn. Would it be possible to move such a motion in the event of your not allowing the House to divide on the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield?
Sir Edward Heath: I am sorry, but I am not prepared to accept a dilatory motion; I am sure that the House as a whole does not want that.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Sir Edward. You control the batting order, which is crucial, and you have read out the names of the candidates and those who are proposing them, but I am none the wiser as to what informed that decision. You say that you have discretion; indeed you do, and that is what is wrong with the system of election. The system we use should be open and transparent, and people here and outside should be able to understand it.
An hour or so ago, we held hustings in Committee Room 10. We carried out a straw poll among the approximately 150 Members present, the result of which was an almost unanimous decision—there was one exception—that there should be a ballot of the candidates. People do not want to elect the new Speaker using a discredited system that would not have been out of place in eastern Europe before the wall came down.
Mr. Peter Bradley: On a point of order, Sir Edward. I suggest that we are confronted with a matter of principle. It is also a matter of democracy. Further, it is a matter that unites Members on both sides of the House. It is important, too, that the people who are looking in on our proceedings—those who send us here—understand and recognise the way in which we comport ourselves in this place, which should conform to their understanding of democracy.
I urge you to accept, Sir Edward, that it cannot be in conformity with the spirit of the Standing Orders that you intend to operate this afternoon that we should elect the champion of Back Benchers and the champion of the House through a system of smoke and mirrors. That person could not expect to command either the respect or authority following such an election. I urge you to think again, Sir Edward, and to bear in mind the fact that almost

7
unanimously those who have spoken this afternoon would urge you to ensure that we have a free, open, democratic and accountable form of election.
Mr. David Wilshire: I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and say that there is a majority either for or against what you have proposed, Sir Edward, or for or against what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has proposed. It has become clear to me over the past 20 minutes that the House is deeply divided on the matter. I have no idea where the majority lies, but, given the fact that the House is divided, there is a real risk that unless the House expresses where its majority lies, whatever system we use will undermine the very person that we must not undermine when we come to choose the next Speaker.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). You tried to be helpful, Sir Edward, by announcing the batting order for the candidates, but, far from being helpful, it will undoubtedly mean that this afternoon's proceedings will cause more of a problem.
Both you, Sir Edward, and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) have two last duties to perform on behalf of the nation and this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has given you the opportunity to listen to what the House is saying and to accept that his proposition is made in the right sense, will result in the right decision and will enable the right person to occupy the Chair. I fear that anything short of that will seriously undermine the credibility of the successful candidate.
There will be many in the House and outside who will not understand why we have come to the decision that we have. The only sensible way forward is to accept the proposition of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, listen to what the House is saying and at least test whether the right hon. Gentleman, for once, is speaking for the whole House and for the majority of the country.
Mr. Martin Bell: If there were ever a sitting of this place that needed prayers before it, this is surely it. I hope to have an opportunity to propose the name of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). As he is 12th in the batting order, I fear that it is unlikely that I shall be able to do so. As we should be a model of democracy, can we not now choose a democratic procedure for the election of Speaker?
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Sir Edward. It strikes me that anyone who comes through the process this afternoon under our current rules will have the support of the House. The problem is that with a plethora of candidates it is extremely likely that we shall arrive at a point when there are no more amendments to be made, and the main motion may be lost. That may be the situation, given the number of candidates. If at that stage it was clear that we could then re-examine the rules, the House could then adjourn. Is that a potential way forward?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: On a point of order, Sir Edward. There is no doubt that the House is master of its own procedure. It is therefore open
8
to you, under Standing Order No. 1, to accept the proposal in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). There is plainly a great deal of support for it, even if there is also a good deal of opposition. May I ask you, Sir Edward, to accept the proposal and put it to the test?
Mr. John Butterfill: I am probably unique in that I am the only candidate who has withdrawn. However, that leaves 12 other candidates to be proposed and seconded.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had the courtesy to telephone to discuss his proposal with me, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. The only problem that occurs to me—from a dispassionate point of view, as I now have—is that under his proposal, the two leading candidates could, even together, receive only minority support in the House. We might have two significant minority candidates going forward to the final selection. That does not seem a suitable solution, so we may have to consider a system of additional vote, which I would not normally support, but it seems that even the proposition of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is flawed.
Sir Edward Heath: Some of the complications of the proposed system are now emerging clearly. For us to go over to a new system will take considerable time and a great deal of investigation. What has been proposed so far as a simple solution is not simple at all. On the other hand, providing the names of those who wish to be considered and their proposers and seconders, as I have done, gives the House far more information than it has ever had in the past and provides a foundation for taking decisions today. Therefore, I cannot accept the proposals that have been made from various quarters. We should get on with our business, and I call Mr. Snape to propose Mr. Martin.
2.58 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: I beg to move,
That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
All of us present today recognise the importance of the matter before us, even if we cannot agree on the procedures. As elected Members of the House, we recognise the primacy of the occupant of the Chair and the formidable powers that we, by our decisions today, will grant to that person.
Many of us on both sides recognise that the power and status of the House have diminished considerably over the years. That process did not start in 1997 or even in 1974, when I was first elected. It has been going on for many years. All of us are aware of the feeling often expressed by our constituents that we are somehow out of touch and have no real knowledge of society's problem. To refute that premise is one of reasons that I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) today, for understanding the problems of poverty and deprivation perhaps comes easier to my hon. Friend than to others.
My hon. Friend was born at the end of the second world war in a Glasgow tenement as one of the five children of a mother who faced life as a single parent after the break-up of the marriage, and following the awful experiences of a father who was three times torpedoed

9
during the second world war. My hon. Friend was an apprentice sheet metal worker before coming to the House, although he says that at the time he would have preferred to be a carpenter. Going to work as he did then, clad in a second-hand boiler suit and a pair of boots, gives him a deep knowledge of some of the problems facing many of our electors and many people in the United Kingdom. Although I am glad that his sartorial awareness has improved since those days, his experiences are not ones that can readily be put aside.
My hon. Friend was elected to the old Glasgow corporation in 1973. It is understandable, given his own experiences, that the provision of decent housing was his major political passion. My hon. Friend helped to form a housing association in the city that is one of the biggest community-based associations in Glasgow today.
Since being elected to the House in 1979, my hon. Friend has served on many of the House's Committees. All hon. Members know that much of the work of those Committees is unreported, unheralded and unobserved by a media obsessed with plots, counter-plots, trivia and tittle-tattle. As Chairman of the Administration Committee in the last Parliament, my hon. Friend knows that the duties and responsibilities of the Chairman lie outside as well as inside the Chamber.
My hon. Friend insisted that proper child care facilities were provided in the building for the many members of our staff who have child care responsibilities. Some hon. Members may believe that that is not the main or even a primary responsibility of the Speaker. [Interruption.] "Hear, hear" say some of the chauvinists opposite. Many Labour Members believe that the provision of proper child care for the staff of the House is no less a responsibility of the Speaker than any other. [Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members need not listen if they do not want to, but they will have to hear me in the end. Thanks largely to my hon. Friend's efforts, the Parliamentary Commissioner approved a voucher scheme to provide child care in the House.
Hon. Members who have come to the House comparatively recently know how confusing it all too often is. Although we talk about training and modernisation, we leave many new Members to find out what goes on for themselves. My hon. Friend's consideration for others, his fairness when occupying the Chair as Deputy Speaker and his willingness to assist us all with advice and guidance have convinced me and many of my colleagues of his attributes.
There has been much press comment on our procedures today. Doubtless there will be even more tomorrow. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has already given his view of our proceedings. It sometimes seems that no proceedings are complete without a dissenting view from my right hon. Friend. As one of his great admirers for all the years that I have been here, I tell him that he has had almost 50 years as a Member of Parliament to change some of those procedures. I concede that he has been distracted by his membership of many Labour Governments during that time, but it seems that every time a procedural matter arises, my right hon. Friend, albeit adroitly and lucidly, finds some reason for us not to proceed.
The candidature of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn has not been without criticism from the press, anxious as always to give us their opinions. On Sunday,
10
one distinguished scribe claimed that my hon. Friend, by his action as Chairman of the Administration Committee in banning unaccompanied journalists from the Terrace, had
prevented journalists from buying hon. Members a drink.
If that were true, it would be a very serious matter. My hon. Friend's actions actually prevented them from buying each other drink. He perhaps also inadvertently prevented them from putting the wrong name on their expense accounts when they got back to the office.
My hon. Friend would agree that, while preserving the best of our traditions, we need to modernise some of our procedures. The sight and sound of the occupants of the Chair announcing at 11.30 pm, "the Ayes to the right: 245; the Noes to the left: 3," convinces many people outside that we need our heads examining for behaving in such a manner. Such behaviour does nothing to convince the people of this country that we are a 21st century Administration, and that the House is capable of updating its procedures. No one wishes to stifle debate; indeed, it is usually the only weapon available to Back Benchers. However, we need a Speaker who will confront and change some of our more absurd practices.
My hon. Friend continually demonstrates his even temper, calmness and gentle humour. Occasionally, when hon. Members get carried away, his oft-used phrases, such as "The hon. Gentleman should know better" or even "It's no' nice", have calmed hon. Members, as well as bringing smiles all round. My hon. Friend is held in respect and affection on both sides of the House. His apprenticeship as Deputy Speaker has demonstrated his skill and ability. I commend his candidature to the House.
3.5 pm
Ann Keen: Since my election in 1997, I have always regarded it as an honour to address the House, but today it is even more so, as I rise to second my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). It is easy for new Members to be over-awed by the House, and I am only one of many hon. Members elected at that time who were made to feel more at ease and valued because of my hon. Friend's patience, understanding and, of course, knowledge.
One of the first things that I did when asked to second my hon. Friend's nomination was to read the report of the election that took place in 1992. There are few with greater experience and knowledge of parliamentary procedures than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). That has most certainly been demonstrated today. I hope that he does not mind that I shall refer to the contribution that he made at the election of the Speaker in 1992. He said that it was the first task of the new Parliament to elect a Speaker. The disadvantage at that time was that the large number of new Members had not been able to enjoy the experience of judging the contenders' ability for that post.
Today, however, every Member has been able to witness the ability of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn to calm the House, which frequently needs that ability, and to do so in such a way that helps all Members in difficulty rather than putting them down. He has always shown fairness to those holding different political views. He has also shown his loyalty to Parliament. That is why he has such large support today.

11
In 1992, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield rightly asked for a Speaker who would not only chair proceedings in the Chamber, but look after the interests of the staff who work in the House and on whom we rely so heavily. Many of the staff, in more than one discipline, say that if they could do so they would support my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn. I believe that that is because they know that he respects them. He listens to them and they have confidence in him. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to the introduction of child care vouchers. They are very important, and are appreciated by the staff of the House, but there is much more to do.
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said in 1992 that he wanted Parliament to be a workshop, not a museum. I put it to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn fits that bill completely. He has served an apprenticeship as an engineer, a trade union official and, finally—most certainly—as a Deputy Speaker. He will ensure that the House is efficient. He will ensure that Back Benchers, the Opposition and minority parties are given their deserved rights in this workshop. He will ensure that this workshop is modernised. My hon. Friend has a record of representing the underprivileged. He has always had to work hard for improvement and change, and he will not stop doing so now. I am proud to second his nomination.
3.9 pm
Mr. David Davis: I want to speak to the substantive motion and the principle behind it, rather than the amendment, which I shall deal with later if necessary.
I am sure that all the candidates would be impartial and totally fair in exercising their duties, but impartiality is not enough in the Speaker that we seek today. The powers of the House are widely considered to be in decline. That perception is real; history and politics have ensured that the House's powers are in decline. That decline must be arrested and reversed. That is the task of the person we elect today.
The balance of power between Parliament and the Executive has tipped against this House even more in recent years than the long-term trend would indicate. There is also a disparity of power between Front-Bench Members and Back-Bench Members of the House. Putting that disparity right is also a task of the Speaker whom we elect today.
The bypassing of Parliament is well understood. Ministers go to television studios or on the "Today" programme and announce matters before they appear before the House. A Speaker can do something about that. Private notice questions, applications under Standing Order No. 24, and the right of individuals to raise questions that could be debated in emergency by the House are all matters with which the Speaker can and should deal.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What, even when the Tory Government were in power?
Mr. Davis: I shall shortly give way to the pensioner from Bolsover.
12
The disparity of power between Members on the Front Benches and those on the Back Benches has been very apparent in past years. Decisions are made on the timetabling of the business of the House. Many believe, with reason, that timetabling is a reasonable approach to the business of the House. This is just about the only House in the western world where such timetabling is done not by the Speaker but by the Executive. That practice has long been wrong—it was wrong under a Tory Government, just as it is under a Labour Government.
Many aspects of recent legislation have changed the rights of our citizens—the right to trial by jury, the right to freedom of information and to a number of other matters, including a passport. Those issues should be decided by the House, and a future Speaker should take that matter in hand.
My point is simple and short. I have said already that our candidates will all be fair, but they should also have strength, independence, integrity and a passionate commitment to the House of Commons. That is what we need from any candidate whom we elect today.
3.12 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I shall continue the theme that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has introduced. This will be one of my last speeches in the House of Commons before I go into politics and, if I may, I want to put to the House my fears for this place. I do not attribute them to any one Government or any one Prime Minister, and I do not want that to be misunderstood.
The people who elect us to Parliament ask us certain questions. They ask, "When we go to war, do you have a say in it?" and the answer is that we do not. We were not consulted, in terms of a vote, about the bombing in Iraq or Kosovo—[Interruption.] No, statements were made. There was also Sierra Leone. That is a royal prerogative. We could not even start electing a Speaker without instructions from the Queen, so the royal prerogative is very strong.
Then we come to the laws made in Brussels. I have been on the Council of Ministers, and was its President once. When Ministers go to Brussels and agree to laws in secret, they repeal the laws that we have made and we have no say, either before the Minister goes or when he comes back.
Patronage is on a massive scale. Every Prime Minister has done it—almost 1,000 peers have been made by Prime Ministers since the war. There is no consultation with the House of Commons about the patronage exercised by the Prime Minister of the day. We must face the fact that we are, to a large extent, an impotent House of Commons. I can give a practical example of that. We have been in recess since July, and during that time there has been a fuel crisis, a Danish no vote, the collapse of the euro and a war in the middle east, but what is our business tomorrow? The Insolvency Bill [Lords]. It ought to be called the Bankruptcy Bill [Commons], because we play no role.
I am very concerned because many young people believe that this is an impotent Parliament. They go on the streets in Prague or Seattle rather than come to the Palace of Westminster, because we do not do the job that we were elected to do. We have a president, and we do not have a House of Representatives.

13
I fear that, in the world in which we live—I lay no blame at anyone's door, because that is not my purpose, certainly not during this period of my political life—globalisation means that multinational companies have much more power than countries. Ford is bigger than South Africa; Toyota is bigger than Norway. When I went to America last year to celebrate my golden wedding anniversary, I met an old Governor of Ohio, who said "You will never have democracy when big business buys both parties and expects a pay-off, whoever wins."
I believe that it is our job to reverse that. It is for the Commons to decide. Whoever becomes Speaker—I think all the candidates have qualities that they would bring to the job—we must use this period, that of the first Parliament of the 21st century, to restore the power of the people who elected us. We must not be content to be managed and to become a sort of audience, as if we were on the BBC's "Question Time".
For that reason, I hope that some part of the debate will go beyond the personal qualities of which we have heard from proposers and seconders, to the whole central question of whether the House of Commons can survive if it allows itself to be powerless in the face of the really big decisions that will influence the future of this country.
3.16 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I had not intended to speak, but I think that a mistake is creeping into the debate: a sense that, somehow, the future of the House depends either on the attitude of the Government or on the qualities of the Speaker. In fact, what the House's future depends on is the quality of Back Benchers. Because both—or all—the major parties are trying to tighten their control over the selection of candidates and the way in which they are preferred, and seeking above all this mythical quality of loyalty, individual Back Benchers are ceasing to feel able to say and do what they want.
I am a fine one to talk. I have been far too loyal to my party for far too long. As my impending retirement approached, however, I realised rather too late how much power an individual Back Bencher, or a group of individual Back Benchers, can exercise when using this place as it could be used. I regret that it took me so long to realise that, but I am a slow learner.
We must not fool ourselves into thinking that the future of the House depends either on some magic Zebedee of a Speaker leaping in to solve all its problems, or on some change of heart on the part of Governments, who will always try to control the House of Commons. What we need is a much clearer perception of what Back Benchers can and ought to achieve, and the fact that their prime loyalty is to their constituency associations and not to their parties.
Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has been proposed and seconded. I now give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.
3.18 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I submit myself to the House, and welcome you to the Chair, Sir Edward. Certainly, every time you are in the Chair you achieve a better turnout than any of the Deputy Speakers.
14
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his kindness, and also for his friendship during the 21 years for which I have been a Member of Parliament. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) for her kind words. When it became clear that a Speaker was required, she was a very staunch supporter.
I pay tribute to Speaker Betty Boothroyd. Betty's advice was, "Be firm, especially with the senior Members. Don't let them pressurise you and try to pull rank", but the thing that I remember her for is that, every day at conferences, her concern was always about the House. She always put the House of Commons first. I wish her every success.
As hon. Members know, the last election brought in many new Members on both sides of the House. I felt a deep obligation to give assistance and help to those new Members, regardless of the party that they came from. I feel that I carried out that duty to the full. I do not think that I could be criticised for denying anyone any help or assistance, either from the Chair or in the Tea Room. I would like to be remembered as a Deputy Speaker who was always fair and helpful.
My apprenticeship has been one of serving the House as a Chairman of Standing Committees, the Administration Committee and the Scottish Grand Committee. I have never sought to be a Whip, a Front-Bench spokesman or a Minister.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Quite right.
Mr. Martin: Come to think of it, no one ever invited me to take those posts. I have enjoyed defending the rights of the House.
Modernisation has been talked about a lot in the current Parliament. I will match the hours that any hon. Member keeps in the House because, when hon. Members leave, the Deputy Speakers still have half an hour of Adjournment debate to go, but I am not proud of the fact that, when we go to New Palace yard, men and women who work for us in this building go to their homes and many of them as parents know that their sleep will be broken because they have to get their children out to school. Whenever we talk about hours, we must always consider the staff who work for us so well in the House.
There are new proposals from the Administration Committee to look at creche facilities. The Modernisation and Procedure Committees are looking at our voting system. Back Benchers should fight for these changes. I as Speaker will never interfere with those matters. I give the assurance that I will embrace the democratic decisions of the House. Change for the sake of change is no way in which to conduct our affairs, but, by the same token, to oppose change for the sake of tradition is equally wrong.
A Speaker has a clear duty to every section of the House, especially to Back Benchers, the minority parties and the Opposition parties. The House must hold the Executive to account. I am firmly of the view that the Speaker's duty is to serve the House, not the Executive power.
It says much for the House—and, indeed, for the political system to which we all belong—that someone from the poverty of Glasgow can stand before you seeking the great office of Speaker. My origins should be no reason for me being elected; nor should they be a reason to debar me. I submit myself to the House.
3.24pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Sir Alan Haselhurst".
Let me make it clear that I do not disagree with a single word that was said about my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin); moreover, I, like the rest of the House, listened with much interest to what he said. My hon. Friend and I have known each other for 21 years, and I hope that our friendship will not be broken by the fact that I am not supporting him today. There is only one vacancy: no one—not even my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—is suggesting that there should be a job share.
I do not wish to argue about whether we should continue the practice of the past 30 years of ensuring that the new Speaker is from a different party from that of the previous one. Although I realise that that practice dates back only 30 years and not to ancient times, I simply say to my right. hon. and hon. Friends that we should perhaps bear it in mind.
Why am I nominating the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst)? As hon. Members will know, he was first elected as an hon. Member in 1970. Although he lost his seat at the 1974 general election, he returned to the House faster than some of us retreads, being returned for Saffron Walden in 1977. I have seen in some press reports comments by one or two hon. Members suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman has been too strict an occupant of the Chair. Conversely, one leader—I think that it was in today's edition of The Independent—said that he had occasionally not shown sufficient force in that role. Although hon. Members can make their own judgment on the point, I believe that, occasionally, the occupant of the Chair has to show some strictness—and I say that as one who has occasionally been the subject of that strictness.
What basic qualities are required of a Speaker? I agree with the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that decisions on the House and its future are not for the Speaker, but for hon. Members, and that it is for the House to decide our practices and policies. Therefore, we should not take the view that it is the occupant of the Chair who will decide how we conduct our business.
The first and foremost quality for a Speaker—hon. Members have said it before, but it should be said again—is absolute impartiality when occupying the Chair. At the same time, the Speaker must be in full control, even at times when the House is in a very bad mood, as sometimes happens. The Speaker must also be able to understand the changing mood of the House.
The Speaker must also defend the rights of Back Benchers. Although that point has been made many times before, I make it again because it is important. The Executive—whether this one or a previous one—are strong, and, as hon. Members know, the Executive can largely control the business of the House. Back Benchers need to be defended, and I hope that whoever occupies the Chair in this place will do just that.
Hon. Members can decide for themselves whether it is a virtue for a Speaker not to have held ministerial office. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn said that he has not held such office. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, too, has not held such office. Hon.
16
Members can decide for themselves whether such a person is better able to appreciate the difficulties and frustrations of Back Benchers than is someone who has held such office.
The Speaker is also our ambassador and representative at parliamentary gatherings overseas, and on other, similar occasions.
I believe that we need a Speaker who respects the history and traditions of this place. I am not one of those who believes that we can say that the House's traditions are not important and cast them aside. At the same time, however, we need a Speaker who appreciates the need for change. In the past few weeks, we have had many lectures from the media on that subject and on our business. Although the media never take the opportunity to lecture themselves, they have been lecturing us on all our weaknesses and blemishes. We should never forget, however, that the importance of this place cannot be underestimated, and that, if it did not exist, all our freedoms would not last for five minutes.
Finally, it has been suggested that the House of Commons requires a figure of glamour—someone with tremendous charisma. I have looked back at previous Speakers over the past 30 years. Betty Boothroyd is indeed a hard act to follow: she was an outstanding Speaker. However, if I were asked who were the other two best Speakers in the past 30 years—who best defended the right of Back Benchers and showed the greatest impartiality between Back Benchers and the Executive—my reply would be Selwyn Lloyd and Lord Weatherill. Before they were elected, would the press have said that Selwyn Lloyd and Lord Weatherill were glamorous figures of great charisma? Probably not. They would have been written off, like a number of today's nominees. Yet in the Chair, they demonstrated impartiality. Moreover, like Betty Boothroyd—and this is not to criticise any of the other Speakers of the past 30 years—Selwyn Lloyd and Lord Weatherill showed how to defend the House of Commons from the Speaker's Chair.
It is my view that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden is in the same tradition. He has all the necessary qualities as Speaker, and I believe that he would serve the House without fear or favour. I therefore have much pleasure in putting his name before the House for consideration as Speaker.
Sir Edward Heath: Mr. Peter Brooke to second.
3.31 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: You, Sir Edward, will be pleased to hear that the last time I followed the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in this Chamber, it was on Second Reading of an ageism Bill. It is an equal pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman's eloquence today.
There is a sentence in "The Wrong Box" by Robert Louis Stevenson, to the effect that "it was a bottle of the worst whisky in Hampshire"—and only those familiar with that county could recognise the full force of that superlative. Whatever our opinions, this election is the greatest event to occur in this constituency today—and only those familiar with this constituency can recognise the full force of that superlative.
The speakership of this great House is the greatest gift this House can bestow on any Member. Many are called, yet few are chosen. Yet so great a gift is it that to be

17
runner-up in this contest is a greater privilege than to be the Speaker of 100 other legislatures. Because it is so great a gift, it is a serious business on which we are engaged.
I read in the public prints that the principle of the office passing evenly from party to party is now enshrined in our constitution. If it is, it clearly stands to the advantage of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir A. Haselhurst). However, if the principle had been so enshrined eight years ago, I wonder why we held an election then. Surely no one would wish to sit as Speaker in this House unless they were the best man or woman to do so, which, over the past eight years, Speaker Boothroyd pre-eminently turned out to be.
So it is by the test of excellence and appositeness that our candidates must be measured, not by the more usual coinage of party label. By these nobler tests, my right hon. Friend starts with the considerable advantage of having been already long tested in the Chair. The opportunity afforded to us by Speaker Boothroyd of holding this election in this Parliament was specifically intended for an informed electorate to use its knowledge of already familiar candidates. Unlike that moment in 1972 when The Wall Street Journal reported that the recession was now so bad that the Mafia had had to lay off two judges in New Jersey, a deputy speakership of this House is no sinecure.
Because I have been taking a controversial private Bill through the House, I can testify that my right hon. Friend yields to no prior holder of his office in upholding by a robust and upstanding firmness the principle of the rules of order and the embargo on repetition. Yet I can also testify that he strains the cricketing principle of the benefit of the doubt to the extremities of scepticism before he intervenes on a fellow Back Bencher. He owes those qualities to his long Back-Bench experience and, appropriately, to his enjoyment of the confidence of colleagues who retained him as secretary of the all-party cricket group, even after his ascent to the Deputy Speaker's Chair.
My right hon. Friend and I share the coincidence of having been elected to the House in 1977 for our present seats, in seats in which there had also been by-elections in 1965, although my right hon. Friend had also served in the 1970 Parliament, when you, Sir Edward, were Prime Minister.
When we choose a Chairman of Ways and Means, beyond the acceptability of the candidate must lie the desirability of that candidate's being a foil to the Speaker. Not for nothing did our last two Speakers proceed to the Chair from a deputy's role. In all human affairs, there is virtue in a successor's not being a precise simulacrum of the predecessor whom he or she follows. In such variety do institutions breathe, live and grow. To borrow an analogy from cricket, our most recent Speaker was, mutatis mutandis, an Ian Botham—colourful, and an all-rounder with a perpetual capacity to surprise. My right hon. Friend, however, is a Leonard Hutton—neat, tidy, solid, classical and a central figure of immense reliability.
We must come to the point of making up our own minds. When Professor Joad—as he then was not—sat his scholarship exam at Oxford, he was asked to write for three hours on the question, "Can a good man be happy on the rack?". He wrote a single sentence in a minute and a half: "If he were a very good man and it were a very
18
bad rack, yes; if not, no." The rack, which, like the inventions of the White Knight in Alice, is of our own devising, is, for that reason, a very good rack, to which my right hon. Friend has volunteered to subject himself. Like Joad's character, he is a very good man indeed. Most important of all, he is his own man, and I am delighted to second his nomination.
Sir Edward Heath: Sir Alan Haselhurst has been proposed and seconded, so I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.
3.37 pm
Sir Alan Haselhurst: I last spoke in the House on 29 October 1996, so I hope that hon. Members will recognise that I may be a little rusty. I could not then have imagined that my next speech would be made in these circumstances. I feel obliged to acknowledge the endless uncertainties of political life, which conspired to make me the 63rd Chairman of Ways and Means. That wholly unexpected elevation brought me for the first time into regular contact with Speaker Boothroyd. In the previous Parliament, judging from afar, I had never had cause to doubt her qualities in the Chair, but having gained the privilege of seeing her conduct of the office of Speaker close at hand, I soon became aware of the diligent and conscientious way in which she approached her many duties. The love that Speaker Boothroyd expressed for the House when she accepted nomination eight years ago was always evident in our working meetings. She coupled it with intuitive human insight and lashings of good sense. Betty Boothroyd was a huge personality, and a great Speaker.
Hon. Members often come to the Chamber with speeches in our hands that we may never have the chance to deliver. That feeling has been hovering around me—and, I suspect, others—today. I have always found speaking in the House an extremely daunting experience, because I respect this place above all as the most formidable of democratic debating chambers. I bow to the experience and knowledge that the hon. Members around me collectively represent.
I have, however, never had any doubt about wanting to be part of this place. It was a tremendous moment for me when, in the early hours of June 1970, with my parents present, I was declared to be the Member for Middleton and Prestwich—towns now represented respectively by the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis). I have to say, however—with no disrespect to the people who gave me my first chance in public life, and for whom I have the greatest affection—that what I felt then could not match the emotion and thrill I felt on being returned for Saffron Walden, because by then I had knowledge of what this House was all about, what it meant to me and how important a place I believed it to be.
Thus, Sir Edward, in 1977 I was able to resume my meteoric career on the Back Benches. Never privileged with nor burdened by office, I have had plenty of opportunity to observe and understand the frustrations and constraints of Back-Bench life. I have always been restless to see improvements in the support given to Back Benchers. The power of the Executive has grown and grown, while the capacity of the legislature to check it has not increased commensurately. Arguably, it

19
has diminished. The constituency work load has become steadily more demanding. More and more Members have found it difficult to cope while spending a proper amount of their time undertaking the scrutiny process.
There is another factor: that is family life. When I was originally elected, I was a bachelor. In my first Parliament, I revelled in being here all hours. By 1982, when I had three small children, I took rather a different view and was not always the first to be looking for overtime. I firmly believe that those are issues that the House must address, if only to demonstrate to the public that we are doing an effective job on their behalf and that this is the place—above all others—where their interests will be served.
However, it is for the House as a whole to determine the way in which it wishes to go forward. It is not easy to find a prescription that unites us all—and certainly not one that an individual Speaker can impose. The Speaker should seek only to be a guide—perhaps a catalyst. The Speaker can, however, be a conductor and try to ensure that the pace of our proceedings is more lively, to maximise opportunities for Back Benchers.
So I present myself to the House, Sir Edward, as a moderate moderniser, hopefully gauging the mood of the House and anxious to work with the grain of reform and renewal; as someone who passionately believes that debate and argument over the affairs of this nation must be joined pre-eminently here and not elsewhere; and, I hope, as a convinced champion of individual and minority interests in this House.
I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for their willingness to put forward my name and for their generous remarks.
In the 1970 Parliament, I shared with Harold Wilson the distinction that we were the only two Yorkshiremen to represent Lancashire seats. It is asking much, I know, for the House to contemplate two Yorkshire-born Speakers in a row, so it is perhaps in the guise of Essex man that I should, in accordance with ancient custom, submit myself to the will of the House. If chosen, I will serve it faithfully and with resolution.
Sir Edward Heath: The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert "Sir Alan Haselhurst".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 345.

Division No. 299]

[3.44 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Boswell, Tim

Allen, Graham

Bradshaw, Ben

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Brady, Graham

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Bennett, Andrew F

Burstow, Paul

Betts, Clive

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Body, Sir Richard

Cawsey, Ian

20

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Chope, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clappison, James

Major, Rt Hon John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Cohen, Harry

Mates, Michael

Cohen, Harry

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Collins, Tim

May, Mrs Theresa

Cran, James

Miller, Andrew

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Morley, Elliot

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Moss, Malcolm

Day, Stephen

O'Hara, Eddie

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Page, Richard

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Paice, James

Faber, David

Pearson, Ian

Fallon, Michael

Pickles, Eric

Fraser, Christopher

Pollard, Kerry

Gale, Roger

Pope, Greg

Gapes, Mike

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gardiner, Barry

Prior, David

Garnier, Edward

Randall, John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robathan, Andrew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Robertson, Laurence

Gray, James

Robinson. Peter (Belfast E)

Green, Damian

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Greenway, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grieve, Dominic

St Aubyn, Nick

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Grogan John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Haselhurst, Rt Hon Sir Alan

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hayes John

Spring, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Steen, Anthony

Healey John

Stinchcombe, Paul

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Streeter, Gary

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Swayne, Desmond

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Syms, Robert

Hill Keith

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hoey, Kate

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hurst, Alan

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Thompson, William

Jamieson, David

Tipping, Paddy

Jenkin, Bernard

Trend, Michael

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Trimble. Rt Hon David

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Kidney, David

Viggers, Peter

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Walker, Cecil

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Walter, Robert

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Wardle, Charles

Laff, Mrs Jacqui

Waterson, Nigel

Lansley, Andrew

Webb, Steve

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Wells, Bowen

Lidington, David

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Whittingdale, John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Loughton, Tim

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Luff, Peter

Winnick, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Tellers for the Ayes:

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Mr. Peter Snape and

Ann Keen.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Baker, Norman

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Banks, Tony

Ainger, Nick

Barnes, Harry

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tty NE)

Barron, Kevin

Alexander, Douglas

Beard, Nigel

Allan, Richard

Begg, Miss Anne

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bell, Martin (Talton)

Ashton, Joe

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Atkins, Charlotte

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

21

Benton, Joe

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bercow, John

Denham, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Dismore, Andrew

Berry, Roger

Dobbin, Jim

Best, Harold

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Blackman, Liz

Donohoe, Brian H

Blears, Ms Hazel

Doran, Frank

Blizzard, Bob

Dowd, Jim

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Drew, David

Borrow, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bradshaw, Ben

Efford, Clive

Brake, Tom

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Ennis, Jeff

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Etherington, Bill

Browne, Desmond

Fearn, Ronnie

Buck Ms Karen

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Burden, Richard

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Burgon, Colin

Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

Butler, Mrs Christine

Flint, Caroline

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Flynn, Paul

Cable, Dr Vincent

Follett, Barbara

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Galbraith, Sam

Canavan, Dennis

Galloway, George

Cann, Jamie

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Casale, Roger

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Caton, Martin

Gerrard, Neil

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Chaytor, David

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Chisholm, Malcolm

Goggins, Paul

Clapham, Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Graham, Thomas

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Grocott, Bruce

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hain, Peter

Clwyd, Ann

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coaker, Vernon

Hall. Patrick (Bedford)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Coleman, Iain

Hancock, Mike

Colman, Tony

Hanson, David

Connarty, Michael

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Harris. Dr Evan

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Cooper, Yvette

Henderson. Doug (Newcastle N)

Corbett, Robin

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hepburn, Stephen

Corston, Jean

Heppell, John

Cotter, Brian

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cousins Jim

Home Robertson, John

Cox Tom

Hood, Jimmy

Crausby, David

Hope, Phil

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cryer, John (Homchurch)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cummings , John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Howells, Dr Kim

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Humble, Mrs Joan

Darvill, Keith

Hume, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hutton, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jenkins, Brian

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Johnson Smith,

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

22

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones. Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Olner, Bill

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Osbome, Ms Sandra

Kemp, Fraser

Palmer, Dr Nick

Khabra, Piara S

Perham, Ms Linda

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pickthall, Colin

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Pike, Peter L

Kingham, Ms Tess

Plaskitt, James

Kirkwood, Archy

Pond, Chris

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Pound, Stephen

Lammy, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Laxton, Bob

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Leigh, Edward

Prosser, Gwyn

Lepper, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Levitt, Tom

Rapson, Syd

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Raynsford, Nick

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Linton, Martin

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Livingstone, Ken

Rogers, Allan

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Lock, David

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Love, Andrew

Rowlands, Ted

McAllion, John

Roy, Frank

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruane, Chris

McCabe, Steve

Ruddock, Joan

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Ryan, Ms Joan

McDonagh, Siobhain

Salmond, Alex

Macdonald, Calum

Salter, Martin

McDonnell, John

Sanders, Adrian

McFall, John

Sarwar, Mohammad

McGrady, Eddie

Savidge, Malcolm

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sawford, Phil

McIsaac, Shona

Shaw, Jonathan

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Sheerman, Barry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McLeish, Henry

Shipley, Ms Debra

MacIennan, Rt Hon Robert

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McNamara, Kevin

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McNulty, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Miss Geraldine

Mahon, Mrs Alice

(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marek, Dr John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

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

Martlew, Eric

Southworth, Ms Helen

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Spellar, John

Maxton, John

Squire, Ms Rachel

Meale, Alan

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Merron, Gillian

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Michael, Rt Hon Alan

Steinberg, Gerry

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stevenson, George

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mitchell, Austin

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moffatt, Laura

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

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

Swinney, John

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mudie, George

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

23

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Timms, Stephen

Wicks, Malcolm

Todd, Mark

Wilkinson, John

Touhig, Don

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Trickett, Jon

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Truswell, Paul

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Wilson, Brian

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Woodward, Shaun

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Woolas, Phil

Tynan, Bill

Worthington, Tony

Tyrie, Andrew

Wray, James

Vaz, Keith

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Walley, Ms Joan

Wyatt, Derek

Ward, Ms Claire

Tellers for the Noes:

Watts, David

Sir David Madel and

Welsh, Andrew

Mr. Bill Rammell.

White, Brian

Question accordingly negatived.
3.56 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Alan Beith".
I crave the House's indulgence in allowing someone who once broke the Speaker's Chair to nominate someone to occupy it. It is a reflection on the House that those of us who entered as revolutionaries are in danger of departing as mere reformers. I also hope that the House will see that the fact that I shall stand down at the coming election does not detract at all from the idea that I should propose a Speaker, but adds weight to the nomination, because I cannot be said to stand to gain in any shape or form if the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is successful.
I have an excellent perspective from which to commend the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have sat behind him on this Bench—as he has sat in front of me—for the last 26 years. In that length of time, one overhears quite a few conversations, and I can say quite honestly that I have never heard the right hon. Gentleman say anything malicious about any Member in any part of the House.
Equally, I have a certain insight. Mind you, Sir Edward, the process of overhearing works in two ways. When I was a young Member and new in the House, I said to my colleague Dafydd Elis-Thomas—now a Member of the other House—something less than complimentary about the then leader of the Liberal party, Jeremy Thorpe. It was quite a shock for me when the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed very gently chided me—in perfect Welsh.
In fact, I have a choice today between supporting a Welsh-speaking non-Welsh Speaker, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and a non-Welsh speaking Welsh Speaker. the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—among many other non-Welsh possibilities.
I advocate the election of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for three reasons, which I am sure that he, as a lay preacher, will appreciate—and none of them is to do with the Welsh language. First, I believe that, as part of the checks and balances in this House, the speakership should move around the House and not just be shared between the two largest parties.
24
It was my belief in such checks and balances that led me last week to support as Deputy Presiding Officer in the National Assembly for Wales our Labour colleague, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). I have no doubt that Labour Members in this Chamber will recognise the merit of having a Speaker from the other side of the Chamber, and if they do not do so now, they may see the benefit in future. It is certainly valuable to have such checks and balances, so that not everything goes in one political direction.
I further believe that Members from the smaller parties should not automatically be ruled out for our most senior appointment if they are worthy candidates. In the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed we have such a candidate.
My second reason for proposing the right hon. Gentleman is his experience, which equips him to do the job. He has been a Member of the House since 1973, and represents a constituency in north-east England, so he is aware of the challenges that face so many Members whose constituencies are well away from the home counties. He has 20 years' experience on the House of Commons Commission, and as a reformer, he has successfully fought for the principle that the House, not the Government of the day, should run the buildings in which we work.
In that capacity, the right hon. Gentleman helped, in the face of Treasury opposition, to secure the allowance that provides pensions for Members' secretaries and researchers. We need a Speaker who takes the side of the House against the Executive, whichever party is in power. The right hon. Gentleman has fought to make this a more family friendly House, supporting the provision of a creche and a child care allowance, and advocating sensible working hours. In that capacity, he has developed good working relations with Members from all parties, which is a prerequisite for being Speaker.
The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, a candidate for his party's leadership, and the very characteristics that may have detracted from that candidature may equip him to be an effective Speaker. He is a patient person, he has a balanced view, he can see both sides of an argument, and he can dispassionately form a considered judgment. Those are not necessarily the main attributes necessary for a party leader, but they are essential qualities for the Speaker of the House.
Thirdly, I propose the right hon. Gentleman on account of his strength of character and personality, which equip him to do an outstanding job. He is transparently fair, and that is essential for any Speaker. His strength of character grows out of his deeply held personal convictions, and that is a strength that any Speaker needs to withstand the pressures of the Executive, of vested interest, and, indeed, of political colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman has the deep, quiet strength to do the job.
May I also refer to the strength and dignity that the right hon. Gentleman showed when he suffered two tragic bereavements, in which he had the sympathy of the whole House. He ably demonstrated at that time that he could ride the storms of life and still carry the responsibilities of office. He also has respect for this institution, while not being blind to its shortcomings. He is a reformer at a time when reform must surely be high on our agenda.
Finally, as I am the retiring Member for Caernarfon, a seat held by David Lloyd George for 53 years, it gives me great pleasure to propose that we elect a Liberal—

25
well, at least, a Liberal Democrat—as Speaker. My grandmother, who was for 13 years president of Pwllheli Liberal association, would be smiling from her grave. I have not had a political change of heart, but I hope that we all recognise a good person when we see one, and I urge fellow Members to elect the right hon. Gentleman as a worthy Speaker of the House.
4.4 pm
Jackie Ballard: It is my privilege and pleasure to second the nomination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). As Members have heard, he has been a Member of this place since 1973, which is long enough to know the institution. He is a natural parliamentarian and has become part of the institution, but he has not become institutionalised, and as someone who still thinks of herself as something of a revolutionary, I think that that is particularly important.
In this media and image-conscious age, sometimes the image and the person do not match, but my right hon. Friend's image is one of reliability, of being a safe pair of hands, of loyalty and of competence. In this case, the man matches the image, but two more qualities should be added to that list: he has a keen sense of humour and a passion for democracy. Both are much needed in the Speaker of this place.
As a Member from the 1997 intake and a Back Bencher, what I hope for most in the Speaker is someone who will defend the rights of Back Benchers and of the House against any overbearing Executive. When I was elected, I appreciated the encouragement and advice of Speaker Boothroyd and I know that my right hon. Friend has the ability and the commitment to give such encouragement and advice to all Back Benchers. As a Liberal, he is used to being independent of mind and of action. That is also essential in a Speaker.
In my view, the House needs not modernisation but something much more radical. The House needs to reform itself, and we can do that with the help of a reforming Speaker. However, we must judge the candidates today not on their verbal commitments to reform, but on their past practical commitment and examples. My right hon. Friend has a track record that will withstand any scrutiny. He was a distinguished member of the House of Commons Commission for many years, but even before that he showed a commitment to the welfare of the staff of this place when he successfully moved an amendment to a Government motion on Members' allowances to create a ring-fenced allowance for pensions for Members' staff.
My right hon. Friend is a fair-minded man, as the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has said. He is an open-minded man and, in my view, admirably suited to the Speaker's Chair. I am proud to support his nomination and hope that he will have the support of all Members of the House.
Sir Edward Heath: Mr. Alan Beith has been proposed and seconded, so I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.
4.7 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I begin by warmly thanking my kind proposer and seconder and by echoing the tributes to Betty Boothroyd and her
26
speakership. I had the privilege of working with her for about 20 years in various capacities, but particularly in the House of Commons Commission. It is sometimes not recognised what a large, submerged portion of work the Speaker engages in—work that is not apparent when the Speaker takes the Chair. I saw a newspaper report that there was a cushy job going in the House of Commons involving three hours work a day. Well, I can testify from Speaker Boothroyd's hard work—day and evening long—that there is a lot more to it than that, and that much work goes on behind the scenes.
Indeed, in those capacities it was my pleasure often to meet and work with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), whom I count as a friend. I have worked with him for many years, especially when he was Chairman of the Administration Committee and I served on the Commission. We did not always agree, but I have to say that in those days, the Administration and Accommodation and Works Committees were not hotbeds of reform or modernisation. I have a great and warm respect for his personal qualities, so it is rather strange to have entered what seems a little like a fairground boxing ring to contend with him. That is the nature of the procedure: we are proposed in turn, one by one—although I advise Members who want an early tea that the proceedings can be brought to a close quite quickly by electing me. By doing so, they would elect the first Speaker from the Berwick-upon-Tweed constituency since 1656—and he had the benefit of a bit of help from Oliver Cromwell, which is not available today. Indeed, we had our last Liberal Speaker in the 1920s, and he probably had a bit of help from Lloyd George. That is not available, either.
The Speaker is the servant of the House, so all the commitments that we make at hustings, meetings and in the Chamber about reforms that we should like to achieve are subject to a proviso: it is the House that decides. In my experience, there are many roadblocks on the way to reform in the House. It is my hope that the Speaker will not be one of them. The Speaker should enable the House to release its potential to be more effective in the service of our constituents, in the scrutiny of legislation and in holding the Executive to account. Frankly, some of our ways do not assist that. The Speaker who is ready to support the House in seeking to make the procedures more effective would do the nation a service.
We should use time productively and effectively. I express personal views, which any Speaker would have to submit to the House, as the House makes the decisions, but I do not find the notion of very long debates attended by very few Members, which are little regarded outside the House, particularly contributive to effective scrutiny. Such debates are one of the factors that discourage some people from serving in the House, and make it difficult for some to continue to do so. We must not be an exclusive institution.
Although the Speaker is dependent on the will of the House concerning some changes that can be made, Speakers can do other things. There are private notice questions, emergency debates and procedures to stand over debates when the range of opinion has not been properly represented. Some of those have not been used all that often in recent times. There are opportunities for

27
the occupant of the Chair to make use of those procedures to help Back Benchers and to give them the chance to express their concerns. A reforming spirit behind the way in which we use our Standing Orders can do some good.
Whoever wins this election will as their first duty lay public claim to the liberties and freedoms of the House of Commons. There must be some substance to that claim. We are not simply reclaiming the 16th and 17th-century freedoms of the House. We must lay claim to freedoms that make the House effective and enable it to challenge the Executive and legislate well. Some reforms are necessary to that task.
I have been honoured to serve in this House and look forward to continuing to do so. It is an honour and a privilege. I am proud to be a Member—but one can be proud of an institution and still recognise that it needs to change, to make itself more effective and to renew itself. The House is not our property; it is the legislature of the people of the United Kingdom. It is not run for our benefit as Members; it is their institution, in which we should stop regarding them as strangers and recognise them as the people who elect us and whom we are here to serve. I have sought in 27 years to work for parliamentary democracy in this place, and I pledge myself to continue to do so.
Question put, That the amendment be made:
The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 409.

Division No. 300]

[4.13 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Allen, Graham

Hancock, Mike

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Harris, Dr Evan

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Harvey, Nick

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome,)

Baker, Norman

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Ballard, Jackie

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MôM)

Bell, Martin (Talton)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Brake, Tom

Keetch, Paul

Breed, Colin

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Brinton, Mrs Helen

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Burden, Richard

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Burnett, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Burstow, Paul

Livsey, Richard

Cable, Dr Vincent

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Chidgey, David

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Chope, Christopher

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Mitchell, Austin

Colman, Tony

Moore, Michael

Cotter, Brian

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Cousins, Jim

Mullin, Chris

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

Oaten, Mark

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Pearson, Ian

Davidson, Ian

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Denham, John

Rendel, David

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Drown, Ms Julia

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Fearn, Ronnie

Salmond, Alex

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Sanders, Adrian

Flynn, Paul

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

Foster, Don (Bath)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Gidley, Sandra

Stunell, Andrew

Gorrie, Donald

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Temple—Morris, Peter

28

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Wallace, James

Tipping, Paddy

Webb, Steve

Tonge Dr Jenny

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tyler, Paul

Mr. Lembit Öpik and

Walker, Cecil

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Clwyd, Ann

Ainsworth. Robert (Cov'try NE)

Coaker, Vernon

Alexander, Douglas

Coffey, Ms Ann

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Coleman, Iain

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Collins, Tim

Ashton, Joe

Connarty, Michael

Atkins, Charlotte

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Banks, Tony

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Barnes, Harry

Cooper, Yvette

Barron, Kevin

Corbett, Robin

Beard, Nigel

Corbyn, Jeremy

Begg, Miss Anne

Corston, Jean

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Gran, James

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Crausby, David

Bennett. Andrew F

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Benton, Joe

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bermingham, Gerald

Cummings, John

Berry, Roger

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Best, Harold

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Betts, Clive

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blackman, Liz

Dalyell, Tam

Blears, Ms Hazel

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Blizzard, Bob

Darvill, Keith

Blunt, Crispin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Borrow, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Boswell, Tim

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Dawson, Hilton

Bradshaw, Ben

Day, Stephen

Brady, Graham

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brazier, Julian

Dismore, Andrew

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Dobbin, Jim

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Browne, Desmond

Donohoe, Brian H

Browning, Mrs Angela

Doran, Frank

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Buck, Ms Karen

Dowd, Jim

Burgon, Colin

Drew, David

Butler, Mrs Christine

Duncan Smith, Iain

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Campbell. Alan (Tynemouth)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (Cbridge)

Edwards, Huw

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Efford, Clive

Canavan, Dennis

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Cann, Jamie

Ennis, Jeff

Caplin, Ivor

Ethenngton, Bill

Casale, Roger

Evans, Nigel

Cash, William

Fabricant, Michael

Caton, Martin

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Cawsey, Ian

Fisher, Mark

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Chaytor, David

Flight, Howard

Chisholm, Malcolm

Flint, Caroline

Clapham, Michael

Follett, Barbara

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Foster. Michael J (Worcester)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Fox, Dr Liam

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fraser, Christopher

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Gale, Roger

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Galloway, George

Clelland, David

Gapes, Mike

29

Gardiner, Barry

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Garnier, Edward

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Gerrard, Neil

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Gibb, Nick

Lammy, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Lansley, Andrew

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Goggins, Paul

Laxton, Bob

Golding, Mrs Llin

Leigh, Edward

Graham, Thomas

Lepper, David

Greenway, John

Leslie, Christopher

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Letwin, Oliver

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Levitt, Tom

Grocott, Bruce

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Grogan, John

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Hain, Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Linton, Martin

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Livingstone, Ken

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Lock, David

Hammond, Philip

Loughton, Tim

Hanson, David

Love, Andrew

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Luff, Peter

Hayes, John

McAllion, John

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

McAvoy, Thomas

Heald, Oliver

McCabe, Steve

Healey, John

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Hepburn, Stephen

McDonagh, Siobhain

Heppell, John

Macdonald, Calum

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

McDonnell, John

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

McFall, John

Home Robertson, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Hood, Jimmy

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hope, Phil

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mclsaac, Shona

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Howells, Dr Kim

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hoyle, Lindsay

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

McLeish, Henry

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Humble, Mrs Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Hume, John

McNulty, Tony

Hurst, Alan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hutton, John

McWalter, Tony

Iddon, Dr Brian

McWilliam, John

Illsley, Eric

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Mallaber, Judy

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Maples, John

Jamieson, David

Marek, Dr John

Jenkin, Bernard

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Jenkins, Brian

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Martlew, Eric

Johnson Smith,

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Maxton, John

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Meale, Alan

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Merron, Gillian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Michie, Bill (She'd Heeley)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

Miller, Andrew

Keeble, Ms Sally

Moffatt, Laura

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Morley, Elliot

Kemp, Fraser

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

Key, Robert

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Khabra, Piara S

Mountford, Kali

Kidney, David

Mudie, George

Kilfoyle, Peter

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Kirkbnde, Miss Julie

30

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Spellar, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Spicer, Sir Michael

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Squire, Ms Rachel

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

O'Hara, Eddie

Steen, Anthony

Olner, Bill

Steinberg, Gerry

Organ, Mrs Diana

Stevenson, George

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Ottaway, Richard

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Paterson, Owen

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Perham, Ms Linda

Streeter, Gary

Pickles, Eric

Stringer, Graham

Pickthall, Cohn

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pike, Peter L

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Plaskitt, James

Swayne, Desmond

Pollard, Kerry

Swinney, John

Pond, Chris

Syms, Robert

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Prior, David

Thompson, William

Prosser, Gwyn

Timms, Stephen

Quinn, Lawrie

Todd, Mark

Rammell, Bill

Touhig, Don

Randall, John

Townend, John

Rapson, Syd

Trickett, Jon

Raynsford, Nick

Truswell, Paul

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Covty NW)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tynan, Bill

Rogers, Allan

Tyne, Andrew

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Vaz, Keith

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Rowlands, Ted

Walter, Robert

Roy, Frank

Ward, Ms Claire

Ruane, Chris

Wardle, Charles

Ruddock, Joan

Waterson, Nigel

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Watts, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

Wells, Bowen

St Aubyn, Nick

Welsh, Andrew

Salter, Martin

White, Brian

Sarwar, Mohammad

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Savidge, Malcolm

Whittingdale, John

Sawford, Phil

Wicks, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Wilkinson, John

Shaw, Jonathan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wilshire, David

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Wilson, Brian

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Skinner, Dennis

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Woolas, Phil

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wray, James

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mr. Peter Snape and

Soames, Nicholas

Ann Keen.

Soley, Clive

Southworth, Ms Helen

Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Edward Heath: I call Mr. David Davis to move the amendment in favour of Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.
4.26 pm
Mr. David Davis: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody".
Before I start the substantive part of my speech, may I add my tribute to Speaker Boothroyd's term of office? She took charge of the House at a most difficult time for a Speaker, when televising of proceedings had recently started and there were difficult Parliaments. She carried out that duty with enormous skill and capacity.
Notwithstanding what I shall say now, I was impressed by the performance of all the candidates at the hustings this morning. Candidates took seriously the arguments in favour of the reform and progress of the House of Commons.
I laid out earlier my ideal template for the speakership, but that is not the only template. In the 19th century, Delane, the great editor of The Times, called for a Speaker who was of
imperturbable good temper, tact, patience and urbanity.
Everybody will recognise the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in that description.
Nevertheless, I return to my own template, which was that of a Speaker of strength, independence, integrity, passionate commitment to the Commons in its role of scrutinising Government and holding them to account and, within that, a relentless commitment to the rights of Back Benchers. In the House of Commons, it has often been the Back Bencher who has stood up for the liberties of the individual. I look back to the predecessor of the Deputy Prime Minister and myself, William Wilberforce, onwards through Rathbone and a number of others of whom we should be proud. They could have done their task only with the assistance of the Speaker of the House at the time.
The Speaker must be not just independent of the Government of any persuasion, but determined that that Government will subject themselves to the democratic will of the House of Commons. It has already been said by a number of hon. Members that that is not just the function of the Speaker. It also falls to the Members of the House, but it falls to them under the leadership of the Speaker and subject to the powers that he or she exercises. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the previous candidate, spoke eloquently of some of those.
The position of Speaker requires a passionately committed House of Commons man or woman. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich meets that template perfectly. I believe that she will deploy her formidable personality in defending the rights of the House. She has shown great independence in her role as Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. Again, the Deputy Prime Minister will have particular interest in that.
We will need the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich to do that in the future. We will need a reforming Speaker, and she will be that. She has made a major contribution to the Liaison Committee's report proposing reforms to enhance the powers and effectiveness of the Select Committees and to make them more independent of the Whips—a point that has come up several times today.
32
In addition, when the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke this morning, she proposed a Speaker's Conference to reform radically and update the House of Commons. If she is chosen today, she would oversee such a Conference, which would have to balance the need to make the House more family friendly—no one disputes that need—with that of making it do its job more effectively. Achieving that golden mean will require imagination and experience. The hon. Lady has the experience: she has served the House for a total of 30 years; 26 of them continuously. She has served in government; she therefore understands only too well the pressures and imperatives of office. However, it was long enough ago for her not to be biased by it today.
The hon. Lady understands the Select Committee system and the Chamber. She has played an active part in both. She has eminently chaired the Transport Sub-Committee and been a Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall. She brings a keen intellect and imagination to those tasks. The hon. Lady has served the House diligently for many years.
The House needs a reforming Speaker; circumstances demand a reforming Speaker. I commend the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich to the House for the post.
4.31 pm
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Self-evidently, this is an important day for the House of Commons. As other speakers have said, Parliament is central to the democracy of this land; it is the last port of call for the voice of citizens to be heard. Over several Parliaments, we have been accused of not performing a vital task. Today, we have the chance to begin the process of restoring power to elected Members speaking for their constituents, improving legislation and holding the Executive to account.
I have the honour of seconding the motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) become Speaker. With a strong Executive, it is crucial to have an independent, gutsy, hard-hitting Speaker to stand up for the House, its Members and the people whom it represents. Those qualities are matched by my hon. Friend's experience in the House. As Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall, Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee and member of the Chairman's Panel, my hon. Friend's knowledge of the House's rituals and procedures is second to none.
My hon. Friend has always been a formidable campaigner and advocate in a range of Front-Bench positions, beginning as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in 1967 and ranging across foreign affairs, health, media and, of course, transport. I know from civil servants to whom I have spoken how much they look forward to appearing before the Transport Sub-Committee when my hon. Friend chairs it, and how much they enjoy being faced by her indirect, faltering, diffident and benign questioning!
Surely we want a Speaker who is like my hon. Friend: who is clear, decisive, speaks her mind and is able to speak for the House. Anyone who knows her realises that she is passionate, forthright and independent. As others have said, she respects the House and the values that it represents.
Flicking through Hansard, as one does, I came across a memorable passage, which is taken from my hon. Friend's last foray into elections for Speaker, in

33
April 1992. She was not standing on that occasion, but she nominated my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), whom she praised for her witty, hard-hitting public persona and for being very much in charge and keeping us all in place. That was true of my right hon. Friend Member for West Bromwich, West, who will be greatly missed. In turning those words back on my hon. Friend, I can only say, "It takes one to know one."
Hon. Members should be in no doubt about how hard my hon. Friend will work on their behalf, irrespective of their attitudes, beliefs or individuality. In the 13 years that I have spent in the House, I have come to respect her many qualities and singular character. She has been thoughtful and attentive to me and other hon. Members across the political spectrum and to the many staff who work here. She does not do that in public. When the going got tough in Northern Ireland, she would call, not necessarily to agree with what I was doing, but always to offer solidarity and support from one Member to another. I also like her direct, honest and straightforward approach to life in the House. She is a hard-working Member who does the business. She stays late for Division after Division. She is never seen slipping out; she is always seen standing in the taxi queue after voting and doing her duty to the House.
My hon. Friend values the House and the work that it does, but that does not mean that she is against change. She and I agree on the need to reform the workings of the House for all of us—women and men—and especially on the need for more women to be elected. I believe that a woman Speaker constitutes a good mentor and encourages other women into the House.
I support my hon. Friend, but that does not mean that I agree with all that she supports—far from it. We have differences of opinion on many issues, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, but we discuss and argue the points. That shows that it is perfectly possible to hold different views, but to remain friends, as many hon. Members know. She does that all the time.
At a time when we need to increase public confidence and respect in our political system, we must make up our minds: do we want someone who will put the House in order and put its independence first? My hon. Friend will certainly do that.
Sir Edward Heath: Mrs. Dunwoody has been proposed and seconded. I give her the opportunity to submit herself to the House.
4.36 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The House of Commons is periodically faced with a decision that can help to shape its future, its commitment to democracy and the way in which it protects the interests of those who send us here. Impossible though it may seem, legislation does not spring ready polished and perfected from the loins of any Government of whatever colour. It needs to be carefully scrutinised; it needs to be carefully evaluated and, above all, it needs to be improved. That is the reason why the House of Commons has, over the years, taken to itself the power not only to examine the legislation that is presented to it, but to think deeply about its effects because what we do here affects the lives of all our constituents at every level. We produce
34
legislation that carries sanction, that affects not only the way in which children are educated and people are cared for, but the future of the country and its role in the world.
I have deep faith in the ability of the House of Commons to keep those powers inviolate because we know that that is our role. We are very disparate; we come in all sizes and shapes. Some of us are perhaps not as thin as others, but we have the experience and variety, and the faith of those who put us here, to be capable of carefully considering what is presented to us and improving it on every level. I have seen many Parliaments, and each is different from its predecessor, but I have also seen something that has disturbed me: the gradual erosion, under many names, of the rights of Back-Bench Members. Sometimes that is called a procedural change; sometimes an alteration of view, but Back-Benchers have certainly seen a gradual slipping away of that power.
What I want, and what I believe the House of Commons and, indeed, the United Kingdom want, is a Parliament that not only knows its worth, but can hold up its collective head and say, "We have done the very best that we can do for you who elected us. We have exercised our power of judgment. We have concerned ourselves with what is good, what is bad and what is unacceptable and we have taken a view. We give an undertaking that we will never fail as a collective body to continue to exercise that individual judgment."
This is a great honour for me. I would not like hon. Members to be misled by the high quality and status of those who have proposed and seconded me. I do not come garlanded, with powerful groups behind me. Impossible though it may seem, I may not be everyone's automatic choice, but in my time in this place I have learned to appreciate that people on both sides of the House have something to contribute. They are sent here because of their ability, and because they represent a cross-section of the United Kingdom, are responsible and are capable of exercising judgment.
Any Speaker who comes to office now will face great challenges, because there are those who prefer the smooth passage, the uninterrupted arrangement, the careful management of our time and, ultimately, of our programme. We must always remember that, inadequate though we are, we are still individuals with families and homes and, indeed, constituencies to look after. We have that power. We in the House of Commons have the right to change our parliamentary year—we can vote that through when we want. We have the right to change our working day. We have the right to call a Speaker's Conference to consider carefully the constitutional changes that we demand, and to put those changes to the House and ask for its support. We have all those rights, which have been hard fought for over a long period, and we must never easily let go of them.
I do not come to hon. Members as a perfect parliamentarian. I do not come as the choice of those who know how I will react. I come as someone who, from the bottom of my heart, will serve the House in every way that I am able. I will serve the House, because to me Parliament is one of the most important things in our democratic country. We must protect it; we must improve it. We must take back the power that others seek to take away from us. Above all, we must never forget that we

35
are here to do a job for those who have elected us. I pledge that hon. Members will always have my support in performing that task in the best way possible.
Sir Edward Heath: The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody".
Question put, That the amendment be made: —
The House divided: AYES 170, Noes 341.

Division No. 301]

[4.43 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Gale, Roger

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Gapes, Mike

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Gill, Christopher

Bennett, Andrew F

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bercow, John

Godman, Dr Norman A

Best, Harold

Golding, Mrs Llin

Blunt, Crispin

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brady, Graham

Graham, Thomas

Brazier, Julian

Gray, James

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Grieve, Dominic

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hain, Peter

Butterfill, John

Hammond, Philip

Cable, Dr Vincent

Hayes, John

Cash, William

Heald, Oliver

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Chaytor, David

Hoey, Kate

Chidgey, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clappison, James

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jenkin, Bernard

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Collins, Tim

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kidney, David

Cousins, Jim

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Cox, Tom

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Cummings, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

Lansley, Andrew

Dalyell, Tam

Leigh, Edward

Davidson, Ian

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lidington, David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Livingstone, Ken

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Day, Stephen

Llwyd, Elfyn

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Loughton, Tim

Donohoe, Brian H

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Duncan Smith, Iain

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McDonnell, John

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Evans, Nigel

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fallon, Michael

McWalter, Tony

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Fisher, Mark

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Miller, Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Mitchell, Austin

Galbraith, Sam

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

36

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Stevenson, George

Mullin, Chris

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stringer, Graham

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Swayne, Desmond

Nicholls, Patrick

Syms, Robert

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

O'Hara, Eddie

Taylor, Ms Dail (Stockton S)

Paice, James

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Paterson, Owen

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Pickles, Eric

Townend, John

Pike, Peter L

Tredinnick, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Trend, Michael

Powell, Sir Raymond

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Viggers, Peter

Randall, John

Walker, Cecil

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Walley, Ms Joan

Robathan, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Robertson, Laurence

Wardle, Charles

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Wareing, Robert N

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Sayeed, Jonathan

Whittingdale, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Wicks, Malcolm

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Shipley, Ms Debra

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Wilshire, David

Skinner, Dennis

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Yeo, Tim

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Soames, Nicholas

Mr. David Maclean and

Spicer, Sir Michael

Helen Jones.

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ainger, Nick

Buck, Ms Karen

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Burden, Richard

Alexander, Douglas

Burgon, Colin

Allan, Richard

Burstow, Paul

Allen, Graham

Butler, Mrs Christine

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Baker, Norman

Canavan, Dennis

Ballard, Jackie

Cann, Jamie

Banks, Tony

Caplin, Ivor

Barnes, Harry

Casale, Roger

Barron, Kevin

Caton, Martin

Beard, Nigel

Cawsey, Ian

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Chisholm, Malcolm

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clwyd, Ann

Berry, Roger

Coaker, Vernon

Betts, Clive

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blackman, Liz

Cohen, Harry

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coleman, Iain

Blizzard, Bob

Colman, Tony

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Connarty, Michael

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Borrow, David

Cooper, Yvette

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Corbett, Robin

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Corston, Jean

Bradshaw, Ben

Cotter, Brian

Brake, Tom

Crausby, David

Breed, Colin

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Browne, Desmond

37

Curry, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hume, John

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Hurst, Alan

Darvill, Keith

Hutton, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Illsley, Eric

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Jamieson, David

Dawson, Hilton

Jenkins, Brian

Dean, Mrs Janet

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Denham, John

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MOP)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Drew, David

Keetch, Paul

Drown, Ms Julia

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Edwards, Huw

Khabra, Piara S

Efford, Clive

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ennis, Jeff

Kingham, Ms Tess

Etherington, Bill

Kirkwood, Archy

Fearn, Ronnie

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Lammy, David

Flint, Caroline

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Flynn, Paul

Laxton, Bob

Follett, Barbara

Lepper, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Levitt, Tom

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foulkes, George

Linton, Martin

Galloway, George

Livsey, Richard

Gardiner, Barry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Garnier, Edward

Lock, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Love, Andrew

Gerrard, Neil

Luff, Peter

Gibb, Nick

McAllion, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

McAvoy, Thomas

Gidley, Sandra

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Goggins, Paul

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gorrie, Donald

Macdonald, Calum

Green, Damian

McFall, John

Greenway, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Grocott, Bruce

Mclsaac, Shona

Grogan, John

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McLeish, Henry

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

McNamara, Kevin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McNulty, Tony

Hancock, Mike

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hanson, David

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harris, Dr Evan

Mallaber, Judy

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

Healey, John

Maples, John

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Martlew, Eric

Heppell, John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Maxton, John

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Meale, Alan

Home Robertson, John

Merron, Gillian

Hood, Jimmy

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hope, Phil

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Moffatt, Laura

Hoyle, Lindsay

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

38

Moore, Michael

Soley, Clive

Moran, Ms Margaret

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Squire, Ms Rachel

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

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mountford, Kali

Steinberg, Gerry

Mudie, George

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Oaten, Mark

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Brien, Bill (Nomranton)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Streeter, Gary

Olner, Bill

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Öpik, Lembit

Stunell, Andrew

Organ, Mrs Diana

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Swinney, John

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Perham, Ms Linda

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Pickthall, Colin

Temple—Morris, Peter

Plaskitt, James

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pollard, Kerry

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Pond, Chris

Thompson, William

Pope, Greg

Timms, Stephen

Pound, Stephen

Todd, Mark

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Touhig, Don

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Trickett, Jon

Prior , David

Truswell, Paul

Prosser, Gwyn

Turner, Dennis (Wolverhlon SE)

Quinn Lawrie

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Rammell Bill

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rapson Syd

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Raynsford Nick

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tyler, Paul

Rendel, David

Tynan, Bill

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Tyrie, Andrew

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Vaz, Keith

Rogers, Allan

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wallace, James

Roy, Frank

Ward, Ms Claire

Ruane, Chris

Waterson, Nigel

Ruddock, Joan

Watts, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Webb, Steve

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Wells, Bowen

Ryan, Ms Joan

Welsh, Andrew

Salmond, Alex

White, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wilkinson, John

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sawford, Phil

Wilson, Brian

Shaw, Jonathan

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Woolas, Phil

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wray, James

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Tellers for the Noes:

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

Mr. Peter Snape and

Ann Keen.

Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Edward Heath: I call the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) to move the amendment in favour of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
4.55 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert thereof "Sir George Young".

39
One of the difficulties in a contested election such as this one, when there are so many candidates, is that all hon. Members have many friends among the candidates, the proposers and the seconders on both sides of the House. We also recognise that all the candidates have particular claims and merits. However, although many of us are torn one way or the other by that, we have finally and invidiously to name one choice as our preferred candidate.
I am proposing my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) simply because I believe that he has the widest experience for the job. At the start of this Parliament, I had the great privilege of seconding Speaker Boothroyd, and she has indeed proved to be an outstanding Speaker. I am now proposing my right hon. Friend because the qualities that he has demonstrated in plenty over the years in the House would, I am sure, make him an equally outstanding, although different candidate.
I should like very briefly to make four points, the first of which is on my right hon. Friend's personal qualities. Anyone who has had any dealings with him, in public or in private, will testify to his approachability, his fairness, his ability to get on with everyone and his delightful sense of humour, which would stand him in good stead when, in difficult moments, the temperature and the temper of the House require it. However, he has also frequently demonstrated his firmness in seeing issues through. That quality will ensure his authority and his ability, when necessary, to command the House.
Throughout all the party battles in which my right hon. Friend has been engaged in the House, he has fought his case not only vigorously, but always courteously and in a manner that has won him respect and friends across party boundaries. He has also shown his independence of mind and his willingness to detach himself from the party line, as in his opposition as a Back Bencher to—dare I say it—the community charge. It is those qualities that have brought my right hon. Friend support from both sides of the House in this election.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend has wide experience of all the various roles in the House. I heard what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said on that matter—that hon. Members can have differing views on it. I believe that it is very valuable to have a Speaker who has wide experience of all the various roles.
My right hon. Friend has shown his independence of the Executive. However, among the candidates, because of his ministerial jobs, he has unrivalled knowledge of how the Executive work. I think that that matters, because knowledge of how the Executive work enables someone who is championing the House to deal with them better. Indeed, all four Speakers in my time in the House, since 1974, have had Front-Bench experience. My right hon. Friend knows the ropes and will not let the Executive get away with anything. I am certain that he will always put the House first.
My right hon. Friend's experience in the Whips Office is equally relevant.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It disqualifies him.
Mr. MacGregor: Then it also disqualified Speaker Boothroyd, who occasionally was heard to observe to Whips, "I know what you're up to, because I was in the Whips Office once."
40
My right hon. Friend also knows the frustrations of opposition, on both the Front and the Back Benches. He has considerable experience of being a Back Bencher. Indeed, hon. Members who have recently been elected to the House may not know that, in 1989, he was The Spectator's Back Bencher of the year. It could be said of him, therefore, that he has made a successful transition from Government to Opposition, and from Government to Back Bencher.
Thirdly, and crucially, I share the concerns about the perceived decline in the standing and importance of this House, particularly the democratic dangers of being sidelined by the Executive, and hence the need to strengthen the House's control over the Executive. This has been commented on so widely that I do not think that I need to elaborate further, except to say that my right hon. Friend's credentials in this respect are clear from the contributions that he has made in various ways as shadow Leader of the House, and in his lectures outside the House, such as that given to the Hansard Society earlier this year. He will give high priority to strengthening the powers of Parliament and, within that, the role and career of the Back Bencher.
Finally, it was a 16th-century Speaker, Speaker Yelverton, who said that one of the qualities required of the Speaker was "a carriage majestical". I do not know whether a bicycle qualifies, but in every other way my right hon. Friend has a carriage majestical. The role of the Speaker as ambassador for the House, here and abroad, and increasingly in the media, at conferences and in meeting delegations has greatly increased, and my right hon. Friend has the stature to be a worthy successor to Speaker Boothroyd in that respect.
My right hon. Friend is not one to blow his own trumpet. Indeed, his modesty is such that he has probably been listening rather blushingly to what I have been saying about him. However, these are the qualities and qualifications that have led me to believe that he is the right choice for Speaker. Above all, he is a House of Commons person through and through.
We are engaged in a byzantine process this afternoon. I fully recognise the difficulties that you face, Sir Edward, but I have much sympathy with the proposal of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In this process, we face complex decisions. I am simply voting for the person whom I think will make the best Speaker, and that is why I am delighted to propose my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire.
Sir Edward Heath: I call on Mrs. Helen Jackson to second.
5.1 pm
Helen Jackson: I did not really ever expect to be in this position, and I am vaguely looking for Betty to give me some moral support. However, she is not here, but you are instead, Sir Edward.
I was going to start by suggesting that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) stands head and shoulders above any other candidate, but then thought that that would be a bit corny. That is something that he cannot help, any more than he can help which school his parents sent him to which was, I understand, quite expensive, so we have to consider his other attributes.

41
To Labour Members, the right hon. Gentleman is, first and foremost, a Tory. I have heard many people over the past few days say that to all intents and purposes, that disqualifies him from even putting his name forward for Speaker of this House. I think that that is wrong. Labour Members are dead proud of our thumping majority, and we can do whatever we like if it comes to a vote. We will do so tomorrow, and I hope that we will continue to do so for many years. However, I believe that this is not the day to thump our thumping majority, but to think about who we want sitting in the Speaker's Chair for the foreseeable future.
Betty was an Opposition Member when she was elected on my first day in Parliament. Whoever is elected today—and there have been some powerful speeches—should have clear support across the Chamber. It relieves us all a little from the dominance of the party machine. Each one of us comes here as a representative of all our constituents, however they vote. Although we get tied down in the party machine, as Members of this Parliament we represent everyone.
Apart from that, the right hon. Gentleman has some endearing parliamentary experiences. It must have been interesting to have been sacked by Margaret Thatcher because of his views on the poll tax. It was a great shame that he could not take the rest of his party with him, but we are living to pick up the pieces.
The right hon. Gentleman believes in winning arguments through debate, not shenanigans or silly behaviour. He has even been known to hold up the progress of a debate until someone appropriate could appear on our side of the Dispatch Box to let it continue. He does what he believes in, and he acts on what he says. That is partly why he founded the bicycle club, and we should have to be careful to watch the bicycling mileage allowance if he became Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman also has a sense of humour.
My support for the right hon. Gentleman arises mainly as a result of my work with him on the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. I would describe him as a rebel—a skilful, Front-Bench rebel. He has not had the majority support of his own side for his role on the Committee, but, partly because of his work, that Committee has ensured that the House has made some progress on Westminster Hall and Thursday evening sittings—both of which he supports—and on our appalling and unsocial hours.
It has been fascinating and good to hear supporting statements by the other candidates today in favour of modernising the House. I feel like suggesting to some Members on my own side of the House that we little babes have clearly had some impact. The time for words or for good intentions has passed. I do not want to spend any more time in Parliament asking futile questions every month of the Chairman of the House of Commons Commission, which, because of its archaic and inane Committees, has to run this place as if it were a sort of ex-military machine.
Only one candidate knows not what he will say about modernising the House and bringing it into the 21st century but what he will do, and that candidate is the right hon. Gentleman. On that basis, I second his nomination.
Sir Edward Heath: Sir George Young has been proposed and seconded, and I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.
5.7 pm
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) for their kind words. I have never claimed a penny in bicycle mileage allowance, and I do not propose to do so. Whoever takes the Chair has a hard act to follow in Betty Boothroyd.
My constituents are used to having their Member of Parliament contest the election for Speaker. The Member for Andover in 1705, one John Smith, threw his hat into the ring. The court declared for Mr. Smith, but others declared for a Mr. Bromley, described as
a man of grave deportment, and good morals but looked upon as a violent Tory.
A week before the vote, a contemporary noted:
The Election of the Speaker is still very uncertain, for at least twenty of Mr. Smith's friends are absent.
In the vote, 81 placemen voted for Smith, including his fellow Member for Andover, whom Queen Anne presented with
a purse of 1000 guineas as a token of her satisfaction of his choice.
However, 17 placemen voted against Smith, including the secretary to Prince George, who received the news of his dismissal as he voted in the Lobby. John Smith became the first Speaker of Great Britain and one of the first to sign the treaty of Union with Scotland. His successor as Member for Andover won with a majority of 10, having received 24 votes to his opponent's 14.
Three hundred years later, the core responsibilities of the Speaker remain the same: to protect the rights of Members of this House and to enable them to hold the Executive to account. However, although those responsibilities remain unchanged, the environment in which they need to be exercised has changed dramatically. More recently, the terms of trade have shifted away from the House towards the Executive; they need to be shifted back. Other institutions now rival Parliament with claims to power and influence. We have 24-hour media, demanding instant news; pressure on Members' time has grown tenfold; and our constituents are more numerous and, rightly, more demanding. I ask myself whether the House has fully adjusted to those changed circumstances.
I believe that a strong Parliament is good for the country and good for government. If the House loses influence, the Government can drop their guard and are no longer properly held to account. If the institution of which we are collective members loses influence, it affects our ability individually to represent our constituents.
The heart of Parliament is this Chamber. I believe it needs to beat more strongly—sending oxygen around the rest of the body politic. It needs to be more relevant to the lives of our constituents and more challenging to the Executive. Parliament is the buckle between the people and their Government; it has become loose.
Some say that Parliament should be modernised; I prefer the word "strengthened". Do we need a career structure outside Government for independent-minded Back Benchers, so that the Government do not hoover up most of the talent? Should we hold the Government more effectively to account on their expenditure? Could Opposition time be put to better effect than taking it in Opposition days and half-days, rather than by the right to

43
demand statements when the Government are reluctant to volunteer them? If we have shorter hours—I have been kept out of my bed later and more often than most people—how do we do that without prejudicing the quality of our work? Those are two sides of the same coin.
The answers to these and other questions are for the House, and the Speaker is the servant of the House; but the Speaker has influence and can act as a catalyst in this process of strengthening Parliament. I would like to play a part in that. I have been both Whip and rebel. I have been an inner-city Member and, now, a rural Member. I have had a three-figure majority and a five-figure majority. My four children have grown up while I have been a Member.
For my 26 years in this place, I have been in the Conservative party, but—to repeat a familiar phrase—not run by the Conservative party. [Laughter.] I have sat, with others, on the House of Commons Commission, with its budget of £150 million and responsibility for thousands who work here. I think that we could have more cohesive management of the separate Departments and indeed of the building, for the benefit of Members and of those people who work and visit here.
For a post that no one wants, the speakership is doing rather well. For those of us who are unsuccessful, Mullin, Chris there is another high-profile job currently available, which, by tradition, no one wants—full-time manager of the English football team.
Sir Edward, I regard all the candidates as my friends. We all have different interests and qualities. I, along with them, am happy to submit to the judgment of the House.
Sir Edward Heath: The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Sir George Young".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 317.

Division No. 302]

[5.13 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Allen, Graham

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bradshaw, Ben

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Brady, Graham

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Brake, Tom

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Brazier, Julian

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Breed, Colin

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baldry, Tony

Browning, Mrs Angela

Ballard, Jackie

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Burnett, John

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Burstow, Paul

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Butterfill, John

Bennett, Andrew F

Cable, Dr Vincent

Bercow, John

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Beresford, Sir Paul

Caplin, Ivor

Betts, Clive

Cawsey, Ian

Blackman, Liz

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Chidgey, David

Blunt, Crispin

Chope, Christopher

Body, Sir Richard

Clappison, James

Boswell, Tim

44

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Key, Robert

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Coaker, Vernon

Kirkwood, Archy

Collins, Tim

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Cran, James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

Lansley, Andrew

Curry, Rt Hon David

Letwin, Oliver

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Lidington, David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Day, Stephen

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Denham, John

Llwyd, Elfyn

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Lock, David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Loughton, Tim

Duncan, Alan

Luff, Peter

Duncan Smith, Iain

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Evans, Nigel

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Faber, David

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Fabricant, Michael

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Fallon, Michael

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Fearn, Ronnie

McLoughlin, Patrick

Field, Rt Hon Frank

MacShane, Denis

Fisher, Mark

Mactaggart, Fiona

Fitzsimons. Mrs Lorna

Madel, Sir David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Major, Rt Hon John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Dr Liam

Maples, John

Fraser, Christopher

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Garnier, Edward

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Gibb, Nick

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Mates, Michael

Gorrie, Donald

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Gray, James

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Green, Damian

May, Mrs Theresa

Greenway, John

Miller, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Mitchell, Austin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Grogan, John

Morley, Elliot

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Moss, Malcolm

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Nicholls, Patrick

Hammond, Philip

Norman, Archie

Harris, Dr Evan

Oaten, Mark

Harvey, Nick

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Hayes, John

Öpik, Lembit

Heald, Oliver

Page, Richard

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Paice, James

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Paterson, Owen

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Pearson, Ian

Hill, Keith

Pickles, Eric

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Pike, Peter L

Hoey, Kate

Pope, Greg

Horam, John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Prior, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Hoyle, Lindsay

Rammell, Bill

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Randall, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Raynsford, Nick

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Jamieson, David

Bendel, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Robathan, Andrew

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Robertson, Laurence

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Keeble, Ms Sally

St Aubyn, Nick

Keetch, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

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

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

45

Soames, Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

Soley, Clive

Trend, Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Trimble, Rt Hon David

Spicer, Sir Michael

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Spring, Richard

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Tyler, Paul

Steen, Anthony

Tyrie, Andrew

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Vaz, Keith

Streeter, Gary

Viggers, Peter

Stringer, Graham

Walter, Robert

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wardle, Charles

Stunelt, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Swayne, Desmond

Webb, Steve

Syms, Robert

Wells, Bowen

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Willetts, David

Temple—Morris, Peter

Wilshire, David

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Thompson, William

Yeo, Tim

Timms, Stephen

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tipping, Paddy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Todd, Mark

Mr. Richard Ottaway and

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mr. Martin Salter.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Chaytor, David

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Ainger, Nick

Clapham, Michael

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Alexander, Douglas

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Allan, Richard

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clwyd, Ann

Banks, Tony

Coffey, Ms Ann

Barnes, Harry

Cohen, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Coleman, Iain

Bayley, Hugh

Colman, Tony

Beard, Nigel

Connarty, Michael

Begg, Miss Anne

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Cooper, Yvette

Benton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Bermingham, Gerald

Corbyn, Jeremy

Berry, Roger

Corston, Jean

Best, Harold

Cotter, Brian

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cousins, Jim

Blizzard, Bob

Cox, Tom

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Crausby, David

Borrow, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cummings, John

Bradshaw, Ben

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dalyell, Tam

Browne, Desmond

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Darvill, Keith

Buck, Ms Karen

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Burden, Richard

Davidson, Ian

Burgon, Colin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dawson, Hilton

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Canavan, Dennis

Dismore, Andrew

Cann, Jamie

Dobbin, Jim

Casale, Roger

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Cash, William

Donohoe, Brian H

Caton, Martin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

46

Doran, Frank

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dowd, Jim

Kingham, Ms Tess

Drew, David

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Drown, Ms Julia

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lammy, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Edwards, Huw

Laxton, Bob

Efford, Clive

Lepper, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Leslie, Christopher

Ennis, Jeff

Levitt, Tom

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Flint, Caroline

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Flynn, Paul

Linton, Martin

Follett, Barbara

Livingstone, Ken

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Livsey, Richard

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foulkes, George

McAllion, John

Galbraith, Sam

McAvoy, Thomas

Galloway, George

McCabe, Steve

Gapes, Mike

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gardiner, Barry

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

McDonagh, Siobhain

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McDonnell, John

Gerrard, Neil

McFall, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gidley, Sandra

Mclsaac, Shona

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Godsiff, Roger

Mackinlay, Andrew

Goggins, Paul

McLeish, Henry

Golding, Mrs Llin

McNamara, Kevin

Graham, Thomas

McNulty, Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McWalter, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McWilliam, John

Grocott, Bruce

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hain, Peter

Mallaber, Judy

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marek, Dr John

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hancock, Mike

Martin, Michael J

Hanson, David

Martlew, Eric

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Maxton, John

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Meale, Alan

Healey, John

Merron, Gillian

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hepburn, Stephen

Moffatt, Laura

Heppell, John

Moran, Ms Margaret

Home Robertson, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hood, Jimmy

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

Hope, Phil

Mountford, Kali

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mudie, George

Howells, Dr Kim

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hume, John

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hurst, Alan

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hutton, John

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Illsley, Eric

O'Hara, Eddie

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Olner, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)

Pond, Chris

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pound, Stephen

Kemp, Fraser

Powell, Sir Raymond

Khabra, Piara S

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kidney, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kitfoyle, Peter

47

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Prosser, Gwyn

Stinchcombe, Paul

Quinn, Lawrie

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Rapson, Syd

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Swinney, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Rogers, Allan

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Touhig, Don

Rowlands, Ted

Trickett, Jon

Roy, Frank

Truswell, Paul

Ruane, Chris

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ruddock, Joan

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Tynan, Bill

Salmond, Alex

Vis, Dr Rudi

Sarwar, Mohammad

Walley, Ms Joan

Savidge, Malcolm

Ward, Ms Claire

Sawford, Phil

Watts, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Welsh, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

White, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Wicks, Malcolm

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wilkinson, John

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Woolas, Phil

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Wray, James

Southworth, Ms Helen

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Spellar, John

Wyatt, Derek

Squire, Ms Rachel

Steinberg, Gerry

Tellers for the Noes:

Stevenson, George

Mr. Peter Snape and

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Ann Keen.

Question accordingly negatived.
5.26 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Menzies Campbell".
In proposing the name of Ming Campbell, I realise that I am breaking the tradition by nominating a member of a minority party. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out in his letter to The Times last week, however, there is no sufficiently clear tradition to tie the House to any course of action.
Nevertheless, it has to be remembered that the election of Speaker Boothroyd did end the precedent in the post-war period of the holder of the office always coming from the majority party. I would point out that, in part, Betty Boothroyd's success was the result of a recognition that the winner-takes-all rule that so often applies in our proceedings should not be employed in the election of the Speaker. It is for this reason that I would urge friends on the Government Benches to consider a candidate from ranks other than our own. In future Parliaments—certainly not the next one—it could be in the interests of a Labour Opposition to call on such a precedent.
That, however, is not the sole reason for proposing Ming Campbell; indeed, everything that I have said so far could apply to a member of the Conservative party.
48
I happen to believe that Back Benchers—whose champion we expect the Speaker to be—will be better represented by someone from the most politically excluded of all groups; the minority party.
With nearly 50 Members—47 to be exact—the Liberal Democrats are not the minuscule minority that once they were. The increase in their numbers is in no small way due to the credibility of such Members as Menzies Campbell. In a bipartisan Chamber such as this, it is still no mean feat to achieve the status and authority that Ming Campbell now enjoys. His work in the House—and, in particular, in the areas of foreign affairs and security—has done much to contribute to the consensus in this country which has seen us through so many of the international travails of recent years.
It has been suggested that Menzies Campbell enjoys support from elsewhere in the Labour ranks, and that this may be to his disadvantage. As far as I am concerned, all I can say is that, on this subject, No. 10 has employed the same method of consultation as usual—namely, extrasensory perception. Certainly, Ming has brought to his work in this House all the skills of advocacy that we would expect from a distinguished silk at the Scottish Bar.
However, the House needs more than the services of a hired legal gun in the post of Speaker and more than a mastery of procedure. We know that "Erskine May" is the guide and record of precedent, but not the sole repository of wisdom. We need a Speaker who can nudge and cajole the House, while never forgetting that if we the Members want—as I do—to end a lot of the flummery and the arcane procedures, such as the process of this election, it is up to us as Members to decide, and it is for the Speaker to ensure that our wishes become a reality. The House needs someone whose authority, independence and political acuity make them a match for the serried ranks of the Executive. Those who care for this House and its good standing must know that, in electing Menzies Campbell to be Speaker, we should be electing such a person. I urge my colleagues and friends to do so.
5.30 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I am delighted to second the nomination of Menzies Campbell. He is a very old friend of mine. I have known him and his family—I almost planned to say "the Ming dynasty", but it did not sound so good this morning—much longer than my short time in this place.
I have learned already that there are four parts to the job of Speaker. I did not know until today that we were so much interested in holding the Executive to account. We have certainly had much time before this afternoon to do so. Nevertheless, we try to make the Speaker hold the Executive to account—at least to do his or her best to do so.
We also hope that the Speaker will make this a modern Chamber. It seems to me, as a relative newcomer, that much of our activity still belongs in the 19th century rather than the 21st. Although we may hope that a Speaker will modernise, he or she does not have the authority to do so.
The Speaker must also run a Department with a budget of £150 million. In some ways, I suppose that he or she is a chief executive behind closed doors.
Finally, in a role that has not been much touched on, the office of the Speaker is the focus for democratic parliamentary life in the world, as the mother or father of all Speakers.

49
To be a good Speaker, it seems that one needs to understand the nature of this place and to have lived in it long; to have immense wit and charm; to be quick-minded; and to have integrity, ability and great wisdom. I think that Menzies Campbell has those qualities in abundance. I urge the House to be different for a change and to allow a Liberal Democrat a chance to be passed the baton.
Sir Edward Heath: Mr. Menzies Campbell has been proposed and seconded, and I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House if he so wishes.
5.31 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I formally submit myself to the will of the House, and in doing so I should acknowledge that it is a great honour even to have been considered worthy of nomination.
As we have heard, it is customary to pay tribute to the previous Speaker, and this I gladly do along with all those who have already done so. Madam Speaker Boothroyd has left an indelible mark on this House of Commons. She may not have left a wig, but she has most certainly left a pair of particularly elegant shoes, which it will take someone of some character to aspire to fill.
I never expected to get to Westminster: I joined the Liberal party in 1959. That could hardly have been described as a promising career move. I entered the House only in 1987, at the fifth attempt. I began to feel that I was on course to test to destruction the myth of Robert the Bruce and the spider. My baptism as a candidate was in the general election of February 1974. I hope, Sir Edward, that you will not take offence at the recollection. To stand as a Liberal in a Labour-held west of Scotland industrial constituency took, may I say, a certain amount of independence.
Even when I became a candidate for my present constituency, it took three elections and 11 years to get here. I found, as others both before and since have found, that to be a Back Bencher is often a continual exercise in frustration. For those who have not had the experience, to be a Back Bencher as a member of a minority party is even more an exercise in frustration. It is self-evident to me that a Speaker drawn from a minority party would find it difficult not to reflect that experience in dealing with Back Benchers of all parties.
I am very grateful to my proposer and seconder for the generous way in which they have put the case on my behalf, and in terms—I suspect—rather better than I deserve. Much has been said and written in recent weeks about the relationship between the House and the Government and the Speaker. I have not issued a manifesto or attended hustings—not because I disapprove of them or those who have participated in them, but because I thought it right to conduct myself within existing conventions. I suspect that this will be the last election of any Speaker to which those conventions apply.
I shall now say a little about the relationships to which I have just referred. Our constitution is based on entitlements. I believe that the country is entitled to expect a House of Commons composed of Members of Parliament who will rigorously—and sometimes brutally—hold the Government to account. In turn, Members are entitled to a framework in which they can do that effectively. However, in my experience, it is the
50
quality and the intensity of scrutiny that make scrutiny effective, and not necessarily the length of time devoted to it. I do not believe that overtired and harassed Members of Parliament, concerned about their families, are likely to fulfil that responsibility of scrutiny—or any of the other obligations imposed on us—as effectively as the electorate would want and are entitled to expect.
Being a Member of Parliament will never be a comfortable job—nor should it be. It is a job that requires sacrifices in return for the privileges it bestows. However, we should not regard self-inflicted discomfort as a badge of courage. Members of Parliament are entitled to something—or rather someone—else: a Speaker who will facilitate their holding the Government to account by using the powers of the Chair to their fullest extent for that purpose; a Speaker who will neither obstruct nor countenance any delay in reforms that the House in its wisdom may decide to implement.
The blunt, unvarnished truth is that, no matter how eloquent the words of proposers, seconders or even candidates themselves, the decision the House makes today is a matter of trust. A candidate who seems to be well qualified today might fail to fulfil expectations, and one who appears less qualified might grow into the job. To chair our proceedings, to manage the House of Commons Commission and to represent the House both at home and abroad—those are onerous responsibilities. If the House were to place its trust in me, I should strain every sinew to ensure that that trust was not misplaced.
Sir Edward Heath: The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Menzies Campbell".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 98, Noes 381.

Division No. 303]

[5.37 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Allen, Graham

Fearn, Ronnie

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Fisher, Mark

Baker, Norman

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Ballard, Jackie

Flynn, Paul

Beard, Nigel

Galbraith, Sam

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Gidley, Sandra

Bradshaw, Ben

Godman, Dr Norman A

Brake, Tom

Gorrie, Donald

Breed, Colin

51

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Sanders, Adrian

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Livsey, Richard

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

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Lock, David

Stunell, Andrew

Macdonald, Calum

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Major, Rt Hon John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Thompson, William

Mates, Michael

Tipping, Paddy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mitchell Austin

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Moonie Dr Lewis

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Moore, Michael

Tyler, Paul

Oaten, Mark

Tyrie, Andrew

O'Neill, Martin

Viggers, Peter

Öpik, Lembit

Wallace, James

Palmer, Dr Nick

Webb, Steve

Pearson, Ian

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Pollard, Kerry

Wyatt, Derek

Pope, Greg

Tellers for the Ayes:

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Mr. Paul Keetch and

Rendel, David

Mr. Don Foster.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Mrs Anne (Cbridge)

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Alexander, Douglas

Cann, Jamie

Ancram, R1 Hon Michael

Casale, Roger

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cash, William

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Caton, Marlin

Ashton, Joe

Cawsey, Ian

Atkins, Charlotte

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Chaytor, David

Banks, Tony

Chisholm, Malcolm

Barnes, Harry

Chope, Christopher

Barron, Kevin

Clapham, Michael

Bayley, Hugh

Clappison, James

Begg, Miss Anne

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Bercow, John

Clelland, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Bermingham, Gerald

Clwyd, Ann

Berry, Roger

Coaker, Vernon

Best, Harold

Coffey, Ms Ann

Betts, Clive

Cohen, Harry

Blackman, Liz

Coleman, Iain

Blears, Ms Hazel

Collins, Tim

Blizzard, Bob

Colman, Tony

Blunt, Crispin

Connarty, Michael

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Body, Sir Richard

Cooper, Yvette

Borrow, David

Corbett, Robin

Boswell, Tim

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Corston, Jean

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cousins, Jim

Brady, Graham

Crausby, David

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cummings, John

Browne, Desmond

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Dalyell, Tam

Buck, Ms Karen

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Burden, Richard

Darvill, Keith

Burgon, Colin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Butterfill, John

52

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Hurst, Alan

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Hutton, John

Dawson, Hilton

Iddon, Dr Brian

Day, Stephen

Jamieson, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jenkins, Brian

Dismore, Andrew

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dobbin, Jim

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Doran, Frank

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mein)

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Drew, David

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Drown, Ms Julia

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kemp, Fraser

Edwards, Huw

Key, Robert

Efford, Clive

Khabra, Piara S

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kidney, David

Ennis, Jeff

Kilfoyle, Peter

Etherington, Bill

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Evans, Nigel

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Flight, Howard

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Flint, Caroline

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Follett, Barbara

Lansley, Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lawrence. Mrs Jackie

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lepper, David

Fox, Dr Liam

Leslie, Christopher

Fraser, Christopher

Letwin, Oliver

Gale, Roger

Levitt, Tom

Galloway, George

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Gapes, Mike

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gardiner, Barry

Linton, Martin

Garnier, Edward

Livingstone, Ken

Gerrard, Neil

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gibb, Nick

Llwyd, Elfyn

Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

Loughton, Tim

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Love, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger

Luff, Peter

Goggins, Paul

McAllion, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

McAvoy, Thomas

Graham, Thomas

McCabe, Steve

Gray, James

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Green, Damian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McFall, John

Grocott, Bruce

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Hain, Peter

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mclsaac, Shona

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hammond, Philip

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hanson, David

McLeish, Henry

Hayes, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

McNamara, Kevin

Heald, Oliver

McNulty, Tony

Healey, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

McWalter, Tony

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hepburn, Stephen

Mallaber, Judy

Heppell, John

Maples, John

Heseitine, Rt Hon Michael

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool 5)

Home Robertson, John

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hood, Jimmy

Martlew, Eric

Hope, Phil

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Hopkins, Kelvin

Maxton, John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

May, Mrs Theresa

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Meale, Alan

Hoyle, Lindsay

Merron, Gillian

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

53

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Michie, Bill (SheId Heeley)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Soley, Clive

Miller, Andrew

Southworth, Ms Helen

Moffatt, Laura

Spellar, John

Moran, Ms Margaret

Spicer, Sir Michael

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

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

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Steen, Anthony

Moss, Malcolm

Steinberg, Gerry

Mounttord, Kali

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mudie, George

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stringer, Graham

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Nicholls, Patrick

Sutcliffe, Gerry

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Swayne, Desmond

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Swinney, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Syms, Robert

O'Hara, Eddie

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Olner, Bill

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Ottaway, Richard

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Paterson, Owen

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Perham, Ms Linda

Timms, Stephen

Pickles, Eric

Todd, Mark

Pickthall, Colin

Touhig, Don

Pike, Peter L

Townend, John

Plaskitt, James

Tredinnick, David

Pond, Chris

Trend, Michael

Pound, Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Truswell, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Turner, Dennis (Wolvernlon SE)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Prior, David

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Prosser, Gwyn

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Quinn, Lawrie

Tynan, Bill

Randall, John

Vaz, Keith

Rapson Syd

Vis, Dr Rudi

Raynsford, Nick

Walley, Ms Joan

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Ward, Ms Claire

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Waterson, Nigel

Robertson, Laurence

Watts, David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Welsh, Andrew

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

White Brian

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rogers, Allan

Whittingdale, John

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Wicks, Malcolm

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Rowlands, Ted

Wilkinson, John

Roy, Frank

Willetts, David

Ruane, Chris

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Ruddock, Joan

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Wilshire, David

Salmond, Alex

Wilson, Brian

Sarwar, Mohammad

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Savidge, Malcolm

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sawford, Phil

Woodward, Shaun

Sedgemore, Brian

Woolas, Phil

Shaw, Jonathan

Worthington, Tony

Sheemian, Barry

Wray, James

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Peter Snape and

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Ann Keen.

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Question accordingly negatived.
5.49 pm
Sitting suspended.
6.5 pm
On resuming—
Sir Edward Heath: I call Mr. Maxton to move the amendment in favour of Dr. Clark.
Mr. John Maxton: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Dr. David Clark".
I begin my remarks by making it clear that I add my voice to those who have expressed concerns about the way in which this election is taking place. That is in no way a criticism of you, Sir Edward, or the decision that you took. You have carried out your task so far with dignity, efficiency and fairness. However, in a modern democracy it is absurd that we should elect the Speaker of our legislature in such an arcane manner. We are elected by secret ballot; we should elect our Speaker in the same way. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has made it clear that if elected as the new Speaker, he will ask the Procedure Committee to consider the matter urgently and produce a more efficient and fairer way in which to elect someone for this important post.
The election of the new Speaker of the House of Commons is always a significant event in the history of Parliament. Perhaps rarely has it had more significance than today. We have already seen more changes in our constitution in the past three and a half years than in the previous 50—the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a London Assembly, and major changes in the House of Lords, with more to come. At the same time, the world outside is changing at an astonishing rate.
It is vital that as those changes take place, the House must change if it is not to become a quaint historic anachronism. We need a new Speaker who has the ability to control the House, to act as the chairman of an increasingly complex organisation and to be our ambassador both to the people who elect us and to the rest of the world. However, this time we must also elect a Speaker who will work with the House to change it and bring it fully into the 2Ist century. I believe that in my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields we would have such a Speaker.
The son of a gardener, my right hon. Friend left school at 16 to work in forestry. Attending night school, he obtained the qualifications necessary to enter Manchester university and to gain BA, MSc and PhD degrees. I mention that only to show that he has the determination and intelligence to succeed in any task that he is given. He first entered Parliament in 1970, when he was elected Member for Colne Valley. He lost that seat in 1974, but was returned in 1979 to represent South Shields. He has been the Member for South Shields ever since, and is thus one of the most experienced Members. He was a member of the shadow Cabinet for many years in opposition, covering several portfolios. In 1997 he was appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which post he served for a year. His work in bringing information

55
technology more rapidly into government and on the Freedom of Information Bill was appreciated by many of his colleagues, if not by all those in the Cabinet.
Since then my right hon. Friend has been a Back Bencher. He understands how the House of Commons works from both sides—as a member of the Executive and from the Back Benches. Despite perhaps feeling some resentment about the way in which he was treated, he has loyally supported the Government, but he has not done so with total blindness. He voted against those measures in the Freedom of Information Bill that he thought betrayed the concept that he advocated when in government.
I have known my right hon. Friend since he re-entered Parliament in 1979. Over the years I have learned to appreciate his quiet intelligence, his advice, his composure and his subtle humour. He will stay calm when the House is rowdy. He will avert impending rows with a quick wit. He will bring intelligence to all the decisions. He will take advice but remain his own man. Thus he has the attributes needed for any Speaker in any age. So do some of the other candidates who have been proposed, but my right hon. Friend would bring to the job an understanding of the modern world and the revolutionary changes that are transforming it. He knows that if the House is to retain the respect of those who elect us, it must change quickly.
The Speaker can play only a limited role in that. However, he can and must set the tone: lead change, not thwart it. He must work with others in the House to move us from the 18th and 19th centuries, where so many of our customs are stuck, into the democratic world of the 21st century. I believe that my right hon. Friend is the person best suited to do that.
6.11 pm
Joan Ruddock: I wish to second the nomination of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I do so as someone who has never been a close friend or ally of his. Indeed, before we were all new Labour, he and I were on opposite wings of the party. However, he always had my respect as a person of integrity and ability who was willing to engage in debate and listen to the opponent's argument.
As others have said, today's election is about much more than who occupies the Speaker's Chair; it is about the role itself. While in this place, the Speaker must exercise his or her authority with dignity and impartiality. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend would do so with courage and consistency. However, the Speaker usually occupies the Chair for only about 10 hours a week. Most of his or her powers are exercised behind closed doors. Our ability to act effectively as legislators depends profoundly on the Speaker's skills in creating the framework for debate and dealing with the usual channels.
Someone who has been in government working with the Chief Whip and Cabinet colleagues has the advantage of knowing the tricks of that trade. Someone who has been involuntarily returned to the Back Benches has an added advantage. As a Back Bencher, my right hon. Friend knows how difficult but vital it is to be an effective scrutineer. I have no doubt that he will use his considerable skills and experience to champion Back Benchers' interests.
56
For all those reasons, I support my right hon. Friend. I do so most of all because I want a Speaker who will lead the reform of the House, who will support a package of reforms that will deliver sensible working hours, and who understands that MPs should not have to set aside family responsibilities to do their job. It is emblematic of this place that we have a pink ribbon for our swords and paperclips for our letters, but no computers and no child care facilities.
My right hon. Friend has a long track record of support for modernisation. His is the most radical reform agenda before us today—an agenda that would revitalise the Chamber, quicken the pace of debate and deepen our scrutiny. Not only would that lead to more effective and fulfilling roles for Back Benchers and to better government, it might just lead to a revival of public interest and support. Far too many people see our Parliament as the preserve of political junkies playing out old rituals. Many of us will never be either the great stars or, I hope, the great bores of this place, but we all deserve to be heard without fear or favour when we represent our constituents and voice the concerns of ordinary people.
In my right hon. Friend we have a man who would enable us to exercise our democratic duties in this place in ways fit for the 21st century. I second the amendment in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.
Sir Edward Heath: Dr. David Clark has been proposed and seconded. I now invite him to submit himself to the House if he so wishes.
6.15 pm
Dr. David Clark: I willingly submit myself as a candidate for Speaker. I do so with considerable trepidation but with a feeling of great honour, because I am a House of Commons person. I believe passionately in representative democracy, and it is a great honour to be nominated. It is also unexpected, because a few months ago the thought had not even crossed my mind. It was only because a few colleagues suggested that I would be a suitable candidate that I felt it appropriate to allow my name to go forward.
The job of Speaker is obviously a difficult position to try to fill. Clearly, the two main demands of the job are almost contradictory. The Speaker is the servant of the House, but is at the same time the protector of the House—protecting it as an institution, protecting its reputation and protecting its Members. The job description is particularly challenging.
I would bring to the job judgment and integrity based on my belief in representative democracy. Several right hon. and hon. Members have highlighted the challenges that representative democracy faces today. I submit that we may need to do other things to meet some of those challenges.
I would also bring judgment and integrity based on experience. I came to the House rather unexpectedly in 1970—I was the only gain for my party at that election, but I was also the only loss for my party in 1974. I claim no credit; it was a pure accident. When I came to the House in 1970, we were nearer to the end of the second world war than to the new millennium. It has been brought home to me how the rest of the world has changed a great deal over the years, but although we have had changes in the House, we have not been as courageous as we might have been in modernising this institution sufficiently.

57
I bring 25 years' experience of the House. I sat for too long on the Opposition Front Bench and for too short a time on the Government Front Bench, but I shall not go on about that. I was proud to be in the Cabinet and to spearhead two aspects of Government policy: information technology and freedom of information. I passionately believed in that policy, not for any academic reasons, but for the simple reason that information technology and freedom of information enable Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, to engage and re-engage our constituents, and to challenge those who try to undermine our representative democracy.
I have no illusions. I am one of those strange people who knew what it was like here but came back because I loved it so much. I was one of the retreads. Being an MP is not only a privilege, but a unique job. We all know that to do that job we need eight days a week and 25 hours a day—but we must now look at the way in which we arrange our working lives, so that we can better match the demands made of us by our constituents. The way in which we in the House appear on television often does not convey the message that we are businesslike, and I think we should think about that very deeply.
Select Committees are still young institutions, and I believe the time has come to strengthen them so that we can challenge the Executive. I was a member of the Executive, and I happen to believe that there is nothing wrong with being challenged robustly by a representative of the people. That, I think, is a counterbalance to the advice that one is given by civil servants.
I also believe that we must become much more family friendly, and I think we could do much more to try to achieve that.
I see the task as a difficult task. I see the task as a daunting task. I see the task as to speak up for the ordinary Member of Parliament. I also see the task as to give the Government space in which to govern, because if the Government cannot govern, the House will suffer as well. In the end it is a question of balance; it is a question of judgment; and in the end, the Speaker is merely a servant and a defender of the House.
I can pledge only this: I shall be my own man, and I shall fight for the rights of Members of the House—and by fighting for the rights of Members of the House, I shall fight for the rights of the citizens who send them to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 296.

Division No. 304]

[6.22 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Betts, Clive

Ainger, Nick

Blackman, Liz

Allan, Richard

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Allen, Graham

Borrow, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Bradshaw, Ben

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Brake, Tom

Atkins, Charlotte

Breed, Colin

Baker, Norman

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Ballard, Jackie

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Bell, Martin (Talton)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Burden, Richard

Bennett, Andrew F

Burstow, Paul

Berry, Roger

Butterfill, John

58

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Key, Robert

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Caplin, Ivor

Kirkwood, Archy

Caton, Martin

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Cawsey, Ian

Laxton, Bob

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Chaytor, David

Linton, Martin

Chidgey, David

Livingstone, Ken

Clappison, James

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Lock, David

Clelland, David

McDonnell, John

Cohen, Harry

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Cooper, Yvette

McLoughlin, Patrick

Corbett, Robin

MacShane, Denis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Major, Rt Hon John

Cousins, Jim

Maples, John

Gran, James

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Cummings, John

Martlew, Eric

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

Maxton, John

Dalyell, Tam

Miller, Andrew

Darvill, Keith

Mitchell, Austin

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Davidson, Ian

Moran, Ms Margaret

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Morley, Elliot

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B' ham Hodge H)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Denham, John

Mullin, Chris

Drown, Ms Julia

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Edwards, Huw

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Fisher, Mark

Oaten, Mark

Flynn Paul

O'Hara, Eddie

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

O'Neill, Marlin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Pike, Peter L

Foulkes , George

Pond, Chris

Galbraith, Sam

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Gapes Mike

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Gardiner, Barry

Prior, David

George, Andreew (St lves)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Rammell, Bill

Gidley , Sandra

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Bendel, David

Godman, Dr Norman A

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Golding, Mrs Llin

Ruddock, Joan

Gorrie, Donald

St Aubyn, Nick

Greenway, John

Salter, Martin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Sanders, Adrian

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Savidge, Malcolm

Grogan, John

Sheerman, Barry

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Harvey, Nick

Shipley, Ms Debra

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Home Robertson, John

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

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

Jamieson, David

Soley, Clive

Jenkin, Bernard

Southworth, Ms Helen

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

Steen, Anthony

Steinberg, Gerry

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Stringer, Graham

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

59

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Wareing, Robert N

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

White, Brian

Thompson, William

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Todd, Mark

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Worthington, Tony

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wyatt, Derek

Tyler, Paul

Tyne, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walley, Ms Joan

Mr. Terry Lewis and

Wafter, Robert

Mr. Hilton Dawson.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Donohoe, Brian H

Alexander, Douglas

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Dowd, Jim

Ashton, Joe

Drew, David

Banks, Tony

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Barnes, Harry

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Barron, Kevin

Efford, Clive

Bayley, Hugh

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Beard, Nigel

Ennis, Jeff

Begg, Miss Anne

Etherington, Bill

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Fearn, Ronnie

Benton, Joe

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Bermingham, Gerald

Flight, Howard

Best, Harold

Flint, Caroline

Blears, Ms Hazel

Follett, Barbara

Blizzard, Bob

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Blunt, Crispin

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Galloway, George

Brady, Graham

Gerrard, Neil

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Goggins, Paul

Browne, Desmond

Graham, Thomas

Buck, Ms Karen

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burgon, Colin

Grocott, Bruce

Cable, Dr Vincent

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Hancock, Mike

Casale, Roger

Hanson, David

Cash, William

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hayes, John

Healey, John

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Chope, Christopher

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Heppell, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hood, Jimmy

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hope, Phil

Clwyd, Ann

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coaker, Vernon

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Coleman, Iain

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Colman, Tony

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Connarty, Michael

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hutton, John

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Jenkins, Brian

Corston , Jean

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cotter, Brian

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Crausby, David

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Jones, Helen (Warnrigton N)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Marlyn (ClwydS)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Keeble, Ms Sally

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Keetch, Paul

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kemp, Fraser

Day, Stephen

Khabra, Piara S

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kidney, David

Dismore, Andrew

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dobbin, Jim

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

60

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Rogers, Allan

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lammy, David

Roy, Frank

Lansley, Andrew

Ruane, Chris

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lepper, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

Levitt, Tom

Salmond, Alex

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Samar, Mohammad

Livsey, Richard

Sawford, Phil

Love, Andrew

Sayeed, Jonathan

Luff, Peter

Sedgemore, Brian

McAllion, John

Shaw, Jonathan

McAvoy, Thomas

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

McCabe, Steve

Skinner, Dennis

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Macdonald, Calum

Soames, Nicholas

McFall, John

Spellar, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir Michael

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mclsaac, Shona

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mackinlay, Andrew

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Stuart, Ms Gisela

McLeish, Henry

Stunell, Andrew

McNamara, Kevin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

McNulty, Tony

Swayne, Desmond

McWalter, Tony

Swinney, John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Syms, Robert

Mallaber, Judy

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Meale, Alan

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Merron, Gillian

Touhig, Don

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Tredinnick, David

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Trickett, Jon

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Truswell, Paul

Moffatt, Laura

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Moore, Michael

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Mountford, Kali

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Mudie, George

Tynan, Bill

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Vaz, Keith

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Vis, Dr Rudi

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Wallace, James

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Ward, Ms Claire

Olner, Bill

Waterson, Nigel

Öpik, Lembit

Watts, David

Organ, Mrs Diana

Webb, Steve

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Welsh, Andrew

Paterson, Owen

Whittingdale, John

Pearson, Ian

Wicks, Malcolm

Perham, Ms Linda

Wilkinson, John

Pickles, Eric

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Pickthall, Colin

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Plaskitt, James

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Pope, Greg

Willis, Phil

Pound, Stephen

Wilshire, David

Powell, Sir Raymond

Wilson, Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Prosser, Gwyn

Woolas, Phil

Quinn, Lawrie

Wray, James

Rapson, Syd

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Robertson, Laurence

Tellers for the Noes:

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Mr. Peter Snape and

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Ann Keen.

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Question accordingly negatived.
6.33 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Nicholas Winterton".
We all know my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). More important, the country knows him as a man of courage and integrity. When I take schoolchildren around the House and we go to the Queen's Robing room, I point out that two frescoes are missing. Two of King Arthur's knightly virtues are not portrayed on the walls. I jokingly say to the constituents that it is no surprise because they are the two virtues that are the rarest among politicians—fidelity and courage.
My hon. Friend has both in abundance. Above all, he has shown through a long and distinguished career a total devotion to his constituents, a fidelity to Parliament and the courage at all times and in all circumstances to fight for them, to put them first and to put their interests before his own.
You will remember, Sir Edward, when my hon. Friend was elected to the House in September 1971. I remember thinking then that he had a great future and I think it still. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, and it is the hour when Parliament must choose an individual who will be respected throughout the country for his devotion to Parliament.
My hon. Friend has had a long apprenticeship and in any normal walk of life that would be an advantage. It should be here. After all, he showed when he took Sir Arthur Vere Harvey's seat at the by-election a professionalism that is the hallmark of politics today. Not for nothing did he win his seat in the 1967 Warwickshire county council election. Not for nothing did he fight two losing campaigns in Newcastle-under-Lyme and then come to a by-election, which is the crucible of politics, in Macclesfield and win. He fought and he won.
My hon. Friend was of the generation that you will understand, Sir Edward: those of us who had their formative experiences in the armed forces of the Crown. You were a gunner, I flew aeroplanes, and my hon. Friend was in tanks. There is no more demanding environment than to be in a tank and to learn to get on with all sorts of conditions and people. It has been my hon. Friend's characteristic throughout his career.
There have been differences with those who set the Government's agenda; there have been differences of opinion with respected colleagues; but always my hon. Friend has fought with integrity for his point of view and above all for the interests of his constituents. When he came to the hustings, and I think that those who came to the hustings should have priority in our attentions, he twice used an important word: "integrity". That is what we demand of the Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out the challenges that Parliament faces. It is a fact that the integrity of Parliament is coming increasingly into question. No one has ever impugned my hon. Friend's integrity. He has shown, for example, on the Select Committee on Health, which he chaired, a total devotion to getting the health service right, even if that was unpopular in Government circles.
My hon. Friend has also been notable as senior member of the Speaker's Panel. I served with him briefly when he chaired the Committee considering the Greater London
62
Authority Act 1999. There could have been no other measure harder to chair in the previous Session, but he did it with fairness, good humour and great wisdom.
Last but not least, my hon. Friend has an interest in international affairs. He has championed the democratic rights of the Falkland islanders. He was formerly the chairman of the Falkland Islands all-party group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and a member of the CPA executive. It is symbolic. Although the Falkland Islands has perhaps the smallest legislature of the member countries of the Commonwealth, my hon. Friend took on the challenge and supported it.
Not only does our Speaker have to be a household word in the land, and have a voice that will carry with conviction—as my hon. Friend's will—to all the corners of the country, but he must have the personality to represent the United Kingdom around the globe. Speaker Boothroyd's last activity as Speaker was to go to Ukraine and to the Baltic states, and what better ambassadress could we have had? I doubt that we could possibly have had a better one. However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield goes to such places, he will take not only a different style, but my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)—who, as the lady of integrity that she is, undoubtedly will pay her own way.
I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield to the House and ask the House to support the amendment.
Sir Edward Heath: I call Mr. Stephen Pound to second the amendment.
6.41 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound: Of all the speeches that we have heard in this long and winding day, as we meander with a mazy motion through this labyrinth of protocol and procedure, the one that seemed to find most favour with the House was that of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who stood up and said that he was not standing. Although I have been tempted by the throne myself—any job that involves an element of hair covering has its attractions to me—I should like to rule myself out for all time. Nevertheless, I am honoured to second the nomination of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
There are those who—unkindly, unfairly and outrageously—say that the only ground for nominating the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Speaker's Chair is to shut him up. I will have no truck with that—although I have heard more than I wish to know about the Congleton to Macclesfield bypass. The House would be deprived of an original, fresh and idiosyncratic voice were the hon. and gallant Gentleman to become Speaker, but that is no reason not to support him.
Today, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with the individualism that characterises his every word, described himself as a "traditionalist-progressive". I took that not as an oxymoron, to mean a revolutionary reactionary or something like that, but as an expression of his wish to combine the best of both worlds. He is a traditionalist, in that he undoubtedly reveres and respects the great traditions of this great House, but he is also sufficiently progressive to realise that nothing stands still, that nothing must stand still, and that even an institution such as this one can and—dare I say it—must improve.

63
Can there be a finer example of that combination of qualities than the hon. and gallant Gentleman's chairmanship of the Select Committee on Health, when—in an alliance almost as unlikely as that between the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and me—with the late and greatly missed Audrey Wise, the Committee produced the report on maternity services? It was one of the most ground-breaking and revolutionary reports that the House has ever seen, taking the interests of the woman to be paramount.
It is no secret—even to hon. Members who have been elected to the House recently and have no glorious tradition of coming in and out of the House or various by-elections to refer to—that the forces of the then Government were not pleased with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. They even—I do not know whether this is unparliamentary language—manoeuvred him from the chairmanship of that Committee.
While the hon. and gallant Gentleman chaired that Committee, he sought neither to find favour with the Government nor to curry favour with the Opposition. However, he represented the voices of women and of ordinary Back Benchers. That particular example shows how the man can go beyond what some unfairly see as his stereotypic presentation.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to the hon. and gallant Gentleman as a household name. As is well known, I am not even a household name in my own household. Nevertheless. I can offer a view on the hon. and gallant Gentleman from the perspective of the most lowly worm.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood also mentioned the Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which had more than 1,000 amendments and clauses. That legislation was steered through by the hon. and gallant Gentleman not only with great good humour, but, above all, with an unfailing and irrefragable respect for the lowliest Back Bencher. Even the most newly arrived Back Benchers had their chance to speak on that Committee. Although, in my case, that fact was regretted as soon as I had spoken, he thought sufficiently of us and our rights to ensure that we were able to do that.
Although I would not claim to be as one with the hon. and gallant Gentleman politically—he is a tad liberal for my taste—as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, in his every action, both within and outside this place, there has been an unbroken line of integrity and of unflinching and unchanging morality. That is precisely the type of quality that one looks for in the Speaker of this place.
It has also been said, somewhat ungraciously, that if we were to elect the hon. and gallant Gentleman as Speaker, we would have a Bill and Hillary scenario in which we would be getting two for the price of one. I would not in any way compare the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) with the President and the First Lady of the United States of America.
Shona McIsaac: Who would be Monica?
Mr. Pound: I shall not mention the name that I just heard from the Cleethorpes side of the House.
64
The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Member for Congleton are a team, and we have seen that team in action. We have also come to respect that team. It matters not whether we agree or disagree with them, they work well together.
Today, however, we are considering the case for the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I think that that case is proven. He is the man whom no Government functionary would ever choose for Speaker. He is a paid-up member—he is almost the shop steward—of the awkward squad. I see that he is sitting next to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who would have been the first choice for Speaker of many of the more iconoclastic hon. Members.
Nevertheless, for all that we find the hon. and gallant Gentleman occasionally to be brutish if not short in his contributions, none of us would doubt for a moment that he speaks his mind without fear or favour. He never ceases to represent his constituents to his best. Every single time that he has been put to the test in relation to the rights of the Back Bencher against those of the Executive, the Back Bencher has won out.
From my worm's eye perspective, I have great pleasure in seconding the nomination of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and have probably cost myself a lot of friends in doing so—[Interruption.] It is said that that pre-supposes that I had any friends to start with.
Sir Edward Heath: Mr. Nicholas Winterton has been proposed and seconded. I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.
6.50 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Thank you, Sir Edward, for giving me the opportunity of submitting myself to the will of the House.
Sir Edward, I think that I am right in saying that you entered the House of Commons in 1950 when Earl Winterton was the Father of the House, and I entered the House when you were Prime Minister. Whether either of those facts will do me any good today, I have my doubts.
I am now in my 30th year of unbroken service, and I have served for all that period, for whatever reason—as I said at the hustings this morning—as a Back Bencher in this House of Commons. For me, the House of Commons, its institutions and its Committees have been my total political life, and I have enjoyed it through all its vicissitudes. In many ways, I share the view of Edmund Burke, who said:
You choose a member indeed, but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol but he is a Member of Parliament.
That is what I have sought to be.
Of course, I accept, as my seconder, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) said, that constituency duties and responsibilities and heavy involvement have become increasingly important since Edmund Burke represented Bristol. The parliamentary timetable and the parliamentary week should take those matters into account. Whoever takes the Chair has the prime and vital task not only of guaranteeing the meaningful independence and integrity of the House but, as my proposer and seconder have already said, of safeguarding the rights and concerns of every Member, irrespective of political party affiliations or, in the case of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), of none.

65
The hon. Member for Ealing, North was very generous in referring to my chairmanship of the Committee considering the Greater London Authority Bill. In addition, as the longest-serving member of the Speaker's Panel, I hope that I have established a record of total impartiality, integrity and independence. My time chairing the Select Committee on Health has been referred to. It was a fantastic Committee because of the co-operation of all its members, who were seeking to do the job that Select Committees are there to do.
Speaker Boothroyd rightly emphasised that the requirement of effective scrutiny and the democratic process must take priority over the convenience of Members. However, let me say to those on both Front Benches that that is a message not to Back Benchers, who are burdened with long hours, but to the Government, who should not seek to put too much badly drafted legislation through the Commons in unseemly haste, riding roughshod over the legislature in the process.
I would welcome more private notice questions from Back Benchers as part of their individual responsibility of holding the Government to account and representing their constituencies. Let us modernise our procedures where that can be done without undermining the essential roles of amending legislation and opposition. Although Lord Randolph Churchill said that the duty of an Opposition is to oppose, opposition does not come simply from Opposition parties—it sometimes comes from within political parties. Such opposition should be heard and given a say, otherwise Parliament will become a pathetic poodle of the Government of the day and of the establishment. That is not the purpose of this place.
The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, on which I sit, and the Select Committee on Procedure, which I have the honour to chair, have both contributed to bringing the procedures and practices of this place more up to date. I am convinced that they will continue to do so. Having been, as it were, almost challenged by a previous candidate, I am sure that the Procedure Committee, whatever the outcome of the speakership election, will wish to consider the Standing Orders covering the election of the Speaker.
I was questioned on my next point this morning at the hustings. Despite my initial reservations about it, the Westminster Hall experiment has, in my view, been a great success. The Speaker of the House has always had the opportunity to comment on, and contribute to, the continuing debate on modernisation and changes in procedure. I am in favour of a Speaker's Conference, but the Speaker is the servant of the House and the House, surely, is its own master, as long as it is prepared to exercise that power. Again, I share the view of Edmund Burke, who said:
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Surely it is the Speaker's difficult task to guard against such delusion, not only in the House's dealings with the Executive, but in respect of outside bodies, international organisations and, as was said earlier, large corporations.
In the 30 years that I have been a Member of this House, I have experienced the art and intrigue of the Executive—I fear to my disadvantage. However, it did me a lot of good because it merely encouraged me to defend the rights of Back Benchers and the role of Parliament all the more robustly. Let us use the Select Committees more positively, as the Liaison Committee has recommended,
66
not only to hold the Government of the day to account, but to assist the Government to produce better drafted and considered legislation through the production of draft Bills and the development of business sub-committees for the proper programming of the Standing Committee stage of Bills.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) for his supportive and generous remarks in proposing me. Like me, he has always been a Back Bencher, and he believes fervently in the role and purpose of this House. I also thank the hon. Member for Ealing, North for his most entertaining and flamboyant speech. It was a pleasure to listen to it, not just because I was involved, but because it was a very good contribution. He was forthright and positive, and I was delighted at the way in which he seconded me. We got to know each other well during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, on which he spoke with great commitment and knowledge.
Finally, it is a great honour even to be proposed and seconded as Speaker. I think that there is a great deal more that Members wish to say. I hope that the House, in considering the nominations for Speaker, will be zealous in its power, role and integrity. I guarantee and promise that I will strive to uphold that authority whenever abuses and threats are made to the integrity of this House. Let us use the new millennium to help to rebuild the power and authority of our parliamentary democracy in this House. I offer myself as the servant and the voice of the House.
Sir Edward Heath: The original question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Nicholas Winterton".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 340.

Division No. 305]

[7 pm

AYES

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Drew, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Alan

Bell, Marlin (Tatton)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Bercow, John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Blunt, Crispin

Fabricant, Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Brady, Graham

Fox, Dr Liam

Brazier, Julian

Fraser, Christopher

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gale, Roger

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gillian, Mrs Cheryl

Butterfill, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Cash, William

Gray, James

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Green, Damian

Chope, Christopher

Greenway, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Collins, Tim

Hayes, John

Gran, James

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Curry, Rt Hon David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Hunter, Andrew

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Jenkin, Bernard

Day, Stephen

Johnson, Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

67

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Lansley, Andrew

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Leigh, Edward

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Letwin, Oliver

St Aubyn, Nick

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lidington, David

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Loughton, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Luff, Peter

Streeter, Gary

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Swayne, Desmond

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Syms, Robert

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Major, Rt Hon John

Thompson, William

Mates, Michael

Tipping, Paddy

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Townend, John

Mitchell, Austin

Tredinnick, David

Moss, Malcom

Trend, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Walter, Robert

Norman, Archie

Waterson, Nigel

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Wells, Bowen

Ottaway, Richard

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Paice, James

Whittingdale, John

Paterson, Owen

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Pickles, Eric

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Portilo, Rt Hon Michael

Wilshire, David

Prior, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Randall, John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Rendel, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robertson, Laurence

Mr. John Wilkinson and

Mr. Stephen Pound.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Burstow, Paul

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Alexander, Douglas

Cable, Dr Vincent

Allan, Richard

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Baker, Norman

Canavan, Dennis

Ballard, Jackie

Casale, Roger

Banks, Tony

Caton, Martin

Barnes, Harry

Cawsey, Ian

Barron, Kevin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bayley, Hugh

Chidgey, David

Beard, Nigel

Chisholm, Malcolm

Begg, Miss Anne

Clapham, Michael

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Berry, Roger

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Best, Harold

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Betts, Clive

Clelland, David

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clwyd, Ann

Blizzard, Bob

Coaker, Vernon

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Coffey, Ms Ann

Borrow, David

Cohen, Harry

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Coleman, Iain

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Colman, Tony

Brake, Tom

Connarty, Michael

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cooper, Yvette

Browne, Desmond

Corbett, Robin

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Buck, Ms Karen

Corston, Jean

Burden, Richard

Cotter, Brian

Burgon, Colin

68

Crausby, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

lddon, Dr Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Illsley, Eric

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Darvill, Keith

Jamieson, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Jenkins, Brian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Denham, John

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dismore, Andrew

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dobbin, Jim

Keetch, Paul

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Donohoe, Brian H

Kemp, Fraser

Doran, Frank

Khabra, Piara S

Dowd, Jim

Kidney, David

Drown, Ms Julia

Kilfoyle, Peter

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kirkwood, Archy

Edwards, Huw

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Efford, Clive

Lammy, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ennis, Jeff

Laxton, Bob

Etherington, Bill

Lepper, David

Fearn, Ronnie

Leslie, Christopher

Fisher, Mark

Levitt, Tom

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Flint, Caroline

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Flynn, Paul

Livsey, Richard

Foster, Don (Bath)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Llwyd, Eifyn

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lock, David

Foulkes, George

Love, Andrew

Galloway, George

McAllion, John

Gapes, Mike

McAvoy, Thomas

Gardiner, Barry

McCabe, Steve

George, Andrew (St Ives)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Gerrard, Neil

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gidley, Sandra

Macdonald, Calum

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McDonnell, John

Godsiff, Roger

McFall, John

Goggins, Paul

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mclsaac, Shona

Gorrie, Donald

Mackinlay, Andrew

Graham, Thomas

McNamara, Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McNufty, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Grocott, Bruce

McWalter, Tony

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mallaber, Judy

Hancock, Mike

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hanson, David

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Martlew, Eric

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Maxton, John

Healey, John

Meale, Alan

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Merron, Gillian

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hepburn, Stephen

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Heppell, John

Miller, Andrew

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Moffatt, Laura

Hood, Jimmy

Moore, Michael

Hope, Phil

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Morley, Elliot

Howells, Dr Kim

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mountford, Kali

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

69

Mudie, George

Soley, Clive

Mullin, Chris

Southworth, Ms Helen

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Spellar, John

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Oaten, Mark

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

O'Hara, Eddie

Steinberg, Gerry

Olner, Bill

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

O'Neill, Martin

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Öpik, Lembit

Stinchcombe, Paul

Organ, Mrs Diana

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Pearson, Ian

Stringer, Graham

Perham, Ms Linda

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pickthall, Colin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Plaskitt, James

Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Pond, Chris

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Temple-Morris, Peter

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Timms, Stephen

Prosser, Gwyn

Todd, Mark

Quinn, Lawrie

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Touhig, Don

Rammell, Bill

Tnckett, Jon

Rapson, Syd

Truswell, Paul

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Rogers, Allan

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rowlands, Ted

Tyler, Paul

Roy, Frank

Tynan, Bill

Ruane, Chris

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ruddock, Joan

Wallace, James

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Walley, Ms Joan

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ward, Ms Claire

Ryan, Ms Joan

Watts, David

Salmond, Alex

Webb, Steve

Salter, Martin

White, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wicks, Malcolm

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sawford, Phil

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Sedgemore, Brian

Willis, Phil

Shaw, Jonathan

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Woodward, Shaun

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Woolas, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Worthington, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wray, James

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mr. Peter Snape and

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

Ann Keen.

Question accordingly negatived.
7.12 pm
Mr. Jamie Cann: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. John McWilliam".
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) became an MP in 1979. I arrived rather later, in 1992, and bumped into him almost immediately.
70
He befriended me and became my mentor; he taught me all I know—not much, some would say, but he did his best. That is all that one can ask of a friend.
We were friends too when we were both members of the Select Committee on Defence and we went to Bosnia—it was in December or January and the temperature was about 15 deg below. Our party split up. I was sent up the mountain—three hours up the mountain—to visit Royal Engineers who were based in a derelict factory. I was there for two days. Funnily enough, John was in the warmth of Banja Luka in the battalion headquarters mess. However, our friendship survived that.
I am not asking hon. Members to vote for John because he is my friend, but for three main reasons. The first is his varied experience in the House. At present, he is Chairman of the Committee of Selection, so I advise Members to be nice to him. In opposition, he was shadow deputy Leader of the House. He has been a senior Labour Whip—so he knows where the bodies are buried—he has served on numerous Select Committees; he has been a senior member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen; and he is one of the Deputy Speakers in Westminster Hall.
In all those jobs, he has shown himself to be efficient and friendly and firm but fair. When people tell me that he is a hard Chairman, I say that, yes, he is a hard Chairman, but he is fair because he is hard with everybody—if they deserve it.
Secondly, John McWilliam's career has not just been inside the House; it has been outside too. Hon. Members would not think so to look at him, because he does not look old enough, but he came to this place in 1979. Before that, he had attended Napier college and Herriot-Watt college studying courses in science and technology. For several years, he was a telecommunications engineer. He was a member of the regional council of his union. For a period, he was treasurer of Edinburgh city council and he was an audit commissioner in Scotland. He has experience inside and outside this place.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend is not just a man of public affairs—he is an angler; he walks; he reads; he is a historian; he likes music; he has a wife and daughters; he has a huge, slavering dog; he lives in his constituency; he is a man of the people—one might say that he is a man in the round. Too many people in this place have become institutionalised. He loves the place, but it does not have a grip on him as it does on some others—taking us away from contact with the ordinary people whom we represent.
All in all, my hon. Friend is a man who is well qualified for the onerous duties of the Speaker. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
7.17 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: I am delighted to second the nomination of John McWilliam as Speaker of the House. John is a truly genuine moderniser, with a clear understanding of the benefits as well as the limitations of modern technology and with a wealth of experience of the procedures of the House. He has been—I shall now read a huge list—a former shadow deputy Leader of the House, a senior Labour Whip, a member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen and a Deputy Speaker in the new Westminster Hall. He sat on the Select Committees on Defence and on Liaison. Currently, he is chairman of the all—party parliamentary information technology group.

71
Before entering Parliament in 1979, as Member for Blaydon, John McWilliam worked as a telecommunications engineer and served as a regional council member of the communications workers union. He is a former city treasurer of Edinburgh. He has a wealth of experience not only inside the House, but, more important—because we need to relate to people outside—of the world outside.
What is important to me and to Members on both sides of the House is that John is a fair and independent-minded colleague, who has a clear understanding of the procedures of the House. That is absolutely vital for the job of Speaker.
I have known John as a colleague for many years and have always found him to be both impartial and fair. Indeed, when I first served on a Committee that he chaired, he was quick and clear in calling me to order—despite our friendship—and in instructing me about House and Committee procedures.
John understands the nonsense in procedure. More important, he understands how to put it right. He defends from the Chair the right of Back Benchers and minorities to have their say. Sometimes, he is prepared to do that not in a pussyfooting way, but in a very outspoken way indeed—in the tradition of Speakers Weatherill, Thomas and Boothroyd.
It is my belief that we should now accept that we are actually in the 21st century—not in the 18th—and that it is time that the occupant of the Speaker's Chair was seen to embody modern principles. John McWilliam is such a person. I believe that he has the courage and the drive to transform the House as it enters the 21st century.
For example, in this age of equality and the striving towards it, it is vital that we have facilities for families, babies and older children so that women—and, yes, men—are not put off entering the House and playing the fullest part in it. That is something that I feel very strongly about. I know that Members on both sides—both male and female—also feel strongly about it.
I am very pleased that there is now a technical solution, which has been suggested and supported by my hon. Friend, to the problem of a Member feeding her child while serving in Committee or taking part in a debate in the Chamber. A Room on the Committee Corridor and one adjacent to the Chamber could be set aside so that individual Members can feed their children and be kept up with the debate while they are away from it. My hon. Friend also believes that it is high time that we had a creche and a more predictable parliamentary year that is more geared to school holidays. I know that many Members on both sides—both male and female—would welcome that.
I believe that we need a senior, experienced Member in the Speaker's Chair who, while understanding and honouring the traditions of the House, has a real vision of how it must change in the future and who commands respect across all the parties. That is why I ask hon. Members to support John McWilliam today.
Sir Edward Heath: Mr. John McWilliam has been proposed and seconded. I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House.
7.21 pm
Mr. John McWilliam: Thank you, Sir Edward, for this opportunity. It is a great honour and privilege to submit myself to the House and to my peers, a vast number of whom have suffered from or enjoyed my chairmanship over many years. I have always sought to be firm, I have always sought to be fair and I have always applied Standing Orders, even those with which I did not agree.
I have also always sought to make certain that the views of individual Members—regardless of their party and regardless of how aberrant those views might appear to their party or how popular those views might be—have been properly aired and that Members have listened to them. One of the worst things that we can do is shout down our colleagues and not to listen to them, and one of the most terrible things that Parliament could ever do would be to stifle debate and to stop the discussion of ideas with which we might not agree. However, the worst thing of all would be to produce a House that did not have clear, vigorous, entertaining and informative debates in which principles were not clearly enunciated. It is sometimes difficult to ensure that debate does not degenerate into mere personal abuse, but, if one uses one's common sense, such problems can be headed off.
Speaker Boothroyd is a splendid example and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said that her shoes would be very hard to fill. I am afraid that they will not fit those of us who are left in the race, because I am fairly certain that no one has shoes that size. Speaker Boothroyd's will be a hard act to follow because Betty was a good friend, a superb Speaker, a marvellous servant of the House and a superb ambassador in the rest of the world for democratic politics. She also worked very hard in the Commonwealth to promote the speakership and the role of democracy. It will be an incredibly hard act to follow, but it is a pleasure, at least, to be given the opportunity to put my name forward so that my colleagues can judge whether I am a suitable candidate.
Criticisms have been made that the House has become a poodle and a creature of the Executive. The Speaker can only lead in trying to counter such a development, because it is up to individual Members to have the courage to stand up and follow that lead if they do not want the House to be brought into disrepute. There are people in the governance of the country—not elected Members and not the Government, but people in the civil service and other institutions—who would dearly love to suppress the influence of Members and that of the House. That is something against which we must all fight, but it is up to the courage and the will of individual Members to do that. As I said, the Speaker can only lead.
Those Members who think that I unfairly called them to order in the past now have a chance for revenge, but those who are genuinely contrite about the fact that they were out of order now have a chance to show that contrition. I submit myself to the House.
Sir Edward Heath: The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. John McWilliam".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 309.

Division No. 306]

[7.26 pm

AYES

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

McDonnell, John

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

McWilliam, John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Butterfill, John

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Cann, Jamie

O'Hara, Eddie

Chope, Christopher

Pickles, Eric

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Cummings, John

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Dalyell, Tam

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Temple—Morris, Peter

Day, Stephen

Thompson, William

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

White, Brian

Gorrie, Donald

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Hunter, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Mrs. Helen Brinton and

Llwyd, Elfyn

Mr. Eric Martlew.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cash, William

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Caton, Martin

Alexander, Douglas

Cawsey, lan

Allan, Richard

Chidgey, David

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Clapham, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Clappison, James

Baker, Norman

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Ballard, Jackie

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Banks, Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Barron, Kevin

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bayley, Hugh

Coaker, Vernon

Beard, Nigel

Coffey, Ms Ann

Begg, Miss Anne

Coleman, Iain

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Connarty, Michael

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Bennett, Andrew F

Cooper, Yvette

Benton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Best, Harold

Corbyn, Jeremy

Betts, Clive

Corston, Jean

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cotter, Brian

Blizzard, Bob

Crausby, David

Blunt, Crispin

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Curry, Rt Hon David

Borrow, David

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Brake, Tom

Darvill, Keith

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Browne, Desmond

Davidson, lan

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Burden, Richard

Dawson, Hilton

Burgon, Colin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Burnett, John

Denham, John

Burstow, Paul

Dismore, Andrew

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dobbin, Jim

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Cable, Dr Vincent

Donohoe, Brian H

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dowd, Jim

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Drew, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Canavan, Dennis

Edwards, Huw

Casale, Roger

Efford, Clive

74

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McAllion, John

Ennis, Jeff

McAvoy, Thomas

Etherington, Bill

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Fearn, Ronnie

McDonagh, Siobhain

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McFall, John

Flint, Caroline

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Foster, Don (Bath)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Mclsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Galloway, George

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Gapes, Mike

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gardiner, Barry

McNamara, Kevin

Gerrard, Neil

McNulty, Tony

Gibb, Nick

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gidley, Sandra

Mc Walter, Tony

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Goggins, Paul

Major, Rt Hon John

Graham, Thomas

Mallaber, Judy

Green, Damian

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Grocott, Bruce

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Meale, Alan

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Merron, Gillian

Hancock, Mike

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hanson, David

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Harris, Dr Evan

Miller, Andrew

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Moffatt, Laura

Healey, John

Moore, Michael

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morley, Elliot

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mountford, Kali

Hepburn, Stephen

Mudie, George

Heppell, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hood, Jimmy

Oaten, Mark

Hope, Phil

Olner, Bill

Hopkins, Kelvin

Öpik, Lembit

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Hoyle, Lindsay

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Paterson, Owen

Hurst, Alan

Pearson, lan

Hutton, John

Perham, Ms Linda

Iddon, Dr Brian

Pickthall, Colin

IlIsley, Eric

Pike, Peter L

Jamieson, David

Plaskitt, James

Jenkins, Brian

Pope, Greg

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Prior, David

Keetch, Paul

Prosser, Gwyn

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Quinn, Lawrie

Kemp, Fraser

Rapson, Syd

Khabra, Piara S

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Rendel, David

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Robertson, Laurence

Kirkwood, Archy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Rogers, Allan

Lammy, David

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lepper, David

Rowlands, Ted

Leslie, Christopher

Roy, Frank

Levitt, Tom

Ruane, Chris

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Ruddock, Joan

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Livsey, Richard

Ryan, Ms Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Salmond, Alex

Love, Andrew

Sanders, Adrian

Luff, Peter

Sarwar, Mohammad

75

Savidge, Malcolm

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Sawford, Phil

Touhig, Don

Shaw, Jonathan

Trickett, Jon

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Truswell, Paul

Skinner, Dennis

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

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

Tynan, Bill

Spellar, John

Tyrie, Andrew

Spicer, Sir Michael

Vaz, Keith

Squire, Ms Rachel

Vis, Dr Rudi

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wallace, James

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Waterson, Nigel

Steinberg, Gerry

Watts, David

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Webb, Steve

Stinchcombe, Paul

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Whittingdale, John

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Wicks, Malcolm

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wilkinson, John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Willis, Phil

Swayne, Desmond

Wilshire, David

Syms, Robert

Winterton Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Woodward, Shaun

Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

Woolas, Phil

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wray, James

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Timms, Stephen

Wyatt, Derek

Todd, Mark

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Peter Snape and

Ann Keen.

Question accordingly negatived.
7.37 pm
Mr. Tom King: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael. J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Michael Lord".
I have pleasure in moving the amendment proposing that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North (Mr. Lord) should occupy the position of Speaker in this House. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who, as we approach the end of this marathon performance, is unhappy about the procedure used and the manner in which it is evolving, and uneasy about the way in which we have moved through the various stages. With great respect to my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), as well as other hon. Members in favour of whom an amendment may be moved, we are now moving into a possible contest between two current Deputy Speakers.
This electorate has been described as sophisticated. The House will be pleased to know that that certainly shortens my speech, as no one has any excuse for not knowing the qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North, having been able to observe him in the Chair—that is the fairest judgment that the House can make. I have great admiration for Betty Boothroyd, but in a sense she did the House a disservice, as she may have concealed from it the difficulties involved in the role of Speaker, which she carried off with considerable aplomb and skill. I have had the privilege of serving in the House for more than 30 years, and have seen six Speakers in the Chair, three from the Conservative party and three from the Labour party.
76
I observed their characters and the different and considerable qualities that they brought to the position of Speaker. At one time or another, I witnessed each Speaker risk losing both the confidence of the House and control of it. Hon. Members who have seen only Betty Boothroyd in the Chair may not appreciate how fragile order is in the House, and may not realise how challenging and difficult the job of Speaker is.
Most of the early comments in the debate were rather inaccurate, but our remarks are becoming more accurate as we become better informed. For instance, hon. Members have referred to the tradition of alternating between the parties. That is not correct. The reality is that the Government party has tended to nominate the Speaker, and that rule was broken only in the case of Betty Boothroyd.
Speakers have sometimes come in in the mid-term of a Parliament and sometimes at a new Parliament. I have not found a case where a Speaker has come in in the last year of a Parliament. Every Member knows that this will be a difficult, contentious, argumentative and lively Session—possibly the last of this Parliament. It will be exceptionally challenging for the occupant of the Chair. Good humour, common sense and basic courage will be needed, as well as the qualities for which everyone has called: impartiality, fairness, integrity and respect for the traditions of the House. Those will be needed in full measure. It is the most daunting time at which to take over the responsibility of the Chair and the good name of this Parliament.
I am concerned about how this Parliament will proceed because our democracy depends ultimately on the willingness of this House to accept order and the authority of the Chair. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) is to second the motion. I understand that the fact that he sports a black eye at the moment has nothing to do with the tensions of this contest; he may have some more to say about how he incurred that injury.
I make no personal criticism of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who has occupied the Chair. However, it is interesting that he and the last candidate were the only two whose proposer and seconder came exclusively from the Labour side. On earlier occasions, the importance of a candidate having bipartisan support has been clear. The way in which the election may go is no secret, and I worry as to whether the integrity of the bipartisan approach can be sustained. That is no criticism of individuals or of their impartiality; it is an unfortunate feature of the present situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North will speak for himself; I will not detain the House by discussing his qualities. I would not be standing here if I did not have a high regard for his abilities. However, I did not know whether he would be any good as a Deputy Speaker. I was pleased when he was proposed to be a Deputy Speaker because he had been a Back Bencher, served on Select Committees and been on the Chairman's Panel. In my humble experience in life, I have found that one does not really know how people will perform in a particular role—whatever their qualifications, hopes and ambitions, or the enthusiasm of their supporters—until one actually sees them doing it.
Every single Member has seen my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North in the Chair. If they consider him to be a candidate,

77
his qualification is that he has been able to show how he would discharge that responsibility in the Chair. In the present circumstances, I happen to believe that he is the best candidate to occupy the Chair. I have the greatest pleasure in proposing him.
Sir Edward Heath: I call on the seconder, Mr. Andrew Reed.
7.45 pm
Mr. Andrew Reed: It is always humbling to speak in this House, and I feel honoured to take part on a day such as today. However, as a new Member, I would like to think that I can read the mood of the House and I will therefore keep my comments extremely short.
I am appalled at the way in which we have conducted our business today. This is a House matter and one on which we thought that, at last, the House could have its say. The way in which we have conducted our business has made the Football Association look competent in finding an England manager. With a new Speaker and a new House, there will be an opportunity to make sure that, in future, we do not have to go through this ridiculous and ludicrous process again.
I agreed to second the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North (Mr. Lord) and I was told that it would be a good clean fight. That has been the case and everyone who has spoken today is to be congratulated on the way in which they have conducted themselves.
In a sense, I should be grateful to the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North for not recognising me very early in my time in the House. Fortunately, it was not in this Chamber that our paths first crossed. I play rugby, which is the explanation for the black eye that I am sporting today. I played on Saturday and came a bit of a cropper with my opposite fly-half, who had absolutely not a scratch to show for the elbow that he managed to put in my eye. [Interruption.] No, it was not my wife, who I hope is watching.
I first met the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North at a game between the parliamentary rugby team from this House and our colleagues from New Zealand, held at Salford rugby league ground. On the previous evening, we had used the Granada studios to hold a mock debate with our New Zealand compatriots to show what things were really like. I was the only Member of Parliament from our House; the rest were others from the parliamentary team. Unfortunately, I was the only person on our team whom the hon. Gentleman did not recognise that evening.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North has made amends for that in the time that we have spent since in building our friendship through the all-party rugby union group, of which he is president and I am secretary, and—just as important for both of us in terms of the way in which we share our faith—the parliamentary Christian fellowship.
There are some great strengths to be brought to the post of Speaker. Like most Back Benchers, I have spent my time trying to catch the Speaker's eye well past prime time—as this evening, in the seven to nine o'clock slot. It is at that stage that we appreciate the work of all the Deputy Speakers, who keep us in order. More important for those of us who feel that we have a contribution to
78
make, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North—and the other Deputy Speakers, to be fair—have always made sure that we have had a fair hearing and a chance to get our point of view across.
The skills that are required for the job include integrity, honesty and the need to make sure that Back Benchers' views are heard. Those of who us intend to stay on the Back Benches a little longer would want those to continue. The Speaker's is an extremely difficult job, particularly—as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said—at this time in a Parliament. It will not be easy for someone to slot into the position as we go into a general election, when the heated debates that we see at Prime Minister's Questions are carried over into other debates in the House.
I hear that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North has been described as "solid". I am not sure whether some of those who have said that have meant it negatively or positively. However, at this crucial stage in the Parliament, that quality will make a positive contribution to the way in which the House is run. The hon. Gentleman's integrity, and the trust that people have in him, mean that he will be able to conduct the business of the House efficiently. He will make sure that every one of us has a role to play in bringing the Executive to account.
There has been a lot of talk today about modernisation. With a young son aged 18 months, I would be one of the first to say that the hours of the House need to be organised so that we can at least see our families more often and in a better way than we do currently. That would also allow us to serve our constituents much better. We could spend time learning about things in our constituencies, and could bring them to the House when scrutinising Bills. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North has made clear his support for modernisation, but every candidate has done so. It is down to us as a House at last to grasp the issue. We failed to do so earlier today when we were not even able to secure a vote on the way in which we have treated ourselves today.
I hope that the new Speaker will allow the House to take the matter by the neck and to sort it out over the next six months. I hope that, following the general election, we return to a House of which the British people can be proud, and which they can understand—for at the moment, they do not. Watching today's debate, they will be horrified that we are spending such a long time going round in circles yet again. I hope that this election will be the catalyst for such changes. I believe that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and Ipswich, North has the skills to steer the House through a very difficult period and I recommend him to the House.
Sir Edward Heath: Mr. Michael Lord has been proposed and seconded, and I give him the opportunity to submit himself to the House if he so wishes.
7.51 pm
Mr. Michael Lord: I am happy to submit myself to the House for the election of Speaker. After not being allowed to address the House for three and a half years, it seems strange to be doing so. It was not always thus, as hon. Members will know. Originally, the Speaker was just as his title

79
suggested, and represented the House's views to the sovereign of the day. Today, in speaking for the first time for a long time, I speak not on behalf of my constituents but for myself, which I find extremely difficult to do.
I should first like to thank my proposer and seconder for their encouragement, support and very kind words. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) is one of the wisest and most senior Members. His encouraging me to put my name forward and his staunch support throughout have been invaluable. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), my friend, is not quite so senior but has many other things on his side—and I do not just mean youth. He has integrity and sincerity, and I know will go on to make huge contributions in the House. Despite his black eye, he is very gentle. I am truly grateful to both Members.
I should like to pay a brief tribute to our previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd. It was a great honour and privilege to serve as one of her Deputy Speakers. Her advice was invaluable, her support for all her deputies unwavering. Most of all, as I know the House will agree, she was fun. She will be hugely missed by both the House and the nation, and I hope that she enjoys her retirement.
Our previous Speaker was famous for her high kicks in years gone by. Although I cannot possibly match her high kicks on the stage, I have in my time been responsible for many a high kick on the rugby field. If there is one unique thing about me among the candidates, it is that I am the only one who has played rugby against the South African Springboks. It is not a happy experience, from which one is lucky to emerge with only a black eye.
Perhaps it was on the sports field that my basic instinct for fairness was reinforced. To continue briefly in that sporting vein, applying it to the House of Commons, any referee worth his salt appreciates the need to judge quickly the mood of the game, not to interfere unnecessarily and to allow the game to flow. At the same time, of course, he must always maintain control without having to resort to red cards.
A memory, too, is important to the Speaker of the House. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that that was not always so. There was a time when the Speaker simply pointed to a Member without having to know their name. On one occasion, in its infinite wisdom, the House chose a cross-eyed Speaker. Every time the Speaker pointed, three people stood up. Since then, we have had to remember Members' names.
This is not the occasion on which to deal in detail with the problems that the House of Commons faces. The next Speaker, whoever that may be, will want to champion the rights of Back Benchers, ensure proper scrutiny of Government and maintain the importance of the House at the centre of our nation's democracy and decision making. I, too, would certainly want to take up those challenges as toughly as anyone who has spoken today.
This is the mother of Parliaments and in many ways it is still the envy of the world. The beauty of our system lies in its simplicity. Each Member works for and listens to their constituents, coming to the House of Commons to speak on their behalf. Although we are in the Palace of Westminster, this is a simple House of Commons. If Members of Parliament are doing their jobs properly and are heard in the House, we surely have the simplest and
80
best possible form of government. Back Benchers must be heard, and more often than they are at present. Their voices should be heard in more parts of our daily affairs.
I am particularly tired of the constant belittling of this House and the denigration of its Members by some sections of the press. The House and its new Speaker should, as far as they are able, do everything possible to counteract that tendency, which creates an entirely false impression of the work that we do here and of the quality of Members of Parliament. Such a tendency is a very corrosive influence in our national life.
Three and a half years ago, the House entrusted me with the role of Deputy Speaker, which I have thoroughly enjoyed. For three and a half years, all Members have seen me do that job. Only they know which qualities they want in the next Speaker. If they decide that I have those qualities, and decide to trust me, I will do everything in my power to repay that trust. I do not believe that the House will be disappointed.
Sir Edward Heath: The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Michael Lord".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 290.

Division No. 307]

[7.57 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Fearn, Ronnie

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Fox, Dr Liam

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fraser, Christopher

Ballard, Jackie

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Bercow, John

Gibb, Nick

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gidley, Sandra

Blunt, Crispin

Gill, Christopher

Body, Sir Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Boswell, Tim

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brady, Graham

Gorrie, Donald

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gray, James

Browning, Mrs Angela

Green, Damian

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Greenway, John

Burnett, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Butterfill. John

Hague, Rt Hon William

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Cash, William

Hammond, Philip

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hayes, John

(Chipping Barnet)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Chope, Christopher

Horam, John

Clappison, James

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

Hunter, Andrew

(Rushcliffe)

Jack. Rt Hon Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Collins, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Gran, James

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

Curry, Rt Hon David

(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Dalyell, Tam

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Davidson, Ian

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Lansley, Andrew

Day, Stephen

Leigh, Edward

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Letwin, Oliver

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Lidington, David

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Faber, David

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Fabricant, Michael

Lord, Michael

81

Loughton, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Luff, Peter

Stinchcombe, Paul

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Streeter, Gary

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stunell, Andrew

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Swayne, Desmond

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Syms, Robert

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Major, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Maples, John

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Thompson, William

May, Mrs Theresa

Tipping, Paddy

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Townend, John

Moss, Malcolm

Tredinnick, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Trend, Michael

Page, Richard

Tyler, Paul

Paice, James

Viggers, Peter

Paterson, Owen

Walter, Robert

Pickles, Eric

Wardle, Charles

Prior David

Waterson, Nigel

Randall, John

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Rendel, David

Whittingdale, John

Robertson, Laurence

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Wilkinson, John

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Willetts, David

Ruffley, David

Wilshire, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

St Aubyn, Nick

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wyatt, Derek

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Yeo, Tim

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spring, Richard

Mr. Tom King and

Mr. Andrew Reed.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Burgon, Cohn

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Burstow, Paul

Alexander, Douglas

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Allan, Richard

Cable, Dr Vincent

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Baker, Norman

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Banks, Tony

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barnes, Harry

Canavan, Dennis

Barron, Kevin

Casale, Roger

Bayley, Hugh

Caton, Martin

Beard, Nigel

Cawsey, lan

Begg, Miss Anne

Chidgey, David

Bell, Martin (Talton)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Clapham, Michael

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Berry, Roger

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Best, Harold

Clelland, David

Betts, Clive

Clwyd, Ann

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coaker, Vernon

Blizzard, Bob

Coffey, Ms Ann

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Coleman, Iain

Borrow, David

Connarty, Michael

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Brake, Tom

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Breed, Colin

Cooper, Yvette

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Corbett, Robin

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cotter, Brian

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cox, Tom

Browne, Desmond

Crausby, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Cummings, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Cunningham, Jim (CoVtry S)

Burden, Richard

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

82

Darvill, Keith

Kirkwood, Archy

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lammy, David

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Dean, Mrs Janet

Laxton, Bob

Denham, John

Lepper, David

Dismore, Andrew

Levitt, Tom

Dobbin, Jim

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Donohoe, Brian H

Livsey, Richard

Doran, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dowd, Jim

Llwyd, Elfyn

Drew, David

Love, Andrew

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McAllion, John

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McAvoy, Thomas

Efford, Clive

McCabe, Steve

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McCartney, Rt Hon lan

Ennis, Jeff

(Makerfield)

Etherington, Bill

McDonagh, Siobhain

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Macdonald, Calum

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

McDonnell, John

Flint, Caroline

McFall, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Mclsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Gapes, Mike

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gardiner, Barry

McNamara, Kevin

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McNulty, Tony

Gerrard, Neil

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McWalter, Tony

Goggins, Paul

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Graham, Thomas

Mallaber, Judy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Grocott, Bruce

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Martlew, Eric

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Meale, Alan

Hancock, Mike

Merron, Gillian

Hanson, David

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Healey, John

Miller, Andrew

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Moffatt, Laura

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Moore, Michael

Hepburn, Stephen

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Heppell, John

Morley, Elliot

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Mountford. Kali

Hood, Jimmy

Mudie, George

Hope, Phil

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Oaten, Mark

Hoyle, Lindsay

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Neill, Martin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Opik, Lembit

Hutton, John

Organ, Mrs Diana

Iddon, Dr Brian

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Illsley, Eric

Pearson, Ian

Jamieson, David

Perham, Ms Linda

Jenkins, Brian

Pickthall, Colin

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pound, Stephen

Keeble, Ms Sally

Powell, Sir Raymond

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keetch, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Prosser, Gwyn

Kemp, Fraser

Quinn, Lawrie

Khabra, Piara S

Rammell, Bill

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rapson, Syd

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Raynsford, Nick

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

83

Rogers, Allan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

Rowlands, Ted

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Roy, Frank

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ruane, Chris

Temple-Morris, Peter

Ruddock, Joan

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Timms, Stephen

Ryan, Ms Joan

Todd, Mark

Salmond, Alex

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Sanders, Adrian

Touhig, Don

Samar, Mohammad

Trickett, Jon

Savidge, Malcolm

Truswell, Paul

Sawford, Phil

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Shaw, Jonathan

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Skinner, Dennis

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Tynan, Bill

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Smith Jacqui (Redditch)

Watts, David

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Webb, Steve

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

White, Brian

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

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Soley , Clive

Wicks, Malcolm

Southworth, Ms Helen

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Spellar, John

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Willis, Phil

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Steinberg, Gerry

Woodward, Shaun

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Woolas, Phil

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Worthington, Tony

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Wray, James

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stringer, Graham

Tellers for the Noes:

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mr. Peter Snape and

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Ann Keen.

Question accordingly negatived.
8.10 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Sir Patrick Cormack".
It is a privilege to propose the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) for election as Speaker.
The election comes at a time which is particularly important for Parliament, and therefore and by definition for the future of the democratic process in our country. The House, in the words of The Times leader last Friday, has become
increasingly sidelined by the executive, the courts, the media and by Europe.
Perhaps there has not been a time in its history when it has been more in need of a doughty defender, who by definition would him or herself be a defender of the voice of the electorate between elections, because that is what the House should be.
The successful candidate should therefore be able to demonstrate, first, independence and impartiality. That my hon. Friend has consistently done so throughout his more than 30 years as a Member, is a fact to which his colleagues, and perhaps more particularly successive generations of Whips, can certainly attest. However, through his work for The House Magazine, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the
84
all-party arts and heritage group, his impartiality is also well known and respected by Members on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend has a well-earned reputation for his respect for Parliament, his knowledge of parliamentary procedure and his desire at all times that the House, when appropriate, should have its say and also its way. In a note circulated to all colleagues he states as his prime purpose to do what he can
to restore Parliament to the centre of the nation's public life and the Chamber to the centre of Parliament's.
He is on record, passim in the Official Report, but also in his own publications, as being passionate about the centrality of the House to the democratic process.
My hon. Friend recognises of course that all successful institutions must adapt to changing times, but in the case of Parliament, only in a way which enhances and not diminishes its democratic role. It is at this moment in its history that the House needs a passionate defender of its rights, and those of its Members, and I strongly believe that my hon. Friend has both the passion and the strength required.
Clearly the qualities that my hon. Friend so obviously possesses would be of little use had he not also demonstrated for many years now his ability and authority in the Chair. As a member of the Chairmen's Panel from 1983 to 1997, he has won respect and admiration for his fairness, patience and knowledge.
The route to the Speaker's Chair can take at least two paths. There is the one which leads via the Government or Opposition Front Bench, for which there are certainly distinguished precedents or—I believe this to be more correct and preferable—the one leading from a multiplicity of Back-Bench activities. I make that point because I see the role of Speaker, as does my hon. Friend, as defender of the House against the Executive when such a defence is needed.
As a former member of the Modernisation Committee, my hon. Friend has a positive attitude to improving procedure and protecting and enhancing the role of Back Benchers. He rightly believes, however, that such change is a matter for the House itself, working through a Speaker's Conference that he would initiate.
Finally, the House has become accustomed, during the period in office of Madam Speaker Boothroyd, to colour, wit and humour in the Chair. It would be sad if her successor as the representative of parliamentary democracy in our country—that representative role is increasingly important—were not able to demonstrate likewise colour, wit and humour. That my hon. Friend would certainly be able to do. I urge the House to support the amendment.
8.14 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Let us be candid: few of my right hon. and hon. Friends think that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is a paragon of virtue.
Mr. Pound: No!
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend denies that.
The hon. Member for South Staffordshire has a tendency towards pomposity, but that is not unique in this assembly. There are 649 others who have a tendency towards pomposity.

85
However, the hon. Gentleman has some rare virtues. First, those who have sat under him in Committee know that he is a formidable and fair Chairman. He is also a distinguished member of the Speaker's Panel. When working under him in Committee, one understands that he has qualities that should be considered for the speakership. Those of us who were at the hustings this morning organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) will recognise that the hon. Gentleman gave a performance of considerable quality.
I suppose, secondly, that this is a delicate matter as far as you and I are concerned, Sir Edward, but the hon. Gentleman has another quality, and that is that he is a brave man. He was brave enough on many occasions to take on Margaret Thatcher in her heyday. He defied her on the abolition of the Greater London council and on many other matters during those years. These are things that we do not forget. When we are in the adversity of opposition, it is heartening to see some Members sticking up for what they think is right, against a formidable Prime Minister and a disciplinarian machine that is backing her up. That is why many Labour Members have a great deal of time for the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman, thirdly, would represent the House in a distinguished way when the Speaker goes abroad. As a member of the all-party arts and heritage group—I hasten to say that we pay our own way—I have travelled with him on six occasions. Sometimes there have been difficult speeches to make in places such as Prague and Athens. He has always been a credit to the House when he has spoken.
Much has been said in the past six hours about getting home early. I would not do the hon. Gentleman's cause much good by going on any longer. However, he is a Member who should be considered. Members should reflect on whether he is worth a vote.
8.18 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I shall try not to be too pompous. I am sure that I speak for every Member in congratulating you, Sir Edward, on a marathon sitting. You said at the beginning—I think that your views have been echoed in all parts of the House—that you were less than entirely happy with this form of procedure. I think that I am not being too controversial when I say that most of us who have sat through these proceedings—I have heard every syllable uttered—feel that whoever is Speaker after today would be well advised to ask the appropriate Committee to take an early look at the way in which the Speaker is chosen in future, and perhaps to consider the Canadian system, where the election is conducted entirely by secret ballot, supervised by the Clerks.
It is indeed a great honour merely to be proposed for the office of Speaker, and I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and to my friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for their generous remarks when proposing me. It is quite something to be thought, even by a few colleagues, to be a worthy successor to Madam Speaker Boothroyd. Whoever succeeds her will have a daunting task, and not just because of her own formidable qualities.
As Madam Speaker Boothroyd said in her valedictory address, there is much to be done to redeem Parliament's reputation and influence. My right hon. Friend the
86
Member for South-West Norfolk referred to the statement that I issued. It must be the new Speaker's prime purpose to help put Parliament back at the centre of the nation's public life, and the Chamber at the centre of Parliament's. Far too many of those whom we represent do not see Parliament's relevance to their daily lives. Far too many of those who provide them with their information ignore it, and to be honest, far too many of us on both sides of the House seek to exercise our influence through the media, to the neglect of our responsibilities here.
Those are problems that cannot be tackled by the Speaker alone, but the Speaker has a central and pivotal role in tackling them. Scrupulously and rigorously impartial, the Speaker is not in the Chair to make life easy for either Government or Opposition, but rather to give each hon. Member—we are all equal here—a proper opportunity to pursue a question or defend a cause, regardless of party, position or seniority.
Of course, the Speaker cannot dictate the business of the House, but as a Back Bencher who has made three successful applications for emergency debates in my time here, I am well aware that the Speaker can help to ensure that we debate the issues that trouble those who send us here. One of the reasons for Parliament's loss of influence is that we are far too often seen to be discussing the arcane, rather than the urgent. One of the reasons that our institution is under increasing criticism is that we often seem to be too subservient.
I sometimes think that we too rarely recall what has been achieved in the past by individual crusading Members—people such as Eleanor Rathbone, Alan Herbert, Sydney Silverman and my own great parliamentary hero, William Wilberforce. Courageous, innovative, independent-minded Members should always feel that they have an ally in that Chair.
There are, rightly, strict limitations on the power of the Speaker who, at the end of the day, must never go against what the House directs, but I would wish to encourage attendance and spontaneity in every major debate by setting aside a period when hon. Members could genuinely catch the Speaker's eye.
Because I am so concerned at the decline in Parliament's influence, I would wish to establish a standing Speaker's Conference which would include representatives from each party, with a broad agenda to include the relationship of Chamber to Committees and the structure of the parliamentary day and year. In that context, it is clearly important that we recognise that Parliament's hours of sitting have changed many times over the centuries, and that Members of Parliament have personal and family obligations.
Like Madam Speaker Boothroyd, I am very conscious of the Speaker's public role as the voice and representative of the Commons. Only the Speaker can represent this place and all its Members, and remind the courts and other public bodies of the rights and duties of the elected House in a sovereign Parliament.
Whoever wins the approbation of the House today will have a difficult task. It will not be easy, either, for any of the candidates to forsake a gregarious parliamentary life for the relative loneliness of the Chair, although for me at least, the thought of no more Whips makes that prospect bearable.
I know that there are those who see me primarily as a traditionalist. It is true that I love this place, but I see no point in clinging to the trappings of a great legislative

87
assembly if we do not introduce reforms that will bring more effective power back to the Chamber. I have no desire to become the curator of a museum to democracy.
I would, however, like to play a part in a totally and fiercely non-partisan way in injecting new life into that democracy—a democracy that has often been improved and reformed in the past by those who understood its roots and cherished its history. I hope, Sir Edward, that even at this late hour, the House will consider giving me the opportunity to join their number.
Sir Edward Heath: The original Question was, "That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker", since when an amendment has been proposed to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Sir Patrick Cormack".
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 287.

Division No. 308]

[8.25 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Gorrie, Donald

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Gray, James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Green, Damian

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Greenway, John

Bercow, John

Grieve, Dominic

Blunt, Crispin

Hague, Rt Hon William

Body, Sir Richard

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Boswell, Tim

Hayes, John

Brady, Graham

Healey, John

Brazier, Julian

Horam, John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jenkin, Bernard

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Burnett, John

Kidney, David

Burstow, Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Butterfill, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lansley, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Leigh, Edward

Clappison, James

Letwin, Oliver

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Lidington, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Collins, Tim

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cran, James

Llwyd, Elfyn

Curry, Rt Hon David

Loughton, Tim

Dalyell, Tam

Luff, Peter

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Day, Stephen

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Donaldson, Jeffrey

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Duncan, Alan

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Duncan Smith, Iain

McLoughlin, Patrick

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Major, Rt Hon John

Faber, David

Mitchell, Austin

Fearn, Ronnie

Moss, Malcolm

Flight, Howard

Nicholls, Patrick

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Oaten, Mark

Fox, Dr Liam

Paice, James

Fraser, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Pickles, Eric

Gill, Christopher

Prior, David

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Randall, John

Raynsford, Nick

Robertson, Laurence

88

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Thompson, William

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Tipping, Paddy

Ruffley, David

Townend, John

St Aubyn, Nick

Tredinnick, David

Salmond, Alex

Trend, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Walter, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Waterson, Nigel

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wells, Bowen

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Whittingdale, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Wigley, Rt Hon Datydd

Spicer, Sir Michael

Wilkinson, John

Steen, Anthony

Willetts, David

Stinchcombe, Paul

Wilshire, David

Streeter, Gary

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Swayne, Desmond

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Syms, Robert

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, lan (Esher & Walton)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Sir Raymond Powell and

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mr. Gerald Howarth.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Connarty, Michael

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Alexander, Douglas

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cooper, Yvette

Ashton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Baker, Norman

Corston, Jean

Ballard, Jackie

Cotter, Brian

Barnes, Harry

Cox, Tom

Barron, Kevin

Crausby, David

Bayley, Hugh

Cummings, John

Beard, Nigel

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Darvill, Keith

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Benton, Joe

Davidson, Ian

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Berry, Roger

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Best, Harold

Davis, Rt Hon Terry

Betts, Clive

(B'ham Hodge H)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Dawson, Hilton

Blizzard, Bob

Dean, Mrs Janet

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Denham, John

Borrow, David

Dismore, Andrew

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Dobbin, Jim

Brake, Tom

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

Donohoe, Brian H

(Dunfermline E)

Doran, Frank

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Dowd, Jim

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Drew, David

Browne, Desmond

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Eagle, Maria (L pool Garston)

Buck, Ms Karen

Edwards, Huw

Burden, Richard

Efford, Clive

Burgon, Colin

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Ennis, Jeff

Cable, Dr Vincent

Etherington, Bill

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flint, Caroline

Canavan, Dennis

Foster, Don (Bath)

Casale, Roger

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Caton, Martin

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Cawsey, lan

Galloway, George

Chidgey, David

Gapes, Mike

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gardiner, Barry

Clapham, Michael

Gerrard, Neil

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Goggins, Paul

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Graham, Thomas

Clelland, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Coaker, Vernon

Griffiths, Win (Bddgend)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coleman, Iain

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

89

Hancock, Mike

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Hanson, David

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Miller, Andrew

Harris, Dr Evan

Moffatt, Laura

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Moore, Michael

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Morley, Elliot

Hepburn, Stephen

Mountford, Kali

Heppell, John

Mudie, George

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hood, Jimmy

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hope, Phil

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hopkins, Kelvin

O'Hara, Eddie

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Olner, Bill

Hoyle, Lindsay

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Öpik, Lembit

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Humble, Mrs Joan

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hutton, John

Pearson, Ian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Perham, Ms Linda

Illsley, Eric

Pickthall, Colin

Jamieson, David

Pike, Peter L

Jenkins, Brian

Plaskitt, James

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Prosser, Gwyn

Keetch, Paul

Quinn, Lawrie

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Rammell, Bill

Kemp, Fraser

Rapson, Syd

Khabra, Piara S

Rendel, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Rogers, Allan

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lammy, David

Rowlands, Ted

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Roy, Frank

Laxton, Bob

Ruane, Chris

Lepper, David

Ruddock, Joan

Leslie, Christopher

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Levitt, Tom

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Lewis, lvan (Bury S)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Livsey, Richard

Sanders, Adrian

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Love, Andrew

Savidge, Malcolm

McAllion, John

Sawford, Phil

McAvoy, Thomas

Sedgemore, Brian

McCabe, Steve

Shaw, Jonathan

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Skinner, Dennis

McCartney, Rt Hon lan (Makerfield)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McDonnell, John

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McFall, John

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mclsaac, Shona

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

McNamara, Kevin

Southworth, Ms Helen

McNulty, Tony

Spellar, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Squire, Ms Rachel

McWalter, Tony

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mallaber, Judy

Steinberg, Gerry

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Stewart, lan (Eccles)

Martlew, Eric

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Maxton, John

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Meale, Alan

Stringer, Graham

Merron, Gillian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)

90

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Walley, Ms Joan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Watts, David

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Webb, Steve

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

White, Brian

Timms, Stephen

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Todd, Mark

Wicks, Malcolm

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Touhig, Don

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Trickett, Jon

Willis, Phil

Truswell, Paul

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Woodward, Shaun

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Woolas, Phil

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Wray, James

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Tynan, Bill

Tellers for the Noes:

Vaz, Keith

Mr. Peter Snape and

Ann Keen.

Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Edward Heath: I call Mr. Martin Bell to move an amendment in favour of Mr. Richard Shepherd.
8.37 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Question, to leave out "Mr. Michael J. Martin" and insert instead thereof "Mr. Richard Shepherd".
Sir Edward, the hour calls for brevity. Brevity is in my nature, and the cause for which I rise is simply stated. It is to suggest that the name of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) be inserted as an amendment, by nature of the quality of the man.
What a debate we have had. The speeches have been short and of high quality. The whipping was either non-existent or indiscernible. Would that it were always so. The challenges that the House faces have been widely stated. They include an erosion of its authority, reputation and influence by a more assertive judiciary, a more aggressive press and the burgeoning power of the Executive. If we wish to complain about that, the fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves. It is up to us. We can make a difference because in the end we do not represent parties; we represent people, every one of us. I think that this is a time when we can make a difference. I cannot imagine a more important debate and series of votes than those taking place tonight.
I honestly believe that we have an opportunity. I mention the name of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills because he is the right man for this time. He is widely respected on both sides of the House. His proposer and seconder come from different sides of the House. For 18 years he has been a tireless champion of many causes of liberty and libertarian causes, such as freedom of information. The fight now is for the freedom of the people and of the House, which now has to be campaigned for as much as ever.
I shall mention something that Wentworth said in 1575, when he criticised the subservience of the House to the power of the Executive, which was then the royal family. He said:
There is nothing so necessary for the preservation of the prince and state as free speech, and without it it is a scorn and mockery to call it a Parliament house, for in truth it is none but a very school of flattery and dissimulation.

91
For that, the Queen had him locked up in the Tower of London the next day.
The cause is less conspicuous now, but the need is as urgent as it ever was to restore the dignity and reputation of the House. I believe that there is a man who, as Speaker, would be eminently well qualified to do the job. That man is the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and I commend his name to the House.
8.40 pm
Tony Wright: It gives me great pleasure to second the nomination of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). If I may breach a parliamentary convention, I shall call him my hon. Friend, because we have campaigned together on causes that should engage everyone in the House. He is concerned about the rights of citizens, and he campaigns against official secrecy, to protect whistleblowers, and for the freedom of information.
I remember above all an occasion in the last Parliament when Sir Richard Scott had delivered his devastating report, alleging that Ministers had behaved as they should not have behaved. That produced a motion of censure in the House. It was a difficult moment because it required hon. Members to choose between Parliament, accountability, sovereignty—all those fine words that we use—and the pressures of party, Whips and discipline. On that day, two hon. Members in the Government party voted for Parliament, and one of them was the person whom I am seconding. He does not just talk about the rights of Parliament; he protects those rights and asserts them when it matters.
If one theme has been constant throughout the contributions, including those by all the candidates, it is that something is wrong with the House of Commons that must be put right. The question before the House is: how determined is it to put that right?
I commend my hon. Friend to the House because I believe that the moment has arrived for a shock to the system. Whatever else my hon. Friend would be, he would be a shock to the system. Either hon. Members believe that we have reached a point when a shock is required, or they believe that business as usual will do. That is the choice. This institution has arrived at that moment. It is no good saying that it will be the job of some future Speaker whom we may elect to put matters right. The job of putting them right rests with all of us in the House now. It is no good talking afterwards about the glories of Parliament and the need for reform, unless we are prepared now to administer the shock to the system that may produce that change.
I know that the person whom I am recommending is said to be an outsider. My goodness, he is. He is as far away from the usual channels as it is possible to get, and that is why I recommend him to hon. Members.
Sir Edward Heath: Mr. Richard Shepherd has been proposed and seconded. I now invite him to submit himself to the House if he so wishes.
8.44 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: In a sense, I am the least qualified of all the candidates who have stood in front of hon. Members today. In fact, my disqualifications fill a long sheet. I am one of the few Conservative Members to have lost the Whip. I have tried to vote against my party when I thought that it was wrong. It is claimed that I am emotional, and it is true that in Parliament I am emotional. I am emotional because I profoundly believe in the purpose of the House, and I think that that view is shared by many people. I hope that in that emotionalism I have used argument, reason, principle and conscience. Those are things that I think unite many Members.
In a sense, the House is experiencing a crisis. With the redevelopment of our constitution, we are in a remarkable state—a state in which the House of Lords, no less, is more vital and more vibrant, and checks authority and the executive power more meaningfully than is done here. How can it be that we, the elected representatives of the people, no longer effectively challenge Government? That is what we are asking people to reflect on.
I sense a great discontent among ourselves, on both sides of the House. We do not discuss measures that are timely, or matters that are important. We had only one Standing Order No. 24 emergency debate during the eight years in which the previous Speaker was Speaker. How can we be timely? How can we reflect the needs of those who sent us here?
I am mindful that I can stand in this House on equal terms with anyone—with a head of Government, with a Minister—because I, like such people, have been elected by an individual constituency. We should never forget that that is the first trust that sends us here.
To whom do we owe our allegiance? My party is very vigorous in trying to get rid of people, and a long time ago when it was trying to get rid of Winston Churchill, he was asked to whom he owed his allegiance. He said first to his country, then to his constituency, and thirdly to his party.
When party becomes so aggressive that it consumes our conscience—when we no longer discuss the politics that are the laws that form the way in which we live; when we accept that the House of Lords will now be dealing with legislation and the points that we raise with regard to that legislation, and that ultimately the Executive will deal not with us, the elected representatives, but with the appointees who now sit at the other end of this Parliament—there is a crisis, in a sense. We ought to assert and affirm that our first intent is to represent those who sent us here.
I have seen Members on both sides of the House in both Lobbies—I have been through more than one Lobby on occasions such as this—whose tears have flowed, and whose conscience has been sensitive; yet they have voted against issues that they have stood for during their parliamentary careers.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that he was leaving this place to take up politics. Most of us came here because we believed in politics. We believed that this was the fulcrum where we could dispose of the business of our country. If I am given the honour

93
of representing this House, I want to ensure that each one of us—wherever we come from, and whomever we represent—is able to do just that.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 282.

Division No. 309]

[8.48 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Lansley, Andrew

Baker, Norman

Leigh, Edward

Ballard, Jackie

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Lidington, David

Bercow, John

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Blunt, Crispin

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Body, Sir Richard

Loughton, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Luff, Peter

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Brady, Graham

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Brake, Tom

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Browning, Mrs Angela

Major, Rt Hon John

Bruce, lan (S Dorset)

Maples, John

Burnett, John

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Butterfill, John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Mitchell, Austin

Cash, William

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Cawsey, Ian

Mullin, Chris

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Nicholls, Patrick

Chidgey, David

Oaten, Mark

Chope, Christopher

Opik, Lembit

Clappison, James

Paterson, Owen

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Pearson, lan

Collins, Tim

Pickles, Eric

Cooper, Yvette

Prior, David

Cotter, Brian

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Curry, Rt Hon David

Randall, John

Dalyell, Tam

Robertson, Laurence

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Ruffley, David

Day, Stephen

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

St Aubyn, Nick

Duncan, Alan

Salmond, Alex

Duncan Smith, Iain

Sayeed, Jonathan

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Sheerrnan, Barry

Faber, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Fearn, Ronnie

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Fisher, Mark

Shepherd, Richard

Flynn, Paul

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Fraser, Christopher

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

George, Andrew (St lves)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Gibb, Nick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gill, Christopher

Steen, Anthony

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Stunell, Andrew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Swayne, Desmond

Gorrie, Donald

Syms, Robert

Gray, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Green, Damian

Taylor, lan (Esher & Walton)

Grieve, Dominic

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Thompson, William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Todd, Mark

Hayes, John

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Horam, John

Townend, John

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tredinnick, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Trend, Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

Tyrie, Andrew

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Walter, Robert

Key, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Wells, Bowen

94

Whittingdale, John

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Wilkinson, John

Wilshire, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sir Teddy Taylor and

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mr. Eric Forth.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davidson, lan

Alexander, Douglas

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Ashton, Joe

Dawson, Hilton

Banks, Tony

Dean, Mrs Janet

Barnes, Harry

Denham, John

Barron, Kevin

Dismore, Andrew

Bayley, Hugh

Dobbin, Jim

Beard, Nigel

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Begg, Miss Anne

Donohoe, Brian H

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Doran, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Dowd, Jim

Benton, Joe

Drew, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Best, Harold

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Betts, Clive

Edwards, Huw

Blears, Ms Hazel

Efford, Clive

Blizzard, Bob

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Ennis, Jeff

Borrow, David

Etherington, Bill

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foulkes, George

Buck, Ms Karen

Gapes, Mike

Burden, Richard

Gardiner, Barry

Burgon, Colin

Gerrard, Neil

Burstow, Paul

Gidley, Sandra

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cable, Dr Vincent

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Graham, Thomas

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Grocott, Bruce

Canavan, Dennis

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Casale, Roger

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Caton, Martin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hancock, Mike

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hanson, David

Clapham, Michael

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Healey, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clelland, David

Henderson, lvan (Harwich)

Clwyd, Ann

Hepburn, Stephen

Coaker, Vernon

Heppell, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Coleman, Iain

Hood, Jimmy

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoyle, Lindsay

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Illsley, Eric

Darvill, Keith

Jamieson, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Jenkins, Brian

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

95

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Keeble, Ms Sally

Quinn, Lawrie

Keetch, Paul

Rammell, Bill

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Rapson, Syd

Kemp, Fraser

Raynsford, Nick

Khabra, Piara S

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Kidney, David

Rendel, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Rogers, Allan

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Roy, Frank

Lammy, David

Ruane, Chris

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ruddock, Joan

Laxton, Bob

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Lepper, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

Leslie, Christopher

Sanders, Adrian

Levitt, Tom

Sarwar, Mohammad

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Savidge, Malcolm

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Sawford, Phil

Livsey, Richard

Sedgemore, Brian

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Shaw, Jonathan

Lock, David

Skinner, Dennis

Love, Andrew

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McAllion, John

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

McCabe, Steve

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McDonagh, Siobhain

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

Macdonald, Calum

Soley, Clive

McDonnell, John

Spellar, John

McFall, John

Squire, Ms Rachel

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mclsaac, Shona

Steinberg, Gerry

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McNamara, Kevin

Stinchcombe, Paul

McNulty, Tony

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mactaggart, Fiona

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

McWalter, Tony

Stringer, Graham

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mallaber, Judy

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Martlew, Eric

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Meale, Alan

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Merron, Gillian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Timms, Stephen

Miller, Andrew

Touhig, Don

Moffatt, Laura

Trickett, Jon

Moore, Michael

Truswell, Paul

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Morley, Elliot

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Mountford, Kali

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Mudie, George

Tumer, Neil (Wigan)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Tyler, Paul

O'Hara, Eddie

Tynan, Bill

Olner, Bill

Vaz, Keith

O'Neill, Martin

Vis, Dr Rudi

Organ, Mrs Diana

Walley, Ms Joan

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Watts, David

Perham, Ms Linda

Webb, Steve

Pickthall, Colin

White, Brian

Pike, Peter L

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Plaskitt, James

Wicks, Malcolm

Pollard, Kerry

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Pope, Greg

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Pound, Stephen

Willis, Phil

Powell, Sir Raymond

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

96

Woodward, Shaun

Tellers for the Noes:

Woolas, Phil

Wray, James

Mr. Peter Snape and

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Ann Keen.

Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Edward Heath: I understand that two of the tellers from earlier this evening wish to make a report to me.
Mr. Snape: Sir Edward, we have to report that in the Division on the amendment to insert "Dr. David Clark", the numbers reported in the No Lobby should have been 257 and not 296.
Sir Edward Heath: I will ensure that the outcome of the Division is accurately recorded in Votes and Proceedings. I understand that it makes no difference to the overall result.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Sir Edward. More than six hours ago, I raised a point of order to establish what would happen if all the motions were negatived, including the main motion. I am concerned that the House is about to apply to the merits of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) a different test from the one that it has just applied to all the other candidates for whom we have voted.
I believe that it is important, perhaps most of all for the sake of the authority of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn, that the House should understand that the judgment that it is about to make on his merits or otherwise as Speaker should be exactly the same as the judgment made on all the other candidates. The House ought to have an opportunity to divide, if it wishes—as I wish it to do—in exactly the same way as it has on all the other candidates. If the motion is then negatived, we should have an opportunity to adjourn, to return to the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), or to see whether there is some different way of electing a Speaker.
Question put: That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 8.

Division No. 310]

[9.7 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Ainger, Nick

Benton, Joe

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bermingham, Gerald

Alexander, Douglas

Berry, Roger

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Best, Harold

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Betts, Clive

Ashton, Joe

Blears, Ms Hazel

Atkins, Charlotte

Blizzard, Bob

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Ballard, Jackie

Body, Sir Richard

Banks, Tony

Borrow, David

Barnes, Harry

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Barron, Kevin

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bayley, Hugh

Brake, Tom

Beard, Nigel

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Begg, Miss Anne

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Browne, Desmond

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

97

Buck, Ms Karen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Burden, Richard

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Burgon, Colin

Flint, Caroline

Burnett, John

Flynn, Paul

Burstow, Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

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, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth v)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbel—Savours, Dale

Gibson, Dr Ian

Canavan, Dennis

Gidley, Sandra

Caplin, Ivor

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Casale, Roger

Goggins, Paul

Cash, William

Golding, Mrs Llin

Caton, Martin

Gorrie, Donald

Cawsey, Ian

Graham, Thomas

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chidgey, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grocott, Bruce

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hancock, Mike

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Harris, Dr Evan

Clelland, David

Haselhurst, Rt Hon Sir Alan

Clwyd, Ann

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Coaker, Vernon

Healey, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Coleman, Iain

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hepburn, Stephen

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Heppell, John

Cooper, Yvette

Hill, Keith

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Corston, Jean

Hood, Jimmy

Cotter, Brian

Hope, Phil

Cox, Tom

Hopkins, Kelvin

Crausby, David

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cummings, John

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Darvill, Keith

Humble, Mrs Joan

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hurst, Alan

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hutton, John

Davidson, Ian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Illsley, Eric

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jamieson, David

Dawson, Hilton

Jenkins, Brian

Dean, Mrs Janet

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Denham, John

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Doran, Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Drew, David

Keetch, Paul

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kemp, Fraser

Edwards, Huw

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Efford, Clive

Key, Robert

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Khabra, Piara S

Ennis, Jeff

Kidney, David

Etherington, Bill

Kilfoyle, Peter

Fearn, Ronnie

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

98

Lammy, David

Plaskitt, James

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Pollard, Kerry

Laxton, Bob

Pond, Chris

Leigh, Edward

Pope, Greg

Lepper, David

Pound, Stephen

Leslie, Christopher

Powell, Sir Raymond

Levitt, Tom

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Prosser, Gwyn

Linton, Martin

Quinn, Lawrie

Livsey, Richard

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rammell, Bill

Lock, David

Rapson, Syd

Love, Andrew

Raynsford, Nick

McAllion, John

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

McAvoy, Thomas

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

McCabe, Steve

Rendel, David

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

McCartney, Rt Hon lan (Makerfield)

Rogers, Allan

McDonagh, Siobhain

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Macdonald, Calum

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McDonnell, John

Rowlands, Ted

McFall, John

Roy, Frank

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Ruane, Chris

Mclsaac, Shona

Ruddock, Joan

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McNamara, Kevin

Ryan, Ms Joan

McNulty, Tony

Salmond, Alex

Mactaggart, Fiona

Salter, Martin

McWalter, Tony

Sanders, Adrian

McWilliam, John

Sarwar, Mohammad

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Savidge, Malcolm

Mallaber, Judy

Sawford, Phil

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Sedgemore, Brian

Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)

Shaw, Jonathan

Marshal-Andrews, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Martlew, Eric

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Maxton, John

Skinner, Dennis

Meale, Alan

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Miller, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Moffatt, Laura

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

Moore, Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Soley, Clive

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Spellar, John

Morley, Elliot

Squire, Ms Rachel

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

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mountford, Kali

Steinberg, Gerry

Mudie, George

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mullin, Chris

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Oaten, Mark

Stuart, Ms Gisela

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stunell, Andrew

O'Hara, Eddie

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Olner, Bill

Swayne, Desmond

O'Neill, Martin

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Öpik, Lembit

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Perham, Ms Linda

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pickthall, Colin

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pike, Peter L

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

99

Timms, Stephen

Watts, David

Tipping, Paddy

Webb, Steve

Todd, Mark

White, Brian

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Touhig, Don

Wicks, Malcolm

Trickett, Jon

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Truswell, Paul

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Willis, Phil

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Winnick, David

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Woodward, Shaun

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Woolas, Phil

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wray, James

Tyler, Paul

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Tynan, Bill

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Vaz, Keith

Vis, Dr Rudi

Tellers for the Ayes:

Walley, Ms Joan

Mr. Peter Snape and

Ward, Ms Claire

Ann Keen.

NOES

Bercow, John

Viggers, Peter

Blunt, Crispin

Wilshire, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Tellers for the Noes:

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Dr. Julian Lewis and

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That Mr. Michael J. Martin do take the Chair of this House as Speaker.
Whereupon SIR EDWARD HEATH left the Chair, and MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN was taken out of his place and conducted to the Chair by MR. PETER SNAPE and ANN KEEN. [Applause.]
9.20 pm
Mr. Speaker-Elect: Order. I understand that the Speaker-Elect normally makes some formal remarks before taking the throne. It has been a long day and I do not want to keep hon. Members, but the House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope that the House will allow me to say that my thoughts are with my wife Mary, my son Paul, my daughter Mary and my grandson Ryan. Family is important to me and I will endeavour to see that families are included in the proceedings of the House. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Before I assume the Chair as Speaker-Elect, I thank the House once again for its confidence in me. I pray that I shall prove worthy of that confidence and that all of us will maintain the high tradition of this place. I also ask hon. Members for their prayers.
9.21 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): It is my pleasure to be the first Member of Parliament to offer you congratulations on your election, Mr. Speaker-Elect. Much has been made of your origins in hardship and difficulty, and your upbringing in Scotland in poverty which, no doubt, will give you a special insight into the position of many people. However, I want to lay stress not on your origins but on your qualities, integrity and worldly wisdom.
A moment or two ago, Mr. Speaker-Elect, you said that no Labour leader had ever offered you a Government or Front-Bench job. On behalf of this Labour leader, may I
100
say that I realise what a great oversight that was? I know that you feel a sense of joy and pride for your constituents in Glasgow, Springburn. Back in the 1980s, when you and I sat on Committees together, you told me what a tough training ground in politics Glasgow was, especially for speeches. When you made a good speech in Glasgow, people did not applaud—they just let you live.
You follow a long line of people who have recently fulfilled the office with great distinction, not least Betty Boothroyd, who was a superb Speaker and enjoyed a fantastic reputation in the House and the whole country. You know—as we all do—that that will be a hard act to follow. You are the 156th occupant of the Chair. As we have just seen, the House follows the tradition that people become Speaker only with great reluctance. That is not surprising, given that a number of your predecessors died in battle or were beheaded. However, the post has possible advantages, as I believe that one Speaker was canonised.
On behalf of the House, may I offer my congratulations to the other Members who were candidates in the election for Speaker? I listened to their outstanding speeches. It is a tribute to the strength of the House that there were so many able and fitting candidates from both sides. Of course, I pay tribute to the Father of the House who did as we expected and handled our proceedings with great tact, skill and efficiency.
Today, there are enormous pressures on Speakers. In years gone by, Mr. Speaker-Elect, your predecessors had their words and judgments recorded in Hansard. However, since our proceedings have begun to be broadcast, Speakers have become familiar figures, nationally and, indeed, internationally. I know that your predecessor received regular correspondence from the United States, from people who were avid watchers of Prime Minister's Question Time—there is no accounting for taste. You can take comfort from the fact that, although such letters are frequently critical of the two main combatants, they are unfailingly complimentary about the Speaker and, no doubt, will continue to be so.
The context of your job, Mr. Speaker-Elect, is changing; not just because of the 24-hour scrutiny by the media, but because of our new devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope the House will forgive me if I say that this is the first time that the House has met since the tragic death of our colleague and friend Donald Dewar. It is right that we acknowledge not just the tremendous contribution that he made to the new Parliament in Scotland, but the contribution that he made here in this House for 26 years. He was a parliamentarian of extraordinary distinction and he was one of your fellow Members of Parliament in Glasgow. He will be sorely missed.
Your election today is the clearest reflection of the respect that this House has for you. It is based on your genuine popularity, the affection that is felt in all parts of the Commons, and on your inherent sense of fairness. During your time as Deputy Speaker—a post you filled with distinction—you have occupied the Chair with good humour and a style of gentle persuasion that has been a most effective way of exercising your authority.
I can say also with some confidence that, some time during the first 18 months of your occupancy of the Chair—I am not sure when—we shall have a newly elected House of Commons, and there will be some new faces for you to identify; although, I hope, not too many.

101
Today has been an extremely important day both for the House of Commons and for our democracy. We do not elect a new Speaker very often. The job, for all its hazards, has historically rather more job security than either that of Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition. It is a job which traditionally people have filled until the day comes when they decide that they want to retire.
This House has shown its great confidence in you, in that, from an unprecedentedly wide range of candidates, you have been chosen to occupy the highest office that this House, by election, can bestow. I offer you again my warmest congratulations and every good wish for the future.
9.27 pm
Mr. William Hague: I, too, wish to offer you my congratulations on your election and your great achievement today, Mr. Speaker-Elect. No matter how many right hon. and hon. Members voted for you or against you, you are now Speaker of the whole House of Commons.
I, too, should like to echo the words of thanks of the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), as Father of the House, for the unflappable—not to say completely immovable—way in which he has conducted proceedings today.
Nevertheless, the large number of candidates on this occasion has raised a legitimate question about the procedures used for this purpose; a question that I believe that the House should consider during your speakership. Fears were expressed that the procedures today would be a shambles. I do not think that they have been a shambles—although it will not always be the case that the losing of 39 votes is completely irrelevant to the outcome—but the system used may not have been ideal.
Having listened to every speech made in the debate today, I believe, along with the Prime Minister, that the House of Commons can be proud of the diversity, abilities and integrity of all of the candidates who have participated today, and none of them should regret having done so.
Your position is far more than ceremonial, Mr. Speaker-Elect, as you know. The Speaker is at the same time the servant and the master of the House. You are now the custodian of our rules, our privileges and our traditions. You will need to use your keen sense of the House and to be able to judge the occasion. You must discard, as you well know, your former affiliations and become the independent champion of the rights of Back Benchers and of all parties in the House.
We are all well aware of the concern that has been expressed today by most of the candidates, their proposers and seconders that the Commons is no longer the place that it was. Many of us will look to you, as Speaker, to follow the example set by your predecessor in resisting all attempts to bypass, marginalise or downgrade the House of Commons. We look to you robustly to defend the position of the House of Commons at the centre of our national life as the independent democratic forum of the British nation.
I have long experience of your chairmanship in Committee, Mr. Speaker-Elect. Indeed, when I was a junior Minister, I debated a Bill for many months with the
102
late Donald Dewar, who was a charming, thorough and utterly forensic opponent. Your experience of such chairmanship is immense. I recall that it was characterised by fairness, generosity, patience and calm. You will now need those qualities in abundance. Your qualities of patience and calmness will be sorely tested, but the challenge of maintaining them in the face of every provocation is now before you. The challenge of championing the rights of the House of Commons when they are so often under threat is now before you. The challenge of maintaining the impartial conduct of our proceedings is now before you. As you rise to those challenges, Mr. Speaker-Elect, we wish you very well.
9.30 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Liberal Democrat party with the sincere and warm expression of congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker-Elect, on this historic night for you and, as you said, for your family? In particular, I associate those remarks with my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Following this election, they will respect you and your integrity as I know, from the reactions to the proposers and seconders, the House respects each of them. I pay great tribute to both of them, too.
I also associate myself entirely with the tributes paid to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). At one point in the first half hour of the election, as the points of order flowed on, I thought that he might break the deadlock by offering himself as a compromise candidate. He chose not to do so.
As has been acknowledged, for many of us in the House—not least for a Glaswegian like yourself, Mr. Speaker-Elect—the last few days have been a tale of two cities. So many of us last week paid tribute to a Scot and a Glaswegian—through and through, like you—who had assumed one of the great offices in the land. Now he is gone. This week, here is another Glaswegian who has assumed one of the great offices in the land. It is a reflective and ironic moment for many of us, not least yourself.
To say something personal, if I may indulge in one thought further, the first time that our new Speaker and I met was on the opposite sides of a picket line at Lochaber high school in Fort William when I was about 15 years old. The cleaners at the school had gone on strike and the NUPE regional representative had come to pay a state visit. We were on opposite sides of the picket line for a most curious reason. The school was closed because the cleaners were on strike and those of us who were pupils were delighted and were supporting them from the other side of the picket line. It is a happy memory.
The debate on the election of a new Speaker has been fascinating, with so many good speeches and so many worthy candidates. You have a full in-tray, Mr. Speaker-Elect, with suggestions for change, modernisation and progress in our proceedings and procedures. All of us who know you know that you will take that seriously.
Finally, I enter one specific plea, which you would expect from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I mentioned Donald Dewar and what he set up and then presided over in Edinburgh. He recognised the multi-faith, multi-faceted

103
nature of politics in our country. It is important that in its practices and procedures this Chamber recognises that too. We wish you well; all good luck.
9.34 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: On behalf of my colleagues in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I warmly congratulate you, Mr. Speaker-Elect, on your elevation. As I recall, our parliamentary paths first crossed when you reported me to the House for appearing in an education Committee that you were chairing. Unfortunately, the Committee of Selection had by some oversight omitted to make me a member of that Committee. You came to the House to ask for powers to deal with me—powers which, as Chairman of the Committee, you did not have. In your current, or soon-to-be-occupied, position, you will have such powers, so I might be more careful about which Committees I gatecrash in future. I am sure that you will use your powers wisely.
Like many of us, Mr. Speaker-Elect, you will have noted the seven hours that it has taken the House to reach such a decisive and successful conclusion. Perhaps you will look north and recall that, when only one day old, the Scottish Parliament, presided over in distinguished fashion by Donald Dewar, managed to elect its Presiding Officer in only half an hour. I am sure that the desirable outcome that we have achieved today would not have been different had we used different procedures, but I suspect that there is a more efficient system available. Perhaps a new legislature—the Scottish Parliament, in which your son serves—might hold some lessons that would inform the proceedings of this House.
I take issue with one comment you made when offering yourself to the House, Mr. Speaker-Elect. You said that your background should not be a reason for voting for you, or for voting against you, but I happen to think that your background is a substantial reason for electing you to the Chair that you now occupy. All your achievements in life, including the high office that you are now to hold, have been the result of your own efforts and those of your colleagues. I am sure that your background and the wisdom that you have gathered in your struggles through life will stand you in excellent stead to be a most distinguished occupant of the Chair.
9.36 pm
Sir Alan Haselhurst: At the risk of testing the patience of the House by addressing it twice in one day, Mr. Speaker-Elect, I should like to offer you my personal congratulations on your election as Speaker. Having had the pleasure of working with you for the past three and a half years, I wish you well. I am sure that you will conduct your office in a most distinguished manner.
On the last occasion that a Speaker was chosen, there was one defeated candidate who felt, out of courtesy, that he should speak. On this occasion, you and the House will be aware that there are rather a lot of defeated candidates, but I think that I can say—at least on behalf of the many on this side of the House—that we shall not test the House's patience by contributing individually. Therefore, on behalf of my colleagues who have fallen before you in the course of today's proceedings, I salute your success
104
and wish you well. You will have the support of the House and we trust that yours will be a happy and successful tenure in the office of Speaker.
9.37 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: Mr. Speaker-Elect, today's events have worldwide significance: it has been announced on the nine o'clock news that Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq have adopted the system that we adopted today for the election of their leaders. I have no doubt that that is, in part, the result of the influence of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Although, sadly, I failed to persuade him today, I believe that one good feature has emerged.
Every single speech by a candidate dealt with the same theme: the importance of the House of Commons. If every school studying citizenship received a copy of today's Hansard, students would have a better education in the way in which we perceive our work. Every speech made has been outstanding. I feel sure that, having gone through the problems associated with the selection, you, Mr. Speaker-Elect, will feel strengthened in reinforcing the power of the House in the months and years that lie ahead.
9.39 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Mr. Speaker-Elect, as no party leader now speaks for me, I should like to add my words of congratulation to you on your election. It is a great honour for you personally, a great honour for Mary and your family, a great honour for your native city of Glasgow and a great honour for Scotland. Much has been said about the great responsibilities and onerous duties to the House that accompany your new position. I hope that you will work hard to protect the rights of Members of Parliament and to ensure that the Government are accountable to Parliament.
This may be my last opportunity to address this Parliament. You, Mr. Speaker-Elect, will be the fifth Speaker during my time in the House. When I was first elected in October 1974, Selwyn Lloyd was Speaker. Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, and I was a quarter of his majority. Gradually, through the loss of by-elections, that majority was eroded and eventually there was no majority. That Government were defeated on the Floor of the House by a vote.
That scenario is most unlikely to repeat itself during the lifetime of this Parliament because of the size of the Government's majority. However, a Government who have a majority that is perhaps too large are not necessarily a good thing for democracy. Sometimes Governments with very large majorities behave arrogantly and treat Parliament as a mere rubber stamp. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker-Elect, will not allow that to happen. Parliament will not do its job unless Members are considered first and foremost as representatives of people rather than mere puppets of any party.
Members have a right and a duty to tell their party and their Government when they have it wrong. Should it be thought that this is becoming rather too political, I remind the House that I am only one of three Members of this Parliament who is not a member of any political party. I am unique in the Scottish Parliament in that I am the only Member who is not a member of any party. That is

105
because last year I was given a free transfer from what used to be called the people's party. That was not exactly of my own volition.
I hope, Mr. Speaker-Elect, that you will ensure that Members of all parties and of none will have the opportunity to speak up for the people whom they represent. I place on record my thanks to all Members past and present whom I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with over the past 26 years. I have had the privilege of representing my constituents for more than a quarter of a century in this place, and I hope that I will have the privilege of continuing to represent them for many years in the Scottish Parliament.
9.42 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: Here, there are 659 Members of many faiths and of none, and of many Christian denominations. I happen for the time being to be chair of the Christian fellowship. Your election, Mr. Speaker-Elect, is more momentous in one more respect than those that have been mentioned. I think that, for the first time since the Reformation, a Roman Catholic has been elected to chair the House. On behalf of other Christian denominations and of all other Members from different faith backgrounds, we welcome that. Another old tradition has been broken. We are now much more a representative House, where the highest offices can go to Members whatever their faith background, than we were before you were elected.
9.43 pm
Caroline Flint: I congratulate you on your successful election, Mr. Speaker-Elect. I say as chair of the all-party group on childcare that it has been gratifying to hear many Members on both sides of the House entering the election and saying that child care and family friendly policies can be part of the workings of the House. You said, Mr. Speaker-Elect, that you have met many members of the staff who have families to go to but who stay with us until the early hours of the morning.
106
Scrutiny is part of Parliament's work, but so is a modern Parliament for modern families. It is great that that has been acknowledged by candidates from all parties.
The Prime Minister: I have to signify that it is Her Majesty's pleasure that this House should present their Speaker on this day at 11.15 pm in the House of Peers for Her Majesty's royal approbation.
9.44 pm
Sitting suspended.
11.18 pm
On resuming—
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and having returned:
Mr. Speaker: I have a script to read.
I have to report to the House that this House has been to the House of Peers, where Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify by her Lords Commissioners her approbation of the choice of myself as Speaker to this House.
My first duty in the House is to repeat my respectful acknowledgements of and my grateful thanks for the great honour it has done me and the confidence that it has conferred on me, and to renew the assurance of my entire devotion to the service of the House.

BETTY BOOTHROYD
Resolved,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her royal favour upon the right hon. Betty Boothroyd, for her eminent services during the important period in which she has, with such distinguished ability and dignity, presided in the Chair of the House and assuring Her Majesty that whatever expense Her Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same—[Mrs. Beckett.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Beckett.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Merseyside TEC
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the value for money of Merseyside TEC's annual contribution to Mersey Partnerships. [133813]

  Mr. Wicks
  Merseyside TEC is just one of a number of contributors to the Mersey Partnership. A membership forum, which includes Merseyside TEC, regularly meets to review the progress made by the Mersey Partnership on developing investment strategies and the promotion of and response to investment opportunities. We expect the TEC to judge the value of its contribution in the light of this evaluation of progress.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what accountability arrangements are in place to ensure the effective spending of the annual contribution of Merseyside TEC to Mersey Partnerships. [133814]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government Office regularly reviews the overall performance of the TEC across the range of standards required by the TEC licensing framework. At the level of individual projects, we expect each TEC to have appropriate evaluation arrangements in place. In addition, Mersey Partnership is accountable to its member organisations for the proper and efficient use of contributions in accordance with the terms of reference of the Partnership.

  School Trips (Transport)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will issue guidance to school governors on how to take account of parental concerns over transport hired for school trips; and if he will make a statement in respect of the written risk assessment requirement of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. [134147]

  Jacqui Smith
  The written risk assessment in question is contained in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Guidance to school governors and others on these matters is already available in "Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational Visits: A Good Practice Guide" (Department for Education and Employment, published in 1998). 58,000 copies have been despatched to schools and other bodies, including the Library.

  PGCE Training Courses
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students have switched from BEd degree courses to PGCE training courses following the introduction of training salaries; and if he will make a statement. [134153]
  2W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  BEd degrees are undergraduate courses and PGCE training courses are postgraduate. It is therefore unlikely that students will be in a position to switch from one to the other. If students are encouraged to switch to a PGCE route into teaching, in general they would choose not to apply for a BEd course, but take a three-year BA or BSc instead, followed by a PGCE. There will not be evidence of this for another three years.

  The number of acceptances for BEd courses at UK higher education institutions starting in September 2000, at 10,397 was virtually the same as in September 1999, at 10,433. The number of acceptances for PGCE courses in England and Wales in September 2000 was 20,993, an increase of around 6 per cent. over last year's figure (19,768).

  The Government announced on 30 March that £6,000 training salaries would be introduced for graduate trainees starting postgraduate initial teacher training courses from September 2000. New style "golden hello" incentives of £4,000 were announced for postgraduate trainees in mathematics, science, modern foreign languages, information technology and design and technology, who successfully complete their induction and go on to take up a relevant teaching post.

  At the start of April 2000, applications to postgraduate teacher training courses in England and Wales were down by around 11 per cent. compared to the previous year (24,187 compared to 21,537). As a result of the announcement, they are up by around 5 per cent. overall (34,860 compared to 33,056), with particular increases in modern foreign languages (up 20 per cent—2,307 to 2,763) and technology (up 23 per cent.—1,619 to 1,996). The latest acceptance figures show these increases translating into higher acceptances into these shortage subjects.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to raise the level of funding for Ofsted following its increased responsibilities in inspecting further education, introduced by the Learning and Skills Bill. [134102]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The overall settlement provided by the Spending Review 2000 for Ofsted is £163 million in 2001–02, an increase of £56 million. This takes account of Ofsted's additional responsibilities, namely inspecting further education, introduced by the Learning and Skills Act 2000 and the regulation of child care, introduced by the Care Standards Act 2000 Ofsted will decide how to allocate its overall settlement across all the areas for which it is responsible.

  Sure Start Budget
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the Sure Start budget will derive from his Department. [134101]

  Yvette Cooper
  Sure Start budget is an addition to the Department for Education and Employment's expenditure limit, and the Secretary of State speaks for Sure Start in Cabinet. The money for Sure Start is carried on a separate Vote, and the Head of the Sure Start Unit reports to a cross-departmental steering group in respect of this expenditure. I am chair of this group.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Bishops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how many bishops there were in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 2000; what the average cost was of supporting a bishop in each of those years at 2000 prices; and what the ratio was of bishops to the average Sunday congregation in each year. [129656]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The numbers of full-time Diocesan, Suffragan and Assistant Bishops paid by the Church Commissioners in those and other recent years are as follows:

  1970: 107

  1980: 108

  1990: 110

  1998: 113

  1999: 113

  2000: 113.

  The 1980 and subsequent figures include the two bishops in the Diocese in Europe, following the foundation of that diocese in that year. The 2000 figures include the three Provincial Episcopal Visitors, whose sees were created in the 1990s under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, following the decision to ordain women to the priesthood.

  The Commissioners do not compile averages of expenditure on bishops because of a number of distorting factors, such as expenditure incurred on discharging national episcopal responsibilities, which would prevent like being compared with like. The total costs of the Church Commissioners' expenditure on bishops in the years in question, adjusted to 2000 prices by reference to the national average earnings index (earnings being the inflation index most appropriate for comparison) are set out. This total cost includes:

  1. bishops' stipends (and pension contributions from 1998),

  2. costs of running and staffing bishops' offices,

  3. costs of maintaining See Houses which provide domestic accommodation for the bishop and his family as well as staff offices.

  £ million

  Year to 31 March 1970

  19.6

  Year to 31 December 1980

  11.9

  Year to 31 December 1990

  14.5

  Year to 31 December 1999

  15.3

  The substantially lower figure in 1980 largely reflects the significant relative deterioration in all clergy stipends in the 1970s.

  Usual Sunday attendance figures for the equivalent years are as follows, 1998 being the latest year for which statistics are currently available:

  1970: 1,542,000

  1980: 1,240,000

  1990: 1,143,000

  1998: 977,900.

  4W
  These figures should however be treated with caution. The system for measuring attendance has been and continues to be under periodic review. Consequently the figures quoted are not on a like-for-like basis. Nor do they include attendance in the Diocese in Europe.

  The methodology now under discussion also recognises that a true picture of church attendance needs to take account of midweek and occasional services as well as those on Sunday. For these reasons, calculating a ratio in the manner suggested could be misleading.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his timetable is for the implementation of the proposed changes to the Child Support Agency; and what proposals he has to amend assessments made under the existing rules. [133988]

  Angela Eagle
  The child support reforms in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will be introduced for new cases by April 2002. Parents who have an existing maintenance assessment will be transferred to the new scheme at a later date when the new system is shown to be working well.

  Maintenance calculations made under the new scheme will be based on a simple percentage of the non-resident parent's net income. This means that many parents with an existing child support assessment will see a change to their liability when they are transferred to the new scheme. The change to the new rate will be phased in over a period of up to five years to give families time to adjust.

  The White Paper "A new contract for welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities" (CM 4349) sets out the scheme in more detail and contains tables showing what the basic liability will be at different levels of income.

  Budgeting Loans
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications were made for a budgeting loan in 1999–2000; and how many were refused on the grounds of inability to meet the repayments. [133849]

  Angela Eagle
  Of the 1,680,000 applications made for budgeting loans in 1999–2000 only 255 were refused because of inability to repay.

  Refusal on these grounds would arise where an applicant who would otherwise be eligible is already repaying a social fund loan at the maximum rate applicable in their circumstances.

  In 1999–2000 the overall number of budgeting loan awards rose by 82,000 and the gross expenditure was £52 million higher than in 1998–99.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason the annexe, "Budgeting Loans Reasons for Refusal by Client Group", was omitted from his 1999–2000 Annual Report on the Social Fund. [133850]
  5W
  Angela Eagle
  A table showing budgeting loan reasons for refusal by client group was not included in the 1999–2000 Annual Report because under the new budgeting loan scheme most of the reasons for refusal have either been changed or abolished. There were previously seven main reasons for refusal and there are now three. Thus, individual reasons for refusal in 1999–2000 do not directly compare with those from previous years. For this reason it was decided that it was more appropriate to include details on the main reasons for refusals in the narrative of the report, paragraphs 7.5 to 7.7.

  A copy of the Annual Report on the Social Fund 1999–2000 is in the Library.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive Attendance Allowance(a) in the constituency of Glasgow, Pollok and (b) in Glasgow. [134165]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Attendance Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Ian Davidson, dated 23 October 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people receive attendance allowance (a) in the constituency of Glasgow, Pollock and (b) in Glasgow.
  The latest information available as at 31 May 1999 is that there are 2,049 recipients in the constituency of Glasgow, Pollock and 19,781 in Glasgow
  I hope this is helpful.

  Winter Heating Allowance
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households will benefit from the winter heating allowance in Warrington, South in 2000. [133752]

  Angela Eagle
  For winter 1999–2000, 17,061 customers in the Warrington, South constituency qualified for a Winter Fuel Payment of either £100 or £50, dependant on their circumstances. This figure includes those in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits as well as men from age 60 who qualified through receipt of either Income Support or income-based Jobseekers Allowance.

  The Winter Fuel Payment scheme has now been extended so that men as well as women will be eligible for a payment from age 60, providing they satisfy the qualifying criteria. The changes apply from the beginning of the scheme in 1997–98 and payments will be made for past winters to customers who are entitled. The majority of the customers who are newly eligible will need to make a claim.

  This means that the figure given above in respect of 1999–2000 could be higher for winter 2000. How much higher will depend on the number of people who decide to make a claim and how many are entitled.
  6W
  Therefore, it is not possible to give a precise number of how many households may benefit from winter fuel allowance until all payments are made on the claims received and through the legacy systems, that is, those people receiving qualifying benefits.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Illegal Logging
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she has taken to combat illegal logging; and if she will make a statement in respect of implementation and related procurement practices. [134187]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Addressing the underlying causes of illegal logging in tropical rain forests is complicated and requires a range of actions, not only in the forest sector. For this reason, through the Department for International Development (DFID), we are working to encourage good government, reduce the burden of debt on developing countries and develop alternative livelihoods for the poor.

  Our main efforts are directed at combating illegal logging at source and addressing the other underlying causes of poor forest management, since most illegally harvested timber is consumed domestically. We help countries develop their capacity to assess the nature and extent of illegal logging and to take counter-measures. We help them develop national forest programmes. Early next year, together with the US and World bank, we will sponsor a high-level meeting in South-East Asia to examine what can be done to strengthen enforcement of forestry laws in the region.

  In Okinawa the G8 leaders made a commitment to
  examine how best we can combat illegal logging, including export and procurement practices.
  In response, the Government are committing departments to seek to buy timber and timber products from sustainable and legal sources, for example those identified under independent certification schemes such as that operated by the Forestry Stewardship Council. Government Departments will have to report annually on their progress, and this will be monitored by an inter-departmental group reporting to the committee of Green Ministers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Tobacco
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for which products he supports the EU prohibition of the manufacture within the United Kingdom of certain legal products which conform with the regulations of third countries. [132338]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]I understand that the hon. Member's question refers to the proposed EU Directive concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (known as the 'EU Tobacco Labelling Directive').
  7W
  The Government support the 'common position' on the Directive agreed by the EU Health Council on 29 June.

  The common position includes agreement to the provision in Article 3 of the draft Directive which will require that, from 1 January 2004, the yield of cigarettes released for free circulation, marketed or manufactured in the member states shall not exceed:

  10mg per cigarette for tar

  lmg per cigarette for nicotine;

  10mg per cigarette for carbon monoxide.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne dated 10 February relating to his constituent, Mr. David Allan. [130657]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]I replied to the hon. Member on behalf of the Secretary of State on Thursday 27 July 2000.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government decided to underwrite plans by Balfour Beatty to undertake work on the Ilisu Dam in Turkey; and what the maximum potential liability is to the Treasury assessed from such underwriting. [134190]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have not yet taken a decision to underwrite Balfour Beatty's application for support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of the Ilisu Dam project. We do not expect to take such a decision until we have seen and assessed both and revised Environmental Impact Assessment Report and the Resettlement Action Plan which are currently being prepared.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the reports of Dr. Ayse Kudat concerning the social and environmental impacts of the Ilisu Dam in Turkey. [134169]

  Mr. Caborn
  Dr. Kudat's reports are not the property of the Government. Following my hon. Friend's question, the Export Credits Guarantee Department asked the owners of the reports, the Export Risk Guarantee Agency (the Swiss export credit agency), whether they were prepared to allow them to be placed in the Library of the House. The owners have replied that they are not prepared to allow the reports to be made available at this time. When the final reports are available, we will seek agreement to their being made publicly available.

  Fraudulent Sales Promotions
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to introduce measures to control fraudulent sales promotions from operators outside the UK; and if he will make a statement. [R] [134148]
  8W
  Dr. Howells
  I am concerned about these promotions and am setting out the action the Government are taking to tackle them. The legislation which is currently in place to protect consumers includes:the Unsolicited Goods and Services (Amendment) Act 1975, which prevents traders from demanding payment for goods or services which are unsolicited and sets rules on content of invoices and directory entries;
  the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988, which enable the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) to stop the publication of a misleading advertisement;
  the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, which come into force on 31 October, protect consumers shopping on the Internet, by mail order, on the telephone or by fax. If suppliers do not fulfil contracts or fail to return consumers' money, the DOFF and local authority Trading Standards Departments can seek injunctions. If fraudulent use is made of a consumer's credit or debit card he or she can cancel the payment;
  the Lotteries and Amusement Act 1976, which sets the rules on competitions (which must entail a degree of skill) and lotteries (which generally cannot be run for private or commercial gain). It is unlawful to promote or advertise a foreign lottery in the UK.

  In addition, when the European Community Directive No. 98/27/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests is implemented in the UK next year, the DGFT and other qualifying bodies will be able to seek injunctions in the courts of other member states to stop operators there from directing false and misleading sales promotions at UK consumers.

  I recognise the problems of taking enforcement action against sales promotion scams originating outside the UK—land particularly from beyond Europe. Apart from jurisdictional constraints on the DGFT and other UK authorities, it is often hard to trace the sales promotion operator. They may hide behind PO box addresses, which are used as solely collection or distribution points for mail. Operators move from country to country to avoid detection and frequently change the postal services they use.

  The Government are working with industry and our regulatory authorities to address this situation. We are determined in particular to improve co-operation and information sharing between authorities in Europe and around the world. The following actions are being taken:
  the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) works closely with its overseas counterparts from the 30 or so OECD countries, through the International Marketing Supervision Network (IMSN). OFT's counterparts have had some success in stopping some of the worst cases targeting UK consumers;
  the Government are pursuing closer bi-lateral enforcement links with other major trading nations outside the EU. We are in discussion with the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) about a possible memorandum of understanding on co-operation between the DGFT, UK trading standard departments and the FTC;
  the Royal Mail can refuse to deliver material from abroad which contravenes the law, once it has been notified about it (it cannot intercept or open mail addressed to a PO box). The Advertising Standards Authority (the independent self-regulatory body for the industry), the police, trading standards officers and magistrates can notify Royal Mail about material which contravenes the law. Any UK PO box being used fraudulently will be withdrawn. We are ensuring that ways of bringing scams to the attention of the Post Office are effective and that the avenues by which scam promoters reach consumers are closed off;
  the ASA, which supervises the British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, investigates complaints about misleading promotions and is working with national and international

  9W
  regulators. The ASA refers mailings to the appropriate regulatory body in the country in question; those from Europe are channelled via the European Advertising Standards Alliance (EASA).

  Private Sector Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to his Department since June 1997. [133877]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 3 July 2000,Official Report, columns 18–24W. Since then, the DTI has set up further inward secondments from the following companies:

  Association of British Healthcare Inds

  AEA Technology plc

  Traditional Weatherwear Ltd.

  Tate and Lyle plc

  United Utilities plc

  Science and Technology Agency

  Shell UK Oil Products Ltd.

  Cable and Wireless

  Printing Industries Federation

  Goldshield Pharmaceuticals

  SNS Bioengineering Development Ltd.

  Combined Heat and Power Association

  The MVA Consultancy Group

  Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd.

  Drinks Marketing

  Project North East

  Raylian London Ltd.

  AMEC Process and Energy

  Process and Energy

  David Rubens and Company

  Allen and Overy

  Lloyds TSB Group plc

  BT

  Burlington Consultants

  Confederation of British Industry

  Deloitte and Touche

  Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon Ltd.

  Astra Zeneca

  Ericsson Ltd.

  KPMG

  Durham University

  Grant Thornton.

  Asteroids
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the report of the departmental Task Force on Asteroids set up in January. [134166]

  Ms Hewitt
  I expect to respond to the Report of the Task Force on Potentially Hazardous Near Earth Objects at the turn of the year.

  Late Payment
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with 10W
  ministerial colleagues on compensation for payment by public bodies after 30 days of invoices from small businesses. [134113]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 currently seeks to recompense the supplier for the time value of money. It does not currently provide for the cost of pursuing the debt.

  The Government are aware that legislation in other EU countries includes charges for the pursuit of the debt, and we have worked closely with our European partners on the forthcoming EC Directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions.

  We welcome the recent publication of the Council and Parliament approved text and we are keen to work with the business community and ministerial colleagues to ensure that the Directive is implemented as soon as possible.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that small businesses automatically receive interest from public bodies on late payments made after 30 days of being invoiced. [134111]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government currently have no plans to make changes to the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.

  The Act came into force on 1 November 1998. From that date, small businesses have had an automatic right to claim interest from the public sector on debts incurred under contracts agreed after that date.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that public bodies settle invoices from small businesses within a 30 day period. [134112]

  Ms Hewitt
  All Government Departments and Agencies are required to pay all undisputed bills within 30 days of receipt of the goods or services or a valid invoice, whichever is later, or other agreed credit period. Since 1993 all Government Departments and Agencies have been required to monitor their payment performance. The figures are published annually in the form of a written PQ.

  Tough targets have been set to ensure that we continue to improve public sector payment performance. For 1997–98 all Departments were required to pay 95 per cent. of their invoices on time, 97.5 per cent. was introduced for 1998–99 and 100 per cent. for 1999–2000.

  For the financial year 1999–2000, the overall payment performance of Government was 97.89 per cent.

  Car Prices
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government have taken to regulate the price of cars in response to the report of the Competition Commission. [133806]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made an Order under the Fair Trading Act 1973 on 1 August to implement the recommendations in the Competition Commission report on the supply of new cars. The Order came into effect on 1 September. It contains a number of provisions, including a requirement that suppliers must offer dealers
  11W
  who purchase volumes of cars outright equivalent discounts to those offered to fleet customers who purchase similar volumes.

  Supermarkets Inquiry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Competition Commission's Inquiry into supermarkets will look at the impact on small(a) newsagents and (b) publishers of the proposed distribution arrangements for magazines between Tesco and W H Smith News. [133817]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Commission did not investigate the supply of newspapers or magazines as part of its inquiry into the supply of groceries from supermarkets.

  EU Import Preferences
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the selective elimination and reduction of import duties on products imported into the UK under EU preferences enables eligible third country producers to benefit from a combination of stronger export pricing power, larger export sales and increased competitiveness in EU markets relative to third country producers that are not eligible to participate in EU preferences. [133709]

  Mr. Caborn
  Increased preferences will benefit those third country producers eligible to receive them. Those producers overall should experience larger export sales and/or higher returns on exports, as a result of their increased competitiveness in the EU market.

  A reduction in the normal level (i.e. MFN) of import duties lessens the value of preferential tariffs offered by the EC. In products where preferences are offered, their erosion tends to weaken and not strengthen the export pricing power of exporters receiving preferences compared with those who do not. Against this, however, the elimination or steady reduction of import duties in general improves the market access of those receiving preferences and offers scope for expansion of exports in other products.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if third country exporters and producers are expected to derive benefit from their participation in the import preferences granted their products under the EU's preferential trade-related agreements. [133708]

  Mr. Caborn
  Third country exporters and producers granted trade preferences are expected to benefit from them through increased exports to the EU.

  A general reduction in import duties would reduce the value of trade preference. However, developing countries could benefit from the general reduction of tariffs in sectors where they have particular comparative cost advantage.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his response to the Chief Constable's first evaluation of the comprehensive Tutor 12W
  Officer scheme: how many Tutor Officers have been selected; where they are based; what their geographical spread is from policing districts across Northern Ireland; what their composition is in terms of (a) gender and (b) perceived community background; what training they have had; how many hours training they have had on the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998; and how many officers have received training to date. [133528]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following in-house evaluation, work is underway to enhance the Tutor Officer scheme. A further evaluation will then be made. There are currently 157 Tutor Officers of whom 138 are male and 19 female. Of these, 128 are perceived to be from a Protestant background and 22 perceived to be from a Roman Catholic background while seven are not determined. The geographical spread reflects the demand based on the number of probationers in each RUC Division.

  Each tutor attends a five-day training course in addition to a one-day course on Human Rights. Both are provided as part of the force-wide training programme.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to recruit teachers for the police training programme on the Human Rights Act 1998; what arrangements has he made to facilitate officers' completion of the course; how many hours of tuition and study each officer will undertake; and by what criteria officers will be assessed on their comprehension of the issues and ability to put human rights policing into effect. [133530]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary has worked in partnership with the University of Ulster to design and deliver the introductory Human Rights training programme. University staff trained officers of Chief Inspector rank and above and also trained the Royal Ulster Constabulary trainers who went on to provide the training for officers in the ranks of Constable, Sergeant and Inspector. A booklet developed in conjunction with the University of Ulster and agreed with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been provided to each officer as part of the preparation for six hours of training. The ability of officers to put Human Rights Policing into effect will be addressed within the new competency framework for staff appraisal.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparations have been made for the Office of Police Ombudsman to become fully operational; what budget has been assigned for publicity aimed at(a) officers and staff of the Police Service, (b) members of the public, (c) members of disadvantaged groups, (d) people with disabilities, (e) people whose first language is not English, (f) children and (g) users of police stations. [133532]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Office of the Police Ombudsman will occupy premises, known as New Cathedral Buildings, which are in central Belfast. The premises were acquired in March of this year and after extensive design work were fully fitted out to a high standard by the beginning of August. The Police Ombudsman (Designate) moved into her new offices, one month ahead of schedule, on 14 August.

  Recruitment of the 90 new staff for the Ombudsman's office is nearing completion. This involved an extensive programme of advertising in the UK, North America,

  13W
  Australia and South Africa and subsequently an exhaustive selection process. Because of the nature of the work that will be undertaken, an extensive programme of training has been developed with the assistance of the Northern Ireland Office, Metropolitan Police Service, RUC, University of Ulster and various other public bodies and voluntary organisations. Training is due to commence in early October at various venues in the UK. (Existing staff of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints will transfer to the new body).

  Protocols are currently in the final stages of agreement or are being developed between the Ombudsman, Northern Ireland Office, Independent Commission for Police Complaints, Chief Constable and the RUC to accommodate transitional and investigative arrangements.

  The Ombudsman will have an annual budget of £5.7 million; what proportion of that will be allocated to publicity aimed at specific groups of people will be a matter for the Ombudsman to decide.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in drawing up revised conduct regulations for police officers; what bodies have been consulted over draft versions; what advice he has sought from police services in other jurisdictions; and when he plans to introduce the new regulations. [133534]

  Mr. Ingram
  The revised conduct regulations and guidance have been completed and are currently undergoing final consultation in line with section 64(4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. This section requires the Secretary of State to consult the Ombudsman, the Police Authority and the Police Association before making regulations governing the conduct of the police. Others consulted include the Chief Constable, the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, Director of Public Prosecutions and the Human Rights Commission.

  In formulating the new regulations, which mirror that of England and Wales, advice was sought from the Home Office who co-ordinated the responses of police forces across England and Wales. The revised regulations are due to come into force on 6 November.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made so far in downsizing the Police Service; and what his estimate is of likely progress in the next six months. [133545]

  Mr. Ingram
  The closing date for applications in year one of the scheme is the 30 November 2000. To date there have been over 600 expressions of interest for early retirement, however, the actual number of applicants for year one will not be known until the expiry of the closing date. At this stage it is estimated that approximately 600 officers will leave by 31 March 2001.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what written documentation in furtherance of the Patten implementation plan has been supplied to the Oversight Commissioner in order to set out the objectives in the next 12 months of(a) the Government, (b) the Police Service and (c) the Police Authority; and if he will place such documentation in the Library. [133536]
  14W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Government's Implementation Plan, published in June 2000, sets out how the recommendations in the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland are being implemented.

  The Government, RUC and Police Authority have made, and will continue to make, such information available to the Oversight Commissioner as is needed for the performance of his functions. No central record is kept of the information given.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he published each of the regulations on(a) part-time working, (b) job-sharing and (c) career breaks for police officers and Police Service civilians; how this information has been disseminated and at what cost; how many officers and civilians will have taken these options by the end of the first year of their introduction; and what his estimate is for each of the next five years. [133538]

  Mr. Ingram
  Part-time working and job-sharing arrangements for police officers were introduced by Force Order on 24 July 1997. There is currently no facility for career breaks although police officers can and do take periods of unpaid leave.

  Northern Ireland Civil Service Circulars introduced part-time working and job-sharing arrangements for civilian support staff on 14 August 1987. Career breaks followed on 28 March 1998.,

  Costs associated with issuing information on these schemes are not readily available.

  Eight police officers availed of part-time working in the first year of operation (September 1997 to August 1998). To date, no police officers have opted for job-sharing. Figures relating to the first year of the civilian schemes are not available.

  It is difficult to project the potential uptake of each scheme over the next five years, but given that 25 police officers have availed of part-time working since its introduction, it is reasonable to assume that up to 40 officers may avail of the scheme during the next five years. Similarly, up to 25 civilian support staff may be expected to take up part-time or job-sharing with the same number taking career breaks.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment the Human Rights Commission has made of the police training programme on the Human Rights Act 1998; how many officers have completed this course; what evaluation he has made of its effectiveness; and what progress has been made on drawing up guidelines and contents for a course on the impact on policing of the new constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland, the new policing arrangements set out in the Patten report and the proposed reforms of the criminal justice system. [133529]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Human Rights Commission to write to my hon. Friend on the Commission's assessment of the police training programme on the Human Rights Act 1998. I have asked for a copy of the letter to be made available so that it can be placed in the Library.
  15W
  At the 23 August 2000, 9,035 officers had attended training on the Human Rights Act with remaining officers to attend in the near future.

  The Secretary of State commends the efforts of the RUC to give priority to the training of its members in the implications of the Human Rights Act.

  The implementation of recommendation 141 of the Patten Report is addressed in the Government's Implementation Plan (published June 2000). Progress will be assessed by the independent Oversight Commissioner.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken to identify appropriate non-police environment institutions for management training in Ireland and overseas; and how many members of the Change Management Team have studied or have the qualifications to assess the effectiveness of management workshops. [133531]

  Mr. Ingram
  Substantive links have already been established with the University of Ulster at Jordanstown and a number of officers have either completed or are undertaking management related academic courses outside the police environment. The Training, Education and Development Strategy currently being developed by the RUC will further address this issue.

  A number of members of the RUC's Change Management Team have qualifications at degree level and above. For example, two have PhDs in 'Making Strategy Work in Police Organisations' and 'Auditing Internal Communication in a Major Police Organisation'. In addition, a number are members of professional bodies.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to draw up personal specification and job description for(a) a Commissioner for Covert Law Enforcement and (b) members of a Complaints Tribunal for Covert Law Enforcement operations; when and where he will advertise these positions; what the composition will be of the interview panel; how many of its members will be independent; and if he will place the relevant documents in the Library. [133533]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Regulation of Investigating Powers Act 2000 makes provision for the regulation of covert policing techniques and provides for commissioner oversight in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Act provides for a UK-wide complaints tribunal.

  Appointments will be made in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of police officers recruited in the last two years are studying for academic qualifications; what is the numerical and percentage breakdown by type of qualifications sought and subjects studied; what measures have been taken to encourage officers to undertake academic courses; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness. [133535]

  Mr. Ingram
  From June 1999, a total of 188 (100 per cent.) new recruits have been required to study for a Certificate in Police Studies as part of their two year probation period. Of these, 69 (37 per cent.) have opted to pursue a Diploma in Police Studies. Following successful completion of their probation, officers are eligible to 16W
  apply for financial assistance and facilitation to pursue other courses of further education and are actively encouraged to do so. It is too early to assess effectiveness while the students pursue their chosen studies.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the severance arrangements agreed with police representatives; what is the estimate of the total expenditure involved; and what is his forecast of the costs of severance and other payments associated with the downsizing programme calculated on a quarterly basis for each of the next 10 years. [133537]

  Mr. Ingram
  The severance arrangements were published on 24 July by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a booklet entitled "A Northern Ireland Office booklet on the Voluntary Early Retirement and Severance Scheme for the RUC". A copy of this has been placed in the Library.

  The estimated gross cost of severance is in the region of £1 billion over the next ten years. It is not possible to provide a quarterly breakdown at this stage given the voluntary nature of the scheme.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Police Service staff are assigned to develop a new appraisal system for human rights performance; what grades and ranks these staff are; how many hours per week they are working on this project; where they are based and what is their geographical spread from policing districts across Northern Ireland; what their composition is in respect of(a) gender and (b) perceived community background; when this project started and when it will be completed; and what is its (i) work programme and (ii) budget. [133539]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has initiated a review of the RUC's appraisal system in light of the recommendations contained within the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland. The number of people involved in the work has varied to meet required needs and it is not possible to answer this question without incurring a disproportionate cost. The independent Oversight Commissioner will report to the Secretary of State on the implementation of the changes.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what personal specification and job description have been drawn up for the appointment of a lawyer with human rights expertise to advise the police service; what will be the composition of the interview panel; and how many of its members will be independent. [133512]

  Mr. Ingram
  A personal specification and job description are currently being drafted. Decisions on the selection process will be made when they are agreed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police cars are currently in service, what the figures were for(a) July 1994 and (b) July 1998; and how many armoured Land Rovers were in regular use for patrols in (i) July 1994, (ii) July 1998 and (iii) July 2000. [133513]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary held 350 Land Rovers in July 1994 and 450 in July 1998 and July 2000. While the number of Land Rovers used for regular
  17W
  patrol duties are not available for the years 1994 and 1998, approximately 110 were used for such purposes during July 2000.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in painting the word POLICE on the side of each Land Rover currently in service. [133514]

  Mr. Ingram
  Work is ongoing but 80 per cent. of the operational fleet has already been completed including 25 white liveried Land Rovers.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in drawing up the terms of reference for an independent, strategic review of the use of information technology in policing; how and whom he will consult on these terms of reference; and when he will advertise for tenders to be submitted. [133515]

  Mr. Ingram
  An independent strategic review by a consultant appointed through the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), was already under way at the time of the publication of the Report of the Independent Commission for Policing in Northern Ireland.

  In light of the recommendations of that report it was decided to develop the consultant's information systems proposals to take account of new business processes and priorities that emerged from the change management process. Subsequently, a Strategic Information System consultant was appointed by competitive tendering arrangements through the Government Purchasing Agency to validate the way forward under Recommendation 93 of the Report of the Independent Commission for Policing in Northern Ireland.

  The Government's implementation plan requires the strategic review of IT strategy to be completed by March 2001, validated by June 2001 and implemented over a three to five year period.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken to inform police recruitment agencies in Great Britain of the advantages of recruiting former RUC officers and reservists; and how many ex-RUC officers and reservists have been recruited in the last 12 months. [133516]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC Voluntary Severance Support Unit has been in communication with all GB police forces to indicate a potential recruitment base from former members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and RUC Reserve. There have been no former RUC officers recruited by GB forces within the last 12 months.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what personal specification and job description has been drawn up for(a) members of the group to review criminal convictions and other character tests to determine the suitability of candidates applying to join the police service and (b) the independent adviser to sit on this group; what the composition will be of the interview panels; and how many of their members will be independent; when he expects the report of the review group to be completed; and what arrangements he has made to publish the report. [133518]
  18W
  Mr. Ingram
  The implementations of recommendation 125 of the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland is covered in the Government's implementation plan. Members of the review group established by the Chief Constable, including its independent chairman, have civilian and police recruiting, human resources and research experience.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to(a) cease using and shut down remaining holding centres at Gough Barracks and Strand Road; how many fully equipped custody suites are currently available and in which police stations; and what additional facilities will come on line in the next six months. [133519]

  Mr. Ingram
  Strand Road holding centre closed with effect from 1 October. Gough Barracks is the facility currently available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which meets all the statutory requirements for the detention and interviewing of terrorist suspects. It is not anticipated that any additional facilities will come on line within the next six months. There are 22 fully equipped PACE custody suites across the province at the following police stations: Musgrave Street, Grosvenor Road, Lisburn, Antrim Road, Antrim, Strandtown, Newtownards, Downpatrick, Armagh, Lurgan, Banbridge, Cookstown, Dungannon, Enniskillen, Omagh, Strand Road, Waterside, Strabane, Coleraine, Limavady, Ballymena and Larne.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the terms of reference for the research currently being undertaken on the uniform to be worn by members of the new police service; how many institutions submitted tenders to undertake this research; what were the best-value criteria employed; if he will place the outline of the successful research proposal in the Library; and what is the estimated cost of this research. [133520]

  Mr. Ingram
  The time constraints imposed by the Government implementation plan mitigated against tendering for research in this matter. As a result, a Uniform Sub-Committee was created within the Royal Ulster Constabulary with the terms of reference "to advise the Chief Constable on the needs of the Force for a new more practical style of uniform". During the course of its work, the Sub-Committee has sought the views of officers through the participation of staff representatives on the committee; held roadshows throughout the Force; issued and analysed responses to a survey; examined problems with the existing uniform and sourced five years of research on this issue carried out by a committee within the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  The research has developed a range of suggestions and recommendations, which have been presented to senior command within the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have no plans to place an outline of the research material in the Library at present.

  As the research has been carried out in-house, it has involved limited expenditure.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has initiated with(a) the Irish Government and (b) the Garda Siochana to consider facilitation of lateral recruitment of experienced officers into the new police service. [133521]
  19W
  Mr. Ingram
  Issues of North/South co-operation on policing covered by the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland have been discussed in a number of meetings with the Irish Government.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions have been held with(a) the Irish Government and (b) the Garda Siochana to identify possible venues for the first annual conference between police services north and south of the border. [133522]

  Mr. Ingram
  Issues of North/South co-operation on policing covered by the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland have been discussed in a number of meetings with the Irish Government.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the composition of the Change Management Team established by the Chief Constable; how many police service officers and staff are assigned to the team; what grades and ranks these staff are; how many hours per week they are working on this project; where they are based and what their geographical spread is from policing districts across Northern Ireland; and what their composition is in terms of(a) gender and (b) perceived community background. [133524]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently 18 officers:

  Assistant Chief Constable—1

  Chief Superintendent—1

  Superintendent—3

  Chief Inspectors—2

  Inspectors—6

  Sergeants—3

  Constables—2

  and six civilian staff:

  Principal Officer—1

  Executive Officer Grade 1—1

  Executive Officer Grade 2—2

  Administrative Officer—1

  Administrative Assistant—1

  working full time as the RUC's Change Management Team based at RUC Headquarters. Of the 23 team members, 17 are male and six are female. I do not consider it appropriate to comment on perceived community background.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many external change specialists have been(a) consulted by and (b) recruited to the Change Management Team established by the Chief Constable; what method of selection was employed to ensure best value in appointments of external consultancies; and what has been the cost to date of external consultancies. [133541]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date a total of eight consultants have been selected by competitive tender to assist with the change process in the RUC at a cost of around £70,000. In addition the RUC Change Manager has as a mentor Professor Andrew Kakabadse, Chairman of the Human Resources Network and Director of the Cranfield Centre for International Development, Cranfield University.
  20W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to provide a non-discriminatory working environment for all Police Service employees; how many complaints have been made by employees in the past 12 months; how many disciplinary actions have been instigated; what evidence has been distributed to workplaces; what consultation has taken place with employees; what surveys have been undertaken to solicit views of employees; and what information exchanges have been initiated with non-UK police services. [133525]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following actions have been taken to date. The introduction of harassment policy and distribution of harassment posters and booklets throughout the organisation; literature on the Neutral Working Environment distributed to Sub-Divisional Commanders; the establishment of a confidential helpline; Harassment Support officers appointed throughout the force; corresponding poster campaign and circular to staff publicising same; inclusion of equality and harassment sessions on induction training and on training for new recruits; inclusion of module on Equal Opportunities in the Management Development Programme for civilian staff; introduction of anti-harassment training for all officers; introduction of harassment resolution training on the management course for sergeants and inspectors; introduction of Equal Opportunities Awareness for all civilian staff.

  Future action will include the inclusion of Harassment Resolution training on new management training being developed for Chief Inspector and Superintendent ranks; review of harassment policy and procedures; review of the Harassment Support Officer scheme; the development of computer based training in grievance resolution.

  There have been 89 complaints from employees alleging discrimination and 16 disciplinary investigations commenced in the last 12 months.

  Staff surveys have been conducted on Sexual harassment in the Royal Ulster Constabulary; Religious harassment in the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and an NI Civil Service survey on harassment and bullying in the workplace.

  Three is regular networking with other public service bodies throughout the UK.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing a fund to help injured police officers, serving or retired and their families; how many Police Service staff are assigned to this project and at what grades and ranks; how many hours per week they are working on this project; where they are based; what their geographical spread is from policing districts across Northern Ireland; and what their composition is in terms of(a) gender and (b) perceived community background; and what budget has been allocated to this project. [133526]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government announced on 27 July 2000 that former senior civil servant John Steele has been appointed to conduct a review of Patten's recommendation 87, that there should be a substantial fund to help injured police officers and their families, as well as police widows'.
  21W
  Mr. Steele is on target to report by the end of October. He is being supported by civil servant and his budget is £14,000.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what development work has so far been undertaken in order to prepare the Police Service for carrying out crime pattern and complaint analysis; how many Police Service staff are assigned to develop this programme and at what grades and ranks; how many hours per week they are working on this project; where they are based; what their geographical spread is from policing districts across Northern Ireland; what their composition is in terms of(a) gender and (b) perceived community background; and what budget has been allocated for this project. [133540]

  Mr. Ingram
  A Centre has been established to develop, deliver and support a service-wide analytical capability for Crime Pattern Analysis. The centre is staffed by a civilian Grade 7; two Deputy Principals, four Staff Officers; one programmer analyst; seven Executive Officers; six Administrative Officers and three Administrative Assistants. Of the 24 staff, seven are male and 17 female with 14 perceived to be from a Protestant background, four perceived to be from a Roman Catholic background and six staff whose religion is undetermined.

  The team is based at offices in Belfast and is working full-time on the project. A full process of consultation is taking place with policing areas across Northern Ireland and it is anticipated that the first dedicated police analysts will be available to local command units before the end of the year. The cost of this project is currently being met from the budget allocation to Operations Department although a bid for additional funding has been made.

  Computerised data on complaints are available to commanders in all areas of Northern Ireland for information and analysis. Senior officers in Complaints and Discipline Branch, as part of their day to day duties, monitor individual and broad issues arising from complaints. A Constable and an Assistant Statistician, based in an office in Belfast, are assigned full-time to complaint analysis duties. Given that only two officers staff the office and in the interests of safeguarding personal information, I do not consider it appropriate to comment on their gender or perceived community background.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in investigating options for premises to be used by the RUC Widows Association; where these premises are located; what funding he has agreed to contribute towards the financing of the Widows Association; how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff the Association will employ; and what regulations will govern the spending of the association. [133527]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government were pleased, in meeting recommendation 88 of the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, to agree funding for the RUC Widows Association to run their organisation. Payment of the grant in aid is subject to standard conditions. Office premises have been set up at 100 Belfast Road, Holywood. The Association plans to employ three part-time co-ordinators.
  22W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive the first report from the Oversight Commissioner; what arrangements he has put in place to publish the report; how many copies he intends to publish; and at what estimated cost. [133544]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is anticipated that the Commissioner will make his first report when the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill has completed its Parliamentary passage. The report will be laid before each of the Houses of Parliament. The number of copies to be published and the associated cost have yet to be determined.

  Private Sector Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to his Department since June 1997. [133878]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There have been no secondments as yet to the Northern Ireland Office from private sector companies.

  Suicide (Prisons)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners took their own lives in prison in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years broken down by age, religion, institution in which they were held and the method of death. [134159]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were no suicides in Northern Ireland prison establishments in 1992 and 1993. Details for the other years are as shown. The method used in all cases was hanging. Religious affiliation is private confidential information.

  1990–1 inmate, Magilligan, aged 31 years

  1991–1 inmate, Belfast, aged 31 years

  1994–2 inmates, Belfast, aged 24 and 27 years

  1994–1 inmate, Maghaberry, aged 31 years

  1995–1 inmate, Belfast, aged 19 years

  1995–1 inmate, Maghaberry, aged 30 years

  1996–1 inmate, Maghaberry, aged 25 years

  1997–1 inmate, Maghaberry, aged 29 years

  1998–1 inmate, Maghaberry, aged 22 years

  1999–1 inmate, Maghaberry, aged 35 years.

  Coroners' inquests have yet to determine the cause of three other deaths in prison. During the same period there has been one death due to hanging in the Young Offenders Centre and two other deaths there are under investigation by the Coroner.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when action to prevent suicide in Northern Ireland prisons will be brought into line with practice in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [134156]

  Mr. Ingram
  Suicide awareness policy and practice in the Northern Ireland Prison Service is broadly in line with practice in prison establishments in England and Wales.

  Suicides (Hydebank Wood)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times heavy canvas suits have been used on suicidal boys in Hydebank Wood Young Offenders' Institution in each of the last 10 years. [134158]

  Mr. Ingram
  Heavy canvas suits have not been used on any inmate considered to be at risk of suicide or self-harm at HM Young Offenders Centre during the last 10 years.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times single separation has been used on suicidal boys in Hydebank Wood Young Offenders' Institution in each of the last 10 years. [134157]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is available only from 1995.

  Records show that the observation room in the Young Offenders Centre hospital has been used for inmates who are deemed to be medically at risk. This will include, but not exclusively, inmates considered to be at risk of suicide or self-harm.

  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Times

  1995

  21

  1996

  27

  1997

  25

  1998

  38

  1999

  38

  2000

  130

  1Up to 13 October 2000

  None of the inmates that were placed in the observation room has taken his own life there.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many boys who committed suicide in Hydebank Wood had been(a) subjected to single separation in an observation cell and (b) placed in a heavy canvas suit. [134155]

  Mr. Ingram
  Heavy canvas suits are not in use in the Young Offenders Centre. No inmate placed in the observation cell in the Centre hospital has taken his life there.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  RUC Officers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with(a) the United Nations, (b) the OSCE and (c) other international organisations concerning the participation of serving and former RUC officers in peace-keeping duties overseas. [133523]

  Mr. Hain
  The RUC are one of the many police forces in the UK who contribute valuable officers as part of UK civilian police contingents to international peacekeeping operations.
  24W
  My officials are in regular contact with those international and regional organisations deploying civilian police overseas to discuss issues relating to the deployment of UK civilian police, including the RUC.

  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the development of a charter of fundamental rights. [134204]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government strongly support the Charter. People need to know their rights, and the EU Institutions need to respect them. The Conclusions of the June 1999 Cologne European Council set out the rationale for the Charter. It has two main benefits: it sets out fundamental rights and principles that the EU Institutions should respect when going about their daily business, and promotes their visibility and accessibility.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place the provisional text of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Library. [134172]

  Mr. Vaz
  The draft text submitted to the Biarritz European Council was placed in the Libraries of both Houses earlier this month.

DEFENCE

  Ships Names and Badges Committee
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of the Ships' Names and Badges Committee, the dates and locations of meetings during the last 12 months and the costs of such meetings. [134164]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ships Names and Badges Committee was formed in 1983 with the amalgamation of the Ships Names Committee (founded in 1913) and the Ships Badges Committee (founded in 1918). The Committee has four standing members:

  The Captain, Naval Ship Acceptance (Chairman)

  Head Naval Historical Branch, Naval Staff

  Naval Regional Officer, Scotland and Northern Ireland

  The Admiralty Librarian (Secretary).

  The Committee may call upon additional specialist attendees such as the Naval Adviser on Heraldry and representatives of naval commands pertinent to the type of vessel under consideration.

  Prior to July of this year, the standing committee was larger, and comprised:

  The Captain, Naval Ship Acceptance (Chairman)

  Head Naval Historical Branch, Naval Staff

  Naval Regional Officer Scotland and Northern Ireland

  The Admiralty Librarian (Secretary)

  Naval Adviser on Heraldry

  Representatives from the staffs of:

  Commander in Chief Fleet

  Commodore Royal Fleet Auxiliary

  Director of Naval Service Conditions

  Director of Corporate Communications (Navy)

  Director of Naval Resources and Programmes.

  25W
  The committee has met in the Ministry of Defence, Whitehall on three occasions over the last 12 months:

  8 December 1999

  8 June 2000

  5 October 2000.

  There were nine attendees at the first two meetings and three at the last. Each of these meetings has lasted one hour on average but will clearly vary subject to the number of vessels under consideration. The cost of such meetings is minimal.

  Radio Systems
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the Bowman Radio Project with special reference to the(a) project overrun and (b) cost; [133586]

  (2) if he will make a statement on future use of the Clausman Radio System with relevance to its life expectancy. [133587]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have taken these as referring to Bowman and Clansman. Bowman will provide the armed forces with a tactical combat radio communications system to replace the Clansman system which has been in service since the mid 70s. Clansman will continue to be fully supported until the introduction of Bowman. MOD is seeking to maintain the current planned in service date of late 2003/early 2004 for Bowman, but until the outcome of the competition is known it is not possible to give a firm date.

  The original Bowman in service date of December 1995 has slipped for a number of reasons including technical difficulties, the collapse of the original competition and industrial and budgetary constraints. The announcement in July this year of our intention to remove preferred supplier status from Archer Communications Systems Ltd. and to run a new competition has placed the project on a firm Smart Procurement footing and we are confident that competition offers the best prospect of delivering the currently planned In Service Date.

  For the purposes of new competition, the available budget for the procurement of Bowman is £1.7 billion (VAT inc). This figure excludes sunk costs, long term support and Government Funded Material.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a decision on the new prime contractor for Bowman; and if he will state the(a) in-service date and (b) available budget. [133839]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert to Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 23 October 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the BOWMAN communication system. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Depending on the outcome of the competition, we expect to award the BOWMAN production contract during late summer 2001.
  We are seeking to maintain the current planned in-service date of late 03/early 04, but until the outcome of the competition is know, it is not possible to give a firm date. We remain confident that
  26W
  competition offers the best route to meeting the requirement within an acceptable time-scale. To date, this has been validated by the vigorous competition currently being conducted between potential Prime Contractors.
  For the purposes of the new competition, and based on work to date, we have set industry a budget for the procurement of BOWMAN at £1.7 billion. (Vat inc) This figure excludes sunk costs, long term support and Government Funded Material.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the in-service date is for the Bowman combat radio system; and if he will make a statement. [131786]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 23 October 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the BOWMAN communication system. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  I can confirm that MOD is seeking to maintain the current planned in-service date of late 03/early 04, but that until the outcome of the competition, it is not possible to give a firm date. We remain confident that competition offers the best route to meeting the requirement within an acceptable time-scale. To date, this has been validated by the vigorous competition currently being conducted between potential Prime Contractors.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 550W, (1) on the Chinook crash, whether the emergency power warning lights were switched on at the time of the impact at the Wilmington crash; [133755]

  (2) if (a) the Air Accident Investigation Board and (b) his Department have concluded that FADEC was not a factor in the Wilmington crash. [133773]

  Mr. Spellar
  The incident at Wilmington, USA in 1989 concerned a Chinook HC 1 that sustained severe damage. One engine and the transmission/rotor system were over-stressed, while undergoing tests on the ground as part of development testing of a pre-production FADEC system. While the incident was caused by deficient test procedures, development standard FADEC was a factor.

  The aircraft did not leave the ground, and there was no crash or impact of any sort, consequently the Air Accidents Investigation Branch placed no part in the subsequent investigations. Rather, a MOD(PE) Unit Inquiry into the incident was held at Wilmington in 1989. The records of that Inquiry do not report whether or not any emergency power warning lights had been illuminated.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, (a) who made the examination of the FADEC system as quoted in the Air Accident Investigation Board's report to the RAF Board of Inquiry and (b) if that examination found no possible link between the FADEC system and the accident. [133756]
  27W
  Mr. Spellar
  The examination of the FADEC system of Chinook ZD576 was carried out by a Senior Inspector of Air Accidents (Engineering) of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) as part of their independent technical investigation as advisers to the RAF Board of Inquiry into the accident. In conducting the examination the AAIB followed its normal procedures. The FADEC manufacturers took part in the FADEC investigation at the behest of the AAIB to enable it to conduct its investigation more effectively. This type of assistance is routine in such technical investigations and any testing carried out by a manufacturer is directed and supervised by a member of the AAIB to ensure impartial and unbiased advice is received. The level of contractor involvement was consistent with normal practice in military and civil aircraft accident investigations.

  FADEC failure was one of the possibilities considered by the Board of Inquiry. The AAIB examined the engine change units and FADEC in some detail. The Board of Inquiry report contains nothing to link the accident to the FADEC system.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, if he will give details of the outcome of his Department's claim against Textron Lycoming. [133759]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 152W, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the criteria on medical evidence used by the RAF Boards of Inquiry into the 1994 Chinook crash and the crash on 1 June 1995 of Harrier GR7 ZG475 were identical. [133590]

  Mr. Spellar
  All medical investigations following military accidents, including the 1994 Chinook crash and the crash on 1 June 1995 of Harrier GR7 ZG475, are carried out to standards agreed by NATO, and these are comparable to those of the Air Accidents Investigation Board for similar investigations following civil aircraft accidents. Medical investigations into fatal accidents for RAF Boards of Inquiry include an evaluation of the aircrew's medical history and an examination of the remains in an autopsy. However the latter may be limited by the degree of destruction to the body, often encountered in high speed accidents.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 456W, on the 1994 Chinook crash, if the fact that the mental and physical state of Flight Lieutenant Cook was most unlikely to have been a factor in the accident is sufficient to establish that there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the matter, under RAF Board of Inquiry rules. [133591]

  Mr. Spellar
  Post mortems were carried out on all the aircraft operating crew and the medical history of each of them was examined fully. The Board of Inquiry concluded that crew incapacitation was not a factor in the accident.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, if he will list the
  28W
  faulty test procedures that his Department was seeking redress for in their litigation claim against Textron Lycoming. [133757]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested relates to the Arbitration proceedings concerning Ministry of Defence's claim for damages following the Wilmington incident and is covered by a confidentiality agreement about the proceedings between the parties. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested under exemption 4c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 550W, on the Chinook crash, whether Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day knew of his Department's legal claim against the FADEC manufacturer, Textron Lycoming at the time of their investigation into the fatal crash of Chinook ZD576. [133758]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the time of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre accident, Sir William Wratten was not aware of this litigation and did not recall the Wilmington incident that led to this legal action being taken.

  Sir John Day was aware that there had been a problem with FADEC testing, but did not know of the extent of the Department's legal claim.

  Regardless of this, the investigation into the accident was very thorough. All possible causes, including FADEC, were examined, but no evidence was found of technical malfunction.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch investigation of the RAF Chinook ZD576; [133996]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the statement given by Mr. R. Parkinson, Senior Inspector of Air Accidents, to the Royal Air Force Board of Inquiry into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576. [133997]

  Mr. Spellar
  Both the report of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the statement given by Mr. R. Parkinson form part of the RAF Board of Inquiry report concerning this accident which is not in the public domain. I regret that it is our policy to provide such Board of Inquiry reports only to those directly involved, such as the next of kin of the deceased, although of course there is nothing to stop them copying the report further if they wish to do so.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the function of the Institute of Flight Safety; and what role it performed in the Inquiry into the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576. [133994]

  Mr. Spellar
  The principal aim of the Royal Air Force Inspectorate of Flight Safety (IFS) is to increase the operational effectiveness of the RAF through the promotion and development of flight safety. This is done by providing specialist flight safety advice, guidance and data to assist in eliminating unnecessary flying related risks that contribute to aircraft accidents. One of the core functions of IFS is to advise Boards of Inquiry on the procedural aspects of running such an Inquiry. This is undertaken by two trained Service accident investigation
  29W
  advisers, who also act as the first point of contact for all external agencies during the initial stages of an Inquiry. These tasks were carried out in the case of the Mull of Kintyre accident but IFS took no part in the actual Inquiry.

  Royal Navy Sales
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what former Royal Navy ships have been sold in the last four years; to whom; what was received for each sale; and if he will make a statement. [134138]

  Dr. Moonie
  For reasons of commercial sensitivity details of individual sales of former Royal Navy vessels cannot be given. However, during the last four financial years contracts signed from Government to Government and commercial sales of surplus vessels are as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Amount

  1996–97

  12.9

  1997–98

  4.2

  1998–99

  0.9

  1999–2000

  0.2

  The vessels sold on a Government to Government basis were:

  Type

  Name

  Country

  River Class Minesweepers

  HMS Itchen

  Brazil

  HMS Spey

  Brazil

  HMS Arun

  Brazil

  HMS Blackwater

  Brazil

  Peacock Class

  Hong Kong Patrol Craft

  HMS Peacock

  Philippines

  HMS Plover

  Philippines

  HMS Starling

  Philippines

  Additionally, two Hunt Class Mine Counter Measures vessels (HMS Bicester and HMS Berkeley) have been sold to the Hellenic Navy, Greece, (via Vosper Thorneycroft) during this financial year (2000–01). HMS Bicester was transferred 31 July 2000, and HMS Berkeley will be transferred over on 28 February 20001. These vessels are not included in the figures given.

  Accidents involving RAF aircraft, excluding those list in conflict, where the AAIB assisted in the subsequent investigation

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  30 April 1990

  Phantom FGR2 XV402

  RAF Valley

  30 April 1990

  Shackleton AEW2 WR965

  Isle of Harris, Outer Hebrides

  30 April 1990

  Tornado GR1 ZA 454

  22nm NE Goose Bay, Canada

  9 May 1990

  Hawk T1 XX347

  RAF Valley

  27 June 1990

  Canberra E15 WH972

  RAF Kinloss

  14 August 1990

  2 x Tornado GR1 ZA545 and ZA564

  N Sea, l0nm NE Spurn Head

  16 August 1990

  Tornado GR1 ZA561

  N Sea, l0nm NE Spurn Head

  12 September 1990

  Jaguar GR1A XZ387

  Solway Firth

  17 October 1990

  Harrier GR5 ZD355

  32nm NW Karup, Denmark

  13 November 1990

  Jaguar GR1A XX754

  Saudi Arabia

  7 December 1990

  Wessex HC2 XR519

  RAF Shawbury

  13 January 1991

  Tornado GR1 ZD718

  Oman, Gulf of Arabia

  18 March 1991

  Canberra T4 WJ877

  RAF Wyton

  1 May 1991

  Gazelle HT2 XZ940

  RAF Tern Hill

  10 May 1991

  Tornado GR1 ZA367

  20nm N Bremen, Germany

  30W
  To list the number of vessels sold on a commercial basis could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, some of the more significant sales were:

  Type

  Name

  Destination

  Royal Yacht

  HMY Britannia

  Britannia Trust

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Jupitor

  Samsung HK Ltd.

  Leander Class Frigate

  HMS Hermione

  Samsung HK Ltd.

  County Class Destroyer

  HMS Kent

  Samsung HK Ltd.

  Hecla Class Survey Ship

  HMS Hecla

  Simon Robinson

  Ton Class Mine Hunter

  HMS Wilton

  IMA Agents

  Type 42 Destroyer

  HMS Birmingham

  Resyna SA

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which former Royal Navy submarines have been sold to Canada in the last three years; what plans he has for submarine sales in the next three years and at what price; and if he will make a statement. [134137]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend Lord Robertson, the then Secretary of State for Defence, gave on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 52, to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth, (Mr. Healey). Canada has acquired the four ex-Royal Navy Upholder class submarines. The acquisition takes the form of an eight year lease with an option of outright purchase.

  The first of the submarines was handed over to Canada on 6 October 2000 and the three remaining submarines will follow over the next 18 months.

  The arrangement, which includes the submarines, training and initial spares, is worth some 610 million Canadian dollars.

  No other submarine sales or transfers to Canada have taken place over the last three years or are planned over the next three years.

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each occasion in the last 10 years in which the Air Accidents Investigation Branch has been involved in the investigation of military accidents. [133995]

  Mr. Spellar
  The list of all accidents, since 1990, involving RAF aircraft, but excluding those lost in conflict, where the Air Accidents Investigation Branch have assisted in the subsequent investigation is as follows.
  31W

  Accidents involving RAF aircraft, excluding those list in conflict, where the AAIB assisted in the subsequent investigation

  Date

  Aircraft

  Location

  29 May 1991

  Harrier GR7 ZG473

  6nm SE RAF Gutersloh

  24 June 1991

  Puma HC1 XW 215

  N Sea 20nm SE RAF Manston

  11 September 1991

  Hurricane 2C LF363

  RAF Wittering

  30 September 1991

  Harrier GR5 ZD4I2

  RAF Gutersloh, Germany

  15 October 1991

  Chinook HC1 ZA675

  RAF Odiham

  30 October 1991

  Phantom FGR2 XV421

  South Atlantic, near Falklands

  12 May 1992

  Tucano T1 ZF316

  11nm SE Lossiemouth

  14 May 1992

  Harrier GR3 XZ990

  RAF Wittering

  9 July 1992

  Buccaneer S2B XN976

  N Sea, 38nm E RAF Leuchars

  7 August 1992

  Harrier GR5 ZD350

  RAF Wittering

  22 September 1992

  Sea King HAR3 XZ593

  65nm SW RAF Brawdy

  16 October 1992

  Bulldog T1 XX513

  15nm E Belfast

  26 November 1992

  Puma HC1 XW233

  Bessbrook Mill, NI

  27 May 1993

  Hercules C3 XC193

  Scottish Highlands

  28 June 1993

  Harrier GR7 ZD430

  5nm SW Heckington, Lines

  1 July 1993

  Hawk T1 XX163

  RAF Valley

  12 August 1993

  Wessex HC2 XR524

  Llyn Padern, Gwenydd

  26 August 1993

  Chipmunk T10 WP980

  RAF St. Athan

  21 October 1993

  Tornado F3 ZE858

  Stainmore, Cumbria

  23 November 1993

  Harrier GR7 ZD432

  Sirensk, Northern Iraq

  14 January 1994

  Harrier GR7 ZD349

  5nm SE of Evesham

  2 June 1994

  Chinook HC2 ZD576

  Mull of Kintyre

  7 June 1994

  Tornado F3 ZE809

  N Sea, 45nm NE Scarborough

  8 July 1994

  Tornado F3 ZH558

  Mediterranean Sea

  19 July 1994

  Tornado GR1 ZA368

  Moray Firth

  1 September 1994

  Tornado GR1 ZG708

  Glen Ogle, Scotland

  19 September 1994

  Tornado GR1 ZG725

  Capa Frasca, Sardinia

  10 March 1995

  Tornado F3 ZE789

  N Sea 20nm SE Spurn Head

  16 May 1995

  Nimrod R1 ZW666

  Moray Firth

  1 June 1995

  Harrier GR7 ZG475

  Irish Sea 3nm SE Burrow Head

  21 June 1995

  Jaguar GR1A XZ373

  Adriatic Sea, 21nm N Bari

  2 September 1995

  Nimrod MR2P XV239

  Toronto Waterfront, Canada

  30 October 1995

  2 x Tornado F3 ZE733 and ZE210

  N Sea, 50nm E RAF Leuchars

  10 January 1996

  2 x Tornado F3 ZE862 and ZE166

  8nm W RAF Coningsby

  11 January 1996

  Tornado GR1 ZE846

  5nm SW Munster, Germany

  23 January 1996

  Jaguar GR1 XX733

  RAF Coltishall

  13 February 1996

  Hawk T1 XX164

  RAF Valley

  19 February 1996

  Harrier GR7 ZG476

  4nm SE RAF Wittering

  26 February 1996

  Tornado GR1 ZD845

  9nm SE RAF Laarbruch, Germany

  13 May 1996

  Tucano T1 ZF270

  4nm W Great Driffield

  18 September 1996

  Jaguar T2A XX143

  RAF Lossiemouth

  9 January 1997

  Harrier GR7 ZD377

  RAF Laarbruch

  15 February 1997

  Puma HC1 XW225

  Steingarten, Germany

  19 May 1997

  Harrier GR7 ZD400

  RAF Wittering

  3 June 1997

  Harrier GR7 ZG861

  3nm SW Castle Douglas

  21 July 1997

  Bulldog T1 XX710

  RAF Woodvale

  31 October 1997

  Harrier GR7 ZD324

  ½NW RAF Wittering

  30 April 1998

  Hawk T1 XX186

  Irish Sea, 20nm W RAF Valley

  18 December 1998

  Harrier GR7 ZD434

  Barnard Castle

  29 January 1999

  Harrier GR7 ZG856

  Nellis Air Force base, Nevada

  4 February 1999

  Harrier GR7 ZD326

  7nm E RAF Laarbruch

  5 March 1999

  Bulldog T1 XX666

  RAF Leuchars

  11 June 1999

  Hercules C130 XV298

  Kukes Airfield, Albania

  9 July 1999

  Harrier GR7 ZD345

  5m SW Boston

  14 July 1999

  Harrier GR7 ZG532

  6nm E Coldstream

  14 October 1999

  Tornado GR1 ZD809

  1½nm SE Kirkheaton

  20 October 1999

  Jaguar GR1 XZ381

  Moray Firth

  22 October 1999

  Hawk T1 XX193

  Shap, l0nm S Penrith

  17 November 1999

  Tornado F3 ZE830

  1½nm SE Torness power station

  25 November 1999

  Chinook HC2 ZA704

  10 nm S Seeb, Oman

  19 April 2000

  Puma XW207

  RAF Catterick

  Formation Communications System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in the procurement of the Formation Communications System. [132176]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  32W
  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 23 October 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence as to what progress has been made in the procurement of the Formation Communication System. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

  33W
  The Formation Communication System is now known as project 'FALCON'. The Procurement Strategy was revised in 2000 to take account of Smart Procurement principles and is to purchase the FALCON equipment in successive increments, enabling the best value for money and the most up-to-date technology to be acquired for the armed forces. Invitations To Tender for a competitive Concept Phase to study the most appropriate technology and procurement options for the early FALCON trances were issued to six UK-based companies on 3 July 2000. Five responses were received. These have been assessed and it is intended to place four contracts later this year in order to study a range of different approaches to meeting the requirement.

  Modernising Defence Initiative
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Modernising Defence initiative. [132177]

  Mr. Hoon
  Modernising Defence is not a single initiative; the term covers a number of areas of work where we are improving the management of defence.

  This work builds on the modernisation and reshaping of our armed forces set out in the Strategic Defence Review. We are introducing a new Performance Management system, implementing Resource Accounting and Budgeting and conducting a review of our defence training needs.

  Modernising Defence also includes the work of five project groups that were formed in the Ministry of Defence to seek ideas for ways to improve our policy formulation, to address the needs of our people, to explore ways for the Ministry of Defence to work more closely with other Government Departments, and other public sector bodies, to look at our information needs, and more generally to examine what people need to help them do their jobs. These groups have now made their recommendations, and these have been agreed by the Defence Management Board who have set in hand an action plan for implementation. The plan includes the formation of an External Relations Unit to act as a Gateway between Ministry of Defence and other Government Departments and regional bodies and the appointment of a new Director General for Information to draw together an Information Strategy for the Ministry of Defence.

  Software Programmable Radios
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to procure software programmable radios. [132179]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 23 October 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the procurement of software programmable radios. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  There are currently no plans to procure software programmable radios. Such technology is promising, but is not considered ready for implementation in UK programmes. In view of its potential, however, the MOD is investing in the underlying technology, through its Applied Research Programme.

  MRAV Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the MRAV programme; and if he will make a statement. [133836]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 23 October 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV). This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  A bilateral UK/German firm price contract for the development of MRAV was placed with the industrial consortium ARTEC GmbH on 5 November 1999, since when satisfactory progress has been made. So far there have been four programme milestones, covering ballistic plate trials, delivery of initial build standard documentation, delivery of management plans and acceptance of ergonomic mock ups. All four milestones were achieved on time.
  MRAV will be procured through the quadrilateral Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR).

  Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the result of the Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft down selection; and if he will make a statement. [133837]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 23 October 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the down-selection of the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  No decision has yet been made on how best to meet the FCBA requirement. A number of options remain under consideration of which the US-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is a strong contender.
  Under US plans, the down selection decision on which of the two competing JSF designs will enter the next phase of the programme, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, will not be taken until the latter part of next year.
  I hope that this explains the position.

  OCCAR Convention
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he and his European counterparts have made in implementing the OCCAR Convention; and if he will list the projects that organisation will be overseeing. [133840]

  Mr. Hoon
  The OCCAR Convention was signed by the Defence Ministers of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom in September 1998. Following the passage of the relevant legislation through Parliament earlier this year, the United Kingdom ratified the Convention on 3 May and deposited its instrument of ratification on 11 May. France and Germany have also completed the ratification process, and Italy has presented
  35W
  the Convention to its Parliament. We expect Italy to complete the ratification process by the end of this year, after which OCCAR will have its own legal identity.

  OCCAR is already responsible for the management of seven European collaborative defence equipment programmes under existing administrative arrangements. Two of these involve the UK: the Counter Battery Radar (COBRA) programme; and the Multi Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) programme. Other programmes will be integrated into OCCAR in due course, as appropriate.

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to recruit another battalion of Gurkhas; and if he will make a statement; [133880]

  (2) how many Gurkha troops are serving in the Army; what percentage that is of British infantry; and if he will make a statement. [133875]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 191W, which stated that we have extended the Gurkha Reinforcement Companies and introduced a second Gurkha Engineer Squadron and Gurkha Signal Squadron. We have no current plans to recruit another Battalion of Gurkhas.

  There are 3,357 Gurkhas currently serving with the British Army, of whom approximately 2,100 serve in an infantry role. This represents 7.7 per cent. of the whole Army infantry strength.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment whose claims for the Accumulated Service Medal were reviewed because of insufficient evidence were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in claiming the medal. [134152]

  Dr. Moonie
  A total of 327 such cases have been considered by the Army Medal Board to date. Of these, 256 have been successful, 54 proved to have no entitlement and were rejected, and 17 have been returned to the Regimental Headquarters of The Royal Irish Regiment for further investigation. An additional 821 applications, for the Accumulated Campaign Service Medal, have still to be prepared for Army Medal Board Consideration.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedure was followed by the Honours and Distinction Committee to ascertain the eligibility of former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment claiming Accumulated Service Medals, but for whom the necessary records were not available. [134151]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave him on 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 425W.

  Ro-ro Vessels
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the management, technical and financial innovation, (b) the cost and quality,
  36W
  (c) the value for money and (d) the competitiveness of the Cammell Laird component of the Maersk bid for ro-ro vessels. [133973]

  Mr. Hoon
  No decision on the strategic sealift competition has as yet been made and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the bids at this stage of the competition.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relationship between the partnership agreement between BAe systems and his Department on maintenance and repair work and orders for ro-ro vessels. [133942]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is no relationship between the orders for ro-ro vessels and the partnership agreements between the Department and BAe Systems for maintenance and repair work.

  The vessels that provide the ro-ro service will be owned by a private company, who will also be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the vessels.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce the winner of the roll-on roll-off vessel competition; and if he will give the in-service date of the vessels. [133838]

  Mr. Hoon
  No decision on the strategic sealift competition has as yet been made. I hope to make an announcement shortly. All six vessels are currently planned to be available by 2005.

  Intrusive Diving
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has had from counsel on the activities of sport divers, in relation to the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986; and if he will make a statement on his policy on intrusive diving. [134179]

  Dr. Moonie
  A review of policy on wrecked military vessels is being undertaken at present. As part of this review we have looked at legal issues but it has not been necessary to seek advice from counsel as I had previously indicated. I will write to my hon. Friend when the review is complete and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  MK8 Gun System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of development of the Mk 8 MOD 14.5 inch gun system; if the programme is running to schedule; what the original estimated cost and in-service date was; and if he will make a statement. [134142]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following initial development work at a cost of some £800,000, further development of the 4.5 inch Mk 8 MOD1 gun system is being conducted as part of a firm priced contract covering full development, initial update of eight units and support. The cost of this contract is commercially confidential and I am therefore withholding it in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Third Party's commercial confidences. The original estimated total development cost was in the order of £13 million. The development and initial
  37W
  production programme is running to schedule and is on target to meet the first planned ship fitting of the modified gun system to HMS Norfolk in November 2000.

  Maverick Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the cost was of developing the AGM-6562 Maverick Medium Range air to surface missile for RAF use; how long this process has taken; and if he will make a statement; [134140]

  (2) what the total cost is of the procurement of the AGM-6552 Maverick Programme; when deployment will take place; how long this programme is scheduled to last; how long the development programme was; and if he will make a statement. [134141]

  Dr. Moonie
  The AGM-65G2 Maverick Medium Range missile is a proven "off the shelf' missile. No development costs were incurred by the RAF. However, some £1.5 million was spent on aircraft integration and proof of concept work. The whole life cost of the Maverick programme is approximately £55 million, inclusive of VAT. This includes the cost of procurement, integration, training, and a Contractor Logistic Support package. The programme will last some five years, with the first missiles being deployed by the end of the year.

  NATO Peace Shield 2000
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what UK forces took part in the NATO Peace Shield 2000 exercise; how many personnel were involved; and if he will make a statement. [134139]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK participated in NATO exercise Peace Shield 2000 by sending two Reservist officers: one a member of the Education and Training Support branch of the Adjutant General Corps, and a Captain in the Intelligence Corps. Both officers operated in the brigade headquarters, in the logistics and the intelligence and operations divisions respectively. Both are high-grade linguists and were widely used as interpreters. Approximately 2,000 personnel from 21 nations took part.

  Weapons Decommissioning
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the UK has paid in the last five years to(a) help destroy and (b) make safe (i) chemical weapons, and (ii) stocks of plutonium; how long current programmes are scheduled to run; what the total cost is and from which budget the money has come; and if he will make a statement. [134135]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Future Army Concept Paper
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Future Army Concept Paper. [132175]

  Mr. Spellar
  A declassified version of the Future Army Concept Paper 1999 has been placed in the Library of the House. This outlines the capabilities required by the Army in the 10–20 year time frame in the predicted future 38W
  defence environment. It is underpinned by the principles and assumptions of the Strategic Defence Review and forms an important part of the Army's strategic planning process.

  Link 16/JTIDS Terminals
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which UK military assets are equipped with Link 16/JTIDS terminals. [132180]

  Dr. Moonie
  Link 16/JTIDS terminals are currently fitted to the Tornado F3 and Sentry E3 aircraft and also to the UK Air Defence Ground Environment. Terminals were also fitted to a number of VC10 and Tristar Tanker aircraft in 1999 to meet an Urgent Operational Requirement in Kosovo.

  We are planning to fit Link 16 terminals to a number of other Air, Naval and Army platforms, the primary ones being Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft, Sea King AEW Mk7 helicopter, Aircraft Carriers, Type 42 Destroyers, Type 45 Destroyers and Air Defence equipment. This will make a significant contribution to situational awareness for platform commanders. Other potential applications are also being studied.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the companies and organisations which have expressed interest in future purchase No. N/SUB1/64247, interim land storage of radioactive waste from de-commissioned nuclear submarines. [132475]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following companies have provided written expressions of interest, in response to future purchase number N/SUB1/64247, for the interim land storage of radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines:

  AEA Technology plc

  WS Atkins Consultants Ltd.

  Babtie Group Ltd.

  BAE Systems Marine Ltd.

  Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd.

  European Nuclear Technologies Ltd.

  Gibb Ltd.

  Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd.

  NNC Ltd.

  Nuclear Technologies plc

  NUKEM Nuclear Ltd.

  Rolls Royce Power Engineering plc

  Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd.

  Smart Procurement Initiative
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings his Department has achieved so far under the Smart Procurement Initiative; and what savings he expects to achieve up to July 2008. [133841]

  Dr. Moonie
  Over the three successive annual planning rounds since the inception of the Smart Procurement Initiative, we have identified costing reductions
  39W
  attributable to Smart Procurement which total £2 billion over the 10-year period 1998 to 2008. We expect to improve on this in current and future planning rounds.

  Armed Forces Voters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to inform service personnel of the implications of section 7 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 for armed forces voters. [133730]

  Mr. Spellar
  A Joint Service Defence Council Instruction is being prepared to inform Service personnel and their dependants about the implications of the new electoral registration procedures. In addition, articles will be provided for Services' in-house news publications, appropriate families' and dependants' journals and single Service websites. A reference to section 7 of the RPA 2000 will be included, explaining to those with a Service qualification that they will have the option of either still registering annually to vote by means of a Service declaration, or registering in the same way as other voters if the appropriate residence criteria are met. The articles will complement the laying before Parliament of the regulations for electoral registration.

  Marchwood Military Port
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security implications for Marchwood Military Port of the siting of a container port and access roads thereto in its close vicinity. [133808]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence would have no objection in principle to any such development and indeed could see some operational advantages to the construction of such a container port. However, any such development would have to take careful account of the special requirements that would be associated with the construction of a civilian facility adjacent to a strategic military asset. In particular, we would need to review carefully the impact of security at the port, together with associated access and safety issues. If any such development were to be taken forward, the MOD would need to be involved at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the capability of this important military facility was not compromised. Necessarily, this would demand that the MOD's requirements were addressed fully within the planning process.

  Submarine Reactor Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress made in extending the Wet Inlet Facility for storage of submarine reactor fuel at Sellafield. [134171]

  Mr. Hoon
  The new Wet Inlet Facility for the storage of spent submarine reactor fuel at Sellafield is on schedule to be fully operational by the original contract date of 1 December 2001.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department was represented at the meeting held in Paris at the beginning of September on the health implications for servicemen and medical auxiliaries of 40W
  inhalation of depleted uranium during Operation Granby in Kuwait/Iraq in 1991; and if he will examine the evidence presented at the Conference of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine by Professor Durakovic, of Georgetown University, on depleted uranium. [134170]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department was not represented at the Annual Congress of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine in Paris on 3 September 2000. However, officials from my Department have seen copies of the slides that they understand were used by Dr. Durakovic during his presentation. The slides need further explanation by Dr. Durakovic to permit proper evaluation of his work. Dr. Durakovic will be invited by my Department to provide additional information.

  Post Traumatic Stress
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have left the armed forces as a result of post traumatic stress disorder brought on during service in the forces in each of the last five years; and what counselling services are available to service personnel involved in a traumatic situation. [134161]

  Dr. Moonie
  The numbers of personnel medically discharged from the Armed Forces in each of the last five years due solely or mainly to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  34

  1996

  27

  1997

  19

  1998

  18

  1999

  18

  My Department fully recognises PTSD as a potentially serious and disabling medical condition. Personnel needing counselling or psychiatric treatment have access to the Community Psychiatric Service at units, out-patient care at the Royal Hospital Haslar and in or out-patient care at the Duchess of Kent's Psychiatric Hospital, Catterick. Measures are in place aimed at preventing PTSD occurring among Service personnel including briefings for personnel deployed on military operations and the availability of counselling during deployments.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many members of the Crown Prosecution Service have taken voluntary redundancy since the review of the Crown Prosecution Service; and for what reasons. [134003]

  The Solicitor-General
  Since the review of the Crown Prosecution Service, 20 members of that Department have taken voluntary redundancy. All have done so as a result of the organisational restructuring within the Department. By way of comparison, the Department currently has 6,383 members of staff in post.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many members of the Crown Prosecution Service have taken early retirement since the review of the Crown Prosecution Service; and for what reasons. [133943]
  41W
  The Solicitor-General
  Since the review of the Crown Prosecution Service, five members of that Department have taken early retirement. Of those, two have done so as a result of the organisational restructuring within the Department, a further two retired for personal reasons and the fifth retired on grounds of ill health. By way of comparison, the Department currently has 6,383 members of staff in post.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sexual Services (Advertising)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the radio and television regulatory bodies regarding the use of radio and television to advertise sexual services; [133635]

  (2) what powers he has to prevent the advertising by prostitutes on radio and television. [133636]

  Janet Anderson
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 9 August and placed a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Table Tennis
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers he has to curtail Sport England's funding of table tennis. [134099]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The way in which it allocates its grant-in-aid is primarily a matter for Sport England, subject to the terms and conditions of its Royal Charter and its Financial Memorandum, agreed with my Department. The Financial Memorandum provides that grant-in-aid is to be used by Sport England for the furtherance of its objects and the exercise of its powers within the terms of the Royal Charter, the Memorandum and of any other guidance or conditions, general statements on policy or directions issued by me.

  Subject to these general constraints, the Financial Memorandum states that Sport England may determine how it spends its grant-in-aid without my prior approval, except in certain defined exceptional circumstances. The allocation of Lottery funding by Sport England is subject to general directions issued by me and specified types of funding may be prohibited by order.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the error on pages 46 and 47 of the Government's annual report regarding the UK Sports Institute was first brought to his attention. [134100]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The passage referred to in the Government's annual report could have been misleading, and certainly did not give a full picture of progress in the development of the UK Sports Institute.

  To date, over £50 million of Lottery funding has been committed by Sport England to facilities for the English network of the UK Sports Institute. In May/June 2000, the water-based hockey pitches in Birmingham and Cannock were among the first completed new projects. Detailed designs and project development work have been
  42W
  undertaken for the network sites at Sheffield, Manchester, Bath and Loughborough. The Stage Two Lottery application for athletics, judo, netball, table tennis, and general facilities at Sheffield has already been approved. Many more projects are well advanced and it is expected that the majority of the remaining Lottery applications, representing over £60 million of further investment in network facilities in England, will be made in the next six months.

  In addition, the UKSI—Scottish Institute of Sport, funded by Sport Scotland, has been established and operating for 18 months and the Sports Council for Wales has been operating and developing UKSI Cymru for some time. Both have been providing a range of services direct to athletes including technical training and support, conditioning guidance and supervision, preventive and reactive sports medical support and sports science.

  Across the UK as a whole, the Athlete Career and Education programme (ACE UK) is up and running, providing personal development courses to athletes to meet their individual needs, as well as a high performance coaching programme introduced to provide a range of sport and coach specific personalised programmes in IT skills through to specific training sessions.

  I am arranging for copies of the UKSI Quarterly Update report for August 2000—produced by UK Sport—to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses to provide further information on progress of the UK Sports Institute.

  Football
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who is responsible for appointing the chairman of the Independent Football Commission; and what discussions he had in this regard with(a) football governing bodies, (b) football supporters groups and (c) the right hon. Member for Copeland, (Dr. Cunningham). [134123]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As I announced on Friday 20 October, I have agreed to appoint the Chairman of the Independent Football Commission for his or her first term and I am now seeking applications for this post. I will select the preferred candidate on the advice of an appointments panel chaired by one of my officials as would be the case with a public appointment.

  I have held a wide number of discussions about the recommendations of the Football Task Force with football governing bodies, football supporters groups and other interested parties including my right hon. Friend, the Member for Copeland, (Dr. Cunningham).

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date(a) the Millennium Commission and (b) the New Millennium Experience Company were advised that agreement had been reached with Dome Europe for the sale of the Millennium Dome. [134124]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) was informed of the Government's decision to make Dome Europe preferred bidder on 26 July. The Millennium Commission was informed at its meeting on 27 July.

  Philharmonic Hall (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding is being made available to Liverpool City Council in respect of the Philharmonic Hall in Liverpool. [133881]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I am aware of negotiations currently between Liverpool City Council and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society over the future running of the Philharmonic Hall. I am not aware that final conclusions have been reached. The question of whether additional funding would be available to the City Council is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Free Television Licences
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners will benefit from free television licences in Warrington, South this year. [133753]

  Janet Anderson
  Everyone aged 75 or over will be entitled to benefit from a free television licence from 1 November this year, but television licences cover households rather than individuals. Exact figures on the number of households which will benefit from the concession are not available. However, the 1991 Census New Parliamentary Constituency Monitor, published by the Office for National Statistics, shows the population of the Warrington, South constituency as 88,040, of which 2.2 per cent. were men aged 75 and over and 4.3 per cent. were women aged 75 and over.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many acres of(a) public and (b) school playing fields have been sold off in each year since 1997. [133989]

  Kate Hoey
  Information on the acreage of public playing fields sold since 1997 is not available. Sport England does however, monitor the number of planning applications concerning playing fields in its role as statutory consultee.

  The Amendment to Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act in October 1998, which was brought in to halt the previous Administration's policy of forcing schools to sell off playing fields, has introduced powers that require all state schools to seek consent for the sale of playing fields from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. In making his decision my right hon. Friend will take into account a number of criteria including consultation with the community and user groups, whether the proceeds will be used for education or used to enhance or improve sports provision, and whether the remaining playing fields fully meet the needs of local schools and the community.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment gave approval for the sale of 26.4 acres of school playing fields in England in 1998; 111.2 acres in 1999, and 60.9 acres in 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he has made to meet the needs of asylum seekers who have been victims of torture before arriving in the UK. [133823]

  Mrs. Roche
  All asylum seekers and their dependants are entitled to register with a doctor to receive medical treatment. Doctors can refer asylum seekers who have, or who it is believed may have, been tortured to specialist medical practitioners to enable them to receive appropriate treatment. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) may consider meeting the travel costs of asylum seekers supported by it who need to travel to the Medical Foundation for an initial assessment in connection with their application for asylum. NASS will also consider meeting the travel costs of an asylum seeker it is supporting in dispersed accommodation and who needs to travel to the Medical Foundation for specialist treatment following referral by their General Practitioner.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 2000,Official Report, columns 362–63W, (1) if he will assess the impact of the controls added to the drinks industry's code of practice on the merchandising and packaging of alcoholic drinks; [134074]

  (2) about merchandising and packaging of alcoholic drinks, if he will assess the impact of the measures the drinks industry is taking to ensure alcohol is made less accessible to children. [134072]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Portman Group's Code of Practice, which is supported by the overwhelming majority of companies involved in the manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks, has provided real and substantial benefits. The numbers of complaints and upheld complaints have both fallen; the findings of the independent panel, set up by the Group to consider complaints of breaches of the code, have enjoyed a high degree of compliance; and the Group's system of Retailer Alert Bulletins, advising retailers not to stock offending products in their original packaging, has reduced their availability to the public.

  Other industry initiatives, including the development and distribution of proof of age cards, should be commended.

  Nevertheless, it is a cause for great concern that, as separate research studies show, large numbers of children under 18 are able to buy alcohol, both in pubs and in retail outlets. It is for this reason that we have strongly supported the provisions strengthening the law on under-age sales included in the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell); and that we have proposed to bring forward further measures to deal with the problem, including the test purchasing of alcohol, as set out in our White Paper "Time for Reform".
  45W
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of the drinks industry on the application of the code of practice on the naming of alcoholic products. [133972]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I meet representatives, which may include the Portman Group, from time to time, to discuss matters of current interest, which may include the operation of the Group's code of practice on the naming, packaging and merchandising of alcohol drinks.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 2000,Official Report, columns 362–63W, about merchandising and packaging of alcoholic drinks, (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the provision in the Code of Practice about avoiding artificially bright colours in the product and the packaging has been implemented; [134071]

  (2) if he will make a statement on how the taste and texture of beers, ciders and lagers are assessed when deciding if the product misleads about its true alcoholic nature. [134073]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since September 1997, there have been five complaints that alcoholic products or their packaging have been more likely to appeal to under-18s than adults by reason of artificially bright colours. Of these complaints, two have been upheld by the independent complaints panel for the Portman Group's code of practice.

  The panel has also upheld two complaints (one relating to the same product as one of the complaints mentioned above) where a product's texture contributed to its excessive appeal to under-18s.

  It is a matter for the panel to decide how to take relevant factors such as texture into account when considering the question of a product's appeal to under-18s.

  I understand that the code is likely to be reviewed next year.

  New fixed penalty offences—Number of substantive tickets issued, England and Wales, August to December 1999

  Police force

  Carrying more than one person on pedal cycle

  Cycling on the footway (pavement)

  Registration mark defective

  Overtaking at pelican, zebra or puffin crossing

  Driving on footway (pavement)

  Total

  Avon and Somerset

  —

  19

  127

  7

  16

  169

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  4—

  Cheshire

  —

  6

  87

  60

  2

  155

  Cleveland

  1

  5

  4

  4

  —

  14

  Cumbria

  2

  12

  32

  —

  4

  50

  Derbyshire

  —

  3

  5

  —

  3

  11

  Devon and Cornwall

  1

  28

  20

  —

  4

  53

  Dorset

  1

  7

  92

  4

  7

  111

  Durham

  —

  7

  14

  —

  1

  22

  Essex

  2

  76

  236

  1

  5

  320

  Gloucestershire

  —

  25

  31

  —

  6

  62

  Greater Manchester

  2

  38

  126

  5

  1n/a

  171

  Hampshire

  1

  52

  92

  2

  —

  147

  Hertfordshire

  —

  11

  114

  2

  3

  130

  Pedal Cycles
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 26 June 2000,Official Report, columns 384–86W, if he will call for reports on the reasons for the absence of fixed penalties for carrying more than one person on a pedal cycle in (a) Avon and Somerset, (b) Bedfordshire, (c) Cambridgeshire, (d) Cheshire, (e) Derbyshire, (f) Durham, (g) Essex, (h) Gloucestershire, (i) Hertfordshire, (j) Humberside, (k) the City of ondon, (l) the Metropolitan Police area, (m) Norfolk, (n) Northamptonshire, (o) North Yorkshire,(p) Nottinghamshire, (q) South Yorkshire, (r) Staffordshire, (s) Surrey, (t) Sussex, (u) Warwickshire, (v) the West Midlands and (w) West Yorkshire, between 1 August and 31 December 1999. [134070]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The issuing of fixed penalties for cycling offences is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. Data from Essex and Humberside have now been received and show that two and three fixed penalties were issued respectively for carrying more than one person on a pedal cycle for the period August to December 1999. Data have also now been received from West Yorkshire and show that one fixed penalty was issued for carrying more than one person on a pedal cycle for the period November to December 1999. Cambridgeshire cannot supply relevant data. The remaining forces have indicated that no fixed penalty notices were issued. I have no plans to call for reports in this instance from the forces referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), of 26 June 2000,Official Report, columns 384–86W, if he will call for a report on the reason for the absence of fixed penalties for cycling on pedestrian footways in West Yorkshire between 1 August and 31 December 1999. [134069]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The issuing of fixed penalties for cycling offences is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. Data from West Yorkshire have now been received and show that two fixed penalties were issued for the offence of cycling on the pavement in the period November to December 1999. No data are available for the period August to December 1999.
  47W

  New fixed penalty offences—Number of substantive tickets issued, England and Wales, August to December 1999

  Police force

  Carrying more than one person on pedal cycle

  Cycling on the footway (pavement)

  Registration mark defective

  Overtaking at pelican zebra or puffin crossing

  Driving on footway (pavement)

  Total

  Humberside

  3

  19

  35

  3

  1

  61

  Kent

  2

  48

  84

  2

  39

  175

  Lancashire

  2

  8

  65

  —

  41

  116

  Leicestershire

  1

  13

  30

  —

  2

  46

  Lincolnshire

  9

  15

  118

  1

  3

  146

  London, City of

  —

  10

  5

  —

  10

  25

  Merseyside

  1

  18

  3

  —

  5

  27

  Metropolitan Police

  —

  29

  109

  22

  8

  168

  Norfolk2

  —

  8

  1

  1

  1

  11

  Northamptonshire

  —

  2

  36

  —

  —

  38

  Northumbria

  1

  21

  32

  3

  9

  66

  North Yorkshire

  —

  18

  33

  2

  53

  106

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  5

  146

  —

  2

  153

  South Yorkshire

  —

  11

  219

  12

  61

  303

  Staffordshire2

  —

  3

  27

  4

  —

  34

  Suffolk

  2

  53

  30

  —

  —

  85

  Surrey

  —

  13

  78

  1

  4

  96

  Sussex

  —

  15

  5

  —

  —

  20

  Thames Valley

  1

  8

  —

  —

  2

  11

  Warwickshire

  —

  2

  16

  —

  2

  20

  West Mercia

  1

  36

  87

  4

  5

  133

  West Midlands

  —

  4

  12

  1

  1

  18

  West Yorkshire3

  1

  —

  —

  2

  2

  5

  Wiltshire

  —

  6

  17

  —

  1

  24

  Dyfed-Powys

  —

  7

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Gwent

  —

  —

  29

  1

  1

  31

  North Wales

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  34

  34

  South Wales

  —

  4

  11

  —

  38

  53

  Total (42 forces)

  34

  665

  2,208

  144

  377

  3,428

  1Included in column 2

  2October to December only

  3November to December only

  4Figures not available

  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect information, broken down by sub-division within each police authority, on the number of anti-social behaviour orders issued. [133595]

  Mr. Boateng
  As from 1 June this year, magistrates courts will be keeping records of the number of anti-social behaviour orders they issue in a form which can be collated centrally on a quarterly basis. The information centrally available under this system will be able to be broken down by petty sessions area, but not in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the notes of the meeting on 27 October 1997 between the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, (Mr. O'Brien), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Noth Hythe, (Mr. Howard) and the hon. Member for North Thanet. [133941]

  Mr. Straw
  I have placed a copy of the meeting notes in the Library today.

  Policing (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the funding for policing in Chorley was in each of the last three years. [133848]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been advised by the Chief Constable that Lancashire operates a system of devolved financial management whereby budgets are given both to Divisional Commanders (to run their policing division) and to Departmental Heads.

  Chorley is part of Southern Division, one of six policing divisions in Lancashire Constabulary.

  That part of the total Southern Division budget allocated to Chorley in the last three years was:

  £ million

  1998–99

  5.2

  1999–2000

  5.9

  2000–01

  6.1

  These costs include police and support staff salaries and a proportion of other Divisional support costs.

  The Chief Constable also tells me that a wide range of budgets/costs are incurred centrally such as those for Human Resources and Finance. In addition, there is a range of forcewide operational support functions such as an Intelligence Unit and an Operational Support Unit that

  49W
  support divisional activity. The Chief Constable estimates that when these matters are taken into account, total funding for Chorley over the last three years would be as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  8.8

  1999–2000

  10.0

  2000–01

  10.4

  Imaging Systems
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made since 24 July on his Department's acquisition of(a) through-the-wall imaging systems and (b) life signs monitoring systems; and if he will make a statement. [131787]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Trials of cell monitoring equipment were carried out by the Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) at Belmarsh Prison during 1999. The equipment failed after some time in situ and the trials were suspended. The Prison Service is reviewing this project and may ask PSDB to do further work.

  Police Service (Former RUC Officers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to encourage police services(a) in England and Wales and (b) in London to recruit from ranks of former RUC officer and reservists; what retraining facilities are available; and how many former RUC officers and reservists have been recruited in the last 12 months. [133543]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) may apply to transfer to forces in England and Wales. Officers recruited through inter-force transfers to police forces in England and Wales, and the London area are generally excluded from calculating recruitment for the purposes of determining Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) grant entitlement. It has been agreed to make an exception to this in the case of RUC officers.

  Members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve Force (RUCR) are not members of the RUC and are therefore not eligible to transfer to any police force in England and Wales. They may apply to join forces in England and Wales subject to meeting the normal entry requirements of the force to which they apply.

  Retraining is a matter for individual forces. They must assess what training is required for any transferees joining their force, paying particular attention to local (force) procedures.

  No information is collected centrally on the number of police officers from the RUC who have transferred to police forces in England and Wales or the number of former RUC reservists who have been recruited to forces in England and Wales.

  Criminal Cases (Police Conduct)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is taken against constabularies that are reported as failing to comply with the Criminal 50W
  Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 by withholding unused material from defence lawyers in criminal cases. [130537]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 July 2000, Official Report, c. 164–65W]The first paragraph of my reply should have read as follows:The Government are aware of concerns about the operation of the disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received three letters from Members of Parliament and four from members of the public on this issue. Action is well under way to address these concerns.

SCOTLAND

  RUC Officers and Reservists
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to encourage police services to recruit from ranks of former RUC officer and reservists, what retraining facilities are available; and how many former RUC officers and reservists have been recruited in the last 12 months. [133517]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made with the French authorities on recognising a standard pilot retirement age of 65; and when he expects a solution will be reached. [134195]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 9 November 1999,Official Report, column 487W.

  The French authorities have asked that the matter be raised with ICAO and we have been exploring with ICAO whether their age limit could be amended in line with that in JAR-OPS.

  European Flag
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reasons underlie his policy of modifying regulations to allow the European flag to be flown without planning permission; what representations he has received on this issue; how many locations he expects will be affected; what manner of appeal locally will be possible; and if he will make a statement. [134184]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The UK is a member of the European Union. Our proposal would remove a layer of bureaucracy and make it easier for anyone who wants to fly the European Union flag to do so from any location where there is a flagstaff. Any national flags may already be flown without planning consent. The flying of the European Union flag would not be subject to planning restrictions therefore there would be no right of appeal. I have received four representations about this proposal, three from hon. Members and one from a member of the public.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to ensure that there is an adequate supply of environmental health officers. [133866]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government give general grant funding to local authorities to enable them to meet their responsibilities, including environmental health. In the current Spending Review period from 2001–02 to 2003–04, standard spending assessments and Government grant to councils will increase in real terms by an average of over 3 per cent. a year. The Environment Protective and Cultural Services block settlement, which covers councils' responsibilities in this area, is the best for many years, with 1.8 per cent. real terms increases each year and 2.7 per cent. more in 2001–02 than previously planned.

  At a local level, the extent of the funding for environmental health officers is, however, a matter for individual councils bearing in mind their statutory responsibilities, their priorities and the wishes of their electorate.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment

  Borough and latest UDP stage

  Sites identified for possible major waste schemes

  Royal Borough Kingston upon Thames (Adopted March 1998)

  Improvement of refuse transfer facilities at the Athelstan Road Depot.

  Merton UDP (Deposit draft September 1999)

  23P Garth Road Depot Waste Treatment Facility (including buffer zone and environmental improvements).

  Hammersmith and Fulham (Revised deposit June 2000)

  Site 47 Imperial Road. Depot for waste recycling.

  Croydon UDP (Adopted January 1997)

  EP4 The development of large scale waste management facilities will only be appropriate in Purley Way North and South Industrial Areas.

  Bexley UDP (Adopted July 1996)

  Policy WS1 identities four special industrial zones which could accommodate Waste facilities but not exclusively. One has subsequently been developed for the sludge incineration and the second one is subject to a current application with DTI.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the case for imposing maximum(a) size and (b) capacity limits on particular types of waste management facilities; and if he will make a statement. [134064]

  Mr. Meacher
  The size and capacity of waste management facilities must be considered on a site by site basis, taking account of the location, quantity and nature of material to be dealt with, transport issues and other considerations. Government do not therefore consider it appropriate to impose constraints on the size or capacity of facilities. However, "Waste Strategy 2000" states that energy from waste plant should be appropriately-sized so as not to crowd out recycling.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers planning authorities have to impose a moratorium on specific waste management options. [134058]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local planning authorities do not have powers to impose a moratorium on specific types of waste management facility. All planning applications for
  52W
  he has made of the need for new or extended waste management facilities to enable waste disposal authorities in London to meet the target for diverting waste from landfill by 2005. [134061]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have made no assessment of the likely need for new or extended waste facilities in London. Any requirements for new or extended waste facilities in London are a matter for London boroughs as the relevant waste planning authorities. Any proposals for facilities to handle municipal waste must be consistent with the Mayor's municipal waste management strategy. Prior to publication of that strategy, proposals must be consistent with the national waste strategy, "Waste Strategy 2000".

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list sites identified in the Unitary Development Plans of London boroughs for possible major waste management schemes. [134066]

  Mr. Meacher
  Three Unitary Development Plans, those for Hammersmith and Fulham, Kingston and Merton, have site specific proposals for waste schemes, although only one (Hammersmith and Fulham) is for a new facility. Two other UDP's, Bexley and Croydon, have policies indicating their preferred locations for such facilities. Details are as follows:

  development should be decided by the local planning authority in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In preparing their development plans, local planning authorities must have regard to Government policy and planning guidance, including that contained in "Waste Strategy 2000" and PPG10 "Planning and Waste Management".

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the waste disposal authorities in London that plan to let contracts for the transportation, treatment and disposal of their waste in the next two years. [134063]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste disposal authorities are not required to notify my Department of the contracts they propose to let. However, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 requires waste authorities in London to provide the Mayor with certain information about existing and new waste contracts. I will ask the Mayor to write to the right hon. Member with the information they have to date.
  53W
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he will ensure that the Mayor of London's municipal waste strategy conforms with the principles and objectives of the "Waste Strategy 2000". [134057]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Greater London Authority Act 1999 requires that in preparing the municipal waste management strategy, the Mayor shall have regard to the national waste strategy, which is currently "Waste Strategy 2000", published in May 2000.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he will issue to waste disposal authorities in London that will tender for their waste contracts in the next 12 months in respect of(a) promoting the use of rail and water transport and (b) attainment of the landfill diversion targets of the EU Landfill Directive and the national waste strategy; and if he will publish such guidance. [134062]

  Mr. Meacher
  Published guidance on promoting the use of rail and water transport for waste is available in the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9), the Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities (RPG3) and the Strategic Guidance for the River Thames (RPG3B/9B).

  The Government have published guidance for local authorities on delivering best value for waste ("Waste Strategy Guidance Best Value and Waste Management" June 2000). We will shortly be publishing guidance to local authorities on developing Municipal Waste Management Strategies. We have no plans to issue further guidance on meeting landfill diversion targets or the national waste strategy.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what co-operation he plans for work with the Mayor of London to safeguard and enhance use of the River Thames for the transportation of waste. [134065]

  Mr. Meacher
  Ministers and officials have frequent contact with the Mayor of London and his staff on a wide range of issues, including waste. However, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 requires the Mayor to produce a municipal waste management strategy for London. This shall have regard to the national waste strategy and be consistent with the Mayor's other strategies, which include spatial development and transport strategies. It should also have regard to the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames safely, in particular for the provision of passenger transport services and for the transportation of freight.

  In preparing the Spatial Development Strategy the Mayor has to have regard to regional planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The draft Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) states a clear preference for the integration of sites of waste treatment and disposal with rail and water based transport systems wherever possible.

  The Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities (RPG3) makes provision for boroughs to identify and safeguard suitable water or riverside sites for waste recycling, treatment and transfer facilities. This guidance remains extant until the final version of the
  54W
  Spatial Development Strategy is published. The Mayor should have regard to RPG in exercising his planning functions until that strategy has been published.

  The Strategic Guidance for the River Thames (RPG3B/9B) requires local authorities to adopt policies in their development plans to encourage the use of the river for the transport of freight, including waste.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects waste planning authorities to consider the need to provide for all forms of waste management, in line with the integrated approach required by "Waste Strategy 2000". [134060]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste planning authorities should consider the need to make provision for all forms of waste management facilities when preparing or revising their waste development plans. The plans should take account of "Waste Strategy 2000", other relevant Government advice including national planning guidance in PPG 10 "Planning and Waste Management" and the appropriate regional planning guidance.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when "Waste Strategy 2000" became a material consideration for land-use planning purposes. [134059]

  Mr. Meacher
  "Waste Strategy 2000" became a material consideration for land-use planning purposes on its publication on 25 May 2000. Before that the draft waste strategy, "A Way with Waste" and the consultation paper "Less Waste More Value" published in July 1999 and June 1998, respectively were the relevant documents.

  Pedal Cycles
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will estimate how many people in the United Kingdom use pedal cycles more than once a week; [134005]

  (2) if he will estimate how many people in the United Kingdom own pedal cycles; [134007]

  (3) if he will estimate how many people used a pedal cycle at least once a week in each of the last five years. [134004]

  Mr. Hill
  In Great Britain during the period 1998–99, 14 per cent. of respondents reported using a pedal cycle at least once a week, compared to 12 per cent. in 1989–91. Data on the frequency of use of pedal cycles were not collected on the National Travel Survey between 1992 and 1997.

  Data for use of a pedal cycle more than once week are not collected on the National Travel Survey.

  Data on individual ownership of pedal cycles are not held centrally. However, in the three year period 1997–99, 40 per cent. of households in Great Britain owned one or more pedal cycles (National Travel Survey).

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has under Local Transport Note 1/97 to codify the ways in which cyclists may use bus lanes; [134054]
  55W
  (2) what plans he has to encourage local authorities to create more cycle ways in order to increase traffic flows in bus lanes. [134034]

  Mr. Hill
  The allocation of road space is a matter for the local Highway Authority. The Department issues advice to the Highway Authorities to encourage provision of cycle facilities and bus priority measures such as bus lanes.

  The Local Transport Note 1/97, "Keeping Buses Moving 1997", provides advice about the introduction of bus priority measures, including bus lanes. For safety reasons it recommends that pedal cyclists be allowed to use bus lanes (this is the norm provided for in the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 1994), unless there is a valid reason for their exclusion. The Department has no plans to codify ways in which cyclists may use bus lanes or for the introduction of cycle ways specifically to increase flows in bus lanes.

  Mersey Partnerships
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions have been drawn from his Department's quarterly monitoring of the Mersey Partnerships' performance. [133944]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Mersey Partnership is currently on course to meet all its targets by 31 December 2000. This includes the key outputs and impact indicators of improving Merseyside's image both nationally and regionally, and securing investment with partners from inward investors initially handled by the Mersey Partnership.

  Nuclear Regulation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to request the NRPB to publish detailed advice to nuclear regulators and operators on the provisions of the Radioactive Substances (Basic Safety Standards) Directive in respect of the calculation of population doses from practices giving rise to radiation exposure. [133592]

  Mr. Meacher
  As a consequence of the Radioactive Substances (Basic Safety Standards) (England and Wales) Direction 2000 and the equivalent Direction made in Scotland, the regulators—the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Environment and Heritage Service within the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment—in collaboration with the NRPB, are already developing guidance on the assessment of public doses for the purpose of authorising discharges of radioactive waste to the environment. This document will not only provide guidance to inspectors on the assessment of public doses and provide to operators guidance on the preparation of radiological assessments in support of authorisation applications, it will also provide information to the public on the regulators' methods of conducting public dose assessments. A public consultation exercise on the guidance commenced on 3 October. The guidance is expected to be published in Spring 2001.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the commercial sector to improve its energy efficiency. [133593]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are reviewing the energy provisions of the Building Regulations. We are considering responses to a recently completed consultation exercise on proposals to raise building energy performance standards, including in the non-domestic sector.

  The Government's Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme offers a range of information and advice to encourage the commercial sector to improve its energy efficiency. This includes site specific and design advice services, publications, seminars, workshops, board-level briefings and a help-line for small and medium businesses.

  Under the programme, we are also seeking voluntary agreements with organisations that can enter into a commitment to energy savings for a specific sector or sub-sector. Agreements, such as that in place with the hospitality sector, will encourage greater energy awareness and accountability through targeted dissemination and better sharing of best practice.

  In addition to the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme, as part of the climate change levy package, £27 million has been allocated to the promotion of energy efficiency, the provision of impartial advice, and support for research, development and demonstration. Improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings offers much scope for carbon savings and therefore will be an important component of the expanded energy efficiency and carbon abatement programmes.

  Marine Piracy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to establish if ship tracking systems are reliable; what assessment he has made of the effect of such systems on the incidence of piracy; and what action he is taking with the International Maritime Organisation against piracy and armed robbery in international waters. [134180]

  Mr. Hill
  It is a fact that ship-tracking systems do work and serve their primary purpose of establishing the location of ships at sea using satellite technology. I understand that their widespread use can be taken as a good indicator of their reliability. Although my Department is not directly involved in assessing the effectiveness of such systems we have consulted the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) who have actively promoted use of the tracking system called 'Shiploc' as an effective counter piracy measure, particularly in cases where the objective is to steal the ship. This allows shipping companies to monitor their vessels' progress, to know quickly if the ship has a particular difficulty and to track it after an incident. IMB have advised my Department that, in their opinion, the system has deterrent value, although it is difficult to separate the direct benefits of this from those of the other measures which are being implemented to counter the piracy problem. Other ship tracking systems are also available on the market (e.g. Fleet Remote Monitoring System (FROM)). It is not
  57W
  for the Department to promote any individual system, but we ensure that ship owners and operators are made aware of the options in our various contacts with them.

  Over the past three years my Department has been active in supporting the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) initiatives in countering the problem of piracy and armed robbery against ships at sea. These initiatives and actions include:
  In partnership with the FCO, supporting the IMO counter piracy missions across the world with UK experts and finance in acknowledged piracy hotspots.
  The UK is chairing an IMO Correspondence Group within the Maritime Safety Committee, which has produced an aide memoire on the procedures for the investigation and prosecution of piracy related incidents.
  The UK initiated work in IMO to ensure that their Ship Registries have proper procedures in place for registration of ships as a means of preventing hijacking of vessels for fraudulent purposes.

  Public Bodies (Access to Information)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the working of the Audit Commission Act 1998 as regards(a) access by the public to accounts of public bodies, (b) the grounds on which access to information can be withheld during the prescribed period of access and (c) the circumstances in which agreements between a public body and a private contractor can be withheld from inspection on grounds of confidentiality. [133948]

  £ million

  Programme

  1997–981

  1998–991

  1999–20001

  2000–012

  Special grants (regeneration)

  0.9

  1.1

  1.4

  1.4

  Rough sleepers

  15.2

  17.5

  24.9

  30.6

  Land reclamation3

  49.5

  53.3

  33.1

  6.3

  Community Investment Fund3

  4.8

  6.3

  3.8

  1.4

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund

  102.0

  146.0

  165.0

  81.0

  Single Regeneration Budget4

  458.8

  560.9

  181.4

  0.0

  New Deal for Communities

  0.0

  0.2

  48.5

  120.7

  Rural bus challenge5

  0.0

  1.6

  4.7

  20.0

  Transport supplementary grant

  194.9

  155.5

  158.0

  21.8

  Public transport facilities grant6

  14.6

  2.2

  0.5

  2.0

  Industrial Development Act grant6

  1.5

  1.5

  0.6

  2.0

  Transport credit approvals

  443.3

  367.9

  470.6

  777.9

  Mobility Choice

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Community transport

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Environmental Action Fund

  3.7

  4.2

  3.9

  4.2

  Capital Challenge Fund

  146.9

  246.5

  208.0

  0.0

  1Actual outturn

  2Provision

  3Partial funding obtained from Non Departmental Public Bodies

  4On 1 April 1999 the administration of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) outside London transferred to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). Figures for 1999–2000 relate only to the SRB in London, responsibility for which transferred to the London Development Agency in July 2000.

  5Allocations were £11.4 million in 1998–1999 and £16.8 million in 1999–2000

  6Figures may include non-voluntary private sector bodies

  Note:

  European Regional Development Fund funding made available through the department was as follows: £191.5 million—£229.4 million—£278.0 million—£332.5 million.

  The other information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Housing Policy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he
  58W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend has made no assessment of the workings of the Audit Commission Act 1998 as regards access to information. We consider that the right of the public to inspect the accounts and supporting papers of local authorities is an important part of the overall accountability framework. It is the responsibility of each local authority to decide whether information on personal or contractual matters in any particular case is owed a degree of confidentiality and to act accordingly.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 2000,Official Report, column 350W, if he will list all departmental initiatives between May 1997 and 18 July 2000 requiring bids from voluntary organisations and local authorities for funding, together with the total resources allocated to these initiatives, the number of successful bids and the proportion this represents of total bids received; and what data he collects on the average cost of preparing the bids for funding through each initiative. [133983]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table lists and shows the spending on those Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions' initiatives that have required bids from voluntary organisations and local authorities to the Department for funding in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01.

  has to require local authorities to publish written policies on housing people suffering (a) racial harassment and (b) domestic violence. [133820]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has made it clear in this year's Housing Investment Programme (HIP) guidance to local authorities that we will wish to see evidence that
  59W
  authorities have robust measures in place to tackle racial harassment. My Department is also working closely with the Home Office, the lead Department on anti-social behaviour, to take forward the recommendations made by the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team (PAT) 8 on anti-social behaviour. One of those recommendations is that all social landlords should adopt a non-harassment clause in their tenancy agreements, and make clear the action that will be taken if the clause is breached.

  This year's HIP guidance also makes it clear that my Department expects local housing authorities to set out in their housing strategy statements a comprehensive approach to addressing the housing and support needs of all vulnerable groups in the community—and this includes victims of domestic violence. Several recent Government publications, among them "Multi-agency guidance for addressing domestic violence" (March 2000) set out key issues which all agencies need to bear in mind, when developing their strategies with regard to domestic violence.

  The Supporting people programme, which comes into effect in 2003, will require local authorities to audit the housing care and support needs of all vulnerable groups in their communities, and publish their strategies to meet these needs. The DETR/DoH/Women's unit has commissioned research on the availability of accommodation and support services for women accepted as homeless as a result of domestic violence. This research will collect information for the first time ever on the accommodation and support services provided by women's refuge groups and other providers, and measure households' satisfaction with the different accommodation and support needs available . The research project will produce guidance for local authorities on the option for meeting the needs of these households. This research and guidance will inform local authorities' strategies for Supporting People.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means he intends to evaluate pilot schemes for introducing choice into the letting of social housing; and if the results of these evaluations will be made public. [133819]

  Mr. Mullin
  We propose to commission researchers to work alongside the pilot authorities to monitor and evaluate the schemes and produce good practice guidance for social landlords drawing from the lessons learnt from the pilot schemes. We will be publishing the research findings and good practice guidance after the pilots are complete. We also plan to keep people informed about the progress of the pilot schemes during the implementation and evaluation process and will be issuing regular newsletters.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the consistency with which local authorities assess the vulnerability of homeless applicants under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. [133821]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local housing authorities provide quarterly statistical returns to the DETR about statutory homelessness which include details of all applicants accepted as having a priority need for accommodation because they are vulnerable. These returns are monitored on a continual basis. The Department has also commissioned research into local authority policy and 60W
  practice on housing allocation, transfers and homelessness. The research is due to be published later this year and includes some analysis of the consistency of local housing authorities assessment of the vulnerability of homeless applicants under Part VII of the Housing act 1996.

  Transport Safety
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement in respect of safety protection required in the event of a frontal impact to(a) children and adults travelling on coaches and (b) children and adults travelling on a double or single decker bus if (a) sitting and (b) standing. [134186]

  Mr. Hill
  Other than the provisions for seat belts there are no specific safety requirements directed at frontal impact accidents in buses or coaches.

  Seat belts must be available in coaches when groups of children are taken on organised trips. In coaches first used after 1 October 1988, whether adults or children are being carried, seat belts are required in the front passenger seats and in any rear seat which is not immediately behind a forward facing seat. Where a lap type seat belt is fitted to a seat the area in front must be soft or of other energy absorbing construction. Other than in these conditions the fitment and use of seat belts is optional. However, we recently consulted on the proposals to require seat belts to be provided in all new buses and coaches apart from those specifically designed to carry standing passengers. We plan that these requirements will take effect next year.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites of special scientific interest that he intends to introduce following their designation by the European Union for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland. [134127]

  Mr. Mullin
  The selection of sites of special scientific interest is a devolved matter. In England statutory consultations on the notification or re-notification of 29 sites of special scientific interest (SSSI) are taking place in relation to possible special areas of conservation. These matters are being taken forward by English Nature to incorporate changes and additions in England to the UK list of candidate special areas of conservation transmitted, in accordance with the EC Habitats Directive, to the European Commission in July 1999. The sites are:

  SSSI

  Administrative Area

  Arnecliff and Park Hole Woods

  North Yorkshire

  Blackstone Point

  Devon

  Bolton Fell Moss

  Cumbria

  Braithwaite Moss

  Cumbria

  Carricknath Point to Porthbean Beach

  Cornwall

  Dew's Ponds

  Suffolk

  Ewefell Mire

  Cumbria

  Frome St Quintin

  Dorset

  Haggs Bank

  Cumbria

  Hestercombe House

  Somerset

  Humber Flats and Marshes:

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  Upper Humber

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  North Lincolnshire

  61W

  SSSI

  Administrative Area

  Humber Flats and Marshes:

  North Lincolnshire

  Barton & Barrow Clay Pits

  Humber Flats and Marshes:

  North Lincolnshire

  The Grues

  Humber Flats and Marshes:

  North Lincolnshire

  Pyewipe and Cleethorpes Coast

  North East Lincolnshire

  Kirk Deighton

  North Yorkshire

  Little Wittenham

  Oxfordshire

  Lyppard Grange Ponds

  Worcestershire

  Mobberley and Oversley Ponds

  Cheshire

  Manchester

  Peter's Pit

  Kent

  River Itchen

  City of Southampton

  Hampshire

  River Kent and Tributaries

  Cumbria

  River Mease

  Derbyshire

  Leicestershire

  Staffordshire

  River Nent at Blagill

  Cumbria

  River Till

  Wiltshire

  Rochdale Canal

  Rochdale

  Tameside

  Sefton Coast

  Sefton

  St Austell Clay Pits

  Cornwall

  Whitesike Mine and Flinty Fell

  Cumbria

  Windsor Forest and Great Park

  Bracknell Forest

  Surrey

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  Air Accidents
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what circumstances the Air Accidents Investigation Board investigates military accidents. [134154]

  Mr. Mullin
  The AAIB provides assistance to military Boards of Inquiry convened to investigate the circumstances of aircraft accidents under the provisions of a Memorandum of Understanding that deals with mutual assistance between the AAIB and the Royal Air Force. The formal position of the AAIB Inspector is that of an adviser to the President of the Board of Inquiry. The role usually extends to providing assistance with the detailed examination of wreckage and the replay and analysis of any flight recorders fitted to the aircraft.

  The Royal Air Force provides guidance to Presidents of Board of Inquiry about the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to seek the AAIB' s assistance. These circumstances include accidents involving structural failure, fire in the air and any other circumstances where the immediate causes of the accident are unclear.

  A259 Bypass
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the volume of long-distance east-west traffic along the South Coast which uses the M25 in preference to roads along the South Coast as indicated in his 1997 Roads Review Consultation Document, entitled "What Role for Trunk Roads in England"; and, in respect of the traffic studies being undertaken as part of the Access to Hastings Study, what estimate he has made of the volume of long-distance traffic which would transfer from the M25 to 62W
  the A27 between Lewes-Polegate as a consequence of the construction in isolation of the A259 Hastings and Bexhill bypass. [133809]

  Mr. Hill
  No detailed work of this nature has yet been undertaken. Consideration of what further work is needed will be undertaken as part of the South Coast Corridor Multi-Modal Study process.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Orders in Council
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) of 12 July 2000,Official Report, column 582W, regarding Orders in Council, what plans she has to make Orders in Council available on the internet. [1320711

  Mrs. Beckett
  All Orders in Council will, once made, be listed on my Department's website: www.privy-council.org.uk.

  Those Orders that are also statutory instruments will continue to be available from the Stationery Office, which is itself on-line: www.ukstate.com, those Orders that are not can, as at present, be obtained on request from my Department.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Divisions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list, for each parliamentary session from 1997–98 to date, the dates and times of divisions called after 11 pm, and the numbers voting in each lobby in each case. [132628]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The figures are set out in the tables. The date given is that of the sitting day concerned.

  Divisions after 11 pm in Session 1997–98

  Date

  Time

  Ayes

  Noes

  Tuesday 5 June 1997

  12.10 am

  246

  32

  Tuesday 5 June 1997

  12.23 am

  29

  245

  Monday 7 July 1997

  11.11 pm

  367

  147

  Monday 14 July 1997

  11.39 pm

  26

  216

  Monday 14 July 1997

  12.17 am

  26

  174

  Tuesday 9 December 1997

  11.05 pm

  303

  31

  Tuesday 9 December 1997

  11.18 pm

  262

  57

  Wednesday 10 December 1997

  12.01 am

  295

  58

  Wednesday 10 December 1997

  12.20 am

  331

  18

  Wednesday 17 December 1997

  11.25 pm

  352

  144

  Wednesday 4 February 1998

  11.32 pm

  174

  26

  Wednesday 4 February 1998

  12.02 am

  153

  0

  Tuesday 10 February 1998

  11.30 pm

  193

  312

  Wednesday 11 February 1998

  12.56 am

  245

  181

  Wednesday 11 February 1998

  1.09 am

  245

  181

  Wednesday 11 February 1998

  1.23 am

  236

  25

  Monday 9 March 1998

  8.16 am

  214

  124

  Monday 9 March 1998

  9.13 am

  150

  11

  Tuesday 24 March 1998

  1.00 am

  128

  279

  Tuesday 24 March 1998

  3.34 am

  45

  220

  Tuesday 24 March 1998

  4.01 am

  48

  194

  Tuesday 24 March 1998

  5.38 am

  211

  15

  Tuesday 24 March 1998

  6.03 am

  208

  19

  Tuesday 31 March 1998

  11.08 pm

  120

  272

  Tuesday 31 March 1998

  11.24 pm

  271

  119

  63W

  Divisions after 11 pm in Session 1997–98

  Date

  Time

  Ayes

  Noes

  Wednesday 22 April 1998

  11.14 pm

  178

  10

  Tuesday 12 May 1998

  11.02 pm

  132

  296

  Wednesday 20 May 1998

  11.01 pm

  308

  128

  Wednesday 20 May 1998

  11.15 pm

  303

  128

  Monday 8 June 1998

  11.13 pm

  176

  313

  Monday 8 June 1998

  11.28 pm

  296

  56

  Monday 8 June 1998

  11.39 pm

  307

  10

  Tuesday 16 June 1998

  11.55 pm

  214

  152

  Tuesday 30 June 1998

  11.21 pm

  37

  272

  Wednesday 1 July 1998

  11.03 pm

  372

  183

  Wednesday 1 July 1998

  11.16 pm

  325

  185

  Wednesday 1 July 1998

  11.54 pm

  269

  11

  Monday 13 July 1998

  12.14 am

  300

  168

  Wednesday 15 July 1998

  11.36 pm

  275

  130

  Monday 27 July 1998

  11.41 pm

  135

  3

  Wednesday 29 July 1998

  11.44 pm

  219

  86

  Wednesday 2 September 1998

  12.22 am

  17

  391

  Wednesday 2 September 1998

  2.49 am

  43

  199

  Wednesday 2 September 1998

  4.56 am

  10

  214

  Wednesday 2 September 1998

  6.38 am

  220

  24

  Tuesday 10 November 1998

  11.30 pm

  116

  293

  Divisions after 11 pm in Session 1998–99

  Date

  Time

  Ayes

  Noes

  Wednesday 2 December 1998

  11.05 pm

  266

  117

  Wednesday 2 December 1998

  11.15 pm

  262

  116

  Wednesday 2 December 1998

  11.27 pm

  257

  121

  Wednesday 2 December 1998

  11.39 pm

  254

  122

  Wednesday 24 February 1999

  11.09 pm

  165

  140

  Monday 15 March 1999

  11.08 pm

  372

  137

  Monday 15 March 1999

  11.20pm

  365

  137

  Monday 15 March 1999

  11.33 pm

  350

  142

  Monday 15 March 1999

  11.44 pm

  350

  140

  Monday 15 March 1999

  11.56 pm

  351

  132

  Tuesday 16 March 1999

  11.48 pm

  281

  24

  Tuesday 16 March 1999

  12.01 am

  275

  24

  Tuesday 16 March 1999

  12.12 am

  248

  9

  Tuesday 16 March 1999

  12.22 am

  274

  12

  Tuesday 23 March 1999

  11.47 pm

  314

  140

  Tuesday 23 March 1999

  12.03 am

  314

  132

  Tuesday 30 March 1999

  11.02 pm

  123

  320

  Monday 17 May 1999

  11.00 pm

  375

  182

  Monday 17 May 1999

  3.27 am

  41

  361

  Monday 17 May 1999

  3.41 am

  41

  360

  Monday 17 May 1999

  4.33 am

  318

  34

  Monday 17 May 1999

  4.47 am

  314

  21

  Wednesday 16 June 1999

  11.44 pm

  143

  326

  Wednesday 16 June 1999

  12.02 am

  310

  41

  Tuesday 22 June 1999

  11.54 pm

  301

  151

  Monday 5 July 1999

  11.30 pm

  149

  316

  Tuesday 13 July 1999

  11.12 pm

  144

  340

  Tuesday 13 July 1999

  11.55 pm

  343

  24

  Wednesday 14 July 1999

  11.18 pm

  21

  293

  Wednesday 14 July 1999

  11.37 pm

  9

  265

  Monday 19 July 1999

  12.21 am

  220

  9

  Monday 19 July 1999

  12.34 am

  218

  9

  Monday 19 July 1999

  12.46 am

  195

  7

  Monday 19 July 1999

  12.58 am

  195

  5

  Monday 19 July 1999

  1.07 am

  194

  7

  Monday 19 July 1999

  1.17 am

  188

  7

  Monday 19 July 1999

  1.28 am

  184

  7

  Monday 19 July 1999

  1.39 am

  172

  7

  Monday 19 July 1999

  1.52 am

  162

  7

  Wednesday 3 November 1999

  12.00 am

  345

  203

  Wednesday 3 November 1999

  12.13 am

  344

  166

  Wednesday 3 November 1999

  12.26 am

  337

  124

  Wednesday 3 November 1999

  12.39 am

  311

  104

  Wednesday 3 November 1999

  12.53 am

  301

  91

  Wednesday 3 November 1999

  1.07 am

  297

  76

  Monday 8 November 1999

  11.03 pm

  311

  33

  Monday 8 November 1999

  11.17 pm

  306

  27

  64W

  Divisions after 11 pm in Session 1998–99

  Date

  Time

  Ayes

  Noes

  Monday 8 November 1999

  12.54 am

  135

  266

  Monday 8 November 1999

  1.08 am

  276

  9

  Tuesday 9 November 1999

  12.34 am

  39

  296

  Wednesday 10 November 1999

  11.04 pm

  355

  130

  Wednesday 10 November 1999

  1.32 am

  331

  28

  Divisions after 11 pm in Session 1999–2000(at 26 July)

  Date

  Time

  Ayes

  Noes

  Wednesday 8 December 1999

  11.30 pm

  126

  306

  Tuesday 18 January 2000

  11.30 pm

  78

  4

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  11.03 pm

  133

  271

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  11.20 pm

  19

  280

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  11.30 pm

  118

  282

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  3.20 am

  13

  243

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  5.40 am

  25

  224

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  5.50 am

  221

  24

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  7.50 am

  33

  202

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  9.30 am

  13

  234

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  9.42 am

  228

  22

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  2.00 pm

  318

  16

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  4.55 pm

  173

  309

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  5.15 pm

  139

  337

  Tuesday 25 January 2000

  7.20 pm

  326

  141

  Wednesday 2 February 2000

  11.45 pm

  87

  108

  Monday 14 February 2000

  11.05 pm

  126

  309

  Tuesday 15 February 2000

  11.30 pm

  102

  296

  Tuesday 15 February 2000

  1.00 am

  262

  168

  Wednesday 16 February 2000

  12.15 am

  266

  135

  Tuesday 29 February 2000

  11.00 pm

  152

  311

  Tuesday 29 February 2000

  2.05 any

  27

  253

  Wednesday 8 March 2000

  12.10 am

  260

  134

  Wednesday 15 March 2000

  11.08 pm

  15

  235

  Wednesday 15 March 2000

  11.20 pm

  41

  249

  Wednesday 15 March 2000

  12.50 am

  35

  239

  Wednesday 15 March 2000

  1.50 am

  210

  1

  Monday 27 March 2000

  11.07 pm

  311

  48

  Monday 27 March 2000

  11.18 pm

  307

  181

  Monday 27 March 2000

  11.30 pm

  303

  178

  Monday 27 March 2000

  11.41 pm

  334

  136

  Monday 27 March 2000

  11.57 pm

  275

  44

  Wednesday 29 March 2000

  11.30 pm

  34

  260

  Monday 3 April 2000

  12.30 am

  141

  265

  Wednesday 5 April 2000

  12.08 am

  302

  173

  Tuesday 11 April 2000

  1.02 am

  130

  190

  Tuesday 11 April 2000

  1.13 am

  187

  130

  Wednesday 3 April 2000

  11.12 pm

  242

  50

  Tuesday 16 May 2000

  11.55 pm

  240

  8

  Monday 22 May 2000

  11.54 pin

  256

  109

  Monday 22 May 2000

  12.54 am

  6

  227

  Monday 5 June 2000

  11.01 pm

  287

  114

  Tuesday 20 June 2000

  1.12 am

  194

  10

  Tuesday 4 July 2000

  11.00 pm

  39

  284

  Tuesday 11 July 2000

  11.40 pm

  307

  16

  Tuesday 11 July 2000

  11.52 pm

  290

  112

  Tuesday 11 July 2000

  12.05 am

  293

  109

  Tuesday 11 July 2000

  12.18 am

  279

  109

  Tuesday 11 July 2000

  12.31 am

  249

  128

  Tuesday 11 July 2000

  12.45 am

  237

  129

  Thursday 13 July 2000

  1.03 am

  206

  6

  Monday 17 July 2000

  11.36 pm

  112

  207

  Monday 17 July 2000

  11.50 pm

  152

  208

  Tuesday 25 July 2000

  1.38 am

  381

  36

  Temporary Standing Orders
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council what temporary standing orders of the House have been agreed since May 1997 which are not published in the Standing Orders, HC518. [132631]
  65W
  Mrs. Beckett
  None, other than the Sessional Orders passed as a matter of course at the beginning of each Session.

  Select Committee Chairmanships
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council what precedents there are since 1970 for a Minister of the Crown taking the Chair of a Select Committee, other than(a) those relating to Privileges of the House or conduct of individual hon. Members and (b) the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [132632]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As far as I am aware, there are no clear precedents, other than those mentioned, since 1970 (though there are earlier precedents). I am afraid the House's records are not held in a form which enables me to give a more definitive response.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Representation (Funding)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions the Lord Chancellor has(a) authorised and (b) refused requests for funding in exceptional individual cases under section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 for representation before (i) a tribunal, (ii) an inquest and (iii) a public inquiry. [133574]

  Mr. Lock
  Pursuant to my written answer of 26 July 2000 to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett),Official Report, column 716W, the Lord Chancellor's powers in respect of exceptional cases are as follows:

  Under s.6(8)(a) of the Access to Justice Act, he may direct the Legal Services Commission to fund cases in circumstances specified in the direction. Under s.6(8)(b), he may authorise the Commission to fund cases in circumstances specified in the authorisation, and he may authorise funding in individual cases where the Commission asks him to do so. I refer the hon. Member to that written answer.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many letters of(a) complaint and (b) approbation have been received with regard to the touch tone steering system installed in the Public Trust Office on its Mental Health Service inquiry line. [134043]

  Jane Kennedy
  To date the Public Trust Office has received one letter of complaint with regard to the use of the touch tone steering system and no letters of approbation.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what value for money studies have been carried out regarding the touch tone steering system installed in the Public Trust Office on its Mental Health Service inquiry line. [134041]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Public Trust Office did not carry out a value for money study in relation to the touch tone steering system prior to its introduction. The use of the 66W
  touch tone steering system means that clients do not have to hold on the line when all they want to do is request forms, and offers immediate access to these services at all hours.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many touch tone steering systems employed in his Department involve premium rates. [134044]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not employ premium rate lines on any of its touch tone steering systems.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 511W, if he will estimate the cost of ascertaining how many telephones in The Court Service and Land Registry make use of touch tone steering systems.[134048]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost of ascertaining how many telephones make use of touch tone steering systems has been estimated as £700 in respect of The Court Service and £985 in respect of the Land Registry.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what staff savings have been made as a result of the use of the touch tone steering system installed in the Public Record Office on its Family Records Centre inquiry line. [134047]

  Mr. Lock
  No staff savings have been made as a result of the use of the touch tone steering system installed in the Public Record Office on its Family Records Centre inquiry line. The steering system was installed to enable the Family Records Centre to cope with a significant increase in the number of telephone calls without increasing the size of its staff.

  Mr. Ben Chapmans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what staff savings have been made as a result of the use of the touch tone steering system installed in the Public Trust Office on its Mental Health Service inquiry line. [134042]

  Jane Kennedy
  The work generated from calls to the touch tone steering system can be scheduled around less busy periods, and so the Public Trust Office estimates that there has been a notional saving in the hours worked equivalent to one member of staff.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what value for money studies have been carried out regarding the touch tone steering system installed in the Public Record Office on its Family Record Centre inquiry line. [134046]

  Mr. Lock
  No value for money studies have been carried out regarding the touch-tone steering system on its Family Records Centre enquiry line. The decision to introduce the system was taken by the management because of evident need for action to maintain the best possible service within the available resources.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many letters of(a) complaint and (b) approbation have been received with regard to the touch tone steering system installed in the Public Record Office on its Family Record Centre inquiry line.[134045]
  67W
  Mr. Lock
  The Public Record Office received two letters of complaint about the touch-tone steering system on its Family Records Centre enquiry line. No letters of approbation have been received.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultation his Department has had with the Trustees of(a) the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and (b) the House of Commons Pension Fund about their losing the services of the Public Trust Office. [134032]

  Jane Kennedy
  The report of the Quinquennial Review of the Public Trust Office was circulated as a consultation document to a wide group of stakeholders and organisations with a potential interest. Copies of this report were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. On 14 November 1999 I sent copies to the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Mr. Butterfill) and to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), the Chairmen of these funds, offering to meet them to discuss the changes. I wrote again to both MPs on this subject on 7 May. Throughout, Public Trust Office officials have been in communication with officials of these pension funds.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what continuing safeguards are to be in place to protect clients with less than £10,000 and their funds after those funds have been transferred elsewhere from the Public Trust Office. [134033]

  Jane Kennedy
  In cases where the Public Trustee is discharged as Receiver by the Court of Protection the Court must be satisfied that the client continues to be protected. In those cases where there is an external receiver (for example, a relative or solicitor), receivers are required to continue to keep a full record of transactions concluded on behalf of the client; the Court of Protection can call for an account at any time; and it is intended to call for an account in a percentage of these cases as a matter of administrative routine.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department where the replacement body for the Public Trust Office will be located. [134036]

  Jane Kennedy
  The replacement body for the Public Trust Office will be located in Greater London.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he is taking to ensure that the cost to Public Trust Office clients does not increase if solicitors are appointed as last resort receivers and are permitted to charge on a timed basis. [134037]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is intended that the affairs of Public Trustee Receivership clients be transferred to a number of new service providers, not just solicitors. Where appropriate, the new receiver will be a family member (who will not charge a fee) or a local authority.
  68W
  There is, however, a strong argument that clients should pay the market rate for work undertaken on their behalf if they can afford to do so. Where solicitors take on receivership work, charges are either on a fixed costs or on a timed basis. If the charge is on a timed basis, bills will be verified by the Supreme Court Costs Office to ensure that the number of hours billed is reasonable, and that the hourly rate is within the guidelines set.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what guarantees will be given to clients that losses to clients arising from fraud or mismanagement will continue to be made good when clients' investments currently managed by the Public Fund Office Receivership Division, Trust Division and Court Funds Office are managed by an external custodian; [134038]

  (2) who will be responsible for the compensation given to Public Trust Office clients for losses on investments and fraud where such investments are made by an external custodian. [134039]

  Jane Kennedy
  Some of the Public Trust Office's existing clients already have assets held externally and, depending upon the arrangements, they may have recourse to statutory compensation schemes, and where appropriate, will be protected by the custodian's insurance policy. The regulatory authorities require companies undertaking custodian work to ensure that proper segregation of assets is maintained.

  The Public Trust Office will ensure, in setting up any contract with external custodians, and on an ongoing basis, that rigorous auditing arrangements are in place to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, and that companies have suitable insurance cover.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what level of staffing is proposed for the body replacing the Public Trust Office. [134035]

  Jane Kennedy
  Work is still proceeding to determine the exact size of the organisation that will replace the Public Trust Office so it is too early to give exact figures for the level of staffing that will be required. I shall, however, by the year end, be able to offer a specific estimate of the number of staff likely to be required for the new organisation as at April 2001. That number will be expected to reduce over time as the Public Trustee receivership work is transferred to other service providers and business efficiencies are implemented.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hon. Members' Pay
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans there are to review the arrangements for the pay of hon. Members and Ministers; and if he will make a statement. [134321]

  The Prime Minister
  A review of parliamentary pay carried out by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) in 1996 included a recommendation, accepted by the Government, that parliamentary pay should be reviewed every three years, starting in 2000. The Chairman of the SSRB, Sir Michael Perry has informed the Government
  69W
  that the SSRB are ready to undertake such a review. I have written to Sir Michael confirming that the Government would like to see the following areas covered in the report:

  (i) the salary of Members of the House of Commons

  (ii) the salaries of Ministers and other office-holders

  (iii) the rate and structure of Peers' expenses allowances including the Secretarial allowance for Ministers and other paid office-holders in the House of Lords

  (iv) the Office Costs Allowance in the House of Commons.

  In addition, I have requested the SSRB to consider the present system of calculating the Resettlement Grant.

  I look forward to receiving recommendations from the SSRB early next year.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit. [134322]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake a further project looking at privacy and data-sharing issues in the delivery of Government services.

  Privacy and the protection of personal information has increased in importance with developments in IT. Data-sharing is a key to modernising government, to facilitating seamless electronic delivery of government services, to reducing fraud against government, and to encouraging e-commerce. This project will analyse a broad range of issues involved in privacy and data-sharing, including current government, private sector and international practices; structural and technological issues; public concerns; and the current legal parameters. The Performance and Innovation Unit aim to complete a report by early next year.

  My noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton is the Sponsor Minister.

  European Council (Biarritz)
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of the informal European Council in Biarritz. [134323]

  The Prime Minister
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office I attended the Informal European Council in Biarritz on 13–14 October.

  This informal European Council was asked to take stock of progress of the Inter-Governmental Conference on Treaty change. It was inevitably overshadowed by the violence in the Middle East. The European Council issued an appeal to both sides to end the violence and return to the Conference table. The Foreign Secretary, who had been in the Middle East, reported to his colleagues on his discussions in the region. Collectively, and individually, I and the Foreign Secretary and other European leaders were actively engaged behind the scenes at the European Council in trying to create the conditions in which the Sharm-el-Sheikh Summit could take place. The European Council asked Mr. Solana to return to the region and he represented the European Union at Sharm-el-Sheikh.
  70W
  Members of the European Council also held a meeting with President Kostunica of Serbia. The European Union played a prominent role in pressurising the Milosevic regime. Its defeat represents a significant victory for democracy, not only in Serbia but throughout the Balkans and for Europe as a whole. The purpose of Saturday's meeting between EU Heads of Government and President Kostunica was to reaffirm our support for Serbian democracy. The European Council decided to make available 200 million euros of emergency aid for Serbia on top of the measures which were announced at the General Affairs Council on 9 October.

  As far as the Inter-Governmental Conference was concerned, this was not a Summit at which decisions were to be taken. Political progress was, however, made towards the agreement which we want to see reached at the Nice Summit in December. That Summit will pave the way to the enlargement which has long been the objective of successive British Governments.

  On the detail of these negotiations, I made clear our support for the extension of majority voting in the areas where this will benefit Britain, for example by enhancing the efficiency of the Single Market as well as the economic reform which we have, with others, consistently sought, while making clear that these areas did not include tax or social security.

  The European Council agreed that there was a role for enhanced co-operation in an enlarged European Union. In other words, there is scope for some member states moving ahead on certain policies faster than others but these so-called enhanced co-operations must be genuinely open to all and must not undermine the existing policies of the Union, especially the Single Market. If these conditions are satisfied, the Government believe that enhanced co-operation can be useful in advancing the British agenda, for example in co-operation in common foreign and security policy within the framework of agreed policies and in co-operation in the fight against international crime and terrorism.

  In this negotiation, Britain has a significant interest in seeing a reweighting of votes so that the position of the larger member states, which has deteriorated in relative terms with successive enlargements, is improved. That is also a necessary outcome of the negotiation if we are to agree to a reduction in the size of the Commission. This issue is sometimes seen as one in which the larger member states and the small member states have opposing interests. We believe it should be possible to reach an agreement which meets the interests of all.

  The Charter of Rights so ably negotiated by my noble and learned Friend, Lord Goldsmith, was discussed by the Heads of Government who agreed that it should be adopted at the Nice European Council as a purely political declaration. It creates no legal obligations. It also sets out in a clear way a range of rights, freedoms and principles recognised within the EU which the EU institutions—the primary addressees—should respect when going about their daily business. It only applies to member states to the limited extent that they are implementing Union-wide laws. It has no application where national governments are acting purely within their own areas of national competence.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Prime Minister if he tabled proposals at the G8 summit in Japan for concerted action to be taken to encourage the Zimbabwe Government to desist from its programme of illegal seizures of white-owned farms. [133851]

  The Prime Minister
  No proposals specific to Zimbabwe were tabled at the G8 Summit. However, we have been in regular contact with members of the international community who share our concerns about the illegal occupation of farms in Zimbabwe. We have repeatedly urged the Government of Zimbabwe to take action to end the occupations and to restore the rule of law.

  Private Sector Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to his Office since June 1997. [133879]

  The Prime Minister
  There have been no private sector secondments to my Office since June 1997.

  Poverty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on recent steps taken to alleviate poverty. [134128]

  The Prime Minister
  We recently published the second annual report on our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion. "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (Cm 4865, September 2000), copies of which are available in the Library. This provides a detailed account of the action we have taken since we announced our strategy in September and what more we need to do. It clearly shows that we are already making a difference to people's lives and that real progress is being made in a number of key areas.

  For example:
  the number of children living in workless households has fallen by 250,000 during the period spring 1997 to spring 2000;
  there are now over one million more people in work than in 1997 and unemployment levels are at their lowest levels for 20 years. Over one million people have participated in the New Deals and around a third of them have found work; and
  the combined effects of the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG), Winter Fuel Payments and Free TV Licences for those aged 75 and over mean that a single pensioner in receipt of MIG is over £8 a week better off in real terms since 1997. And pensioner couples on MIG gain at least £11 a week.

  This is only the beginning of a long-term strategy. We are laying the foundations for a society where no child lives in poverty and a society that offers opportunity for all.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the Government's review of ex gratia payments for former British prisoners of war of the Japanese. [133728]

  The Prime Minister
  The review is in progress. A decision is expected shortly.

TREASURY

  EU Trade-related Agreements
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what ways eligible third country exporters and producers will benefit from their participation in the import preferences granted their products under the EU's preferential trade-related agreements. [133750]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The EC's preferential trade agreements offer nil or much reduced rates of duty to qualifying products.

  EC-Israel Trade Agreement
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of a failure to collect applicable duties on goods produced in Israeli settlements on their competitiveness in EU markets; and what impact the loss of customs revenues to the(a) Community and (b) UK Exchequer will have on (i) export sales and (ii) export pricing power for the settlement-based producers of those goods. [133710]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such assessment has been made.

  UK Customs are unable to forecast the impact on any overseas exporter where a potential loss of Community or UK Exchequer customs revenue arises.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 95W, and 1 March 2000, Official Report, column 267W, on the EC-Israel Trade Agreement, if the importation under preferences of goods produced in Israeli settlements reduces their landed cost in the EU; and what financial resources that should accrue to the Community and the UK treasuries thereby accrue to the operators engaged in the production and trade in such goods. [133751]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK is not aware of any circumstances in which financial resources which should accrue to the Community and the UK Treasury would accrue to exporters from Israeli Settlements.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the Euro Made Easy programme of DGX of the European Commission; if a report has been submitted to the Council on the programme; and if he will make a statement. [134208]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Commission's 'Euro Made Easy' programme aims to produce information on the euro for those people who do not have easy access to traditional information flows.

  I understand from the Commission that to date they have not submitted a report to the Council on this programme.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long sterling has maintained stability within the exchange rate mechanism bandwidth vis-à-vis the euro. [134209]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK does not participate in the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

  Private Sector Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to his Department since June 1997. [133873]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on 27 March 2000,Official Report, column 47W. Since that reply, the Department has engaged staff on secondment from Freshfields and Financial Services Authority.

  Tax Arrears
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers of discretion the Paymaster General has over the payment of tax arrears.[133926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers do not intervene personally in the Revenue Departments' application of the tax law or their handling of particular cases. The Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise are independent from Treasury Ministers in administering the tax system and have specific statutory authority for care and management of the various taxes, under which they exercise discretion over the payment of tax arrears, subject to their fundamental responsibility for collecting the tax due.

  Business Failures
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the number of businesses which failed in 1999 due to a tax demand from the Inland Revenue and (b) the cost of these failures to the Exchequer. [133885]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the financial year ended 31 March 2000 the Inland Revenue's Enforcement Office obtained Bankruptcy and Winding-up orders in 2,219

  Year

  Department

  Subject of Direction

  Category of Direction

  1990

  ECGD

  Sale of British Aerospace Hawk jets to Kenya

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1991

  MOD

  Chieftain Tank Replacement

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1991

  ODA

  Pergau Dam

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1992

  MOD

  HMS Endurance Replacement

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1992

  MOD

  Closure of depot at RNSD Copenacre

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1992

  MAFF

  Location of Divisional Offices

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1992

  MOD

  Image Intensifiers

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1993

  ECGD

  Guarantees for Export and Investments in Russia

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1995

  MOD

  Medium Support Helicopters

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1995

  ECGD

  ECGD Support to Jordan

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1995

  DETR

  Re-Examination of the Wreck of the Derbyshire

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1995

  DETR—OPRAF

  Decision on Profit Participation in the passenger rail franchising programme

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1995

  DETR—OPRAF

  Decision on Revenue Risk sharing in the passenger rail franchising programme

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1997

  DETR

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link and exceptional hardship Greenwich Peninsula and to provide a site for the Millennium Exhibition

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1998

  DSS

  Benefits Agency/Post Office Counters Ltd. (BA/POCL Automation Ltd.

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1998

  DSS

  Benefits Agency/Post Office Counters Ltd. BA/POCL Automation Ltd.

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1998

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  Concerns an individual's personnel records

  Propriety/regularity

  1998

  MOD

  Sale of Cadet Property in Moffat

  Propriety/regularity

  1998

  DSS

  Benefits Integrity Project

  Propriety/regularity

  74W
  cases. This represents around 5 per cent. of the total number of insolvencies in England and Wales in the same period.

  Insolvency proceedings are taken only as a last resort by the Inland Revenue, after all other attempts to secure settlement or negotiate acceptable proposals for payment have failed. In considering such action they try to ensure a balance between the need to collect tax that is due, maintaining a level playing field for other businesses who pay on time, and a proper concern for the taxpayer to stay in business or earn enough to keep going.

  Reports
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the reports submitted to his Department, by bodies that were created after May 1997 and that include significant and plural membership from outside the Civil Service, stating in each case the body writing the report, the date the report was submitted, how many recommendations were made, the number of those recommendations that have been implemented to date and the number of recommendations that have been rejected; and if he will make a statement.[133557]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Detailed information on reports submitted by each body, including the number of recommendations made; implemented and rejected, is not held centrally and could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Directions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer concerning Ministerial Directions of 24 July 2000,Official Report, column 483W, if he will place full details of each Ministerial Direction of which the Treasury has been informed in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [133366]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Further to my answer of 24 July 2000,OfficialReport, column 483W, information on the Ministerial Directions referred to in that answer is as set out below.
  75W

  Year

  Department

  Subject of Direction

  Category of Direction

  1999

  DSS

  Benefits Integrity Project

  Propriety/regularity

  1999

  DSS

  Benefits Integrity Project

  Propriety/regularity

  1999

  ECGD

  Cashmere Exporters

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  1999

  ECGD

  ECGD Cover Indonesia

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  2000

  ECGD

  ECGD Cover-Romania

  Economy, efficiency and effectiveness

  2000

  MOD

  Use of public funds to provide financial assistance to meet cost of air flight to Croatia for member of public to attend trial of those accused of murder of his son, a British Serviceman

  Propriety/regularity

  Note:

  The number of Directions in 1999 notified to the Treasury was four, and not five as indicated in my earlier answer. In addition, a Ministerial Direction was made and notified to the Treasury after the hon. Member asked his question and this has been added to that table.

CABINET OFFICE

  Late Payment
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what steps she has taken to ensure that Government organisations settle invoices within a 30 day period; [134105]

  (2) what steps she has taken to ensure that small businesses automatically receive interest from Government organisations on late payments made after 30 days of being invoiced; [134103]

  (3) what recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on compensation for payment by public bodies after 30 days of invoices from small businesses. [134106]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Industry.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many letters of(a) complaint and (b) approbation have been received with regard to the touch tone steering system installed on her office's public inquiry line. [134050]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are no records of any letters of complaint or approbation received.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if the touch tone steering system installed on her office's public inquiry line charges premium rates. [134049]

  Mr. Stringer
  The system does not charge premium rates.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what staff savings have been made as a result of the use of the touch tone steering system installed on her office's public inquiry line. [134051]

  Mr. Stringer
  The system was implemented as an additional service and has, therefore, not resulted in any staff savings.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what value for money studies have been carried out regarding the touch tone steering system installed on her Office's public inquiry line. [134053]

  Mr. Stringer
  To date, no value for money studies have been considered necessary for what is, essentially, a simple routing system to different operators.
  76W

  Private Sector Secondments
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the private sector companies from which secondments have been made to her Department since June 1997. [133871]

  Mr. Stringer
  During the period June 1997 to August 2000 there have been 20 private sector companies from which secondments have been made into the Cabinet Office. They are as listed;

  Anderson Consulting

  Barclays Bank plc

  British Airways BT

  Carillion

  Energis

  Frontier Economics

  Hay Management Consultants

  KPMG

  Lloyds Bank plc

  Marks & Spencer

  McKinsey & Co.

  Microsoft Corporation

  Nat West Bank plc

  Oracle plc

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Sun Microsystems

  Unilever

  Wragge & Co.

  Zurich Financial Services.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients on NHS waiting lists in Gloucestershire who would normally have been treated within the South West Region have been treated elsewhere in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [125546]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Chris Creswick, Chairman of Gloucestershire Health Authority, for information on this matter.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the total cost to the NHS was of treating sexually transmitted diseases including in-patient and outpatient treatment and prevention in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1999; [126839]

  (2) what the total cost was of providing abortions on the NHS in (a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1999; [126826]

  (3) what the cost was to the NHS of treating cancer of the cervix and other cervical abnormalities in (a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1999; [126840]

  (4) what the cost to the NHS was of infertility treatment in (a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990 and (d) 1999; and of this, how much was as a consequence of previous sexually-transmitted disease, with particular reference to chlamydia. [126841]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Sterilisation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many(a) sterilisations and (b) reversals of sterilisation were carried out by the NHS in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980, (iii) 1990 and (iv) 1999; how many were requested as a result of people getting married or acquiring new partners; and what the total cost to the NHS was in each of those years. [126838]

  Yvette Cooper
  [pursuant to her reply, 3 July 2000, c. 39W]I regret that the information I gave in the table in my previous reply was incorrect. It should read:

  Procedure

  11980

  1990–91

  1998–99

  Female sterilisation

  16,954

  44,904

  48,194

  Female sterilisation reversal

  6,831

  1,556

  699

  Male sterilisation

  39,270

  36,670

  35,609

  Male sterilisation reversal

  890

  1,745

  896

  11980 data were collected via the Hospital In-Patient Inquiry which was based on a I in I0 sample of discharges and deaths from non-Psychiatric and non-Maternity NHS Hospitals in England.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are awaiting cardiac surgery in(a) Teeside Region and (b) Middlesborough, South and Cleveland East; and if he will make a statement. [130502]

  Mr. Denham
  At the end of March 2000,291 patients in the Tees Health Authority area were waiting for elective admission to a consultant whose main speciality is cardiothoracic surgery. Cardiothoracic surgery includes heart and lung surgery. The information is not collected at constituency level.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will have discussions with London borough councils with a view to stopping traffic wardens issuing parking tickets to the vehicles of nurses displaying a notice indicating that they are attending to patients in their homes; and if he will make a statement. [133421]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.
  78W
  We recognise the parking problems faced by doctors and other healthcare workers including nurses who are required to make home visits. A system to provide concessionary parking for these workers on emergency calls is currently in operation. It is called the Health Emergency Badge. The general attitude of the London Boroughs to routine visits is that these workers must plan time to park legally and pay the relevant fees (for which they may then receive reimbursement from their employer). Whether or not some routine work should be excused from normal parking rules is down to individual London Boroughs.

  National Poisons Information Service
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the members of the National Poisons Information Service Board; and how details of their meeting schedule, agendas and minutes can be obtained; [127020]

  (2) what reason the National Poisons Information Service has not submitted its annual reports, due in July 1999 and March 2000, to his Department; and what steps he has taken to ensure that the contractual commitments of the NPIS have been delivered; [127022]

  (3) what were the terms of the contracts between his Department and the National Poisons Information Service between 1995 and the current year. [127023]

  Yvette Cooper
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 June 2000, c. 510–11]I regret that there was an error in my previous reply. The calendar year referred to in the last paragraph of the reply should read 1997.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2000,Official Report, columns 511–12W, (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the outstanding National Poisons Information Service Centre reports for the year 1999–2000 that were scheduled to be completed by the end of June; [133299]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to allow a lay representative on the National Poisons Information Service; [133288]

  (3) if he will place in the Library the reports made by the National Poisons Information Service Centre to comply with the provisions of European Commission Resolution 90/C 329/03. [133300]

  Yvette Cooper
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 July 2000, c. 1000]I regret that there was an error in my previous reply. The year of the last report referred to in the last paragraph of the reply should read (1997).

  Vaccines (Bovine Material)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department has obtained concerning the use of bovine material in the manufacture of vaccines. [134324]

  Yvette Cooper
  European guidelines issued in 1999 made clear that the manufacturing process for medicinal products should not use bovine materials from countries in which there are known cases of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. The first guidance on this subject was issued by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in 1989. From 1989 onwards, the Medicines Control Agency
  79W
  sought and received assurances from drug companies that they were implementing this guidance and subsequent guidance produced at a European level on a phased basis.

  On the advice of the MCA, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, informed the House on 4 May 2000 that the 1989 guidelines obliged all pharmaceutical companies to source bovine material from outside the United Kingdom. My noble Friend is now advised by the MCA that these 1989 guidelines did not have the full force of law and that they applied to injectable medicines and medicines applied to the eyes or open wounds. However, the 1999 guidelines do apply to bovine materials and pharmaceuticals generally. From March 2001, these guidelines, which at present are not legally binding, will have the full force of the law.

  My noble Friend also informed the House on 4 May 2000 that vaccines that use bovine material in the manufacturing process manufactured since March 1989 had used bovine material from non-UK sources and that the MCA had established that the latest date that vaccines manufactured before the guidelines came into force could have been used was November 1993. On 28 March 2000, I informed Parliament on the advice of the MCA that from April 1989 no bovine materials sourced in the United Kingdom were introduced as an element of the manufacturing process for vaccines produced at that time. In particular I told the House on the advice of the MCA that all vaccines manufactured by Wellcome after 1989 used bovine material from New Zealand. I also informed the House on 19 October 1999 on the advice of the MCA that since 1993 all vaccines in use were manufactured without UK-sourced bovine material. I have now been advised that the advice from the MCA that formed the basis of these statements was incorrect. The MCA was provided with information by manufacturers.

  The MCA advised Ministers last week that in the case of the Wellcome oral polio vaccine, the assurances given by the company have proved inaccurate. This oral polio vaccine was originally produced by Wellcome. Part of Wellcome's vaccine business was transferred over to Medeva in 1991. Part of the oral polio vaccine was manufactured in 1985 using growth medium containing fetal calf serum of UK bovine origin, and this element continued to be used in the production process after 1989.

  This oral polio vaccine continued to be use up until 2000, in specific breach of the 1999 guidance. The Department of Health has therefore recalled this oral polio vaccine manufactured by Medeva (supplied by Medeva under the brand name Evans).

  The MCA have carried out a risk assessment and people who have received this oral polio vaccine in the past can be advised that the breach is of guidance which has been formulated on a precautionary basis; under the European guidelines, fetal calf serum is in category IV (no detectable infectivity); the processes used in manufacturing are designed to remove all but a remote trace of unwanted proteins such as fetal calf serum. The MCA, taking all these points together, have advised that any risk associated with this Medeva oral polio vaccine is incalculably small.

  I asked the CSM in March to produce a comprehensive assessment of BSE-related issues in vaccines. The Government are committed to publishing the assessment.
  80W
  In the light of the new information we are also reviewing the advice given to Ministers on this issue to ensure that all the information given to Parliament is correct.

  Scientists
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve recruitment and retention of biomedical scientists; and if he will make a statement. [134001]

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to improve the morale of(a) biomedical scientists and (b) other staff who work in the NHS pathology services. [134006]

  Mr. Denham
  The national recruitment, retention and vacancy survey published September 2000 gave us the latest authoritative data on staff vacancies from 100 per cent. of National Health Service trusts. It shows that 2.6 per cent. of other scientific, technical and therapeutic posts have been vacant for 3 months or more (in England). We are ensuring that effective recruitment and retention policies are in place to make the best use of trained staff, including biomedical scientists and other pathology staff, and that training levels are sufficient to get a better match between supply and demand.

  In October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published the performance management framework for human resources for the whole of the NHS. The way employers treat their staff will in future be part of the core performance measures and linked to the financial resources they receive. Included in the framework is the improving working lives standard which summarises the commitment expected from employers to create well-managed, flexible working environments that support staff, promote their welfare and development, tackle violence and racism, and respect their need to manage a health and productive work/life balance.

  In July 2000, a new careers recruitment leaflet was produced for scientists and technicians and the NHS careers information service was extended to include scientists and technicians (0845 6060655 or www.nhs.uk/careers)

  For 1999–2000, to help improve recruitment and retention, newly qualified biomedical scientists received pay increases of 7.1 per cent; trainee biomedical scientists up to 26 per cent; newly qualified cytology screeners up to 11.4 per cent; and trainee cytology screeners up to 6.6 per cent. For 2000–01, all NHS pathology staff received increases of 3.25 per cent. or £300, whichever is the higher, and a formula for 2001£02 is agreed.

  As for the future on pay, the NHS pay system is in need of modernisation. We are working in partnership with trades unions to negotiate a new pay system which will offer NHS staff a more attractive career structure and which will enhance recruitment and retention.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when medical laboratory scientific officers will be brought within the scope of the Pay Review Body. [134000]

  Mr. Denham
  Our proposals for modernising National Health Service pay which were published in February 1999 in "Agenda for Change", include bringing some
  81W
  groups of highly qualified staff within the scope of the Nursing Pay Review Body, without changing its fundamentally professional character.

  Initial discussions with NHS trade unions on pay modernisation resulted in the "Joint Framework of Principles and Agreed Statement on the Way Forward", which was published on 8 October 1999. This sets out the following starting point for more detailed discussions with trade unions on the qualifying criteria for groups to come within the scope of the NPRB:
  Professions with a minimum entry requirement of three years educational study (or equivalent) to diploma level or higher, in a health specific area (other than medicine or dentistry) and which are state registered and have a substantial majority of members employed in health care.
  Exceptions might be agreed for staff groups which met the majority but not all of these conditions.
  Staff groups which support professions added to the NPRB remit, and who have a direct connection with the transferred groups similar to that between nursing auxiliaries and registered nurses would also need to be considered for transfer.

  The widening of the membership of the review body is conditional upon an agreement being reached in the current talks about pay modernisation.

  Consultants' Pay
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase basic pay for consultants in the first few years of practice to compensate for the prohibition on private work. [133812]

  Ms Stuart
  The proposals set out in the National Health Service Plan will be discussed as part of the negotiations on the new consultant contract.

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the composition and terms of reference of the new independent commission for NHS appointments, stating the means by which members of the commission will be chosen. [133868]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service Appointments Commission will be a special health authority, with members appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following open competition in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is intended that the Commission will be operational by 1 April 2001. Its precise terms of reference are currently being determined.

  Private Healthcare
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which the UK private healthcare sector will expand as a result of the NHS national plan. [133811]

  Ms Stuart
  We are unable to say what expansion there may or may not be in private health care. That is a matter for the private healthcare industry itself.
  82W
  The National Health Service Plan indicates a closer working relationship between the two sectors. In some instances the private and voluntary healthcare sector can supplement NHS services and it makes sense to ensure this is undertaken effectively. That is why the NHS Plan outlines a change in the way the NHS and the private sector will work together.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area were waiting(a) for in-patient treatment in the last three months (b) more than 12 months for in-patient treatment in the last three months and (c) 13 weeks or more for an out-patient appointment in the last two quarters. [134168]

  Mr. Denham
  Total number of patients waiting and the number of patients waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust in the last three months

  Month

  Total Number of patients waiting

  Number of patients waiting over 12 months

  June 2000

  10,154

  924

  July 2000

  9,703

  876

  August 2000

  9,405

  795

  Source:

  Monthly returns

  Total number of patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an

  outpatient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National

  Health Service Trust

  Month

  Number of patients waiting over 13 weeks

  Q4 1999–00

  2,924

  Q1 2000–01

  3,212

  Source:

  QM08 quarterly return

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individual lines are operated as part of the touch tone steering system installed in his Department's public inquiry office. [134055]

  Ms Stuart
  Five individual agent's lines are operated as part of the Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system, plus one supervisor line.

  The ACD system has the ability to queue calls in excess of the six lines available, the maximum number of which is dependent upon the loading on the switch at the time the call is placed.

  Eight lines are operated to provide messaging services at pre-determined times (such as to provide the out of hours messages).

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the figures for the increases in revenue income to Bury Health Care NHS Trust for(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 will be made available. [133596]
  83W
  Mr. Denham
  The revenue income for Bury Health Care National Health Service Trust for the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is as follows:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Final accounts (£ million)

  63.4

  —

  £increase on 1997–98 (£ million)

  4.4

  —

  Percentage increase on 1997–98

  7.54

  —

  Final accounts (£ million)

  —

  76.9

  £ increase on 1998–99 (£ million)

  —

  13.5

  Percentage increase on 1998–99

  —

  21.29

  Note:

  1. The 1999–2000 figure includes impairment income of £7.4 million

  2. The source of this information is the published final accounts

  Breast Cancer Services (Nottingham)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Trent Regional Health Authority regarding plans for a new breast cancer unit at Nottingham City Hospital; and when he expects an announcement. [133827]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Trent Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive continues to work with the Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust to take forward its proposal for a new breast care centre. The outline business case was approved by the regional office on 15 May 2000. It is expected that the full business case will be submitted in March 2001.

  The development of the breast cancer unit is considered to be a high priority by both the regional office and the Nottingham health community.

  Tobacco Control
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on UK tobacco manufacturers of the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. [133831]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is too early to say what the likely impact of the Convention on employment and exports will be, as this depends on the content of the Convention, which is yet to be negotiated. Provisional texts of draft elements for the Convention have been drawn up and are being considered at the First Session of the Inter Governmental Negotiating Body in Geneva between 16–21 October. Negotiations are unlikely to be concluded before 2002.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will conduct an economic impact assessment of the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control; and if he will make a statement. [133835]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is too early to do this at present but we will do so when we have a clearer idea of what commitments the UK may wish to enter into.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the World Health Organisation about the private sector funding of its Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; and if he will list those companies which have contributed. [133832]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have had no such discussions.
  84W
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Her Majesty's Government's objectives are in discussions on the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; and if he will make a statement. [133884]

  Yvette Cooper
  We support the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and believe that it can help to reduce the damage to health caused by tobacco products worldwide. The WHO estimates that tobacco kills four million people each year and that this figure is likely to increase substantially, particularly in the developing world.

  The United Kingdom intends to play an active part in negotiating a convention which in particular will:
  make a difference by imposing obligations on its signatories, but which is not so ambitious that few countries sign up;
  tackles areas where international action is necessary and which can impact on consumption in the UK—in particular advertising and smuggling;
  supports other countries in developing tobacco control strategies;
  does not impose over-prescriptive obligations in areas which we consider to be for national decisions.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has held in preparation for the negotiations on the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. [133882]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ministers have consulted colleagues from other countries. Officials have participated in all WHO and European Union preparatory meetings on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the adoption of the WHO Framework Convention for Tobacco Control on jobs in each constituency. [133826]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is too early to say what the likely impact of the Convention on employment and exports will be, as this depends on the content of the Convention, which is yet to be negotiated.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with UK tobacco companies about the economic impact on companies and the communities in which they are located of the possible adoption of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. [133833]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have had no such discussions.

  Larval Therapy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) maggot-treated and (b) conventionally treated ulcers were evaluated by specialists at the West Cumberland Hospital in the study of use of maggots in larval therapy; and if he will make a statement. [134131]

  Mr. Denham
  The West Cumbria Health Care National Health Service Trust study into larval therapy evaluated six patients who received maggot treatment for their ulcers and six patients who received conventional ulcer treatment.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent guidelines have been set by health authorities in testing larval therapy; what
  85W
  preventive measures are included in studies to ensure the safety of human volunteers; and if he will make a statement; [134129]

  (2) what is the cost of his study on larval therapy; and if he will make a statement on potential NHS budget gains associated with such therapy. [134130]

  Mr. Denham
  Protocols for clinical research on the effectiveness of larval therapy in the National Health Service have to have the approval of Research Ethics Committees and the relevant NHS authority before they can proceed.

  Larval therapy is part of the wound care appraisal currently being undertaken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The appraisal will determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of debriding agents in treating difficult to heal surgical wounds. It will also evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of treating patients with difficult to heal surgical wounds by means of specialist wound care (eg at specialised wound care clinics) as compared to conventional care. NICE will review the available research evidence but will not itself commission further clinical research. NICE are expected to report on this appraisal in spring 2001.

  Zyban
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been given to health authorities for the prescribing of the drug Zyban; and which health authorities allow GPs to prescribe this drug. [134133]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department issued guidance to local smoking cessation co-ordinators on 28 June, which was copied to health authority prescribing advisers, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The NHS Plan announced that NICE will be asked to advise general practitioners on the most appropriate and cost-effective prescribing regimes for nicotine replacement therapy and Zyban, including duration and targeting. All general practitioners across England may prescribe bupropion (Zyban) to smokers motivated to quit for whom it is clinically appropriate.

  Electro-Convulsive Therapy
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to arrange for a further national survey of the use of electro-convulsive therapy before information from the Mental Health Minimum Data Set becomes fully available in 2003. [133946]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no current plans to conduct a future national survey on the use of electro-convulsive therapy before information from the Mental Health Minimum Data Set becomes fully available in 2003. It is expected that more useful data and reliable information will be obtained from this source.

  Prosorba Column
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek advice from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, regarding the prescribing of the Prosorba column. [133846]
  86W
  Mr. Denham
  There are no current plans to refer the Prosorba column to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  NHS Service Agreements
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if health authorities and primary care trusts are required to publish details of the service agreements they have commissioned with NHS trust hospitals. [133998]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities and primary care trusts are not required to publish details of the service agreements they have commissioned with NHS trust hospitals. Details of individual service agreements are not collected centrally, although the overall cost of such agreements will be contained within the health authorities' annual accounts.

  Dementia
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's expenditure on medication treatment for dementia was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were(a) the expenditure, (b) the numbers treated and (c) the numbers awaiting treatment for each health authority area in the latest year for which figures are available. [133957]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on(a) expenditure and (b) number of prescriptions in England for the year 1999 is shown in the table. Information on the number of patients treated or waiting for treatment is not available.

  Number of prescription items and the net ingredient cost of drugs

  dispensed in the community for dementia, 1999

  England

  Health authority in which the item was dispensed

  Prescription items (Thousand)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Hillingdon

  0.2

  18.3

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  0.1

  12.1

  Enfield and Haringey

  0.2

  19.6

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  0.1

  13.2

  Bedfordshire

  0.2

  15.7

  Berkshire

  0.2

  16.7

  Buckinghamshire

  0.1

  4.7

  Bexley and Greenwich

  0.2

  17.0

  Bromley

  0.1

  9.6

  Croydon

  0.2

  26.8

  East Kent

  0.3

  40.9

  West Kent

  0.2

  23.1

  Kingston and Richmond

  0.3

  25.1

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  0.1

  8.8

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  0.2

  14.6

  East Surrey

  0.3

  37.1

  West Surrey

  0.7

  82.1

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  0.5

  44.8

  West Sussex

  0.8

  100.2

  Barking and Havering

  0.7

  80.8

  Barnet

  0.3

  38.2

  Brent and Harrow

  0.1

  18.7

  Camden and Islington

  0.3

  30.8

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  0.1

  8.4

  East London and The City

  0.1

  12.6

  North Essex

  1.0

  95.4

  South Essex

  0.4

  41.4

  South Lancashire

  0.0

  3.4

  Liverpool

  0.1

  10.8

  Manchester

  0.6

  41.9

  Morecambe Bay

  1.3

  109.8

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  0.2

  12.5

  Salford and Trafford

  0.2

  12.7

  87W

  Number of prescription items and the net ingredient cost of drugs

  dispensed in the community for dementia, 1999

  England

  Health authority in which the item was dispensed

  Prescription items (Thousand)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Sefton

  0.1

  5.6

  Stockport

  0.2

  15.9

  West Pennine

  0.4

  30.4

  Northamptonshire

  0.3

  24.3

  Oxfordshire

  0.1

  10.3

  Suffolk

  0.5

  43.7

  Barnsley

  0.0

  5.3

  North Derbyshire

  0.3

  22.1

  Southern Derbyshire

  0.3

  31.9

  Doncaster

  0.1

  2.2

  Leicestershire

  0.7

  73.2

  Lincolnshire

  1.4

  110.1

  North Nottinghamshire

  0.2

  16.0

  Nottingham

  1.7

  153.1

  Rotherham

  0.1

  5.3

  Sheffield

  0.4

  64.5

  Bury and Rochdale

  0.2

  12.5

  North Cheshire

  0.1

  5.5

  South Cheshire

  1.5

  109.4

  East Lancashire

  0.3

  21.7

  North West Lancashire

  1.0

  77.6

  North and Mid Hampshire

  0.5

  66.2

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  0.2

  35.4

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1.5

  128.5

  Somerset

  0.5

  53.2

  South and West Devon

  0.3

  35.8

  Wiltshire

  1.0

  111.6

  Avon

  0.2

  18.0

  Birmingham

  0.2

  18.7

  Wigan and Bolton

  1.3

  105.7

  Wirral

  1.5

  100.3

  Bradford

  0.2

  14.6

  County Durham and Darlington

  0.1

  8.1

  East Riding and Hull

  0.2

  18.9

  Leeds

  1.7

  109.0

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  0.2

  25.9

  North Cumbria

  1.1

  94.4

  South Humber

  0.1

  12.6

  Northumberland

  0.1

  11.1

  Sunderland

  0.2

  25.2

  Tees

  0.1

  8.8

  North Yorkshire

  0.3

  21.6

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  0.9

  81.1

  Dorset

  0.2

  18

  North and East Devon

  0.2

  16.8

  Gloucestershire

  0.1

  11.2

  Coventry

  0.1

  5.4

  Shropshire

  0.1

  14.1

  Solihull

  0.1

  8.3

  North Staffordshire

  0.1

  6.0

  South Staffordshire

  0.1

  10.1

  Warwickshire

  0.1

  5.7

  Worcestershire

  0.2

  24.5

  East and North Hertfordshire

  0.2

  25.0

  West Hertfordshire

  0.1

  5.5

  Cambridgeshire

  0.3

  25.7

  Norfolk

  0.1

  12.9

  England

  34.6

  3,214.4

  Notes:

  1. Prescription Cost Analysis data are based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Total prescriptions include not only prescriptions originating from general practices in England but also from hospital doctors and dentists provided they were dispensed in the community. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in
  88W
  England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions. Health authority data cover prescriptions dispensed in that health authority.

  2. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  3. Drugs used in the treatment of dementia are those defined in the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.11, "Drugs for dementia".

  4. North West Anglia Health Authority ceased to exist from I April 1999. The existing practices and contractors were reallocated to Cambridge and Norfolk Health Authorities.

  5. Health authorities where the number of prescription items dispensed was less than 50 have been removed due to confidentiality issues

  Kidney Dialysis
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients, by age group, have received kidney dialysis in the last five available years; and what proportion of these are kidney patients in each age group. [133981]

  Mr. Denham
  The information available is derived from the United Kingdom Renal Registry and from provisional data collected in the renal survey commissioned by the Department of Health. It is estimated that 21,150 new adult patients were accepted for kidney dialysis between 1995 and 1999, although a small percentage of these patients will not have started dialysis. The age distribution of these patients at the time they were accepted for kidney dialysis is shown in the table:

  Age range

  Percentage of patients

  18–24

  3

  25–34

  6

  35–44

  10

  45–54

  14

  55–64

  21

  65–74

  29

  75–84

  16

  over 85

  1

  In addition, there were 420 new patients who were under 18 years old when they were accepted for kidney dialysis between 1995 and 1999.

  Organ Transplants
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how organ donation is co-ordinated nationally and locally in the UK. [133982]

  Mr. Denham
  Organ donation is co-ordinated locally by transplant co-ordinators who are employed by National Health Service trusts. The matching and allocation of organs on a United Kingdom-wide basis is co-ordinated by United Kingdom Transplant, a special health authority based in Bristol.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of how up-to-date the names and addresses on the NHS Organ Donor Register are; [133976]

  (2) how frequently the NHS Organ Donor Register was accessed in 1999 by hospitals seeking donors. [133977]
  89W
  Mr. Denham
  The Department has asked the United Kingdom Transplant to review the most effective ways to ensure all the data on the Organ Donor Register are up to date. This includes consideration of the information provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and general practitioners.

  Access to the National Health Service Organ Donor Register is via a 24-hour service at United Kingdom Transplant. Transplant co-ordinators mainly employed by local transplant centres may access the Register and during 1999 did so on only a handful of occasions, although this is currently not formally recorded.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients died in each year from 1995 to 1999 whilst on the waiting list for a(a) heart, (b) heart and lung, (c) lung and (d) liver transplant. [133979]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of patients in England dying from any cause while registered on the active transplant waiting list, 1995–1999 is given in the table.

  England

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  waiting for:

  (a) heart

  64

  66

  63

  60

  56

  (b) heart and lung

  37

  48

  34

  26

  27

  (c) lung(s)

  60

  53

  59

  68

  72

  (d) liver

  57

  55

  64

  74

  71

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently awaiting(a) a kidney transplant, (b) a heart transplant, (c) a heart and lung transplant, (d) a lung transplant, (e) a liver transplant and (f) other forms of transplant; and if he will make a statement on the shortfall between the numbers of organs available for transplant and of people needing such organs. [133980]

  Mr. Denham
  The current active waiting list is as follows:

  England

  As of 3 October 2000

  Number

  (a) kidney

  3,950

  (b) heart

  165

  (c) heart/lung

  100

  (d)lung

  203

  (e) liver

  127

  (f) other (solid organ)1

  85

  1Mainly kidney + pancreas and pancreas

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organ transplants were carried out in the last five years for which figures are available. [133978]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of solid organ transplants carried out from 1995 to 1999 is given in the table.

  England

  Number

  1995

  2,438

  1996

  2,253

  1997

  2,274

  1998

  1,993

  1999

  2.078

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Norfolk)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Norfolk were waiting to see a consultant on(a) 31 March 1997, (b) 31 March 1998, (c) 31 March 1999 and (d) 31 March 2000. [133829]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Therapeutic Cloning
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefits of using(a) adult stem cells and (b) stem cells from embryos created by therapeutic cloning in treating damage to the brain, internal organs, bone and other tissues and organs. [134257]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group in its report "Stem Cell Research: Medical Progress with Responsibility" concluded that research involving the extraction and use of stem cells raised the prospect of a range of exciting new therapeutic possibilities for the repair of diseased or damaged tissues including repairing nerve cells lost in Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, replacing lost heart muscle cells in cases of congestive heart failure, bone cells in osteoporosis, liver cells in cases of hepatitis or cirrhosis and so on.

  The Expert Group concluded that embryonic stem cells have the potential to develop into a far greater range of tissues than adult derived stem cells. The Group went on to say that while the long term promise of stem cells derived from adult tissue may equal or even surpass that of embryonic stem cells it was probable that scientific advances from embryonic stem cell research would be necessary to understand how to make greater use of stem cells derived from adult tissue.

  Operations (Warrington Hospital)
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) cataract, (b) knee joint replacement, (c) hip joint replacement and (d) hernia operations were performed at Warrington Hospital in each of the last three years. [133754]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows a count of cataract, knee replacement, hip replacement and hernia operations performed in Warrington Hospital National Health Service Trust for the years 1996–97 to 1998–99.

  Finished consultant episodes by selected operations

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Cataract operations

  Knee replacement

  Hip replacement

  Hernia operations

  1996–97

  1,215

  108

  226

  271

  1997–98

  1.050

  120

  273

  301

  1998–99

  1,198

  134

  287

  338

  Generics
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the reimbursement arrangements for pharmacists and dispensing doctors relating to generics. [133852]
  91W
  Mr. Denham
  Linked to the recent introduction of a statutory maximum price scheme for generic medicines, the government abolished Category D of Part VIII of the Drug Tariff with effect from September prescriptions and replaced it with more tightly controlled arrangements for reimbursing pharmacists fairly when due to shortage they have no alternative but to purchase a more expensive product.

  Work on longer-term arrangements for the supply of generics to the community—including reimbursement arrangements for pharmacists—is still in progress. We intend to discuss our proposals with interested parties before reaching final decisions on the way forward.

  Fluoride
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out WHO requirements in respect of(a) monitoring of fluoride levels, and (b) children in receipt of fluoridated milk. [R] [134146]

  Yvette Cooper
  Reports from the World Health Organisation (WHO) contain valuable information, which can helpfully inform government policy but, unless they are incorporated into United Kingdom law, their status is advisory rather than mandatory. Technical guidance on methods of measurement of fluoride, and their interpretation, and on fluoridation of mild, is included in recent WHO publications such as Technical Report 846 "Fluorides and oral health" (1994) and "Monitoring of renal fluoride excretion in community preventive programmes on oral health" (1999).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Distribution Industry
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Competition Commission's report on the food distribution industry will be published. [130928]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Competition Commission report on the supply of groceries from supermarkets was published on 10 October.

  Dogs
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about German plans to ban the breeding and importing of certain breeds of dogs. [133575]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have received many letters on this subject from dog breeders and owners in this country, and from their Members of Parliament and interested organisations. A particular concern has been a proposal by the German authorities for European Union (EU) legislation on dangerous dogs.

  The United Kingdom Government cannot interfere in the internal law-making processes of other countries, but we are opposed to the idea of EU legislation on dangerous dogs. We certainly could not agree to any EU measures which would require us to bring in laws on this matter
  92W
  more stringent than those we have at present, which we consider adequate for present and future control needs in this country.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fields of oilseed rape have been sown using seed contaminated by GM material in the Chesham and Amersham parliamentary constituency; and if he will make a statement. [125895]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]: The information requested is not held by MAFF. Advanta Seeds UK Ltd. established a scheme to contact, register and compensate all the affected farmers for crop destruction. The Central Science Laboratory is auditing that scheme on behalf of the Government to check that the crops have not been marketed.

  Mink
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations his Department has conducted into the release of mink from a fur farm at Bourne Hill in Lancashire in July 1999, with particular reference to(a) the number of mink released, (b) damage done to the perimeter fencing and (c) responsibility for the release; and if he will make a statement. [131731]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry was notified by the police on 7 August 1999 that mink had been released from the fur farm. The Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, an Executive agency of the Ministry, immediately visited the site to investigate the incident. They found that the perimeter fence had been breached in two places by being cut. It was estimated that between 50 and 100 mink escaped outside the farm and were unaccounted for.

  I am not aware of anyone claiming responsibility for the break-in. This is a matter for the police to pursue.

  Ducks
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what the main diseases are which affect intensively reared ducks in the UK; and what percentage of ducks is affected by each disease; [132688]

  (2) what the pre-slaughter mortality rate is of ducks (a) reared for the meat and (b) kept for breeding purposes in the UK; [132689]

  (3) how many ducks on UK farms have access to water in which they can swim; [132690]

  (4) how many ducks on UK farms have access to facilities which enable them to immerse their heads in water; [132691]

  (5) what percentage of ducks swan-neck on entering the waterbath stunner in UK slaughterhouses; [132694]

  (6) when the UK will adopt the Council of Europe's June 1999 recommendation made by the Standing Committee of the European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. [132695]

  Mr. Morley
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 24 August 2000. Copies of my letter were placed in the Library of the House.

  Farmers (Totnes)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available to the hon. Member for Totnes the list held by his Department's Strategy and Policy section of farmers working in the Totnes constituency, used by his Department for mail-shots; and if he will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Totnes of 4 July on this subject. [132443]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: I replied to the hon. Member on 31 August explaining that the Agricultural Statistics Act 1972, under which the provisions of which the register of agricultural holdings is maintained, prevents disclosure of any information without the written permission of the supplier of the information, except in particular circumstances. The requirements of the Data Protection Act 1988 further precludes release of lists of names and addresses.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press releases have been issued so far this year; and what the total cost of the production and issuing of press releases was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date. [132779]

  Mr. Morley
  The total number of press releases issued by MAFF since 1 January this year is 350. They are made available to all press and media bodies through the Central Office of Information (COI) managed News Distribution Service and the Internet at an average cost of £92 per press release. Cost data are not available for 1997 and 1998, but this figure represents a significant saving against an average of £244 per press release in 1999 when printed copies were also distributed via the Royal Mail postal service.

  Gross margins per hectare in real terms1 for the Eastern counties of England (£ per hectare)

  Harvest year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Sugar Beet

  1,098

  1,282

  1,224

  1,547

  1,271

  1,188

  1,228

  1,115

  973

  951

  Winter Wheat

  707

  739

  737

  738

  779

  820

  969

  792

  629

  625

  Winter Barley

  667

  580

  595

  647

  672

  682

  866

  681

  583

  524

  Spring Barley

  525

  472

  609

  657

  613

  634

  820

  534

  548

  566

  Oilseed Rape

  736

  743

  572

  596

  681

  629

  781

  896

  766

  576

  Beans

  556

  434

  521

  778

  666

  645

  635

  596

  638

  481

  Peas

  603

  644

  656

  712

  688

  638

  745

  674

  613

  439

  Potatoes

  3,522

  2,214

  2,291

  1,183

  2,736

  5,876

  4,600

  1,091

  2,203

  5,352

  All enterprises2

  867

  604

  655

  740

  777

  880

  1015

  944

  815

  824

  1 Deflated by a 1998 input price index

  2Estimates for all enterprises should not be compared to those for the individual enterprises as they will also reflect profitability of other enterprises on other farms (e. g. livestock).

  Source:

  Report on Farming in the Eastern Counties of England (University of Cambridge)

  Northallerton Regional Centre
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department's regional centre at Northallerton will continue to take queries in person from local farmers. [133108]

  Ms Quin
  We will maintain arrangements for face-to-face local contacts with farmers in all regions in the lead up to the establishment of the CAP Payments Agency (CAPPA).

  Press Officers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many press officers were employed in his Department in(a) May 1997, (b) January 1998, (c) January 1999 and (d) January 2000; and what the total expenditure on press officers by his Department was in each of the years concerned. [132764]

  Mr. Morley
  The numbers are as follows:

  Number

  May 1997

  9

  January 1998

  8

  January 1999

  9

  January 2000

  9

  Pay and running costs for the equivalent financial years are as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  460,000

  1998–99

  556,000

  1999–2000

  605.000

  Farm Profitability
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's figures for the profitability of(a) sugar beet production, (b) other arable production and (c) total farm enterprises for each of the years from 1989 to 1999. [132523]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 September 2000]: Estimates for the profitability of sugar beet and other arable production derived from information collected for farms in the University of Cambridge's province of the Farm Business Survey are shown in the table. Comparable data for 1999 are not yet available.

  The substantial investment which we propose to make in modernising CAP administration over the next Spending Review period will transform the way in which we deal with CAP payments. Farmers who submit their claims electronically will benefit from faster payment and the 'intelligent' forms will be significantly easier to complete. We are consulting widely on the best ways of ensuring a smooth transition to the new arrangements and helping our customers to reap the benefits with electronic service delivery offers. We will review the arrangements

  95W
  for face-to-face contact with farmers on their CAP subsidy claims when the new IT systems for CAPPA are fully operational and everyone has easy local access to the internet.

  In parallel with the establishment of CAPPA, we are restructuring other aspects of our operational activity in the regions to strengthen MAFF's ability to deliver an effective and responsive local service to farmers on the implementation of the England Rural Development Plan.

  Fishing (Quota Hopping)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many Spanish skippers of quota-hopper fishing vessels have been paid compensation for being unable to fish after the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988; how long they were stopped from fishing; and what was the average compensation per skipper; [132819]

  (2) how many British ticket holders working on Spanish quota-hopper vessels under the terms of the Aliens (Amendment) Act 1919 received compensation for being prevented from fishing by the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. [132820]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 July 2000]: Payments have been made only to the owners of vessels de-registered under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the Red Ensign is flown from departmental buildings on Merchant Navy Day, 3 September. [132954]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 July 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), on 27 July 2000, Official Report, column 895W.

  Electronic Communications Act 2000
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what orders he(a) has made and (b) intends to make using section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [133374]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 905W.

  Organic Farming
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total spending by his Department in support of organic farming will be in 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03. [133479]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: In respect of organic conversion aid to farmers, we have set aside £12 million for 2000–01, £18 million for 2001–02 and £20 million for 2002–03. The budget for research and development in the organic sector is £2.1 million for each of the three years.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions there were under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131983]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: My officials are aware of one successful prosecution under this Act in 1992, three successful prosecutions in 1993, and one successful prosecution in 1998. Other authorities may also have been responsible for prosecutions.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions there were under the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131844]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: As far as my Department is concerned, there was one successful prosecution in 1995, five successful prosecutions in 1996 and three in 1997. Other authorities may also have conducted prosecutions in this area.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions there were under the (i) Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Acts 1954 and 1964, (ii) Welfare of Livestock (Prohibited Operations) Regulations 1982, (iii) Docking and Nicking of Horses Act 1949 and (iv) Removal of Antlers in Velvet (Anaesthetics) Order 1988 in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131985]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: My officials are aware of two successful prosecutions and one unsuccessful one under the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Acts in 1995, and one successful prosecution in 1999. They are not aware of any prosecutions under the other listed legislation during the relevant period. Other authorities may also have been responsible for prosecutions.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions there have been under the (i) Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 and (ii) Slaughterhouses Act 1974 in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131846]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: My officials are aware of one successful prosecution under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 in 1996, three successful prosecutions in 1997, seven successful prosecutions in 1998 and four in 1999. They are not aware of any prosecutions under the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 during the relevant period. Other authorities may also have been responsible for prosecutions.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions there were under the (i) Markets, Sales and Lairs Orders 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1970, (ii) Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 and (iii) Welfare of Horses at Markets (and other places of sale) Order 1990 for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131785]
  97W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: My officials are aware of one successful prosecution under the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 in 1997, and no prosecutions under the other Orders. Other authorities may also have been responsible for prosecutions.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions there were under the (i) Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 and (ii) Animal Health Act 1981 in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131843]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: My officials are aware of one successful prosecution under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) 1997, in 1999. This Order is primarily for local authorities to enforce. The Ministry conducted two successful prosecutions in 1990, one successful prosecution in 1993 and four successful prosecutions in 1998 under the Animal Health Act 1981. Other authorities may also have been responsible for prosecutions under this Act.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) prosecutions and (b) successful prosecutions there were under the (a) Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 and (b) Mink (Keeping) Order 1997 in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [131981]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: My officials are not aware of any prosecutions under the listed legislation during this period.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subsidy payments have been made for growing flax and hemp in each of the past five years; and what percentage of the crops were not harvested or marketed. [133231]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 July 2000]: The following table provides details of area harvested and rate of aid per hectare for the five crop years 1995–96 to 1999–2000:

  Area Harvested (Hectares)

  Rate of Aid (£ per Hectare)

  Crop Year

  Flax

  Hemp

  Flax

  Hemp

  1995–96

  17,151

  1,128

  1646.87

  653.84

  1561.47

  1996–97

  20,650

  1,751

  591.16

  645.99

  513.13

  1997–98

  18,862

  2,333

  569.83

  575.97

  494.61

  1998–99

  16,770

  2.697

  535.46

  500.64

  464.78

  1999–2000

  15,052

  1,489

  567.67

  487.92

  497.74

  1 The higher and lower figures show the aid rates applicable to deseeded and non-deseeded flax crops

  Porpoises
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many porpoises have(a) been
  98W
  caught and (b) perished as a result of fishing activities in UK waters in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; [133706]

  (2) what policies his Department is pursuing to reduce the number of porpoises killed as a result of fishing. [133731]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the full extent of porpoise casualties caused by fishing is not available.

  My Department is funding the Sea Mammal Research Unit to undertake a three year project following on from earlier EU-funded work, including research at sea on the use of pingers to deter porpoises from nets. The new project which began in July will consider in detail why harbour porpoises become entangled in gill nets and seek to identify modifications to fishing gear which will reduce bycatches. If this work is successful I will encourage the UK industry to make the necessary adaptations and will also seek action at the EU level. In this regard, I welcomed the statement by Franz Fischler, the European Fisheries Commissioner, at the June Fisheries Council on the need to address the problem of cetacean bycatch.

  With the support of this Department, my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), launched the UK's Harbour Porpoise Conservation Strategy at the 3rd Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) Meeting of Parties held in Bristol between 26 and 28 July. This strategy sets out how the species is to be protected from pollution, seismic and other disturbances, as well as incidental mortality as a result of fishing activity.

  Cod
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what policies his Department is pursuing to ensure abundant supplies of cod in(a) the short term and (b) the long term; [133704]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the state of cod fish stocks; [133702]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the statement by the World Wildlife Fund on the state of cod stocks. [133703]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to managing cod stocks on the basis of the precautionary approach in order to keep them away from levels at which there is a serious risk of collapse and to help rebuild them for the future. Cod stocks generally are in poor shape, with unusually low recruitment of young fish, which may be due in part to climatic factors. This is reflected in the reduced TACs agreed for 2000 and lower landings by fishermen this year compared with 1999.

  We have already demonstrated our willingness to support strong short term measures when needed. The UK took the lead in securing the Irish Sea cod recovery programme developed in close consultation with the industry and adopted in the EU earlier this year. This should help rebuild the depleted cod stock in the Irish Sea. It includes closing spawning areas in the Irish Sea from mid-February to the end of April to protect spawning cod as well as new technical conservation measures to improve protection for young cod.
  99W
  Advice on cod stocks will be provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) in the autumn. We will then consider, in the light of ICES' assessment and recommendations, what management action is needed for 2001.

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individual lines are operated as part of the touch tone steering system installed at his Department's sites. [134052]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of lines available to members of the public calling in to MAFF's touch tone steering systems is variable. MAFF adjusts according to business need the number of lines which will at a given time connect callers to MAFF staff, the number of callers who will be put into a queue and the number of callers who may listen to recorded information.

  These may be altered on a daily basis.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Forestry Commission departmental expenditure limit set out in the 2000 Spending Review will be divided between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. [134013]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The figures given in the Spending Review 2000 for the Forestry Commission cover its net expenditure for GB core functions and activities in England. Although the Commission's activities in Wales were not covered by the Review, a £5.5 million baseline for Wales is also included for each year because responsibility for the Commission's expenditure in Wales has not yet transferred to the National Assembly. Responsibility for the Commission's expenditure in Scotland has already been transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The Commission has no remit in Northern Ireland; forestry matters there are administered by the Forest Service of the Northern Ireland Assembly's Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

  Annual Report (Error)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was informed of the drafting errors on page 15 of the Government's Annual Report; and what steps he is taking to publicise the error. [134030]
  100W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  The hon. Member is assured that the drafting errors on page 15 of the Government's Annual Report (1999–2000) had already been rectified. The final sentence on page 15 should read

  Thanks to the latest EU "Agenda 2000" budget reforms negotiated this year, the annual [shopping] bill for a family of four will fall on average by £65.

  Ragwort
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 1090, on what basis he confines his Department's responsibility for the control of ragwort to seeding ragwort which is growing only on agricultural land as defined by the Agriculture Act 1947. [R] [133999]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF deals with all complaints under the Weeds Act on their own merits, but gives priority to complaints where farmland or farmed animals are at risk. Such cases will normally be in respect of "agricultural land".

  Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research projects being(a) carried out and (b) sponsored by his Department into rabbit haemorrhagic disease, and stating the nature of each project. [128309]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 July 2000, c. 587W]: A further search has revealed that MAFF is currently a contributor to one project on viral haemorrhagic disease of rabbits:
  The impact of rabbit viral haemorrhagic disease on wild rabbit populations.

  The project is jointly sponsored with the University of Stirling, the Institute for Virology and Environmental Microbiology, The British Association for Shooting and Conservation Ltd., The Game Conservancy Trust, The National Trust, English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

  I regret that this information was inadvertently omitted from my earlier reply.

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.

Family Policies
Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their family policies will take account of the initiatives of Parents' Week.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government completely accept the aims and initiatives of Parents' Week which is intended to raise awareness of the importance and value of parenting and of family support. The Government are delighted that the National Family and Parenting Institute, working together with a number of other family organisations, has succeeded in compiling such an excellent week of events to celebrate parenting. As part of the week, I look forward to hosting a reception in your Lordships' House tomorrow.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. This is the first Parents' Week. The National Family and Parenting Institute has produced a report as part of that week which suggests that the UK is not particularly family friendly. Can my noble friend state the top three priorities for supporting families, and how they will be implemented?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am well aware of the report to which my noble friend refers. We would all agree that there are many aspects of life where this country may not be as family friendly (to use the jargon) as others. Having spent the past
2
weekend in southern Ireland, I can point to the example that in this country policies of individual restaurants in relation to children, for example, may not be as friendly as they might be.
However, we believe that the Government's policies overall are aimed at supporting families. If I were to refer to three, they would include ensuring that within 20 years no child lives in poverty; making it easier for those parents who wish to do so to balance their home and work priorities and responsibilities; and enabling parents to have access to advice and information on parenting. A wide range of policies will advance those aims. They will mean that by next year, 2001, households with children will be on average £850 a year better off and that 1·2 million children will already have been lifted out of poverty.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us how we compare with Europe so far as concerns child poverty?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it would be hard to give a blanket answer. My noble friend's Question related more to social policies. Individual countries have different forms of assessing child poverty. I can write giving the noble Baroness a list of those countries where we would say that children live in poverty. One of the Government's aims is to reduce the number of children living in poverty. That is why we are pleased to be able to say that by next year in this country 1·2 million children out of 3 million who were assessed to be living in poverty will no longer be doing so.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, while I warmly applaud the Minister's initiatives in this area, has the noble Baroness any plans for a grandparents' week? For some of us that might be more appropriate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should be happy to join in that if it were to be arranged. I believe that there is a grandparents' day. Whether it continues may be a reflection of the number of people prepared

3
to take part. I am very willing to look into the noble Lord's suggestion which I personally would enjoy very much.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister state what policies the Government have to deal with gypsy children? They are among the most deprived of any section of the community but are not being considered, and will not be in the future, by the Social Exclusion Unit.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure that he will admit, the noble Lord raises a question about a minority of children, but those are children living in difficult circumstances, as he describes. My right honourable and noble friends' policies in the Department for Education and Employment, for example, are designed to make it easier for children of travelling families to be able to attend school. As the noble Lord is well aware, the problem is that the parents and families who fall into this category often do not qualify for provisions such as the working families' tax credit or the childcare tax credit because of their employment record.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the research produced by the Family Policy Studies Centre entitled Cohabitation in Britain and Norway: A Childhood Perspective? It indicates that in the 1970s the rate of separation of parents in Britain was similar to that in Norway. However, in Britain the figures are now dramatically worse. By the age of four, far more children in this country can expect their parents to separate.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not familiar with the report to which the noble Earl refers. We are concerned that a large number of children live in families where the disruption that he describes is a contributing cause of their poverty. One of the reasons that we put such emphasis on alleviating child poverty and improving children's education through programmes such as the Sure Start initiative is to make sure that children who are disadvantaged have some compensation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an essential constituent of a family friendly policy that parents of both sexes should be entitled on equal terms to take time off for domestic emergencies? Will the noble Baroness try to ensure that the actively-seeking-work rules are administered to make that a reality?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure that it is entirely within my powers to ensure that the actively-seeking-work regulations are arranged in the way the noble Earl describes. He will acknowledge that initiatives such as the parental leave arrangements and the part-time work arrangements which have come into force during this past year make it possible for parents to share parenting in a way that the Government want to encourage.

Benefit Recipients: Name Changes
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements in place to ensure that people who change their surnames are able to receive benefits to which they are entitled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): Yes, my Lords. When a change of name is reported, there should not be any problem with current or future claims to benefit. As today is the noble Baroness's 75th birthday, I congratulate her on her eligibility for a new benefit—a free television licence.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her help over the matter that I want to raise. She has got my birthday wrong—I am 78.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness could have fooled the House.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was turned down when I applied for a free television licence because the name on my national insurance card is different from the name that I now bear. Is the Minister aware that the BBC telephoned me to say that it had overlooked your Lordships' House in its calculations? Will other old Lords and Baronesses be able to benefit without the serious difficulties that I encountered?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not aware of other cases. We have notified your Lordships. I understand that the problem with the noble Baroness's application was not so much the difference between her pre-peerage name and her post-peerage name—after all, the national insurance number remains continuous—but the fact that her forms were filled in inconsistently with other forms, which may have confused the computer. Many of us might think that confusing the computer was an entirely honourable activity, but it tends to delay proceedings somewhat on occasions. I understand that the situation has now been resolved and I wish the noble Baroness every enjoyment of her television.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Minister was extremely helpful to me. I did not fill in the form wrongly. She has not been given the correct information.

Passive Smoking
2.44 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked the Chairman of Committees:
How it is envisaged that the House authorities will comply with the approved code of practice on passive smoking at work recently proposed by the Health and Safety Commission.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Health and Safety Commission has recently announced that it favours the introduction of an approved code of practice on passive smoking at work, but no such code has yet been issued. It will be for the Offices Committee and its sub-committees to consider the implications of any code, if and when it is issued, for smoking policy affecting Members.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the Lord Chairman for his reply and welcome it if I am correct in assuming that referring the code of practice to the committees means that we shall adopt it in due course. Does he agree that our duty as employers is to adopt best practice at all times? Should we not protect our staff from the harmful effects of passive smoking and implement the statement on page 34 of the House of Lords staff handbook, which says:
"staff are entitled to work in a smoke-free atmosphere"?
In their interests, why do we not eliminate all smoking in areas where we expect our staff to work, particularly in the refreshment areas, the bars and the Library?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, it is the case that once any code is issued we shall be ready to start considering it in the committees of your Lordships' House. It will be for those committees to consider it in the first place and then for the matter to come, as usual, before your Lordships.
It is indeed the policy of the House, as an employer, that staff of the House should be entitled to work in a smoke-free atmosphere if they want to do so. That policy has been agreed by the Whitley Committee of the House of Lords and is, as the noble Lord says, set out in the staff handbook.
As the noble Lord implied, there is a certain amount of exposure to smoking among the staff. There is a limited amount in the Refreshment Department, the details of which are no doubt known to your Lordships, and similarly a limited amount in the Library, in particular in the Derby Room and the room next to it.
Further than that, as far as staff working in offices are concerned, it is the policy of your Lordships' House that within a particular office smoking will not take place unless with the agreement of all those who occupy that office.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the people whom I really admire are those who do not smoke, but support those who pursue a legal activity? Given the very high ceilings and drafts in the Palace of Westminster, does the noble Lord agree that one would have to be a bat to suffer from passive smoking here?
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I hear, sotto voce, from a recumbent position, the word "batty" mentioned. I would hesitate to draw any conclusions about bats from the noble Baroness's supplementary. By way of preliminary, first of all I should like to add my best wishes to the noble Baroness on this day.
I find that I have two problems when seeking to answer points from the noble Baroness. The first is that I find absolutely everything about her completely irresistible. My second problem is that I fear she probably does not feel the same way about me.
However, there is, of course, a serious point arising out of the noble Baroness's question. In those places where your Lordships have allowed smoking to take place, such as those that I have mentioned already to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, steps are being and have been taken to provide additional ventilation. It is also the case that space is a significant factor. The noble Baroness's point is not as unserious as some of your Lordships might have been tempted to suggest.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while it would be most undesirable if some of the distinguished and most agreeable Members of this House were forced into inclement weather outside these buildings in order to take a puff when they wish, none the less within the buildings at present there is a great imbalance between the interests of the non-smokers, who, I believe, are in the majority, and the interests of the smokers? Does my noble friend agree that his remarks about the Library seriously underestimate that for many of us two major rooms are quite unliveable in for large parts of the day because of the activities of our smoking colleagues?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that an imbalance exists here. As your Lordships will recall, a detailed review was conducted between March 1998 and last year by a group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The group investigated the matter thoroughly and, partly as a result of the review, your Lordships settled upon a compromise. It was decided that smoking would no longer be allowed in certain places, such as telephone booths, lavatories and one or two other places, but, as part of the compromise, it would be allowed in, for example, corridors.
I believe that your Lordships' House will again need to get to grips with this matter and try to strike a less imbalanced position. For some time one suggestion for the solution of the problem of the Library has been the creation of a "club room"—I do not care for that term myself—or smoking room. The Library and

7
Computers Sub-Committee is in favour of that proposal. The sub-committee's policy is to look to freeing the whole of the Library of smoking when a successful search has been concluded for a room of that kind.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees agree that smoking is an issue that causes considerable hardship on both sides and that it should be the object of policy to mitigate the hardship suffered on one side in a way that is compatible with the interests of the other? Does he understand that, when I hear a Question such as this, I wonder whether my chance to attend this House is now under as much risk as a smoker as it has been as a hereditary? Does he agree that it is not a good idea to have a partisan line-up with smoking guns on one side and flaming swords on the other, and that we should continue the search for compromise at which this House has so much skill?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I agree with the concluding remarks of the noble Earl. I hesitate to become involved in the more philosophical comments which prefaced them.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the subject of the staff interests in the House. Can my noble friend the Chairman of Committees tell us whether the views of staff have been sought in earlier surveys in order to ascertain what they feel about smoking in the House? If not, will he give an assurance that when we start, to use his phrase, "to get to grips" with this topic again, a survey of their views, as well as those of my noble friends in the Lords, will be carried out and taken into account?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, although I sympathise with the first part of the noble Lord's question, I do not know whether the views of the staff were surveyed on earlier occasions. However, certainly—and I am sure that this is the noble Lord's fundamental point—the views of staff have been taken carefully into account in, for example, discussions which have taken place in the Whitley Committee of your Lordships' House. When your Lordships get to grips with this matter again after the draft code of practice has been put forward and approved by Ministers, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the views of the staff will indeed again need to be taken into account.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Chairman of Committees referred to improving the ventilation. When the committee gets round to that, will he seek to ensure that the ventilation is not improved so much that we suffer from hypothermia, particularly on this Bench—hypothermia also being detrimental to health?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's views will not have gone unheard.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend the Chairman of Committees referred to the draft approved code of practice. A copy of it is now in the Printed Paper Office and I note that comments must be submitted to the Health and Safety Commission by 29th October. Therefore, can he confirm that it would be appropriate for the various committees to start examining the matter now? That would probably speed up the process because, when the final version is available, it will probably be found that it will not have changed very much.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the draft code of practice to which the noble Lord refers is the initial draft, a copy of which I have here. It is quite a substantial document. It was put out for consultation last year and, therefore, I must reveal to the noble Lord that comments had to be submitted by 29th October 1999. However, the happy point is that, the draft having been issued and extensive consultations having been carried out by the Health and Safety Commission, a revised draft is now in preparation. I understand that there will be a further short consultation period later in the year—that is, later this year—and the revised draft will then be finalised, submitted to Ministers and then be open to consideration by the committees of your Lordships' House and the House itself in the way that I have already indicated.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, notwithstanding the supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I have a serious health problem regarding tobacco smoke, which means that, under certain circumstances, I cannot go to any of the refreshment rooms or to the Library? I believe that that matter should be addressed, not only from my point of view but also from that of the staff and the people in the Library.
The Chairman of Committees: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the particular problem from which the noble Viscount suffers. That matter does indeed need to be taken into account.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that smoking not only damages people's health but also damages the decorations, the furnishings and the books in your Lordships' House? We have a responsibility to look after those items. Will the noble Lord tell us whether that has also been taken into account?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I can certainly say that those considerations also need to be accounted for.

National Flagship
2.58 p.m.
Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the idea of a national flagship which would be of use in Britain's overseas diplomatic and commercial representation.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government again recently reviewed the concept of a national flagship. It was concluded that the benefits would not justify the costs to the taxpayer as there would be insufficient calls on the vessel by both business and government departments.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the estimated cost to the Government has recently been reduced in a new plan submitted by those who are putting forward this project? Has that been taken into account? On the other hand, can we take it that the matter is now finally closed or is it subject to further consideration?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware that the capital cost, which would of course be provided by private concerns, has been reduced and that the cost to the Government similarly would be reduced. However, it is not felt that that affects the basic consideration that there is no demand for the use of such a ship by any of the parties which might use it. Therefore, the matter can be considered closed.
Lord Roper: My Lords, although I understand the reason for the Answer given by the Minister, I wonder whether he recalls the long tradition of the Royal Navy of showing the flag in a whole variety of ways? Will he consider whether that can be developed and extended to fulfil some of the functions which would have been carried out by a national flagship?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are obviously uses to which such a vessel could be put and benefits obtained from it. However, it is not felt that those justify the building of a ship which, overall, would not fulfil any great purpose.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, for example, the £100 million which would be paid for that ship and for its running costs over the first few years and the £5·5 million to the Government every year for its use around the world, would represent a far better and lasting symbol, for peanuts, really, than the Dome has proved to be, which I understand is to go to the breaker's yard within the year?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is a common rule that when people stop justifying a project in terms of its use and start trying to justify it in terms that it represents better value than some other
10
project, that project being one of which they do not approve, that is usually a very good sign that there should not be funding for such a project.
Lord Elton: My Lords, going back to the question of justifying a project by its use, will the Minister explain in more detail what he means when he says that this ship would not fulfil any great purpose? I presume that, in the consultations which he and his colleagues had with the commercial and industrial interests of the country, he must have said what that purpose was. Will he tell us in what terms the consultation was carried out?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the consultation was undertaken with various departments of government which might see a use for this—for example, British Trade International, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. None of those felt that, in terms of value for money, it would achieve any of their purposes.
I remind the House that in relation to trade, for example, a severe lack of flexibility is involved. Many of our target markets are simply not accessible by sea and there are limitations as regards defence and other products on such a vessel which are not shown by exhibition halls. So none of the departments which might be expected to have a requirement for that ship felt that it could be justified.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did the consultation embrace the private sector and, if not, why not?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that the private sector was consulted through British Trade International. I shall check on that point and let noble Lords know whether that is the case.

Business
3.1 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that there may be a short interruption in business at some time during the afternoon or evening. In the event that the other place elects a Speaker today, this House will adjourn and then reassemble to hear the Royal Commission.
I am not yet in a position to give an estimate of when that may happen since the precise timings will depend upon the unfolding of events in another place. If possible, the Royal Commission will take place in the dinner hour. If, however, that does not turn out to be possible, the House will adjourn and then reassemble specifically for the purpose of hearing the Royal Commission read. Once the Royal Commission has been read, the House will resume its main business of the day, which is the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what will happen if the decision is not reached until the business of this House has been completed?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we shall have the Royal Commission tomorrow.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): 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 Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, before that Motion is agreed to, I should just like to make a few points in relation to the Bill. It is more than three months since the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill received its Second Reading and it is considerably longer since it started its course through Parliament.
This is an extremely serious Bill and many things have changed. It has caused considerable concern within the police force in Northern Ireland but, during the whole of that period, the force has served its community with its usual professionalism and impartiality.
Also, many noble Lords will know that the government amendments to the Bill were tabled exceptionally late, the last ones coming on Thursday evening and being printed on Friday. I suspect that many noble Lords did not see those amendments on the Marshalled List until this morning. That has made it particularly difficult to respond as carefully and professionally as we might have done in different circumstances.
However, I understand and accept from the Government that the reason for that is that the amendments were being negotiated by the Secretary of State and his team right up until the last minute, with the parliamentary parties and others concerned in Northern Ireland.
However, we are today legislating for the policing of an integral part of the United Kingdom. However, it is the peace process which makes this legislation so delicate and difficult. There is a need for the balance of discussion to be so carefully weighed.
I submit, though, that the Government are now running to the end of the road on this Bill. I suggest that they have until Report stage to make some extremely key decisions. I hope that we shall have some very good debates in Committee which will allow Her Majesty's Government to make the right decisions in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the understanding that he has shown in relation to the amendments coming from the government side. The Second Reading of the Bill took
12
place on 27th July and the vast bulk of the time since then has obviously been taken up by the Summer Recess.
Today, we are focusing on individual amendments to the Bill. I wish to spend a few moments, in response to the noble Lord's remarks, setting our discussions in a wider context.
This legislation flows directly from the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland—the Patten report. That commission took its terms of reference directly from the Good Friday agreement. Following publication of the Patten report, the Government have carried out a wide range of consultations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes, as I do, that this is a balanced Bill. The Government have listened very carefully and have demonstrated that we are prepared to make changes where it is right to do so. Every proposal has been assessed against the key test: will it contribute to making the police a more effective representative service, a service which commands the widespread support and confidence of the people of Northern Ireland?
Patten himself recognised that his report would not be mechanistically implemented and that some fine-tuning would inevitably be required in translating some of his recommendations into legislation. This legislation is a key element in taking forward the Good Friday agreement. The goal—and it should be a shared goal for all the differences of opinion in relation to individual facets of the Bill—is to achieve a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland.
The Bill offers a unique opportunity for policing in Northern Ireland to move forward. All noble Lords share that aspiration and I welcome their support in helping the Government to deliver it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Name of the police in Northern Ireland]:
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): In calling this amendment, I should point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 2 to 7 because of pre-emption.
Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 11 and insert ("be styled as "The Royal Ulster Constabulary—Police Service of Northern Ireland"").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has an obvious purpose; namely, to create a double-barrelled name for the police service in Northern Ireland, that new name being the Royal Ulster Constabulary-Police Service of Northern Ireland. In my view, that is the best title for a police service in Northern Ireland and the best means of ensuring widespread cross-community support for the police.
I have said before that many aspects of Patten are to be welcomed and many are by no means objectionable. However, the few aspects which I find objectionable I find deeply objectionable. Those deeply objectionable aspects are only so because they are founded on misinformation, false logic and a misinterpretation of the Belfast agreement.
A point of misinformation is that young Catholics will not join the police service as they find its current title offensive. If that is true, why in the period between what paramilitaries term the "cessation of military operations" and the suspension of recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, did Catholic applications to the police double from 11 per cent to 22 per cent?
That figure of 22 per cent is only the start. However it is clearly an impressive start and one not precipitated by any name change or name alteration. That fact should not be ignored. It should be given due weight in any discussion on the future name of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Exactly what is offensive about the title "Royal Ulster Constabulary"? Is it the fact that that name is associated with a police force that has protected both Catholics and Protestant people in Northern Ireland, providing that thin green line throughout 30 years of terrorism? I think not. So, it must be the "Royal" prefix. Are we to believe that young Catholic Irish men and women will not join a police service in Northern Ireland because it has a "Royal" prefix? The Republic of Ireland has many organisations that contain a "Royal" prefix. I have heard no reports of them experiencing recruitment problems because of that. There is no shortage of sailors at the Royal Cork Yacht Club; architects at the Royal Institute of Architects in Ireland; or surgeons at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. There is no shortage of physicians at the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland, possibly only a shortage of beds at the Royal Hospital, Donnybrook. Indeed, there is no problem of people failing to attend events at the Royal Dublin Society.
In the past, the Royal Irish Constabulary attracted Catholic recruits despite its name, as some may now suggest. Of course, the Royal Irish Constabulary began to suffer recruitment problems only when intimidation of its members became prevalent. If it is now clear that the prefix is not the central cause of the low number of Catholic applications to the police, an alternative cause must exist. That brings us to the central and widespread problem of intimidation.
For a long time young Catholics have been intimidated into not joining the police. Now, to a lesser extent, illustrated by the doubling of applications, that intimidation continues. The eradication of such intimidation and disbandment of paramilitary organisations will precipitate the continuing increase in Catholic applicants to become police officers in Northern Ireland and create the police service we all desire; one that reflects the community it polices in all its areas.
It must be remembered that any alteration to the name of the police service in Northern Ireland must be founded in logic. Yes, it is important to increase overt
14
support for the police in nationalist and, if possible, republican communities. But one must maintain the level of support for the police from among Unionists that has existed until now.
The principle of consent is central to the Belfast agreement. Northern Ireland shall remain within the United Kingdom while the majority so desire. Northern Ireland is not state neutral, neither is the police. It is not unreasonable to maintain the name "The Royal Ulster Constabulary" because it is a British police force. However, our amendment offers more. It offers a new name that recognises the importance of the RUC, a double-barrelled name that symbolises something new and one that both communities in Northern Ireland should support. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 2 and others tabled in my name in this grouping. At Second Reading I stated that, unlike many other noble Lords who spoke, I like the Patten report and would like to see it fully implemented. I do not believe that it is one-sided. It is a well worked out compromise. Fully implementing the Patten report is part of implementing the Good Friday agreement.
I have said before in this place that the situation in Northern Ireland is very peculiar. Although the events are taking place within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government in a post-colonial situation, we are in an international context. The Good Friday agreement is an international treaty and we are bound to implement it, as we agreed to, with the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that Members of the Committee hardly need reminding that the Republic implemented its part of the bargain and changed its constitution. Therefore, one cannot say that this is a one-sided agreement.
Perhaps I may make one or two comments about the principles at stake. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is right that a principle of consent is part of the crux of the matter in Northern Ireland. Nothing in t he Bill or in my amendment detracts from that principle of consent. But there are other principles outlined in the Good Friday agreement. One is that we should recognise the right of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish, British or both. Another is that the agreement will guarantee parity of esteem and just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities.
We have to strike a good balance. I agree that it is puzzling for people to object to the word "Royal" in the title of a police force within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government. However, that has been part of the problem for the past 70 to 80 years. That is why we have been fighting this particular half-battle, half-truce in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not possible for us to say that we can forget about all that.
I agree with the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to the excellent work done by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I completely share that. It has done a

15
great job. However, we have to look to the future. If we are to have a sustainable peace in Northern Ireland, we have to make a new beginning, follow what we achieved in the Good Friday agreement and work out its consequences.
Last May Chris Patten stated:
"If you are going to get a police service which young Catholics as well as young Protestants … are going to join, then it can't be identified with the central political argument in Northern Ireland and it is as simple as that".
I do not think that it is simple; it is complex. However, it is a central political argument. We cannot forget that. To stay with a half compromise of Patten will just not do.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan—I concede he has more first-hand knowledge of this matter than I do—stated that young Catholics would be willing to join the service. On 11th June an opinion poll in the Sunday Times stated that 72 per cent of Catholics agreed that the RUC name should be changed to the Northern Ireland Police Service.
The differences are pretty straightforward. The present formulation tries to straddle both alternatives. I say we must make a clean break. We must call the new service the Police Service of Northern Ireland. That incorporates the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as my amendment says. But we have to have a clean break and go to a new era, a new regime in which all the parties agree to co-operate, as they did with the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I greatly regret than an inescapable duty in Middle Temple, where I hold an office, will prevent me from playing as much of a part in today's proceedings as I should like. It makes me all the more glad that these amendments appear first on the Marshalled List.
It is always helpful at the outset of any discussion to try to identify the common ground, and it is not difficult to find the common ground that unites us all in this Chamber today; that is, that we all want to see more Catholics proportionately represented in the RUC. We all recognise that they are at present in the minority. The question is how we achieve that proportionality. The reasons for the present situation are too plain to need stating.
The Government's proposal for a new name in place of the RUC is designed to bring more Catholics in and to do it, so the argument goes, by removing something which at present keeps them out. But is that a sound argument? And even if it is, will the resulting pain and resentment running over into a loss of confidence be worthwhile? We need to be fair about this. For my part I am prepared to concede that there have been times, fortunately now long distant, when the RUC—not altogether unintentionally—was associated with the Protestant majority. We do not need to dwell on the reasons. It was harmful and it was wrong. In those days that would have deterred many a well-qualified Catholic from wanting to join.
16
But the driving factors for Catholic antipathy in those days were these: the political control; the management; the make-up of the RUC; and, it has to be said, on occasions the conduct of individual members. I suggest that the name itself scarcely signified, any more than the prefix "Royal" signifies today in those institutions in the Republic which were alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Today, it is surely common ground that those blemishes are things of the past. The old political control of operational decisions has gone; the management of the RUC is quite transformed. Nobody today argues that there is sectarian favouritism. As for the conduct of the RUC, we need only need go back to the television pictures of the RUC standing eyeball to eyeball against the Orangemen at Drumcree year after year, losing in one year one officer who was murdered and scores more being gravely injured, to realise how the RUC today upholds its duty of impartiality. That is to say nothing of its record of this past 30 years of violence.
I would argue therefore that there has already been a new beginning of great significance to policing in Northern Ireland, and that is before one takes on board the fact that 85 per cent of Patten's recommendations are already implemented or in the pipeline to be so.
So what is it that still keeps Catholics away? How much, if anything, is it the name? Again, one cannot dispute that it plays some part, but I believe that it is a tiny, residual part. Much more serious is the part played by the failure—or is it the refusal?—of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, regrettably, to endorse service in the RUC as a worthy calling for a good Catholic. Much more is represented by the failure—or is it the refusal? —of leaders of the SDLP to urge membership of the RUC as a proper thing for good nationalists, as so many nationalists have already shown. Likewise—it has already been alluded to—is the part played by intimidation, not only of the candidate for the RUC who happens to be a Catholic, but of his or her family with dire consequences. What a difference the removal of all those factors would make in bringing us forward to what all of us in this Chamber tonight desire.
Today we must balance against a possible gain of slight proportion, the great wound to serving and past members of the RUC and to their families that will be caused by amputating their force's name and, as it were, chucking it into the waste bin as though it were some gangrenous material. The foundation proposed by the Bill is welcome and is a salve. I hope it will be fortified by a Royal Charter. Of course the name will live on in the RUC Widows Association; that cannot be taken away. But the trauma and pain will be very real, as will the consequential resentment and loss of confidence, which we can well do without. For my part, I feel it is quite disproportionate to any gain that we may reasonably expect in persuading more Catholics to join the RUC.
In conclusion, I realise—and I shall not forget this as the debates continue—that the Chief Constable of the RUC expressed the view that his men and women desire above all things for this issue to be brought to

17
a speedy conclusion; they do not want it to become a political football. But today, for the reasons I tried to put before the Committee, I support Amendment No. 1.
Lord Glentoran: I too rise to support Amendment No. 1. My name is attached to Amendment No. 6 which proposes a slightly different solution. However, my arguments are that the republican and nationalist movements have, through the peace agreement, agreed to serve and take part in the government at Stormont for governing Northern Ireland, a Province of the United Kingdom. When I met with their representatives, I was told that they want ownership, in real terms, of the police so that their constituency can feel comfortable and at home with the people whose job it is to police their communities.
That is all very worthy. But if they want ownership and if they are prepared to take an active sharing part in the governance of Northern Ireland, then they should be prepared to give and take in the things that really matter to their communities as much as does the Unionist community.
One such matter is the name of the new police force which is destined to police Northern Ireland.
Let us not forget that the peace agreement, almost on the first page, states that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom while consensus for that remains; in other words, while a majority of people want it to be so. That indicates that more than 50 per cent of the people living in Northern Ireland want that to be and want to have a share of the police force.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, have made clear the non-effect on recruitment of Roman Catholics, nationalists and republicans into the police force as a result of the name. The name is a symbol and a part of history. It is to be hoped that the new name will become an integral part of history. I believe that for the peace process to continue—and I put it as seriously as that—a balance, a compromise, must be arrived at or a brave, courageous and firm line must be taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there is seen to be a fairness and compromise in the naming of the new police force.
Not only are the members of the force excited about this part of the Bill; so are the electorate. They are those people who make up that 54 per cent; those people who did not vote for the Unionist party in South Antrim who are, what one might term, the soft, moderate, sensible, well off, middle-class of Ulster unionism. Those people feel very strongly, and I make the point to the Minister that we on this side of the Committee believe that there must be a compromise which in some way reclaims in part the name RUC GC or similar.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: I recognise that had I been brought up in Northern Ireland I would have been part of the Protestant community. Now I try hard to stand in their shoes and understand.
18
For a good many years, together with Free Church and Roman Catholic leaders in Liverpool, I met twice a year with our opposite numbers in Belfast and Glasgow. I understand the deep feelings about the symbolism of the name and the badge of the RUC; the deep but different feelings held both in the Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. In the Protestant community, there is pride in the record of the RUC, often one of very great cost, and the change of name may seem to denigrate that record. But if I were part of that Protestant community in Northern Ireland I would want to build on all that is good about that history. Most of all I would want to know that the rule of law should run throughout the Province. I would know too well that the RUC was not accepted as "our" police service in many parts of the Catholic community.
In Britain, we have always believed that the rule of law needs mutual co-operation between public and the police. When that trust breaks down, citizens cease to think of the police as "our" police service. The issue of recruiting, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and others, follows—but it is not the only one—from confidence in "our" police force. Will citizens come forward as witnesses when there exists the crucial issue of whether or not they trust the police force as "our" police force and when people even start to talk of an army of occupation? We know that all that has happened in substantial parts of Northern Ireland.
In debates in this House in June or July last year some noble Lords spoke of the innocent being made to suffer along with the guilty. Which of us is innocent in Northern Ireland and in Northern Ireland history? It is not the English who brought in a community of settlers, giving them unjust advantages in employment, land and law. No, none of us can claim to be innocent. We need a fresh start which will win the assent of the whole community to the rule of law and the agents who enforce it.
We had an example in Liverpool. It is not quite the same but there is sufficient parallel to make it worth quoting. After the Toxteth riots in 1981, leaders in the Liverpool black community approached Church leaders asking whether we would help them to establish a law centre. They had not believed that policing was even-handed. In all our discussions, a simple hope led us forward; that this deprived community could come to see that the law could be a friend. It would have been a tremendous change. That hope needed to grow if, crucially, people were to give evidence and if black police officers were to be recruited.
Let us suppose that I had been brought up in the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland and that I had felt moved to become a police officer. Would my friends believe that I was joining "our" police service; that the law could now be a friend? Or would old memories that the RUC was really part of the Protestant community override that? If I had been brought up in the Catholic community, I would know that for many people the name and the badge have been regarded with great hurt.

19
Patten was right; there has to be a fresh beginning for policing that the whole community can accept. There is a lot of compromise about Patten and about this Bill. Unionists have often said that they want closer ties with Britain; the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, twice spoke today about Northern Ireland being an integral part of the United Kingdom. Yes, it seems to me to follow that the Northern Ireland police service should be placed on the same basis as other police forces in the United Kingdom. One does not have a Royal Metropolitan Police, with all the costs that it has suffered, or a Royal Merseyside Police. That title belongs to an old situation and Northern Ireland urgently needs a new beginning for the rule of law to be accepted in all parts of the community.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that public opinion polls in Northern Ireland have revealed that the majority of Roman Catholics do not object to the title Royal Ulster Constabulary? They may not be madly enthusiastic about it but they are not particularly opposed either. There are those who are opposed but they represent well under 20 per cent of the entire population.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: I do not know from where the noble Lord has obtained his figure. My advice is that it is a cause of very real and wide offence in the Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: We are in danger, as we often are, of subjecting ourselves to the tyranny of the minority and forgetting the majority. The majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for the peace agreement because they believed that there would be peace. They are still in a situation in which, if the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, will forgive me, many innocent victims are having to suffer the law of the paramilitaries and are unable to have recourse to where they should be able to go because the paramilitaries have decreed that no one may work for the RUC or join it. That is where the problem lies. Catholics have never had a problem in wanting to enter the RUC but they have a problem with the consequences for themselves and their families.
I cannot understand why we are constantly concerned about the wishes of the paramilitaries. A majority of the population—I am sorry to say it, but there is still a majority—want things to go on so that there will be law and order. The RUC has signally succeeded in providing that law and order: whether it confronts loyalists or anybody else, it has performed that duty.
One of the big problems so far is that IRA/Sinn Fein will not endorse even the new service. It wants the whole of the RUC, whatever its title, to be abolished and its own people's police. One cannot expect the majority to contemplate that with calm. The SDLP, according to press reports—I shall be happy if the noble and learned Lord is able to contradict me—has said that it will not join the police authority if invited
20
to do so until it is satisfied that the new organisation will work well, which is a completely circular argument.
It was expressly said in the Belfast agreement that all parties acknowledged the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems, including the title which that force has had since its inception. That body, and the majority of ordinary people in Northern Ireland, believe that the retention of the reference to the Crown is one of the very few indications (I am sorry to say) that they, let alone Dublin, recognise that Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom. It is a very important symbol to them. If we are to respect the symbols of the other side, why can we not respect the symbols of the vast majority, particularly since many honourable and brave Catholic members of the RUC wish that force to succeed, prosper and behave well, as it has done.
We should not allow ourselves to be manoeuvred by the excellent media tactics of the paramilitaries into depriving the country of its due, which is law and order and a proper and well supported police force. As my noble and learned friend said, the RUC has already done most of the things that really matter in the community which Patten wanted. I hope that the Committee will help the RUC to retain its title and not allow itself to be manoeuvred into giving it up as yet one more minor concession. It is not a minor concession but a major symbol.
Lord Dubs: I take issue with the noble Baroness. I do not believe for one moment that this Bill is to do with appeasing or meeting the wishes of terrorist paramilitaries.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I did not for a moment intend to suggest that. I referred to the intention to abandon the title, not the Bill itself.
Lord Dubs: I see the change in the name of the RUC as an integral part of the Government's approach in this Bill. I do not believe that the change of name is anything to do with appeasing paramilitaries or terrorists; it is to establish a police service in Northern Ireland which has the consent of the vast majority of law-abiding individuals in both communities. That is the aim, and I believe that this Bill will achieve it.
Lord Laird: Can the noble Lord refer to any opinion poll anywhere that backs up his view?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I am not sure that I should bandy opinion poll statistics, but I am prepared to deal with the opinions of people to whom I have spoken in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community. There are serving officers in the RUC and others who have said that the name does not matter, as long as they have a proper police service which has the consent of the people whom that service seeks to serve. Not everybody makes so much of the name. I agree that

21
there are those who believe that the name is important, but we must look at what the Bill seeks to do in the round and how we should take it forward.
Lord Laird: If, as the noble Lord says, the name does not matter, why change it?
Lord Dubs: I do not suggest that. There are even officers in the RUC who do not believe that the retention of the name is that crucial. I use as an analogy the British Army regiments which lost their names when they merged 10 or 15 years ago under the previous government. There was a good deal of feeling that the traditions of many brave and illustrious British Army regiments would be lost if the names were changed. Eventually it was argued out, and most people associated with those regiments, which had a long history, accepted reluctantly that it was necessary to change the name and did not maintain that that meant a denial of the traditions of those regiments. I make a similar argument with regard to the RUC. In changing the name to meet the new situation as described in the Patten report one is talking about moving towards a police service in Northern Ireland which has the consent of the vast majority of people there.
I worry about the reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to the amputation of the name of the RUC. With all deference to his long experience of and service to Northern Ireland, I am not sure that that kind of terminology is helpful: it implies that somehow one is damaging the history and traditions of the police in Northern Ireland, and I believe that that is not so.
I remind the Committee of one or two passages in the Patten report. I quote from paragraph 17.4 on page 98:
"Many people in Northern Ireland from the Irish nationalist and republican tradition regard the name, badge and symbols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as associating the police with the British constitution and state. This contributes to the perception that the police are not their police".
That is crucial. We want to achieve a situation in which people, from whatever part of the community they may come, believe that it is their police. The Committee may regret that that is the situation, but we are dealing with a situation that has arisen over many years.
At the end of the same paragraph, on page 99, the report states:
"The argument about symbols is not an argument about policing, but an argument about the constitution".
In paragraph 17.6 it goes on to say:
"In our judgment that new beginning"—
which we are now talking about—
"cannot be achieved unless the reality that part of the community feels unable to identify with the present name and symbols associated with the police is addressed. Like the unique constitutional arrangements, our proposals seek to achieve a situation in which people can be British, Irish or Northern Irish, as they wish, and all regard the police service as their own".
It is crucial that the police in Northern Ireland have the support of the SDLP and the Catholic Church. One of the real challenges that face the Government is
22
to ensure that that support is forthcoming. If it is, it will be much easier for young Catholics freely and willingly to join the police and serve the people of Northern Ireland. I am reminded of a story that. I heard about the head teacher of a Catholic school in West Belfast. He said that there was no difficulty about his school leavers joining the police: they joined the Strathclyde Police, the Metropolitan Police and the Garda Siochana. The challenge is to ensure that those young people who want a career in the police are willing to join the service in Northern Ireland.
Lord Glentoran: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he believe that if the name is changed, as in the Bill, the nationalist and republican community will come forward and take part in that police force?
Lord Dubs: It is one element in a package of measures described by Patten, to which this Bill gives effect, that will help to secure the confidence of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support the amendment. A considerable amount has already been said about this matter, and I am sure that a good deal more will be said. As a preamble, for the past 31 years the RUC has defended virtually the undefendable in the Province of Ulster. During that time 302 RUC officers and men have died and countless numbers who have been wounded will carry their scars and disabilities to the end of their lives. One has in mind also the widows and children of officers who have been killed in the troubles in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that at this stage we need a new beginning. I believe that during the past 31 years a new beginning has emerged. It began when the whole Northern Ireland peace process started to take a positive hold in one's mind. The fact that, from the time of the cessation of terrorism, Catholic recruitment to the RUC has increased from 11 per cent to 22 per cent—recruitment has now been suspended—shows that there has been a new beginning. We need to balance that—it is not a compromise as such—with how far we are prepared to kick in the teeth the families of those who have given their lives.
It is quite unacceptable for people to say that unless we change the nomenclature of the police force in Northern Ireland, we cannot achieve the peace that we all dearly want. It is intimidation and not nomenclature that is at the root of the problem. But it is easy for us to say that we should change the name of the RUC.
I have spoken before in the House about the sad lack of active support by the Catholic hierarchy towards those of their flock who want to join the RUC. Greater efforts should be made by everyone involved to try to get the Catholic hierarchy to say, "Of course it is our police force".
People say that the only hurdle against continuing firm peace in Northern Ireland is the name of the RUC. That is not true. We need to root out the support for the paramilitary and terrorist organisations which

23
is only there because of intimidation. Changing the Royal Ulster Constabulary's name to the Police Service of Northern Ireland will not achieve that.
Lord Hylton: I should just like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that, yes, it is vital that the widows of the RUC and its wounded members are properly cared for. That is precisely what is provided for under the terms of the RUC George Cross Foundation.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, that what is needed is a new start and a new name. It would be a great mistake to have a name which is controversial to some people. It would be better to have a name which is neutral and which hopefully all sections of the community could support. Therefore, I support the Government on the amendment.
Lord Vivian: Before addressing the detail of the amendment, I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to two general points. First, the majority of clauses in the Bill were proposed by the Chief Constable and members of the RUC. They are welcomed in many quarters and have much support on these Benches.
Secondly, there are still a number of controversial issues which will be discussed during the Committee stage. I believe that it is timely to remind noble Lords that this legislation was rushed through the other place with undue haste and insufficient debate and scrutiny. Therefore, it is beholden to Members of the Committee to allow sufficient time for careful scrutiny of the Bill and to keep in mind that the controversial issues of the Patten report will not be implemented until the level of violence has ceased and policing activity has returned to normal. This has not occurred.
I strongly support Amendment No.1. The Patten report stated that it was important that the link between the RUC and the new police force should be recognised. However, at the same time, the report says that many people in Northern Ireland from the Irish nationalist and the republican tradition regard the name, badge and symbols of the RUC as associating the police with the British constitution and state, contributing to a perception that the police are not their police. Ulster is part of the British constitution. Therefore, it is right and proper to associate the RUC with the British constitution, especially as the Belfast agreement means acceptance of the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional status as part of the United Kingdom. It would be improper and weak to adopt any other line.
A recent survey of attitudes in Ulster in the Belfast Telegraph found that 61 per cent of Catholics are not offended by the RUC identity and name. That is in direct contrast to the Patten report statement.
While in the Army and patrolling in Belfast and in the countryside many years ago, apart from in the hardline areas, there was seldom any occasion when people showed hatred or dislike for the RUC. The
24
Government are taking into account the views of a small element of extremists. One is drawn to the conclusion that the decision to change the name of the RUC is intended to appeal to that small element of hardliners who will never support any police force.
There is no greater or quicker way to demoralise a force than to remove its badge and change its title. That is the exact road that the Government have chosen to go down. A police force with low morale immediately becomes inefficient That leads to increased crime and greater acts of terrorism.
Clause 1 of the Bill lays down the provisions for the RUC's new name. I remind the Committee that Clause 1(1) states that,
"the Royal Ulster Constabulary shall continue in being as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (incorporating the Royal Ulster Constabulary)".
There is no need for any brackets or to change the name of the RUC. There is worse to come. Subsection (2) states that for all operational purposes it will be known as the Police Service of Northern Ireland. "Operational purposes" includes all working, public, legal, ceremonial, administrative, presentational and recruitment purposes. I have a strong belief that in the future the only place where the name will be seen in full will be on the statute book. It will not be used on the heading of writing paper, as the title outside police stations or referred to verbally.
It is for all those reasons that I strongly support the amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendment. The name of the police force is extremely important, not only to the force but to the people of Northern Ireland.
When we talk about a new beginning, we are talking about two new beginnings. The Government are talking about a new beginning where they hope—we all hope—that Roman Catholics will join the RUC. Sinn Fein/IRA is thinking about a different beginning. It is talking about a beginning without a police force.
At the moment, we do not suffer from as much terrorism as we did, but ordinary crime is on the increase, especially in rural areas. I live in Fermanagh and the whole county is rural. There crime is escalating. Who will solve the crime? Who believes that a police force can be plucked out of any community and be capable in a short length of time of so doing? Sinn Fein/IRA does not want ex-RUC members in the police force. It does not want a police force that is capable of solving ordinary crime. Indeed, in the urban areas one gets the impression that no Roman Catholic wants a police force. Sinn Fein/IRA or the loyalist organisations—I treat them equally—do not wish to have a police force that can sort out the crime level which has become endemic in those areas. An FBI report was quoted in the Belfast Telegraph last week as saying that the crime level is based on terrorist organisations. I suggest that if one asked the criminal underworld in London what they thought about the police force, one would hear a roughly similar point of view—do away with it and start again.

25
There are emblems in the badge of the RUC for all Ireland. If we think that we have a new beginning, how is it that the number of calls from Catholics from very hard areas of Northern Ireland—from Newry, the Creggan and the Falls—requiring the help of the police is increasing? The latest figures show a 20 per cent increase-25 per cent in some areas. Is the RUC really not accepted for sorting out the crime that is taking place? I would disagree with that. We are talking about a new beginning. The new beginning is partly there, but we cannot have that new beginning until the Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland, the SDLP and Sinn Fein support a modern police force that is capable, unfortunately for those involved, of taking on terrorist-related crime and ordinary day-to-day crime in Northern Ireland.
To those who say that they have never heard of a Roman Catholic speaking to the police or getting their help, perhaps I may say this. This morning, 100 yards from home, 38 sheep were killed through dogs worrying them. They belonged to a good friend of mine—he is a Roman Catholic from Brookeborough. Who was first on the scene? It was the RUC. What will my friend be demanding on television this evening? I say that because the television people came down. He will be demanding that the RUC get out there and deal with the normal, day-to-day problems. I totally refute the idea that Roman Catholics do not want anything to do with the RUC, although it may be so in areas where they are canvassed and intimidated and fear is instilled in their communities by those who do not wish to be caught in their acts of crime.
4 p.m.
Lord Elton: Those who have never lived or served in Northern Ireland probably see these problems in a different light from those who have. It is now 18 years since I was there and therefore my perceptions are clouded. But I hope the noble and learned Lord the Minister will accept that there are many who would like to consider the proceedings today before coming to a conclusion as the alternatives were only recently put before us. That is not a request for delay; it is a request for a chance to absorb what is being said, some of which is very powerful stuff.
I was very much touched by what the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard—I am never sure whether to call him a right reverend Prelate or a right reverend Lord—said about what we are trying to do. We are trying to produce a police force which is not only accepted but owned by—that is, felt to belong to—all the communities in the Province. What is the principal barrier to that? It is not the force's title; it is its composition. It is the lack of Roman Catholic representation among the membership. What is the cause of that? From what I have heard, it seems to me that there are two causes. The first is the lack of commendation on the part of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and other bodies in the Province that young people should regard membership of the police as an honourable career; and the second is intimidation by
26
terrorist forces. As long as those persist, it will not make a ha'p'orth of difference what we call the force; and that is not going to change.
We have the horse behind the cart. As one has, in legislation, to drive both the horse and the cart through the same gate at the same time, if this has to be done now, it should not be done in haste. I was very much impressed by what my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and other noble Lords said about the emotive effect of a title. If the title is to be changed, it must be done in a manner which does not dishonour the dead. If one is changing the name of the Birmingham police force, one does not do anything to the amour propre of anyone in a sense where it really matters.
Perhaps I may break off to quote, almost irrelevantly but I cannot resist it, my favourite misprint of all time which appeared in the Coventry Evening Telegraph many years ago:
"The editor of the Coventry Evening Telegraph wishes to apologise for his reference in last night's edition to the Birmingham polite force. This, of course, should have been a reference to the Birmingham police farce".
I say that merely to lighten the tone of the afternoon. But these are serious matters. We should not get them wrong.
The RUC is very like a regiment. I can understand that it has the feelings of a regiment. I have been in a regiment during an amalgamation and I understand how tender those feelings can be. But if all ranks share a determination to make the new body work, it will work. We have first of all to address the question of commendation and intimidation. This is a secondary matter.
Lord Fitt: Had I been looking after my personal interests, this is a debate which I could very well have avoided. If I as a Catholic—I am still a Catholic—educated by the Christian Brothers in Northern Ireland, were to say that I support the retention of the name of the RUC, as I intend to do, I can imagine the headlines tomorrow morning in the nationalist press in Ireland. I would be regarded as a traitor, as someone who had sold out my principles and as someone who was no longer a nationalist. All that would he said about me tomorrow morning. I could have avoided this debate. However, I think it right that this Chamber should be made fully aware of the complex issues involved in one's attitude towards the police of Northern Ireland.
I remember leading a civil rights march in Derry on 5th October 1968, a march which had been banned by the then Minister of Home Affairs, William Craig, because we were demanding civil rights in Northern Ireland which he found repugnant. Because we wanted to march down a certain street, we were beaten up by the police. I was one of the first to be beaten by the police. The pages of history will record that as a fact. So people have said to me within the past week, "How can you support the RUC when they hit you on the head with a baton on 5th October 1968?" Many years have elapsed since 1968 and many attitudes have changed. Most of the civil rights I was marching for in

27
Northern Ireland have been granted. All the issues that were so paramount then have now come to be true in Northern Ireland.
Let us look clearly and distinctly at what the debate is about. The debate is in many ways a debate about the constitution of Northern Ireland. We cannot run away from that fact. It is a debate about the constitution and the existence of Northern Ireland as a state within the United Kingdom; a state which many people in Northern Ireland do not accept. During the course of my Second Reading speech I said that the Northern Ireland police are unlike any other police force in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is the only state in the United Kingdom that has a land border with an independent country—the Irish Republic. That does not apply to the police in Yorkshire or any other police force.
Northern Ireland came into being as a six-county state in the wake of an awful amount of bloodshed. In the years before partition, members of the old RIC—the Royal Irish Constabulary—were brutally murdered because they were seen to be an arm of the British domination of the Irish Republic and, indeed, Ireland.
After partition, the RIC was reformed to become the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The force was given two facets to focus on in its policing work. The first was to find miscreants who robbed meters, to investigate house burglaries and to impose parking fines as well as dealing with the other elements of conventional crime. The second facet of its work concerned its obligation to defend the state of Northern Ireland. That was why it was formed as Northern Ireland's police force. The force was given the obligation to defend the six counties' border of Northern Ireland. No other police force had such responsibilities.
Certain positions were reserved for Catholics to join the RUC. It is not strictly correct to say that Catholics do not support the existence of Northern Ireland as a constitutional entity. That is simply not true. Survey after survey has proved that many Catholics do support the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Perhaps those Catholics come from what might be called the middle classes. They are people in employment and those who, if the state were to be abolished, would find themselves in a very difficult position.
I ask my noble friends in this Committee to recall that one of the great supporters of the RUC over many years has been a very courageous priest by the name of Monsignor Dennis Faul. He has repeatedly come out in support of the RUC. Where has Father Faul been over the past two or three months—indeed, since the publication of the Patten report? I have not heard from him. I do not believe that Father Faul has been intimidated into silence by the IRA because he has shown so much courage over the past 30 years. Therefore we must address another question: has some other force told Father Faul not to say anything in support of the RUC? I find that extremely unhelpful and despairing in the present situation.
28
There we have it. As I said earlier, after partition vacancies were kept for Catholics to join the RUC. However, for Catholics that move was tantamount to agreeing to the declaration that: "If you join the RUC, you are a traitor to the ideal of a united Ireland. You are allying yourself to the unionist cause. You are a traitor to your religion." Very little has changed. That is what will be said about me by tomorrow morning in the pan-nationalist press of Northern Ireland. However, many Catholics think as I do; namely, that in the present situation, the RUC has been humiliated and demonised by a bloodthirsty band of murderers who have been carrying out the most atrocious crimes on the island of Ireland over the past 30 years.
But those Catholics who think as I do hesitate before they would say anything in public. They would hesitate before writing a letter to the Belfast Telegraph or the Irish News, because they know what would be the probable results. Let us not say that every Catholic is clamouring for the abolition of the RUC as regards its name, badge and insignia. Many Catholics in Northern Ireland have never had any difficulties with the RUC.
One could pursue the emotional vein and examine what has happened to the RUC over the past 30 years: 302 killed and 8,000 wounded. I have said before in this place that, had it not been for the RUC, Northern Ireland would have descended into a state of total anarchy. It was the RUC which prevented that happening.
Before 1968, namely, before the onset of the civil rights movement and the present troubles, why even then did not Catholics join the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Between 1922 and 1968, all kinds of doors were opened to help enable Catholics to join the RUC. However, they did not. Why not? I must observe that on occasion I have heard other speakers in this place demonstrate their infuriating ignorance of the situation when they declare, "If this Bill goes through, republicans and nationalists will join the RUC." That is a contradiction in terms. What does republicanism mean? Republicans do not wish to see the continuing existence of Northern Ireland. What does nationalism mean? Nationalists wish to see a united Ireland, but they wish to bring to an end the six counties of Northern Ireland. How can nationalists—who hold to their beliefs—and republicans—who want to see a resolution far more quickly than the constitutional nationalists—join together in a force which has declared that it is a part of the United Kingdom and has the royal insignia on its cap badge?
All the difficulties that have existed in Northern Ireland for many years are being opened up by this Bill. I do not believe that we shall see a rush of Catholics to join the RUC. Indeed, only over the past week or so in the Irish legislature, an SDLP councillor from Ballymena, Declan O'Lohn, came out and said that he would lend his support to Catholics who wished to join the RUC. He further said that a prolonged and vicious attack had been made on every aspect of unionist culture in Northern Ireland. The unionists now feel as I felt in 1968 when I marched for civil rights to be instituted in the state of Northern

29
Ireland. They feel that their entire culture is being taken away from them, that pan-nationalism is ranged against them and that they have no one who can speak in their defence. A fortnight ago I saw what happened to Declan O'Lohn. As soon as he made that statement, all the SDLP members immediately rounded on him and declared that he was not speaking for them. He is a Catholic and an elected councillor for the town of Ballymena. For that reason, I have no doubt about how I shall be treated tomorrow in the pan-nationalist press.
Last week a vicious murder took place in Ballymurphy. A young man by the name of O'Connor was killed by the Provisional IRA. The organisation has denied it, but everyone knows that its members were responsible. The fact is that when their members took off their masks, they were identified as members of the Provisional IRA, an organisation which allegedly is on ceasefire. However, no one will go to the police and say, "I saw those men kill that other man. I saw them without their masks on." No one would be prepared to give such evidence in court, which is the only way to convict the murderers. It is simply not going to happen. As we have already seen, and as highlighted on the recent "Panorama" programme, people both North and South of the border on the island of Ireland know the identity of those who were responsible for the brutal tragedy in Omagh on 15th August 1998. But no one is prepared to go into the witness box. Anyone who did so would be putting his life in jeopardy.
I have noticed certain subtle differences of which noble Lords may not be aware. "The Good Friday agreement" is a term used by nationalists. Maybe it has something to do with Good Friday. It is used by Sinn Fein, by the SDLP, by the government in the Republic and by the Irish Americans. But the unionists in Northern Ireland, who find some of its recommendations very hard to stomach, call it "The Belfast agreement". So they differ even in the terminology and naming of the agreement.
Surveys which have taken place in Northern Ireland prove that there is not total objection to the RUC in the Catholic community and indicate that the change of name has been brought about by people who are determined to humiliate and condemn the RUC.
I repeat something that I said in my Second Reading speech. I shall say it again on Third Reading and go on saying it. There is a Mafia in Northern Ireland at the moment. An assistant chief constable said yesterday that three-quarters of Belfast is under the control of a Mafia, be it loyalist or republican; three-quarters of Belfast is, to some extent, caught up in the Mafia war which is currently taking place.
We only have to look at what has happened on the Shankill Road over the past two months with so-called loyalist organisations. "The Ulster Volunteer Force". Volunteers against what? "The Ulster Freedom Fighters". Freedom to do what? From whom do they want their freedom? If we look at what they call themselves, we can see what the police force in Northern Ireland has had to contend with.
30
When Patten was given this undertaking he was told to try to find a resolution to the divisions which were taking place within the RUC. In one part of his report he said that his job was to take the RUC out of politics. He has done exactly the reverse. He has brought the Royal Ulster Constabulary to the forefront of political divisions in Northern Ireland. If these are his conclusions, they do not augur well for sanity in Northern Ireland.
At the beginning of my remarks I said that you will get unionists, Protestants, maybe lapsed Catholics, who will speak out in support of the RUC. I am a Catholic; I have a Catholic education and a Catholic belief in the present and the hereafter, and I speak with a conscience in regard to this clause. I support the retention of the name of the RUC.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Laird: I am conscious that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I pay tribute to his remarks. He is correct: his remarks will cause him trouble from the pan-national press and pan-national people back in Northern Ireland. It is important for the Committee to recognise that the noble Lord has made an extremely brave speech.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord Laird: This is a very sad period. I identify myself with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, when he says that opinions have moved on over the past 30 years. I am one of those who have developed their thinking over that period in a way perhaps not dissimilar to that of the noble Lord.
But this is a difficult day. It is a day of considerable political significance. We all want peace in Northern Ireland and all that that means. Some of us are supporters of the Belfast agreement—with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But the political realities are that if the unionists, who have a culture based on their Britishness, continue to be marginalised in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, if they continue to have their culture broken and denigrated in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, we shall not get unionist participation in the Belfast agreement. It will be for others then to decide whether there is a Belfast agreement. You can push people only so far.
I was saddened and disturbed to hear a man of the stature and standing in the community of the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, speak about statistics and the information he had gleaned from individuals. No statistics I have come across show that the majority of Catholics in Northern Ireland take offence at the name "RUC". I was also disturbed by the noble Lord's interpretation of history, which, on reflection, he will recognise was terribly one sided and offered offence to people like myself. That is a part of the problem.
Many friends of mine were among the 302 members of the RUC who have been killed. Significantly, a number were members of the Roman Catholic faith. They were some of the finest people you could ever

31
hope to meet, serving their community and serving it well. Their only crime—it is not a crime; the only thing they did wrong—was to be Catholic members of the RUC. My next door neighbour was shot for falling into that category. People living a number of houses away from me had their brains blown out by the IRA. If you have ever seen someone's brains over the road and over the furniture—the fate of some of my close friends who were Catholic members of the RUC—you possibly have a little more right to talk about policing in Northern Ireland. No one is keener than I to see more Roman Catholics join the RUC.
Perhaps I may draw a parallel with the Battle of Britain, which has been celebrated in some areas in the past couple of months. What would have been the reaction throughout the United Kingdom and in this Chamber if the few who stood as the thin line between peace and chaos and the chance of winning the war had been disbanded, disregarded and had had the names of their squadrons changed within months of fighting in the Battle of Britain? That is what you are asking the unionist community in Northern Ireland to accept. The RUC was the thin green line. I stand here today only because my life was saved time and time and time again by the RUC.
If you want statistics, if you want opinion polls, it is quite simple: go to the South Antrim constituency where we, as Ulster Unionists, lost the safe Unionist seat which my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead represented with distinction for many years. That seat, in which the Ulster Unionists formerly had a 16,000 majority, was lost mostly on the issue of constant concessions. The perception at present is that the Belfast agreement does not deliver a two-way process.
I ask the Committee to consider these amendments long and hard. We are not talking about some faraway place—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, this is not some colonial area. This is part of the United Kingdom, where British citizens like myself are proud and pleased to live. We want to live there, and we continue to do so by choice. But the indications are that if we do not achieve an equitable solution in regard to the name of the police force in Northern Ireland, it may be one bridge too far. I support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may I draw his attention to lines 8 and 9 on page 1 of the Bill, which emphasise the continuity between the two forces.
Lord Laird: There is a difference between continuity in terms of people moving from one force to another and the name. The name is important. It has been made considerably more important by the activities of the Dublin Government, Sinn Fein, the SDLP and even the Roman Catholic Church. It has become an issue for the unionist community and for
32
Northern Ireland. Dabbling with the name of the RUC might have difficult consequences for the Belfast agreement.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I hesitate to speak in the wake of the two previous speakers to the amendment. Not only were they born and bred in Northern Ireland and still live there, but they have given their lives to the politics of the Province and I have not.
One clear point unifies the debate. All in this Chamber and in Northern Ireland seek unanimously to make the RUC an even more effective instrument for the delivery of the peace.
The issue for me as an outsider—and I hope that the Committee will forgive my ignorance—is: what will render that state of affairs more likely? What underlies the present "inadequacy" of the RUC. It appears to be a matter of confidence. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made the telling point that since the Belfast agreement the number of applications from Catholics to serve in the RUC has risen from 11 to 22 per cent. It is striking that one needs to make that point, given that the Catholic community in Northern Ireland is not far short of half the population. Even now, we are talking about only 22 per cent of applicants being from that part of the population. It must be asked why that is. Then one gets into impossibly difficult historical waters—totally contested, totally without any form of agreement between the two principal sides.
My point is that 22 per cent is not nearly enough. What can be done to make it more? If the name of the RUC—which arouses such passion, and therefore carries such symbolism—is not changed as the Bill proposes, might that deter even 22 per cent of applications from the Catholic community in the future? I suggest that it well might. I suggest that the doubling of applications following the Belfast agreement was on the back of the optimism generated by that agreement.
If we follow Clause 1 of the Bill and change the name, will it undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of the RUC? No one, least of all those who have spoken against the change of name, has suggested that such a change would cause the Protestant community and existing RUC officers to withdraw their support in terms of their tremendous service to the RUC. No one has suggested that for the good reason that it would not be the consequence. There would be a great deal of hurt and hard feeling; some would feel rejected, some that their loved ones who died in the cause of duty were being spurned. But it would not be the case that changing the name would damage the legitimacy or effectiveness of the force.
On the other hand, if the name is not changed, could that affect support for, and hence the legitimacy of, the new police force in terms of the future in Northern Ireland for which we all hope? Because of the passion aroused by this debate and the symbolic significance attached to the name by both

33
sides, it seems to me that retaining the name will damage that which we all want; namely, the adhesion of the Catholic community.
It may be that the Roman Catholic Church will change its policy and will cease to persist in what seems an outrageous refusal to grant that service in the police force in Northern Ireland is an honourable occupation.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord forgive my intervening? I do not want to spoil the flow of his speech. However, he has just used a turn of phrase that I keep hearing: "It may be that something will follow", "Let's do it and perhaps something will follow". But we have done so many things and nothing has followed. Is it not foolish not to wait for an undertaking by those concerned?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: To deny those who are legislating the right to speculate on the consequences of that legislation would be to kill debate. I merely put it to the Committee that the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Northern Ireland might now feel extremely embarrassed by the fact that its failure to endorse service in the police force as an honourable occupation is being held up in this debate. I hope that it does feel embarrassed. It is permissible to speculate that if this further concession to the Catholics in Northern Ireland were to be made, they might change their view. If they did so, as is clear from all the contributions, it would have an effect. Similarly, it is not unreasonable to hope and expect some response as regards intimidation—although I am under no illusion as to the refusal of the real men of violence to change their mind.
On those grounds, despite the unanimity of view expressed by Members of the Committee from Northern Ireland, I look forward and I believe that this symbolic change would be of small but significant assistance in making this great force an even greater one in the future.
Baroness Blood: I did not intend to take part in this debate, but rather to speak to a later amendment. However, perhaps I may say a few words in support of the proposal before the Committee
It seems strange, given that we have debated this matter for almost an hour and a half, that no one has yet convinced me that a change of name will bring in more people. I find that the young people among whom I work go to the employer who will give them the best opportunities: the best salary and the best chances of promotion. Looking at the new RUC as envisaged by Patten—and reference has been made to the fact that 85 per cent has already gone through—we would see it as a possible step for young people to join the police force.
As the Committee is aware, I am a community worker. Like most of my other colleagues, I live on the peace line in Belfast, so I am well aware of the feelings around the RUC. I am well aware of the fact that, for five years, I had to have an RUC Land Rover sitting practically outside my door for 24 hours a day to keep
34
the two communities apart. I am also well aware that there is, perhaps, bad feeling on the other side of the baseline. However, as I travel around Northern Ireland—as I do on a weekly basis—I must tell noble Lords that I cannot find any support for the idea that Catholics do not like the RUC. I will give the Committee a very simple example.
I was speaking recently in what would be considered a Catholic stronghold. I went to a women's meeting, at which just one man was present. It was absolutely amazing; indeed, I thought that he was very brave, but I did not know who he was. It turned out that he was a local chief inspector of the RUC who had come to the meeting to present the women with books for their library. I did not hear one woman at that meeting say anything about Catholics not liking the RUC. I have travelled around Northern Ireland and I believe that we are moving away from the issue here.
Obviously, we want the RUC to remain and to retain its title. That is neither a Protestant nor a Catholic point of view: it is the fact that the RUC deserves that recognition. The force deserves it for no other reason than it deserves it. We could all talk emotively about friends and neighbours who have been murdered. We have all been through that and have attended such funerals. That is not what this is about; this is about bringing forward a police force that young people can feel confident in joining. I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I believe that this could be a new beginning. We must get away from talking about that.
One of the things that is happening, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned, is that this mafioso has grown up in our community. The RUC has been used as a political football for almost the past two years— "Will they?", "Won't they?", "Are they?", or "Aren't they?" In the mean time, my community is suffering. We have just been through the most horrendous imploding of a community, a Protestant community, simply because this kind of thing is going on. This Chamber must make a decision. I urge noble Lords to think carefully. If I can be persuaded that changing the name will mean that Catholics will flock to join the force tomorrow, I will agree to it. But I do not believe that that evidence is on the table.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: Perhaps I may detain Members of the Committee for a few minutes. At another time I should feel that there was a good deal of logic about changing the name of this force. As far as I am aware, it is the only police force in the United Kingdom that carries the designation "Royal". There is a good reason that other police forces do not do so: first, it is very important that the police force should, above all, be seen as being the servant of the people; and, secondly, the area which it polices is not coterminous with the traditional boundaries of Ulster. Therefore, in those two respects at least, it is—or might be said to be nowadays—a misnomer.
However, from what we have heard from noble Lords this afternoon, there is no denying that the name carries great symbolic significance for both

35
communities in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may invite the Minister to consider whether we could take two courses of action. First, we could change the name not to what is proposed but to the "Northern Ireland Constabulary", which would put the force on all fours with other forces in the United Kingdom. Secondly, we could provide for the new name to come into effect on a day to be designated by statutory instrument at some later date, so that we do not insist upon the change at this particular moment in time in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: It might be thought surprising that a comparatively simple amendment should bring such a long debate on something which really gets right to the bedrock of the constitution of Northern Ireland. We have heard all elements of it this afternoon. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for straightening out a great deal of the debate. Although my background is different from his, I support all that he said: first, that all Catholics do not hate the police. Indeed, my experience is that that is certainly not so. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, gave the example of a meeting he had this morning with a Roman Catholic farmer who was looking for the police.
Secondly, no matter what we do with this name to suit Sinn-Fein/IRA, I am pretty certain there will be no more jumping to join the police as a result. Those in the republican Sinn-Fein/IRA do not just want to change the name of the police; it is their job as paramilitaries to destroy the forces of law and order. That is what they have been doing. For them it is only part way to a united Ireland. They have made that quite plain. This change in the name will not help at all. It will just let them believe that they can have whatever they want.
In my view, it should have the natural title of "The Royal Ulster Constabulary—Police Service of Northern Ireland". I do not believe that it will have any significant, adverse effect on the recruitment of Roman Catholics, which we all want. The only thing that will bring them forward is time and the advances that the police force, the RUC, will make—which it is determined to make—in the way that it polices communities. Incidentally, that is a real problem because we are not at peace.
When Patten wrote his report, he assumed that the Good Friday agreement would be fully implemented and that we would be at peace. He assumed that it would be a simple matter of police service in communities. But, I am sorry to say, that is far from being the case. Indeed, in the past two weeks the Secretary of State drew our attention to the very serious situation that now exists. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, it is a mafia in three-quarters of Belfast where those concerned are controlling groups of people for their own reasons—partly by drug running and other racketeering. If anyone does not fit in with their wishes, that person is punished in some way, such as being knee-capped or having his bones shattered. Incidentally, 2,000 people have been banished from their neighbourhood and a few have been murdered.
36
I also understand that the IRA believes that murder is perhaps counter-productive and that it has taken medical advice to discover how much damage can be done to the human form without actually killing a person. It will take a long time and it will be very hard work for any police force to get over and deal with this mafioso; indeed, the force will need all the intelligence and all the hard work, of which I know it is capable. Those in the force will move as quickly as they can. It will not be soon enough for them when they are able to throw away their arms and walk singly wherever they wish through any community.
To change the name and leave out the "RUC" will not help the situation one little bit. However, it could do great damage because, as has already been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, and others, the unionist community—that is to say, the community in favour of the Union—now believes that so much has been given away; for example, the fact that prisoners were released, the flag issue and now, apparently, the RUC is to be thrown away and become something else. That has had a very serious effect on the attitude of the community. That is something about which we should be very concerned. There is good reason to suppose that those in the community would be desolate to lose the name of the police force that has saved them from heaven knows what. There is no doubt that all of us in Northern Ireland recognise that the RUC has, somehow or other, helped keep the Province in some sort of state; indeed, more than 30 years of murderous attacks by the IRA would be unbelievable to anyone who did not live there. I support the amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Once the Patten commission had been appointed I suppose it was inevitable that it would recommend the virtual destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. When I say "destruction" I mean eroding its morale, authority and everything else. After the publication of his report Patten defended his decision by asking, "What did the authors of the Belfast agreement expect me to recommend?" At least he was honest. There is a lesson there for all of us because that is exactly what the Bill invites us to do; namely, to comply with Patten but to cover up the destruction of a constabulary with layers of weasel words. The words are recycled from those which were used, for example, to destroy the Parliament at Stormont, the Special Constabulary and the Ulster Defence Regiment. The same nicely concealed camouflaged terminology is always used.
However, as we embark on Clause 2, we are entitled to inquire whether the Government are preparing, or thinking about establishing, a new counter-terrorist constabulary in the light of the resurgence of terrorism in Northern Ireland and the alarming development of Mafia organisations. We have just heard on good authority that they now cover three-quarters of the City of Belfast.
The three brands of republican flavour and at least two of so-called loyalists are guilty—they are very guilty as those who have first-hand experience, particularly in the City of Belfast, will confirm—of

37
putting an end to civilised behaviour and civilised communication as we had in Northern Ireland and as we hope to rebuild in the future.
The Bill is not final; it is only a step. The police service created by the Bill is modelled on a kind of super traffic warden. It could not be expected—and we should not expect it—to contain and defeat current terrorism and current Mafia behaviour, as did the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which of course is the very reason why terrorists on both sides want to get rid of it; it is self-evident that no criminal likes a policeman.
Today the Committee is invited to acquiesce in creating a vacuum. We are entitled to inquire gently about the replacement which the Government may have in mind. The Army in these days of over stretch cannot be expected to bear all of this developing new burden. Already back on the streets the Army is experiencing problems with over stretch, manning and everything else. But how can the Army support the civil power through co-operation with a police service—not a police force, not a constabulary—which will he hampered, hamstrung and continually weakened by government concessions to the demands of terrorists, paramilitaries and the new Mafia groups condoned or ignored by three governments and a misnamed process as phoney as its counterpart in the Middle East only yesterday proved to be?
The demands for a quite unnecessary change of title are designed to weaken morale and authority—that may not have been the intention of the Government but it will he the net result—but will depict the Government as a soft touch for all lawbreakers who will indulge in further mutilation of the constabulary as fresh demands are made.
We would all do well to reflect on the preliminary exchanges between the two Front Benches before the House went into Committee in regard to the delicacy of peace processes. In Northern Ireland we are doing rather better than our opposite numbers in the Middle East. For example, we have not as yet consigned anyone to Hell. Moderation still exists in Northern Ireland but the balance is delicate. The position of David Trimble is delicate by reason of the fact that he has been forced over the years by three sovereign governments to make concession after concession and has been hung out to dry with absolutely no reciprocity for those concessions. My plea is, do not push Mr Trimble over the edge for mere imaginary gains. Do not encourage Her Majesty's Government to endanger all that has been achieved over the past few years.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: All of the amendments in the group we are discussing relate to the name of the police in Northern Ireland. In addition to those which have been debated there are a number of technical amendments in my name which I shall discuss at the end of my remarks. Apart from those technical amendments, all of the amendments tabled oppose the Government's position and all of them would amend the current provision in Clause 1 which was tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party in another place and was accepted by the Government.
38
Of course the Government acknowledge that this is a deeply contentious issue and that for many it involves a painful change. The Patten report recognised that encouraging Catholic recruits to the RUC was not as simple as changing the name or removing the "Royal" prefix. Patten said that symbols associated with one side of the constitutional debate inevitably went some way to inhibit the wholehearted participation in policing of the other side. He did not recommend either no change or a complete change. He said that the name should change but that continuity should be recognised. That is what Clause 1 seeks to achieve. The Government accept that. Of course we accept that the reasons Roman Catholics do not join the police are many and complex. Of course we accept that they include intimidation. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, we also accept that the SDLP and other community leaders should encourage people from all communities to join the police force. But to achieve a new beginning we believe that it is necessary to have a new name.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said when the Bill received its Third Reading in another place, we have introduced a new name—the Police Service of Northern Ireland—and that name will be used for all operational and working purposes, including whenever and in whatever circumstances the police interface with the public.
Our intention has also been to ensure that the RUC is evidently incorporated into the new service in its founding legislation. As has been stated by the Secretary of State on several occasions, the purpose of the reference to the RUC in Clause 1(1) is to demonstrate with absolute clarity, and as a matter of fact and of law, that the RUC is not being disbanded, as the Patten report made clear should not happen.
At the same time it has to be acknowledged that the body of officers comprising the new service, like any body of officers, needs a clear identity to be effective and to which all can relate. That is one reason why the name is changing to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has stated many times before the Government's view that introducing a dual name would not be good for the cohesion and unity and therefore the effectiveness of the police—a view which I understand is shared within the RUC.
Concern has been expressed that the Bill as drafted could possibly result in the name not being used in the manner I have outlined. We shall, as with all aspects of the legislation, keep this under review. We shall expect the oversight commissioner to include the issue in his regular reports and shall be willing to return to it if necessary. Although I recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed, I ask the Committee to reflect on what I have said and consider the purposes behind Clause 1(1).
I turn briefly to the Government's own amendments. Clause 1 was added to the Bill on Report in another place. The changes made to Clause 1 entail many consequential amendments throughout the Bill. It is a tribute to the skill of the parliarnentary draftsman that these technical changes were effected in

39
so short a time. Nonetheless a handful of amendments are required to tidy up stray references in consequence of the additions to Clause 1. When the time comes, I shall move the amendments in this group from Amendments Nos. 157 onwards concerning the consequential changes. I ask noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rogan: I thank noble Lords for their participation in this informative debate. I would ask them, and also the Minister, to take cognisance of the unanimity of the Peers from Ulster. I shall think about what has been said. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 15 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Northern Ireland Policing Board]
Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 38, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
The noble Lord said: This is really a probing amendment and my main interest is in hearing what the Minister has to say. My research tells me that this clause was also in the 1998 Act; I assume that it was lifted straight out of that Act. It seems to me that, read in one way, it is another swipe at removing allegiance to and links with the Crown inasmuch as it says clearly that the board shall not be a servant or agent of the Crown. It says that property shall not be held on behalf of the Crown and proceeds in some detail to remove any links between the Crown and the new police force. I wonder why it was felt necessary to put this wording into the schedule. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The provision referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 is a standard provision: there is nothing sinister about it. It clarifies that the board is an independent body, which is the position. The same provision appeared in the 1998 Act for the authority, as the noble Lord acknowledged. It is perfectly standard to have such a provision in a schedule such as this, and I would ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I refer to Amendment No. 18 which is in this group. It is a technical amendment to make clear that the board has the powers of a body corporate in Northern Ireland in relation to its own resources as well as police resources. I shall move it in due time.
Lord Glentoran: Will the Minister say whether the paragraph which is the subject of my amendment is common to other police forces and whether other police forces within the United Kingdom do or do not have such a clause, either denying the fact that they
40
have a link to the Crown or vice versa? Perhaps the noble Lord would like to write to me, as I do not wish to delay the work of the Committee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry that I cannot answer immediately. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 38, line 11, at end insert (; and, for the purposes of that section, the Board shall be treated as if it were established by an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move it formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 41, line 27, leave out ("specified") and insert ("prescribed").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 19 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 19 corrects a drafting error. The wording should say "prescribed" rather than "specified" so as to be consistent with other references in the schedule.
With regard to Amendment No. 22, the intention is to make a similar amendment to the removal provision for a board established during devolution. Government Amendment No. 22 does that, and I shall move it in due time.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: It is not often these days that I intervene in matters relating to Northern Ireland. Those who know me will know that that does not reflect any diminution in my affection for my former friends in Northern Ireland. It simply reflects two anxieties which press upon me.
The first is that I am not so closely familiar now with events there as I was some years ago, and there always is a great danger of relying on yesterday's knowledge in addressing today's problems. Secondly, while there is great concern and sympathy in England for the people of Northern Ireland, I believe that those people are the best judges of their own welfare and it may be that those of us here who wish them well might do better sometimes to restrain our loquacity.
Of course the Government have to be a catalyst in the peace process and in bringing a healing to Northern Ireland, but for the rest of us it is sometimes easier to cause more harm, to widen the breaches and deepen the wounds, than it is to do the reverse. I am not saying that contributions should never be made. Those like my noble friend Lord Dubs who have been much concerned with events in Northern Ireland may well have something very useful to say but the rest of us can sometimes best serve by a self-denying ordinance

41
As I say, it is not often now that I intervene. I appreciate the very delicate task which confronts the Government. It is vital to any accord that there should be a police force which is subject to the law, and only to the law, which accords to every citizen the protection and respect to which they are entitled and which does so without distinction as to class, culture, religion, colour or sex. That will not he easy, because we are all prisoners of the past and the past has not been kind to the people of Northern Ireland.
However, there are those whose concerns I am trying to express because they invited me to raise today some of the issues which they think might be helpfully discussed. That is why I set down Amendment No. 20. I do not seek to improve either on the drafting or on anything said by my noble and learned friend on Amendment No. 19.
There is a great deal in the Bill about achieving a balance in recruitment to the police force between the various traditions within the community. That is wholly commendable, but surely it is equally important in determining the composition of the board, and that is the purpose of my amendment. Of course we assume that in making appointments for independent members the Secretary of State will have that principle very much in mind; but that may be said about any of the tasks addressed in the Bill. They are, nevertheless, in the Bill to emphasise their importance, to serve as a reminder to those who are given the tasks; and, in the last resort, to offer a prospect of challenging an action which simply ignores them. If the Bill provided only for the present Secretary of State, I should be more relaxed about the situation. But Secretaries of State come and go. Some future holder of the office may be less assiduous as to that principle than my right honourable friend.
I assume that the Government intend that there should be the balance which my amendment addresses. I simply ask: should it not be written in the Bill?
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I welcome and support the amendment. I again remind the Committee of my credentials. I am chairman of a police authority, albeit an English one. I am also deputy chairman of the National Association of Police Authorities which includes the present Police Authority for Northern Ireland. It is our great hope that the future Northern Ireland police board will also be among its members.
I recognise that there is already provision in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that the board is representative. The noble and learned Lord's amendment adds a specific requirement to ensure that there is the right ethnic and gender balance. My experience of many years in the police will confirm that such a specific requirement is necessary.
It also sends a positive message to those who are normally under-represented on such bodies—women, minority communities, young people and so on—that their presence is positively welcomed and encouraged.
42
The whole purpose of the police board is to secure accountability to the community for the police service. That should be accountability to all sections of the community. I have no doubt that there will be plenty of women and minority community representatives who would be only too well qualified to sit on the board. We must ensure that they are suitable role models so that others may follow. I ask the Committee to give the amendment full support.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness sits down, she will agree that if the amendment is to be taken literally, 51 per cent of the membership of the board would have to be female if it was to be fully representative.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I do not want to enter into the argument about the 50:50 figure at this point. I simply support the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am entirely happy with the wording of the two government amendments which, as the Minister said, follows from previous discussions.
I am not sure that Amendment No. 20 adds very much to the Bill but the noble and learned Lord makes a valid point. If we take the amendment literally with regard to ethnic constituents of the board, we should present the Secretary of State with a difficult problem. I understand that less than 1 per cent of the population of Northern Ireland is from the ethnic minorities. Less than 1 per cent of nine appointments is a small figure. I imagine that someone from the ethnic minority would have to attend for the odd week to fulfil that criterion. However, the principle is right and is more applicable to membership of the RUC itself.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Does the noble Lord appreciate that having regard to ethnic elements in the community does not entail appointing someone from every minority
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept that. The figure of less than 1 per cent relates to all the ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland.
I wish to draw the Committee's attention to Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25 which are of considerable significance. They seek to prevent the appointment to the police board of those with criminal records—in particular terrorist records. We do not believe that it is right for those who have such records, or who are active members of political parties linked to paramilitary organisations, from either side of the community—they have failed to begin decommissioning and have a so-called ceasefire, but we all know that it is frail, and broken at frequent intervals—to sit on the police board and to hold the chief constable and the police force (whatever it is called) to account.
As I have said previously, I do not think that anyone who has been involved in security in Northern Ireland believes that decommissioning is a complete solution to the security problem. Of course it is not. Apart from

43
anything else, one cannot decommission some of the components of bombs—for example, fertiliser. As regards the handing in of weapons, others can easily be purchased. Nevertheless, the failure to decommission at all by PIRA and so-called loyalist organisations is a clear and definite statement that they are not prepared to give up the use of force: indeed that they are prepared, and remain ready, to take up force again very quickly. By "force" I refer to additional force to the force they have already been using to which reference was made in our previous debate.
I believe that this is of the greatest importance for the future of the police force. It looks certain that even if the most optimistic scenarios come to pass in Northern Ireland there will be some continuing terrorism. That has always been so in the past and I have no reason to think that it will not be so in the future. That means that the RUC (whatever it is called) will have to continue combating a serious terrorist threat. We do not think that anyone who has been involved in that is qualified to sit on the board. If such a connection arises, that person should be removed from the board. That is what our amendments seek to achieve.
There is also the bargaining effect. I take one example. I believe that one of the mistakes made in the early part of the process was that the release of prisoners went ahead according to the two-year timetable even though other issues—in particular decommissioning which was supposed to go ahead under the same timetable—did not advance. At every stage the concessions have been made from the unionist side and the government side—and very large concessions too—with none from the other side. If republicans and terrorists can get what they want without having to give anything away, they will do so. But if they had to give up something themselves, if the prisoner releases had either not started or had been stopped because the remainder of the process was not taking place, then the bargaining counters would have been different. The biggest single bargaining counter that remains is the effectiveness of the police, particularly against terrorism. To weaken the effectiveness of the police is one of the great goals of terrorists on both sides of the divide. It is one that can still be achieved. The police would be weakened if the board contained those who still supported terrorism or were in close touch with terrorist organisations. That is why the amendments are of the first importance.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I shall speak to Amendment No. 21, which is in this group on the selection list. It is a probing amendment on a serious issue relating to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State may well be minded to include the Equality Commission under
"such other bodies as he considers appropriate"
in line 48, but I should like it specifically mentioned alongside district councils, because it plays such a vital role and has the primary responsibility for assisting
44
with the pursuit of equality. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that it will be in the mind of the Secretary of State to include the Equality Commission.
Lord Vivian: I support Amendments Nos. 23 to 25. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley has said. Without the amendments, current or ex-terrorists could become members of a board and there would be no legal power to remove them. That could lead to a corrupt police force, which would undermine and weaken the authority of the police and make the task of the Chief Constable virtually impossible.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I, too, support Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, on three grounds. First, if there were people on a board with past connections with terrorist organisations on either side, the likelihood of the police being able to recruit and retain sources on terrorist operations would be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, because the sources would constantly fear that those members of the board would have access to certain knowledge and that their identity might be revealed. That would have a serious effect on the possible recruitment of sources.
Secondly, I should be glad to hear how it will be possible to avoid having such people on the board if some of them are to come from the Assembly, where, at least among Sinn Fein, there must be a number who, for one reason or another, have such connections.
Thirdly, when Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness have been asked over the past year whether they would encourage witnesses to come forward to testify on the Omagh bombing, they have said that they do not recognise British justice and can therefore see no point in doing such a thing. With that attitude, it might be difficult for the police, as the guardians of law and order, to work with them.
On those three grounds, it is essential that the amendments should be taken seriously.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 20, spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government are committed to ethnic and gender balance every bit as much as to political and religious balance. However, we are not convinced that the amendment would add to the effect of the current wording. "Representative" includes all constituents, including ethnic and gender constituents. The amendment could lead to a preference towards ethnicity and gender over, say, disability. I repeat that we are committed to ethnic and gender balance, but we do not support the amendment.
Amendment No. 21, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, is not required, because paragraph (8)(2)(c) enables the Secretary of State to consult
"such other bodies as he considers appropriate".

45
That includes the Equality Commission. The Secretary of State has already consulted the Equality Commission on the occasion of the recent appointment process for the board. I ask the noble Lord not to move the amendment.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I apologise for interrupting, but I wonder whether the Minister is satisfied with the wording. The Equality Commission is art amalgam of various commissions—at least four of them. Those of us who have had contact with the commissioners have got the impression that they feel somewhat aggrieved and slighted. They feel that they have been downgraded because they are not mentioned by name. That is not a quibble—they have a point.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I note what the noble Lord says. We did not think it necessary to make a specific reference. We consulted the commission on the recent appointment process for the board. That should encourage and reassure those concerned that they will be consulted.
Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, take us back to amendments that were tabled by the Conservatives in another place. I share their wish for safeguards in the appointment of independents and the removal of the independents and political members. The Bill provides such safeguards. The amendments would go too far.
We want a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland. Patten did not come up with the idea of political parties being represented on the boards of his own volition. The Good Friday agreement is clear on the issue. It says that the commission's proposal should be designed to ensure that there are clearly established arrangements enabling local people and their political representatives to articulate their views and concerns about policing. That means that those elected to the Assembly and selected under d'Hondt have a right to serve on the board because they have a mandate.
The Government have explained consistently that there are safeguards on the appointment of independents. For example, character checks will be conducted and appointments will be based on high standards of probity and integrity, as required by the guidance for public appointments.
Furthermore, the Bill has strong removal provisions. Members who commit criminal offences may be removed by the Secretary of State. Unlike the current police authority, members of the board are required to pass the test of upholding the principles of non-violence and commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means. That is already in the schedule. If they do not, they can be removed by the Secretary of State.
In another place, my right honourable friend the Minister of State said:
"There is a need to establish a Policing Board that is inclusive and forward looking and for appropriate safeguards to ensure a high standard of board members. Transgressions or wrongdoings can be dealt with under the current arrangements".—[Official Report. Commons Standing Committee B; col. 100.]
46
I ask noble Lords to accept that we understand their concerns, but we believe that the provisions to which I have referred will enable us to deal with those who are not committed to peaceful means. I ask the noble Lord not to move the amendments.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry to come back on this. Perhaps I did not specifically emphasise that we are concerned primarily with political appointments. I accept that the Secretary of State has more control over independent members, but, even though political members can be removed by the Secretary of State if they are convicted of a criminal offence after appointment, if they are still connected to terrorist organisations and are careful not to be convicted of a criminal offence, they will remain on the police board. The working of the d'Hondt procedure will ensure that members of the police board belong to parties still linked to terrorist organisations which have not given up violence, in particular in the sense of decommissioning. That is why I believe that these amendments are very important.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may respond briefly to those comments. It is worth emphasising that paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bill states:
"The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as an independent or political member of the Board if satisfied that—
… (c) he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
That provision applies not only to the independents but also to the political members of the board.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I realise that. From the Minister's last intervention, and in accordance with the part of the schedule which he read out, I should like to think that the Secretary of State would regard anyone connected to a paramilitary body which had not decommissioned as not therefore being committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. However, experience suggests that the Secretary of State will not take that view and that a failure to decommission will not mean that he judges those connected with that failure to be not committed to non-violence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 42, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

("( ) in the case of an independent member, he failed, before his appointment, to make to the Secretary of State full disclosure of a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere:

( ) he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment:").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 not moved.]
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 45, line 34, leave out from ("by") to end of line 35 and insert—

("(a) a majority of those present and voting on the proposal, and

(b) at least 8 members present and voting on the proposal.").

The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which simplifies the text and introduces slightly more flexibility. It changes the current wording in the schedule by referring to "a majority of" those present and voting and reduces the minimum number of votes required for a majority from 10 to eight. Basically, it provides a means for allowing business to be carried on when such inquiries are to be made. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: I am afraid that this time I cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I believe that the numbers to which he refers in Amendment No. 28 are very sensitive. Whatever happens in relation to the different agreements, the numbers in this particular part of the Bill are extremely sensitive. I believe that the Bill should stand as it is without further flexibility being introduced, which, I understand, would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment and, in particular, his Amendment No. 30. I believe that removing sub-paragraph (7) would again open up too many opportunities for subjective variation. I say to the Minister that we would object to those amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The issues raised by Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 were debated at length in Committee in another place. They have been considered carefully by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We are not convinced that a minority of the board should be able to reach a decision to hold an inquiry which would by definition be into a matter of some gravity or of an exceptional nature. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Desai: I understand what my noble friend says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [General functions of the Board]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("and compliant with all relevant international human rights standards").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 31, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 to 34, 34A, 35 to 37, 201 to 204 and 232.
Clause 3 is concerned with the functions of the board. I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission and the Committee for the Administration of Justice in Northern Ireland for the great deal of help which they have given me in relation not only to these amendments but to a number of others.
Clause 3(2) requires the board to secure so far as possible two objectives: that the police are efficient and that they are effective. Subsection (3) imposes on the board a duty to monitor their performance and it adds an aspiration to the two objectives in subsection (2). They are to be monitored to see whether they comply with the Human Rights Act.
I have no quarrel with any of that. Of course they must be efficient and effective and, in doing so, they must comply with the Human Rights Act. However, some people believe that complying with the Human Rights Act adds nothing to the obligation incumbent on any police force to comply with the law. The Human Rights Act is part of the law. The Patten commission spoke in paragraph 4.12 of monitoring police performance in respect of human rights. Paragraph 4.13 declared that,
"they should perceive their jobs in terms of the protection of human rights".
That most certainly includes the rights set out in the Human Rights Act. However, it goes further. Human rights include international human rights standards. Indeed, in paragraph 5.17 the commission specifically spoke of:
"Procedures to secure compliance with the law and with international human rights standards".
Therefore, these amendments reflect the concerns both of those who assisted me and of the Patten commission.
As I understand it, the Government's concern is that the expression "international human rights standards" is not sufficiently specific. No doubt my noble and learned friend will tell me whether I have anticipated that correctly. He is nodding helpfully. Of course it is true. Hundreds, if not thousands, of provisions are included in that expression. However, in Clause 3 we are not concerned with specific requirements of the kind which we find, for example, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Rather, we are in the realm of aspirations.
It would be curious if someone who read subsection (2) in relation to securing that the police shall be efficient were to ask, "In what precise respects are they to be efficient?" I do not believe that police authorities who are enjoined to comply with international human rights standards could be heard to complain that they cannot do so unless they have a long list of the precise duties which those standards impose upon them. We are not involved in that type of exercise in these two clauses.
However, I understand that there must be a balance between setting out broad inclusive standards and being clear as to what is required. If the Government object to my drafting on the ground that it is too wide, a solution might be found in listing a number of international human rights instruments which reflect specific concerns relating, for example, to the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials. It may be that between now and Report stage we could explore that possible avenue.
This is not the occasion on which to indulge in a Dutch auction as to what they should be. It is not about that. It is about offering people reassurance as to the manner in which the police will go about their duties.
I now turn to the other amendments in this group. Paragraph (d) in Clause 3 very sensibly requires arrangements for obtaining the views of the public on the policing of the district. It then requires arrangements for obtaining the co-operation of the public with the police. Certainly, that is very much to be desired because, without it, no one will enjoy the advantages of being in a peaceful society under the rule of law, and that is a matter which a number of noble Lords emphasised in an earlier debate.
But I wonder whether that may be seen in a context where a well-intentioned signal may be misunderstood because that seems to imply three stages: first, obtaining the views of the public; secondly, deciding whether the authorities agree and declaring how the policing should be done; and, thirdly, getting the public to co-operate in the decision.
I am sure that it is intended that the police and the public should work together to ensure law and order. It will not be a case of the public being involved uncritically in what the police have decided to do. It will be a joint endeavour. The police will have a difficult enough task. It is essential that the public should feel that it is their task as well; that they have some ownership in the policy which is to be pursued. That is why, with this amendment, I seek to amend the wording to ensure that it is not a question of the police deciding on a policy and the public being asked to cooperate. The policy itself should be a joint enterprise. I beg to move.
Lord Desai: My Amendment No. 34A is in this group and, as the Committee will see, it is very much in line with what my noble and learned friend Lord Archer has already said.
I merely want to add a further couple of items to the list that he mentioned. International human rights standards can be elicited in certain documents. The two that I should like to mention are the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and the UN Principle on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Those are important matters for Northern Ireland. We have had the murder of Rosemary Nelson and Pat Finucane and those matters need to be investigated properly.
It is not just a matter of implementing Patten or what Patten said. If this whole process is to succeed, it is extremely important that we show sensitivity in relation to a variety of problems and pressures on all communities in Northern Ireland. To assess our policing against international human rights standards would add to the confidence that the community has in policing.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As regards Amendments Nos. 31 and 34A, I have the difficulty to which the
50
noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, drew attention; namely, deciding what "international standards" means in this context. But in my view, the record of the RUC and, indeed, the security forces as a whole in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years stands up very well to any international comparison of any comparable situation.
Of course, those situations are never entirely comparable, but when I had some responsibility for security in the Northern Ireland Office, we were urged constantly by some people from this side of the water in particular, to take the gloves off the Army and so on. We at that time, my predecessors and those since have always held to the sort of policing and support by the Armed Forces which is in place. That is not so in every country.
It so happens that through my wife, who was born in Palestine, and her relations who still live there, I know a little about the situation there. I looked up the figures this morning. Throughout the troubles in Northern Ireland, there have been rather more than 3,600 deaths. Of those, the security forces as a whole—the police and the Army—have been responsible for 10 per cent. In the excellent book, Lost Lives, which has been referred to, about 52 deaths are ascribed to the RUC. That is 52 out of 3,600. That shows the amount of restraint that there has been on the part of all the security forces.
That can be compared with Palestine over the past few weeks where 114 Arabs have been killed and eight Jews. There, it is entirely the other way round. That is a land where two groups, two religions, two tribes, however one describes it, are wanting to live on and control the same ground. The comparison is not precise. The problem in Palestine is even older than that which exists in Ireland. Nevertheless there are similarities. But one of the differences is that the security forces of Israel use tanks, helicopters and rocket launchers against rioters. Those are all the things that we were urged to use at different times against the IRA but did not do so.
That is the background. That is the international human rights comparison. That can be taken into the treatment of detainees and right across the board.
There are other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 35 stands in my name and that of my noble friends. The effect of the amendment is to provide the policing board with the authority to undertake consultation with the public at a strategic level. It seems to us that the wording as it currently stands does not give the new board the ability to consult but it must rely on consultation through the new district policing arrangements which arc to be established. It would be right if the boards also were directly able to take the opinion of the public when they thought they needed to do so. It is a small point but if I have understood the wording correctly, the matter is worth raising.
Amendment No. 232 is also in this group in the name of the Minister. That provides for a new clause after Clause 69 by which the board shall make

51
arrangements for places of detention to be visited by lay visitors and it sets out in some detail what they must deal with.
The arrangements as set out in the clause seem to me, in some respects, to be rather rigid. They require a report on each visit which deals with the conditions under which persons are held, welfare and treatment, adequacy of the facilities and such other matters as may be specified. Every time a lay visitor visits a detention centre, a full report must be made. That seems to rule out, if only by accident, calling in to look at a particular situation in the middle of the night. In my view, that should be done if the lay visitors are to do their job properly. They should not carry out only great formal inspections leading to reports. They should also be able to visit without reporting. The amendment states that the arrangements shall require a report on each visit covering the matters I listed.
The next detailed point on the amendment is that the power to interview persons being held in places of detention and to examine the records of such persons can be exercised only with the consent of the person concerned. The difficulty with that is that undoubtedly in the Northern Ireland situation, some of the lay visitors will be thought to be on one side of the great divide and some on the other. Therefore, some prisoners will refuse to allow anybody to talk to them or to examine their records unless that person is thought to be sympathetic to the prisoner concerned. It seems to me that that will lead to unbalanced inspections.
The third point concerns the people who may be appointed. Clearly, a lay visitor should not be a member of the board. That is sensible, and is the first provision. The second is that he or she should not be or have been a police officer. However, there is no provision which states that the lay visitor should not have been a former terrorist or convicted of serious offences. Perhaps there should be such a provision. The amendment was tabled very recently and we have not had the opportunity to table amendments to it, at least not at the speed required for them to be put on to the Marshalled List.
The arrangements apply to all designated places of detention except those which are designated under the Terrorism Act unless they have been designated by the Secretary of State. They can potentially apply to terrorist detention as well as to ordinary detention of suspects in a police station. The wording of the proposed new clause deserves careful attention, particularly the points I have mentioned. I am not against the idea of lay visitors. On the contrary, they can play a valuable part in reassuring the public about the effectiveness, efficiency and humanity of the police arrangements. At the time when I was in Northern Ireland, much rubbish was talked about detention. However, we were not in a position to have arrangements of this kind. It is desirable that we should have such arrangements, but we need to get right the detail of the wording.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, in his Amendment No. 35. It is vitally important that if the board—be it the old board or the new board—is to do its job properly, it has to be in possession of the facts. It must be provided with the necessary facilities and back up to enable it to take soundings, not just by way of doing a doorstep poll, but by making use of independent bodies of integrity who would be in a position to give it sound advice on the particular problems with which it will be coping.
Lord Hylton: Since at least the late 1970s, it has been apparent that virtually all the Northern Ireland political parties were in favour of a Bill of rights. So far, we do not have one specifically for Northern Ireland, though I understand that a lot of preparatory work has been done in that direction. I know that we have a UK Act on the statute book. Nevertheless, the general direction of this group of amendments is helpful. In particular, Amendment No. 34A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, could be interpreted as referring to the difficult question surrounding defence lawyers, which I believe he mentioned.
I turn to Amendment No. 37. In the past, there has been no end of controversy about interrogation, Castlereagh and so on. Government Amendment No. 232 will no doubt be helpful in that context. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, that it is important to get right the wording. Later on in Amendment No. 37 there are arrangements for monitoring police action to control public disorder. I understand that as probably referring to marches and parades, of which there could be few more difficult and controversial questions. I hope that the Government will look with sympathy on this group of amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 34A, which concern international human rights standards. I hope that it has been made plain that the Government believe that human rights should be at the heart of policing. That is why we have introduced new measures in the form of the code of ethics, the new human rights based declaration for constables and a statutory duty for the board to monitor police compliance with the Human Rights Act. All of those measures were recommended by the Patten report.
Patten does not recommend integrating international human rights standards into police practice. In recommendation 3 the report recommends, the integration of the European Convention on Human Rights into police practice, and that is the Government's policy.
Were we to require the board to secure compliance and to monitor compliance with a standard, we need to be specific as to exactly what that standard is. It is not clear what "international human rights standards" are. We cannot court ambiguity over those standards, even in Clause 3.
By requiring the board to monitor compliance with the Human Rights Act, by requiring officers to take a human rights-based declaration and by tabling an

53
amendment to make it clear that the code of ethics is European Convention on Human Rights based, the Government have clearly placed human rights at the core of policing in a way which has clarity. We would not support the three amendments to which I referred.
I turn to government Amendments Nos. 33—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Before my noble and learned friend passes on, in a spirit of helpfulness, would the Government be prepared to consider specific international human rights instruments, such as the United Nations code which I mentioned?
6 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Obviously I shall consider any proposal which is made. However, at present, there is enough clarity and human rights protection in the particular provisions we have made. Therefore, we think that we have done enough on human rights in relation to that point.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 201 and 202. I shall deal also with Amendment No. 204, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux and others. The Patten report places great emphasis on local accountability, community policing and working in partnership with the community. The Government fully support that approach. Patten's recommendations on community consultation and involvement at local level centre on the creation of district policing partnerships. As the central accountability body, we judge it right, as the Ulster Unionist Party argued in Committee in another place, that the board should be obliged to assess public satisfaction with and the effectiveness of district policing partnerships.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 give effect to that. Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 make consequential amendments to Clause 55, which concerns the board's reporting obligations. Amendment No. 204, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and others, has much the same effect as the government amendments and I trust that he will accept that we have sought to meet the intention of his amendment.
Amendment No. 232 relates to lay visitors and inspection of custody suites, in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, made a number of important points. First, I apologise for the late tabling of this amendment. The Patten report recommended that once the holding centres in Northern Ireland are closed, responsibility for inspecting all custody and interrogation suites should rest with the policing board.
The new clause, which will be inserted after Clause 69, will meet an undertaking given to the Liberal Democrats in another place to put the board's responsibility for lay visitors' inspection of places of detention on a statutory basis. At present the responsibilities of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland in this area are non-statutory. The provision was prepared following consultation with the authority and with the chief constable.
54
Lay visitors are provided for the protection of detainees and clearly we hope that detainees will not refuse a visit, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested may be a possibility. But it is their right to refuse a visit. There are no provisions as such for lay visitors in the Bill. But the board will provide a recruitment process, as is presently provided by the police authority. It advertises, holds interviews and so forth. So the process is a sensible one.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also referred to the fact that the provision was quite "rigid"; namely, that a report had to be made after each visit. From where we sit, that seems to be a sensible provision because it will ensure that the proper reports are compiled. It exists to put on a statutory basis that which happens at the moment on a non-statutory basis under the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I hope that. having heard what I say, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will feel able to support the provision.
6 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord and am grateful to him for giving way. I felt that the rigidity lay in the fact that the report on each visit has to cover all the matters mentioned in subsections (3)(a), (b) and (c), as I read it. That makes it quite an elaborate report. I do not mean that visits should take place and nothing be said about them at all. But small, informal visits are just as useful as ones that lead to a complete report on the adequacy of the facilities and so forth.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I say, this provision was prepared after consultation with both the authority and the chief constable. The reports are the normal ones compiled after a visit. We felt it appropriate, if we are putting lay visitors' functions on a statutory basis, to set out what that involved.
I trust that that assures the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the Government met the spirit of his Amendments Nos. 37 and 203 as regards inspections of custody suites. On other points in those amendments, Clause 3 already covers public order because the general functions of the police are covered in Clause 32, which includes public order. The training strategy will now appear on the face of the Bill in Clause 26.
Amendment No. 35, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, requires the board to make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public about policing. Those arrangements have already been made with the setting up of the district policing partnerships in Part III of the Bill and my amendments require the, board to assess their effectiveness. We believe that that deals with the points raised in that regard.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I understand what he is saying in relation to DPPs. But, as I read the Bill, I would not want the DPPs to be the only part of the police board charged with testing public opinion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: One of the general functions of the board in Clause 3(3)(d) is to assess,
"the level of public satisfaction with the performance of the police".
So that point is already covered.
The Government welcome the laudable intention behind Amendment No. 36 and believe that the police should co-operate with the public. That is why Clause 32(5) requires police officers, in so far as it is practicable, to carry out their functions in cooperation with and with the aim of securing the support of the local community. As it stands, Clause 3(3)(e) already requires the board to monitor the relationship between the police and the public.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful for the explanation given by my noble and learned friend. I do not believe there is any wide gulf between us. But there may be some scope and perhaps necessity for further discussions between now and Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("and of district policing partnerships").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 2, line 36, after ("effectiveness") insert ("of district policing partnerships in performing their functions and, in particular,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 34A to 37 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Police support staff]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 16, leave out ("numbers and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 39 and 46. These are technical amendments, the latter being drafting changes. Amendment No. 38 tidies up an anomaly in Section 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. It removes the requirement for the specific approval of the Secretary of State for the number of police support staff. Since the coming into force of the 1998 Act, such matters are an issue of budgetary and resource allocation for the chief constable and the police authority.
Grouped with those amendments are Amendments Nos. 40 to 45. For the benefit of the Committee I shall respond to those when they are moved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("namely").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provision and maintenance of buildings and equipment]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 18, after ("may") insert (", for the purpose of its functions,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 40, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 in this group.
It is vital to protect the operational independence of the chief constable in the decisions he makes. But it is clear in any society that the needs of the chief constable must be balanced with those of the community he serves. That is nowhere more apparent than in Northern Ireland for the type of policing service which this Bill seeks to create will be based on community consultation and community requirements.
The emphasis that the Government place on ensuring that the community's needs are considered is clear in their attempt to ensure that the style of policing is a community-based consensual model designed to attract widespread support and confidence from all the communities in Northern Ireland.
The basis of the model must be transparency and accountability. Therefore, in moving the amendment I urge the Government to consider how the provision contributes to the objective of the legislation. By maintaining the current arrangements whereby the police authority, and through this Bill the policing board, takes ultimate responsibility for the policing of buildings and equipment, the Government will ensure continued transparency and accountability in this important area of resource and will reflect best practice in England and Wales. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm who, if the Bill is passed in its current form, will enter into contracts on behalf of the police service? I understand that that is not within the gift of the Chief Constable. I would therefore welcome the Minister's comments.
In tabling Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, I want to emphasise the importance of the independence of the new policing board. The new body will be a key contributor to ensuring a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland. I believe that it would be given as much control as possible over its own resources, including the land on which it is sited. It is conceivable that although the initial siting of the new body will be the responsibility of government, at some time in the future the board might decide to transfer to another location. Therefore, it is crucial that in ensuring its independence it is granted the freedom to do that. It is also proper that it should not be able to acquire land compulsorily for that purpose and my amendment clearly demonstrates that.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to put beyond doubt that the board can hold and acquire land for its own purposes. Anything else would negatively impact on the independence of that body.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Amendment No. 44 attracted my attention because it would be surprising if the board could not acquire, hold and dispose of land for its own purposes as well as for policing purposes. It may be that policing purposes cover the board but it does not seem to me to do so. If not, one wonders how on earth the board will find an office for itself. I hope that it will not require too many offices but it may require some and presumably it will need a provision which allows it to do so.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In dealing with the range of questions raised by Amendments Nos. 40 to 45, it might help if I made a few general points about police land, buildings and equipment under existing legislation. Clauses 6 and 7, which deal with these matters, by and large reflect the existing provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act.
It may be helpful if I make explicit the fact that the board can hold land for the purpose of its own functions. Clause 7 sets out the responsibilities of the policing board with regard to the acquiring and disposing of land for police purposes. The board's ability to acquire land for its own purposes exists within Schedule 1.
The 1998 Act made important changes to the resource, finance and management of policing support functions. It placed management of service delivery in the hands of the Chief Constable and it placed strategic direction and accountability in the hands of the police authority. That remains our policy. The Patten report supported that policy, stating in paragraph 5.13 that the relationship between the police and the board should be one between a service provider and a regulator. The report also added in paragraph 5.13 that the previous arrangement which conflated those two roles was seriously flawed. That is why we feel unable to accept Amendment No. 43, which confuses those roles by injecting the board into the management of police buildings.
The Bill makes two significant changes to the 1998 Act. Both are designed to implement the Patten recommendations and to further existing government policy. First, the Bill clearly separates out the roles of the board and the police. Clauses 6 to 12 deal only with police buildings, land estimates, funds and accounts. Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1), to the Bill deals with the board in respect of these matters.
I understand that the police authority has concerns about the application of Schedule 1. I believe that that lay behind the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. The Government, following advice from parliamentary counsel, have made an amendment to Schedule 1—it is Amendment No. 18, which we have already covered—in order to put the matter beyond doubt.
58
The amendments concern differentiating between the role of the board and the police. If the noble Baroness accepts my explanation she will find that the Bill is consistent with the majority of the points that are being made and that we largely agree on the intention of the legislation.
I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I hear what she says and will consider that at some length. I may return at Report stage because we consider the issue to be important. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Acquisition and disposal of land hr Board]:
[Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("in the same manner").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Provision of advice and assistance to international organisations, etc.]:
Lord Smith of Clifton Lord Smith of Clifton moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("outside the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 are probing amendments. Clause 8 omits the UK receiving advice and assistance unless the assistance is to an international organisation working in the UK. It also appears to preclude the secondment of a civilian to a police force in Great Britain but not to Kosovo, for example, or to the Garda Siochana. The removal of the words will provide flexibility should there ever be a need to second specialist civilian staff to the UK.
As regards Amendment No. 48, Clause 8(2) enables police officers to serve outside Northern Ireland. There is a case that that should be extended to cover specialist civilian support staff— for example, scenes of crime officers—for whom there is much demand abroad. That keeps within the spirit of the Patten report in encouraging training and secondments outside Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Glentoran: My noble friend and I have also put our names to this amendment. We know that even now the RUC is operating in the Balkans with great success. Perhaps we have not interpreted very well the intention of Clause 8. However, we believe that the main thrust of Amendment No. 47 is that the board should have ultimate flexibility to authorise members of the police force to operate wherever their special skills can best be used, if they can he spared from duty

59
in Northern Ireland. If that is in the Republic of Ireland, the Balkans or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so be it.
Amendment No. 48 seeks to clarify that one is talking not only about uniformed and non-uniformed full members of the police force but also support staff, some of whom would be highly skilled people who could be of great value, if they could be spared for duty elsewhere. I look forward to the response of the noble Baroness.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I, too, regard this as a very necessary amendment given that, whether we like it or not, we are the world's number two policeman engaged in firefighting, as I believe it is called nowadays, regardless of the stretch on the Army and security forces. It is important that the line of authority is absolutely clear and I am delighted to support an amendment which does just that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken, not least because it allows me to pay tribute to the outstanding work of members of the RUC in international situations, particularly the Balkans. As to that, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
Clause 8 enables the policing board, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State, to provide advice and assistance, including facilitating temporary secondments, to international organisations and to those persons or bodies outside the UK who are engaged in similar activities to those of the board and the chief constable. Therefore, we believe that Amendment No. 47 is inappropriate because it deals with UK arrangements. I hope that that clarifies the position for those Members of the Committee who are concerned to ensure that that kind of outstanding quality of work should not be inhibited in any way.
As to Amendment No. 48, it is right to be concerned about the position of police support staff and their ability to take advantage of opportunities outside their immediate functions. But we do not believe that we should alter the law in a way which may constrain those opportunities, which we believe is the effect of these amendments. Details of police service must be spelt out in the legislation because members are not employees but holders of the officer of constable under the Crown. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate from this and to regulate support staff. Under normal employment law and personnel arrangements they can be seconded to outside organisations. We believe that Amendment No. 48 is unnecessary and could be more constraining than noble Lords who support it would want.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I thank the Minister for her elucidation of the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Grants to, and borrowing by, the Board]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 6, line 7, leave out from ("amount") to ("under") and insert ("owing of money borrowed").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 49 I speak also to Amendment No. 50. I reserve the right to speak to the other amendment in the group until after the mover has spoken to it. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are technical and drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("prior").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Accounts and audit]:
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 51:
Leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new Clause—

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

  ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
  ("12.—(1) The Board shall—

  (a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to the accounts; and

  (b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.

  (2) The Board may delegate to the Chief Constable, or any other body approved by the Secretary of State, responsibility for the functions under subsection (1).
  (3) The statement of accounts shall contain such information and shall be in such form as the Secretary of State shall determine.
  (4) The Chief Constable, or any other body to whom power is delegated under subsection (2), shall submit the statement of accounts to the Board within such period after the end of the financial year to which they relate as the Board may determine.
  (5) The Board shall send copies of the statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period as the Secretary of State may determine.
  (6) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

  (a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts received by him under this section: and

  (b) lay copies of the statement of accounts and of his report before each House of Parliament.

  (7) The Board shall be responsible for carrying out audits of all aspects of police activity, and in exercising this function the Board may investigate any aspect of police policies, procedures and practices as it deems necessary and will have access to any information which it requires including that which relates to expenditure of the police grant.").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 51 is a major amendment. One does not see how making the Chief Constable of the RUC directly responsible to government for police expenditure will enhance either the effective operation of the police service in Northern Ireland or its accountability to the people. Since its inception the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has borne the responsibility for this matter, and that arrangement has worked very well. I should

  61
  be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, could explain why the Government believe that it is necessary to change the arrangement and remove that responsibility from the policing board. We believe that that would deprive the board of the power to audit police expenditure, which is an essential tool for police accountability, and foist the responsibility onto the chief constable, which he has clearly stated he does not want. It is possible that by removing this function of accountability the new board will feel compelled to exercise another of its important powers more frequently: to call for formal reports and initiate inquiries. Surely, that is not a situation which the Committee wants to see. This measure goes further than Patten intended and is contrary to current practice in England and Wales. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government have insisted on changing the current arrangements and what benefits it will bring.
  We ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment which, if accepted, will secure a crucial investigatory and oversight function for the new board. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have some sympathy for the amendment which was suggested in outline, if not in detail, by the police authority in its comments on the Bill as it stood. The wording of the Bill is not very satisfactory, as the noble Baroness said, in that it provides that the functions of the chief constable in this respect,
  "shall he exercised on behalf of and in the name of the Board".
  That blurs the lines of responsibility and takes it partly away from the chief constable without really giving it to the board. The new clause proposed in lieu of Clause 12 places that responsibility firmly on the board and the chief constable may delegate it from there.
  On the other hand, I am not happy with subsection (7) of the new clause, which provides for an extremely wide-ranging audit of police activity, not just in relation to finance, to which the rest of the clause refers, but operational matters of every kind. What is more, it gives statutory access to any information in the hands of the police. Bear in mind that the board will contain representatives of parties which have not decommissioned and separated themselves from violence in a full manner. It will contain people in touch with—perhaps one should describe them as such—all sections of Northern Ireland society, including some who are thoroughly against the activities of the police. They should not be in a position to demand access to information of that kind, or to audit and second-guess operational responsibilities of the Chief Constable and the members of the police force. This is not what happens in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have always been careful to separate the operational responsibility of the chief constable from other matters.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That is exactly what
  62
  happens in police authorities in England in Wales. There is a statutory duty to be effective and efficient. The only way to make sure of that is to drill down into the organisation. That does not make the Chief Constable say that the police authority must not be involved in operational issues. It is not, but it must understand the result of those operational issues. The only way to do that is to make sure that everything is reviewed by drilling down and auditing. At the moment, that is very much what police authorities throughout England and Wales do.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: From what the noble Baroness said, and from what 1 understand, operational responsibilities still remain separate. I know of chief constables in Great Britain who have quite properly refused certain information to police authorities—information which was delicate and related to police operations—and the police authorities have not insisted on demanding it. The amendment provides for "any information". The difference is that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, as presently constituted under the Bill, will contain some people whose objectives are not the same as those of the police. That does not apply in Great Britain.
  Lord Rogan: I have sympathy for the purpose of the amendment. I strongly object to the transfer of financial responsibility. That is not in line with the position of similar police authorities in Great Britain. It would be a damaging blow to the credibility of the new policing board in Northern Ireland. It goes much further than Patten's proposals. It could have an extremely damaging effect on the internal audit function. The Patten report recommended a substantial strengthening of financial credibility, including a strong audit department within the new policing board.
  The accounting officer of a government department is required to make arrangements for internal audit in accordance with the requirements of the government internal audit manual. One of the primary responsibilities of an internal audit is to provide assurances to the accounting officer on the efficiency, the effectiveness and the economy of systems established to achieve the organisation's aims and objectives. If the Chief Constable in effect becomes the sub-accounting officer, he will require an internal audit service to provide this assurance to him. I support the amendment.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understand that the Chief Constable's view has been given to the Government following consultation. The RUC's published response to Patten on page 7 says that the Chief Constable agrees to that recommendation. It would be helpful to know where the view comes from that the Chief Constable is opposed to that.
  In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it is difficult to make comparisons because of the different systems and audit arrangements that apply in Northern Ireland as opposed to England and

  63
  Wales. Local government audit arrangements apply elsewhere. In Northern Ireland the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the National Audit Office is the police auditor.
  It is not often that the Government, in another place, enjoy the support of the Member for West Tyrone. But in opposing a similar amendment to Amendment No. 51 in Committee the Government received his support. He said that he supported Clause 12, as drafted in the Bill, because a body which is required to hold another to account or exercise oversight functions on finance should not also keep the detailed accounts.
  It is important to consider that in addition Clause 12 addresses technical, but important, issues of police accounting and audit arrangements. The effect of the amendment would be to take detailed financial management of the policing service out of the hands of the Chief Constable and place it in the hands of the board.
  The amendment would require the board, rather than the Chief Constable, to keep proper accounts and records but enable it to delegate its functions if it chose to do so. This is the position that was criticised by Patten. Government policy is, and has been, to place management of the policing service in the hands of the person most responsible for delivering that service; namely, the Chief Constable. It is also government policy that the police authority, and, in future, the board should be a regulator of the police service, holding it to account and ensuring community consultation. That is not to say that the authority or the board should not have powers to ensure proper financial accountability. The police authority has them and the board will have them. That is in line with what was recommended in the Patten report. Were we to accept the amendment we would be returning to a situation which Patten describes in paragraph 5.13 of his report as "seriously flawed".
  The Government believe that it is important for the Chief Constable to be responsible for the detailed aspect of financial management and for the board to concentrate on strategic issues—the budget, the objectives, planning and measuring performance, securing improvements in service delivery and efficiency and holding to account. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, I would say that that holding to account is not, as she fears, holding to account to the Government, but holding to account to the board. Accordingly, I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said. I am not entirely convinced that the Government understand the complexity of what will happen if Clause 12 is not amended. The police authority can currently audit expenditure in any area of policing activity. The Chief Constable is very happy with that situation. Therefore, the amendment at Clause 12(7) will enshrine that right in legislation. There is to be no statutory post of
  64
  secretary and chief executive to the new board. That means that some accounting responsibility can move from the board to the Chief Constable.
  I am concerned about that. I shall look carefully at what the noble Baroness said. We will almost certainly return to the issue at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Establishment of district policing partnerships]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 8, line 1. leave out ("and Schedule 3").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment. The definition of "district council" in Clause 14 does not need to refer to Schedule 3 because Schedule 3 has its own interpretation paragraph in paragraph 1. I beg to move.
  Lord Fitt: Clause 14 is one of the more controversial parts of the Bill in Northern Ireland. Clause 14 sets up district partnerships. While district partnerships will be totally acceptable to 70 or 80 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland, there are a few areas which at present are dominated by paramilitary organisations. Attention has been drawn to the fact that those who have a criminal conviction or those who have been associated with paramilitary organisations will be unacceptable to district partnerships. In Northern Ireland there are so many people who have been involved in terrorist activity but they have never been convicted. The reason that they have never been convicted is that the police were unable to bring them before the courts because they could not get evidence against them.
  Everyone in the district would know that someone had been involved in terrorist activity. What would happen if that person applied to the district council to be placed on the district policing board? What form of vetting would take place? Would the district council be able to take into account what information it had that such and such a person had been involved in terrorist activity and then not allow that person to be part of the partnership? In line with what my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said earlier, would that person be able to say, "Nothing has been proved against me. My human rights are being taken away as I have not been brought before the courts"?
  The Government have to be very, very careful about who may be appointed to district police partnerships. I know that my noble friend Lady Blood will seek to move an amendment on this matter which I shall support. At the moment there are liaison committees. They should he commended for what they have had to do in difficult circumstances over the past number of years. I warn the Government to be very careful about the personnel who may be appointed to district police partnerships.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I know that the RUC has already done immensely successful work in the community but I very much share the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who is much better informed on these matters than I could ever be. I should like to quote one incident which was recently reported in the press. The CCTV cameras in Londonderry were damaged and removed and the very courageous, I think, SDLP local representative said that they should be restored because their absence damaged the possibility of catching criminals. The Sinn Fein people said, "Not so. We will police this area. To restore those cameras would help the RUC. We will not work with the RUC and therefore no one should restore the CCTV cameras. They represent the RUC and police power". I can see that such incidents could occur very frequently. Therefore, we need to be very careful about this matter.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may make the following suggestion. When we reach group 10 on the groupings list, a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Glentoran, and other noble Lords concerning the issue of the membership of the district police partnerships will be debated. Perhaps I may reply at that point. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has come in slightly out of order.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [District policing partnerships]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 were marshalled incorrectly. The correct order is Amendment No. 54 first.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Blood Baroness Blood moved Amendment No. 54:
  Page 50, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Board shall ensure that, as far as is practicable, in appointing independent members at least one shall be drawn from existing Community Police Liaison Committee members nominated.").
  The noble Baroness said: With the Committee's permission, I shall speak to the two amendments to Schedule 3 standing in my name. The reason for doing so is obvious. Both are about one issue and similar information surrounds both amendments.
  A lot has been written, spoken and sometimes implied about Northern Ireland and we have seen many changes in the past four or five years. Indeed, there is a Chinese proverb which states, "May you live in interesting times". No one could deny that in Northern Ireland we are living in the most interesting times and the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill has had its fair share of public exposure and debate in recent months, not least in your Lordships' Committee today. I find it strange that I am moving this amendment in view of our first debate today about sonic parts of the community accepting the RUC and other parts of the community rejecting them.
  In the world today we often express ourselves with an abbreviation of the title of the organisations to which we are referring. For example, we refer to the different departments within government by italics only. It has become a form of shorthand that we are all used to. If I were to mention in this Chamber the IRA, the UDA, the UVF, the RUC and the NIO, most if not all Members of the Committee would know to whom I was referring. But in these amendments the group of people referred to is known as the CPL C. Few other than those of us from Northern Ireland who sit in this House would understand to whom that refers.
  The simple answer is that these committees or groups are made up of "ordinary" people—I do not like to use that word but it is the only way I can find to describe them— who live in local neighbourhoods, who have wanted to have an input in their own areas. Many have taken great personal risk to do so, during times when it has been very dangerous within both communities—yes, both communities—to show such an interest or involvement in such affairs. Despite the risk of being a member of such committees, the reality is that across Northern Ireland "ordinary" people have felt that it is a risk worth taking and that has been demonstrated through their active involvement over the past number of years.
  The setting up of the CPLCs has been to the advantage of both the RUC and the local communities within the areas they operate from. Many have benefited from the formation of the CPLCs with issues such as crime and vandalism. Community safety and sometimes even the breakdown of community relations have been successfully addressed due to the enormous amount of good work carried out by the CPLCs. Unfortunately, most of this work has gone unnoticed.
  The general public in Northern Ireland perceives the CPLCs as committees made up of people who want to make a contribution to the community within which they live. The RUC highly values this contribution along with the ongoing work and commitment of the CPLCs. Indeed, the police authority funds some of the work carried out by these groups. Under Schedule 3, with reference to the recruitment of the DPPs and also to the independents on the Police Board, I feel it would greatly enhance the operation of both if the experience that has been built up within the CPLCs was utilised and not lost. It would also be a very positive way of recognising the sterling work carried out over the years by the "ordinary" people of Northern Ireland, people who rarely are acknowledged let alone praised for being an essential component within the peace process.
  The composite effect of the two amendments is to ensure that, as far as possible, a member of the current network of CPLCs attains an independent seat on each of the 29 DPPs that it is proposed will be established throughout Northern Ireland.
  The basis of the argument in support of these amendments is that there exists already a network of police/community committees in Northern Ireland—CPLCs. The committees perform a similar role and comprise similar memberships to those proposed for

  67
  the DPPs. As I have said, the CPLCs form a network of committees throughout Northern Ireland. They have been in operation for the past 10 years. During that time they have made an extremely valuable contribution to community and police relations.
  Perhaps I may finish with a few statistics. There are 152 CPLCs based locally throughout Northern Ireland. The strength of these committees lies in the fact that they are made up of local people who represent local community and business interests, local statutory bodies such as the Housing Executive, the Department of the Environment, district councillors, local voluntary organisations, Churches, youth and ethnic minority interests, to name only a few. This type of structure is exactly that which has been proposed within the Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for the DPPs. Indeed, one might question the need for another layer of committees.
  I fully support the efforts being made by the Government to involve local, democratically elected representatives in the policing of Northern Ireland. I hope that the DPPs are successful in that respect. However, in my heart I know also that, given the new beginning we are to establish in Northern Ireland, this is an area in which the CPLCs have real and valuable experience. Given the opportunity, they could achieve a great deal. If the role and membership of the CPLCs and those proposed for the new DPPs are compared, the similarities are obvious. I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Hylton: I rise to support the amendment. I believe that the most longstanding community police liaison committee is in the city of Derry. It dates back to the time of the commission. I had some contact with it a few years ago. So far as I know, it is still in existence and is still doing good work, despite the kind of problems outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these amendments.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I rise to support this amendment. We need to retain a certain degree of continuity in this area. It is not enough merely to discuss new beginnings and, in so doing, discard all that has gone before. I have been informed that up to 30 per cent of the membership of community police liaison committees is Roman Catholic. For that reason, it is extremely important to ensure that we give credit to the hard work and degree of risk to which those members have been exposed in their effort to guide the police forces in those areas.
  It would be quite wrong if members had to canvass wildly in order to secure positions on the new DPPs ahead of those who may have connections with terrorist organisations. I strongly support the suggestion that members of the CPLCs should be given an opportunity to serve on the new DPPs.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I, too, am very sympathetic towards the amendment. The community police liaison committees have done a great deal of good
  68
  work. Furthermore, they represent a vast amount of painstaking effort on behalf both of the RUC and the memberships to build them up into effective bodies. Given the delicate situation, it would be a great shame to throw away that effort and experience. I hope that the membership will continue, to as great a degree as possible, into the DPPs.
  On the question of abbreviations, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, that I prefer CPLC to DPP. It seems to me that "DPP" could easily be confused with the abbreviation used when referring to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is an undesirable set of initials in this context. However, I shall not oppose it.
  Lord LairdI wish to add my support to the amendment so ably proposed by my noble friend and colleague Lady Blood. For some years I was a member of a community police liaison committee and I saw at first hand the extremely good work being done. Furthermore, I support fully the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. Relationships between senior members of the RUC and members of local communities have been carefully nurtured and have matured over many years.
  As I look back on my experience as a member of a committee, it is only now—religion has become a factor in policing—that I realise that probably up to 40 per cent of those serving on the committee were those who would be regarded in Northern Ireland as members of the Roman Catholic community. We were delighted to see them on the committee and they played a full part. It seems like a long time ago, but of course I am speaking of only a couple of years ago—before Patten. At that time, religion and policing did not seem to have the same significance. I totally support the amendment.
  Lord Fitt: The noble Baroness has drawn the attention of the Committee to what I regard as an extremely important issue; namely, the membership of the community police liaison committees. I stated earlier that many of these committees have been operating in non-controversial areas.
  However, we have to bear in mind that there are certain little pockets of terrorists. I can recall one immediately; namely, one that operated in Carrickmore in County Tyrone. The liaison committee worked in conjunction with Monsignor Dennis Faul. They were doing everything they could to bring about normal relations within their area. The committee met in a hotel in Omagh. During the meeting, a crowd of people, led by a member of Sinn Fein, entered the room and wrecked it. The meeting was broken up, documents were stolen and the purpose of the meeting was lost. The saddest element of this story is that, only a few weeks later, the person who led the attack on the meeting was elected as a member of the council with an overwhelming majority. That gives an indication of the difficulties faced by the liaison committees.
  As the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, has outlined, the committees have demonstrated a high level of courage over the years. I am not sure whether the

  69
  Carrickmore committee has met again, but I doubt whether it has, so terrified were the members by the abuse and hostility demonstrated that night in the hotel. The greater the proportion of membership to the DPPs drawn from the most responsible elements of the CPLCs, the better it will be for Northern Ireland.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I, too, have sympathy with the thought that lies behind these amendments. It recognises the valuable contribution made by the CPLCs. However, there are practical and technical difficulties here, the first of which is one of definition.
  First, no such entity as a community police liaison community exists in law, although it might be possible to get round that. Secondly, the amendments assume that the CPLC members will, in effect, always be the best candidates. That may very well be the case, but equally it may not. The Government's answer to the problem is this. They will include a requirement in the code of practice, which will be issued by the Secretary of State under Schedule 3, for councils to notify the CPLCs in their areas when advertising for independents. Those members may then apply, along with others. Given their experience, they are likely to have an advantage.
  In the light of that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to accept the Government's approach to this, and to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Blood: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I realise that problems need to be overcome here. However, before I withdraw the amendment, will it be possible to have sight of the draft code of practice as it relates to the appointment of independents? When will it be made available? I ask this because we are tabling amendments at a point when we have only half of the picture.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I regret that the code of practice is not yet available for consideration. However, the Secretary of State will be bound by the provisions of the Bill to consult the board, councils and the equality commission on its contents. I am sure that those bodies will make similar points to those put forward by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Blood: I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  [Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  7 p.m.
  Lord Rogan Lord Rogan moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 51, line 26, leave out ("in the case of an independent member.").
  The noble Lord said: The differentiation between political and independent members of DPPs is neither logical nor proper. Amendment No. 56 seeks to ensure
  70
  that a member, whether political or independent, could be removed from a DPP for failing to disclose a criminal conviction prior to appointment.
  As the Bill stands, both political and independent members can be removed for various reasons, including committing criminal offences while a member of a DPP, but only independent members can be removed for failure to disclose a previous conviction. There is no sensible reason for this. I beg to move.
  Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. As the Minister is aware, we, on this side of the Committee, are not in favour of a number of the differentiations in the Bill between political and independent members, particularly when it comes to selections and sackings, if 1 can use that terminology.
  I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57, 61 and 62, and, by definition, Amendment No. 69. 'The reasoning behind Amendments Nos. 57 and 61 is twofold: it is to prevent convicted terrorists serving on district policing partnerships, whether as political or independent members, and to prevent representatives of parties that are linked to terrorist organisations which have failed to decommission from serving on DPPs.
  We support DPPs in principle—there is no doubt about that—but we are very aware of the likely shape and style of DPPs in the different local authorities across the country. We are talking in the context of 26 different local authorities for 1.5 million people after 30 years of polarisation in Northern Ireland. The reasoning behind these amendments is therefore the same as we applied to the main policing board. The arguments are exactly the same.
  Under the Bill, district councils—all 26 of them—will be obliged to establish a district policing partnership consisting of either 15, 17 or 19 members. In each case, the majority of the DPP will be political members, the remainder independents. That means that in a number of district council areas, members of Sinn Fein will be automatically entitled to membership of a DPP. In Belfast, members of the small loyalist parties will be entitled to membership.
  The situation is made much worse in Belfast by the proposal—which we shall come to later with other amendments—to split the area into four sub-groups. We would have Sinn Fein dominant in west Belfast; the UVF and the loyalist UDA dominant in north Belfast; the UDA and the UVF dominant in east Belfast; and only south Belfast not in the hands of paramilitaries. So, to all intents and purposes, in one sweep we would hand over the DPPs and policing to the various groups of paramilitaries and their elected members.
  Imagine what would have happened in the summer when we had the trouble with "Mad Dog" Adair and the on-going loyalist feud. The local district police commander would have been answerable in the DPP to representatives of the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party—and yet these are

  71
  the parties which represent the UVF and the UFF, the organisations which are carrying out the violence and against whom the police, presumably, hope to make arrests. What about the situations in South Armagh and Strabane? How does the noble and learned Lord expect the DPPs to operate in those areas where Sinn Fein is the dominant player? After all, Sinn Fein has yet to state whether it will support the police at all, even if every amendment to the Bill proposed by the nationalists is carried. I have personally asked the chairman of Sinn Fein what is his attitude. The Minister knows exactly what is his attitude and what he has said to others in the past: he will not commit. It is commitment we want, and Sinn Fein will not give it.
  In these circumstances, how can it be right for convicted killers to sit on DPPs? How can it be right for parties which maintain their own private armies and carry out their own forms of summary execution, with nails and baseball bats, to be put in a position of sitting in judgment on the police? The situation hardly bears thinking about.
  But we have to think about it to understand it. We have to go into the geography and into the numbers of each single district council and look at what the political make-up of each DPP will be.
  The Government have recognised the concerns by disqualifying people with criminal or terrorist convictions from serving as independents on the DPPs. But we have already heard the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, tell us about the members of terrorist organisations who are killers and murderers but who have not been brought to trial and convicted, for the reasons we heard earlier.
  In our view the disqualification should include political as well as independent members. The Government may argue that political members are there as of right because they have been elected, and it is true that there is a disqualifying period of, I believe, five years before someone convicted of a terrorist offence can serve as a councillor. I do not subscribe to the Government's view that an elected representative has a God-given right through the democratic process to sit on a DPP. I accept their right to sit on a council or in the Assembly as an elected member, but for them to sit on a DPP or a police board has different connotations which I do not accept.
  We do not object in principle to them being given a role, but we do object to that role being carried out by anyone who has been convicted of heinous terrorist offences or who belongs to a party that represents a terrorist organisation intent on holding on to its weapons of murder. Our amendments will stop that happening. It will place the onus on the terrorist related parties to demonstrate their democratic bone fides. We urge the Government to accept the amendment. It concerns one of the areas of the Bill about which my party feels particularly strongly.
  Amendment No. 62 concerns quorums for DPPs. The membership of a DPP, as I understand it, could range from 15 to 19. We feel that five members is too low for a quorum and could result in unrepresentative
  72
  decisions being taken, particularly in the light of what I have just expounded. I hope that the Minister will agree that, in this situation — bearing in mind the arithmetic and the likely make-up of the DPPs in their early days—five is too small a quorum.
  Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may speak to my Amendment No. 60 which is in this group. I am sorry to say that it is not well drafted, if only because it does not decide the question of whose convictions are compatible and whose are not. It might have been better and more elegant had I simply sought to omit from Schedule 3 lines 46 and 48 on page 51 of the Bill.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the comments made recently on this issue by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the official government-appointed part of the structure for ensuring so far as possible that human rights are respected. The commission states:
  "The Bill disqualifies a person who has previously been convicted of any offence and has had passed on him or her a term of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, from being appointed as an independent member to a DPP. The Commission is concerned about the equality and human rights implications of this prohibition.
  "The NIHRC is of the view that even though former prisoners have, by definition, paid their debt to society by undergoing a period of loss of liberty, they still face considerable difficulties in reintegrating into society once they leave prison. The NIHRC believes that protecting the rights of ex-prisoners can play a useful role in reintegrating ex-prisoners from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland into a new, trusting and pluralistic society. That is what the Good Friday Agreement itself calls for. The approach proposed in this Bill also"—
  this is most important—
  "runs counter to the spirit and sometimes the letter of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (NI) Order 1978.
  "The NIHRC considers that disqualification of people who have been convicted of offences, irrespective of whether or not their sentence was suspended, from becoming independent members of a DPP is a bar to the reintegration of prisoners into society and an impediment in working towards an inclusive society".
  In support of that view, I can say that I personally know quite a large number of ex-prisoners who have totally renounced violence and who make a positive contribution not only to community relations but to all kinds of peace-building work, on all sides of barriers and peace lines. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord's response to this group of amendments, which I shall study in Hansard. I apologise to him because I shall have to leave quite soon in order to take part in entertaining some visiting parliamentarians.
  Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has spelt out graphically what will happen in three of the DPPs in Belfast and in one or two elsewhere. They will certainly be run by paramilitaries who have connections with the councillors. It will be a disaster. That will be a pity, because the principle behind DPPs is excellent. If they can be worked by law-abiding people, that is splendid. But the present proposal, with the base of members coming from the local council, guarantees disaster. They will contrive

  73
  the most devilish schemes to wreck the police service in those areas. The Minister should look into this matter before the next stage of the Bill. I am sure that a better approach can be devised than what is presently proposed in the Bill.
  7.15 p.m.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I support this group of amendments in general and Amendment No. 57 in particular. The Minister wrote to me after the debate at Second Reading:
  "I should point out that DPPs will not have the same access to sensitive information as the Policing Board".
  The policing board is Province-wide. We all recognise that the DPP will not have access to such sensitive material as might occur on a Province-wide basis. But DPPs are at a local level, and policing in communities works from the bottom up.
  I have been a member of a local sub-divisional action committee (SubDAC). The point about such committees is that they discuss everyday activities in an area. Inevitably, matters arise concerning crime. We know how terrorist organisations have leant towards crime, and Members of the Committee will have read about diesel smuggling and other such activities which are prevalent in the Border area where I Whether we like it or not, such information is sensitive. If we want those who are on the boards to contribute—as I believe they can and should, and hope that they will—to local policing and to the acceptability of policing in general, they must be able to discuss sensitive information, some of which will be in a grey area. I refer not merely to raiding the local shop for sweets or money, but to the known areas of "cross-contamination" between the normal criminal fraternity and that of terrorism. For matters under discussion to be meaningful, they will have to be sensitive.
  This brings up the subject of vetting. In normal circumstances, vetting—whether for the Foreign Office, the Security Forces or various other positions at different levels that give people access to sensitive information—does not look purely at whether a person has been convicted of an offence. It looks at a person's lifestyle and associates, and at whether or not there is a probability that a person may be persuaded or blackmailed into exposing that sensitive information. I support the tightening up that is suggested in the amendments—and to an even greater extent, in that we must avoid allowing people in who have overtly and obviously been convicted of certain offences.
  Lord Monson: The amendments in this large group come from all quarters of the Committee. I find myself in the unusual position of supporting them all, with the possible exception of Amendment No. 62, about which I have no strong feelings either way.
  I support in principle the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Let us take as an example a solid citizen in his mid-50s who would like to join a DPP. However, in his rather wild students days
  74
  35 years earlier he got into some sort of scrape—perhaps he was a rugby player who, in a hard fought game, took a swing at someone in the opposing scrum and broke that person's nose, and was justifiably sentenced to a month or two in prison. Or let us suppose that he had brought back a small amount of cannabis from Amsterdam for a friend and been sentenced to a short spell in prison or received a suspended sentence. He might now be a pillar of the community in a responsible professional job. IS it right that those previous events should disqualify him from membership altogether? Surely not.
  Perhaps I may take the opportunity to point out an error in the Government's drafting at line 24 on page 51 of the Bill. I submit that the comma is in the wrong place. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and his noble friends have the comma in the right place in the first line of Amendment No. 57, which reads:
  "The Board, or the council".
  In line 24 on page 51 of the Bill the comma should come after "board" and not after "council". I merely draw that to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
  Lord Fitt: I spoke somewhat out of turn on this issue earlier. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran is by far one of the most serious amendments proposed. A person needs to come from Northern Ireland to realise its significance. Heading (b) in the sub-paragraph reads:
  "the political party of which he is a member is linked to an organisation that has failed to begin the decommissioning of arms and explosives in a manner verified by the Commission referred to in section 7".
  When we hear the term "decommissioning", we immediately think of the IRA. But there are other organisations in Northern Ireland that have not even attempted to decommission. They have said clearly that they have no intention of doing so. It is a question of "You jump first". These loyalist organisations are saying, "We're not going to decommission if the IRA is not going to decommission." In turn, the IRA is saying, "We need to hold on to our arms because the loyalist have their arms." So we have a ridiculous roundabout situation.
  At present, the UVF, which has been guilty of some of the most atrocious murders throughout the past 30 years, has two members elected to the Stormont Assembly. The Government might well say, "They were elected to the Assembly, so who are we to deny them a place on a partnership board?" By the way, if we followed the logic of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who, I am sorry to say, is no longer in his place, Johnny Adair could have been appointed two months ago to a police partnership before be broke some of the rules. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about someone being debarred because he had smoked cannabis at one time. Well, if someone were to be debarred from a police board, he could always apply to become a Tory MP!
  The amendment illustrates the tremendous difficulty involved. Sinn Fein will not decommission, the UVF will not decommission. Yet those of us who

  75
  come from Northern Ireland know that there are people in those areas who have not been brought before a court. Then there is my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, with his strict interpretation of the laws of evidence, and so on. If a person known to have been involved in terrorist activity makes an application to become a member of a DPP and the latter has been told about that person by people who live in the area and who will be affected by the partnership, who does the DPP listen to? Again, I pose the question: is the person so rejected in a position to say, "My human rights have been abused, because no one has convicted me"? But that person, having been brought before a court, could be guilty of murder. Some people underestimate the difficulties involved with this legislation—
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. However, he is rather giving the impression that I put forward some proposition that is inconsistent with what he is saying. I have no recollection of ever having done such a thing.
  Lord Fitt: I am very glad to hear that. I support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, along with the other speakers from Northern Ireland. I realise that it is difficult for many noble Lords who have never been to Northern Ireland, or who have only been there on a short visit, to understand the situation. They do not have to live with the consequences of what has been happening. Many representations are made to us. During the summer I was in what is regarded as a peaceful part of Northern Ireland, Ballycastle in north Antrim. Yet every day that I went out, people were talking to me about the setting up of these police partnerships.
  The Minister may not have a answer for this, but there is an area in west Belfast known as Twinbrook and an adjoining area known as Poleglass. The question is: should they be in the DPP relating to Belfast or should those two districts be taken into the Lisburn Rural Council? Their whole culture, their whole ethos, has nothing to do with Lisburn, but it has a great deal to do with what is happening in west Belfast.
  I know that the Government are trying to create a situation whereby the community will be involved in protecting its own citizens. If the DPPs do come into operation, this amendment makes it very clear that they would not be able to exist under this legislation.
  Lord Vivian: I rise to express my support for my noble friend's amendments, Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Fitt, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, have said. This is an extremely important amendment. If criminals or former terrorists are involved in these committees in any way, it is clear to me—and, indeed, it must be clear to most people—that that can only undermine and weaken the authority of the police force, thus making its task
  76
  exceptionally difficult or virtually impossible. Those are the reasons why I support my noble friend's amendments.
  Lord Laird: I join other noble Lords in supporting Amendments Nos. 56 and 57. It seems to be lacking in logic to exclude some people from membership of the DPPs while allowing some people, for the same reason, to be members of such boards simply because they are political appointments. After all, if you have a fairly major type of conviction involving a custodial sentence, that stops you becoming a member of the police force, a member of the judiciary and a member of the Bar. It also prevents people taking up jury service for a period. Therefore, as these partnerhips will play a significant role in policing in certain areas, it seems that anyone with a conviction of a serious nature should be excluded.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 56 and 58, which seek to apply the removal provisions that presently apply to independent members to political members who may fail to make a disclosure in relation to a conviction for a criminal office in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. The amendments represent a significant difference between, on the one hand, the Government and, on the other hand, the noble Lords proposing these amendments.
  The Government are following the approach of the Good Friday agreement of inclusivity for elected representatives, whereas the amendments now before the Committee seek to place hurdles in the way of appointment of district councillors to DPPs. It is worth pointing out that councillors are already subject to a criminal record test in that they may not be appointed in the first place if they have a conviction of imprisonment of three months or more in the past five years. In other words, if they cannot satisfy that hurdle, they cannot become councillors. However, once that test has been satisfied, then, as far as concerns political membership of the DPPs, it is a matter for the district council. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press these amendments. I give way.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way, but there is a point here that needs clarification. If all the recently released paramilitary prisoners have done their three months, I take it that they are ineligible to become councillors?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As I read it, the test is whether they have had a conviction of imprisonment of three months or more during the past five years. The relevant five years runs from the date of conviction. That is the information I have at present, but perhaps I may check the position. I understand entirely the noble Lord's question.
  I turn now to Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 61. The proposers of those amendments, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, seek to increase the removal and disqualification criteria for membership of the DPPs. I know that these issues were debated at some

  77
  length in Committee and, again, on Report in another place. We believe that the amendments seek to introduce removal and disqualification criteria which are disproportionate to the nature of the powers of the bodies being established. Patten made a recommendation in relation to them following directly from his commission's terms of reference, which calls for,
  "clearly established arrangements enabling local people and their political representatives to articulate their views and concerns about policing, subject to safeguards".
  We believe that there are a number of safeguards included in the Bill which are proportionate. These safeguards include, first, the existing disqualification and removal provisions in Schedule 3, paragraphs 7 and 8; secondly, the provision enabling the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on appointments of independent members; thirdly, the appointments being made by the board—Patten recommended that it only approve them—and the provision in Clause 15 enabling the Secretary of State to require a council to act in compliance with Schedule 3, failing which the Secretary of State may empower the board to establish the DPP in a council area. As I say, we already have safeguards which are measured against the powers given to these bodies. We think that those safeguards are proportionate.
  I turn to Amendment No. 60 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is not present at the moment. Correspondence has been exchanged with him on the amendment. It has been explained to him that the Government think that the provision is appropriate and justified. It cannot be right that those convicted of an offence resulting in imprisonment, whether suspended or not, should be appointed to a body dealing in policing.
  If this amendment is aimed at allowing greater flexibility for those convicted of terrorist offences to be members of DPPs, then I would say to the noble Lord that Patten clearly did not regard the time as right for this. The Government continue to hold the view that the time is not right. In saying that I do not seek to rule out the prospect of any change in the future. The Government hope to see the day when sensitivities such as this recede and certain convictions could be relegated in the selection procedures for those bodies. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment No. 60. As he is not present at the moment, that will not be difficult.
  I turn to Amendment No. 62 which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. Amendment No. 62 seeks to set the quorum of a DPP meeting at seven instead of the five required in the Bill. I point out that these bodies are linked to and effectively formed from councils and Schedule 2, paragraph 4 of the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972 provides that council business in Northern Ireland cannot be transacted unless at least one quarter of the whole number of councillors is present. The figure of five for DPPs would be at least a quarter (they may have a
  78
  membership between 15 and 19). I ask the noble Lords and the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
  As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the test for councillors relates to any offence for which a sentence of imprisonment of three months or more has been passed within a period of five years immediately preceding the day on which a councillor is elected.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Monson: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he saying that someone awarded a very short sentence, suspended or otherwise, 35 or 40 years ago, and who has since led a totally blameless life is unsuitable for all time to become a member of a DPP?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That is the effect of the Bill.
  Baroness Blatch: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in regard to the five-year rule, is he saying that someone convicted five and a half years ago for, say, a 10 year sentence would qualify since having been released?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: He would qualify to be a councillor under the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. I referred to the provisions that prevent someone from being a councillor. If you pass that test under the 1972 Act which I described twice to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, you would qualify to become a councillor.
  Baroness Blatch: I understand what the noble and learned Lord says but I am talking about the seriousness of an offence. If someone five and a half years ago committed a serious offence, can that person qualify as having passed the five-year test?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: What I am describing to the noble Baroness is what someone has to do to become a councillor. Those provisions are laid down in the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 1972. If, within the period of five years preceding the day on which the councillor is elected he has had a sentence passed on him of more than three months' imprisonment, he is disqualified from becoming a councillor. Five years is the relevant period.
  Lord Rogan: I thank the Minister for his comments. The kindest thing I can say is that I have taken note of them. I shall consider them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 57 to 62 not moved.]
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Default of council]:
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead Lord Molyneaux of Killead moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 8, line 8, leave out ("section 14(1)") and insert ("any part of Part III of this Act").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 63, I wish to speak also to the amendments grouped with it.
  Amendment No. 63 widens the defaults by a district council that the Secretary of State can remedy. Part III of the Bill is concerned with all matters related to DPPs. I wish we did not have this confusion with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who I hope feels suitably honoured. Clause 14(1) applied only to a council failing to establish a DPP. The amendment would include matters such as the council failing to arrange for a DPP report to be published and the council failing to send a copy of a DPP report to the board.
  Amendment No. 65 seeks to insert the words,
  "to formulate a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder in the area".
  That is based on Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which is in force in England and Wales. The Crime and Disorder Act refers to a body equivalent to a DPP.
  Amendment No. 68 seeks to add the words,
  "Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it shall he the duty of each district policing partnership to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can, to prevent crime and disorder in its area".
  That seems to be a laudable directive.
  Amendment No. 67 defines the function of the DPP, removing the ambiguity which appears in paragraph (e) of Clause 16(1). We do not wish a new function to be the nationalist/republican demand of a budget and private security firms for some policing functions.
  Amendment No. 69 states:
  "Page 9, line 5, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("comply with").
  It would appear much easier to comply with a code of practice than a code of ethics. In Committee in another place the Government indicated that they would reconsider what is now Clause 32(4) in order to force the police to comply with their code of ethics. I have not detected such an amendment on Report in the other place. However, the Government may intend to change the code of ethics to "be guided by" rather than "have regard to". I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I support Amendment No. 63. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 70 and 71, standing in my name and those of my noble friends which are grouped with Amendment No. 63.
  Amendment No. 67 is a paving amendment.
  I hope that the purpose of Amendment No. 70 is clear. We have not had much joy out of the Government today. We have had a little sympathy
  80
  occasionally, but no movement. However, I am hoping for better luck on these two amendments, partly because I am pushing at a door which the Secretary of State himself has half opened.
  So far as Amendment No. 70 is concerned, it is clear that the purpose of DPPs is primarily to be consultative rather than to have executive responsibilities and the amendment is designed to ensure that the operational independence of the district police commanders is preserved. It is well worth making this explicit in the Bill and underlining the point that politicians and others on the DPP cannot interfere with the operational independence of the commander of the district. We want to take politics out of policing, particularly local policing.
  Sometimes, district commanders have to make difficult decisions about all sorts of things and how they are going to deal with them—not least parades. It is important that DPPs stick to their consultative role and do not try to take over from the district commanders. They can, of course, as liaison committees have in the past, play an extremely valuable role in such problem areas. I think that the Secretary of State has repeatedly said that this is intended to be the case, so I hope the Government can accept that amendment, or something like it.
  Regarding Amendment No. 71, your Lordships will recall that one of the controversial aspects of the Patten report was the proposal to allow district councils the power to raise up to 3p in the £ to buy in additional policing services within their area. It was said that some of that money might be spent on things like CCTV, although as a matter of fact the councils already have the power, and indeed use it, to spend money on those sorts of things to the great advantage of the public.
  However, the Patten report also made clear that the money could be used for the hiring of security firms to carry out police-type duties. The implications of that, particularly in certain parts of Northern Ireland, are extremely worrying. There are parts where racketeering and extortion exist, and it is extremely difficult for the police to deal with these. There are parts of Northern Ireland where paramilitaries of all persuasions are attempting to "police" areas of the Province, and if certain district councils had the power they might seem to be giving backing to this by using the power.
  I hope we are pushing at a half-open door here. The Secretary of State said on 19th January that he did not intend to extend the function of the DPPs in this way but did not rule it out entirely. He said that the function was being considered by the criminal justice review, and that would be still to come. So this idea has not been entirely buried. But it is, I believe, it is a bad and dangerous idea in the Northern Ireland context. That is why it seems to me right to put something into the Bill along the lines of Amendment No. 71. I would not necessarily insist on the precise wording of these amendments—it is the thought which counts—but I do believe that these are provisions which should appear in the Bill.
  7.45 p.m.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I rise to speak about Amendment No. 64, which is very similar to that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. This amendment will give the Secretary of State the power to intervene where the DPP is not exercising its powers and functions properly.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I intervene simply to mention my Amendment No. 66, which is included in this group. The principle which it raises was discussed earlier, and so I say simply, without prejudice to that principle, that I do not propose to move that amendment.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 63, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and Amendment No, 64 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, are further examples of the way in which people are trying to pull the Government in different directions. On the one hand, there are complaints of the overbearing approach by Government and of too much control in the hands of the Secretary of State and interference by him in accountability arrangements. On the other hand, we are asked in these amendments to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether or not a DPP has adequately discharged any of its functions and, if not, to direct it to do so.
  This must be wrong in principle. I ask noble Lords to consider, for example, the powers of these bodies which are of an explanatory or consultative nature, and to compare them with the powers of the board. There is no call for the Secretary of State to have a similar override or to call for a provision for the latter. This is not to say that the DPPs are going to be able to act with impunity. For a start, they have statutory functions and the board can issue a code of practice covering the exercise of their functions. In addition, of course, councillors have to perform to hold on to their seats and members of the DPP may be removed by the board or the council, with the board's approval, if they do not comply with the terms of their appointment.
  In short, the Government have sought to take a balanced approach and to give the Secretary of State powers and provide safeguards where we believe them to be necessary and justified. Regarding the requirement for a default power on councils to establish DPPs on general functions and obligations, these are matters for the policing board to monitor and manage in conjunction with the councils, who will have been consulted on the board's code on functions and will want it and DPPs to function effectively. I would therefore ask the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press Amendments Nos. 63 and 64.
  Amendments Nos. 65 and 68 seek to place responsibility for formulating crime and disorder strategies on the DPPs. While the Government share their enthusiasm for strategies to tackle crime and disorder and recognise that their proposed aproach is similar to that already in place in England and
  82
  Wales, we would ask noble Lords not to pursue their amendments. That is because this issue is a key part of the criminal justice review, on which consultation has just been completed and on which the Government will be announcing a decision shortly.
  In addition, arrangements made for England and Wales should not be seen as precisely applicable in Northern Ireland as the situation is different here between the powers of councils in Northern Ireland and local authorities in England and Wales. In brief, local authorities have powers in the areas covered by those structures and councils and DPPs do not. I therefore ask noble Lords not to pursue Amendments Nos. 65 and 68.
  Amendment No. 66 is similar to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord in regard to Clause 3, and he has indicated that he is not moving—
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I think his attention was distracted. In order to prevent a misunderstanding, I have already said that I will not move this amendment.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have got that point, thank you. Turning to Amendment No. 67, the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Cope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, want to remove Clause 16 (1)(e). I suspect they view this as a Trojan horse, given their later amendments. I can assure them that this is really a technical provision and a simple acknowledgment that legislation resulting from the criminal justice review could confer additional powers on the DPPs. The provision in paragraph (e) would mean that if this happened the Bill would not need to be specifically amended at that stage. Obviously nothing could change without a statutory provision which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore ask noble Lords not to pursue their amendment.
  Amendment No. 70, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is aimed at ensuring operational independence. It was something that Patten recognised. Patten specifically said at paragraph 6.21 of his report that it is the chief constable's right and duty to take operational decisions and nobody should direct him how to conduct an operation. He said that police officers must be free to exercise their responsibilities. This, again, is an issue which arose in another place, and I can assure noble Lords that our view there that operational independence should be preserved remains.
  It is worth pointing out, too, that DPPs are consultative bodies. They can ask the police to account to the community for their actions. The police accept and would welcome the opportunity to do this for the benefit of policing. The code of practice to be issued by the board under Clause 19 will set out in detail what is expected of the police. But neither this provision nor the one in the code will affect the operational independence of officers.

  83
  I believe that we are at one on that issue. With the assurance I have given, I ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment No. 70.
  Amendment No. 71 would provide that DPPs should not have any power to raise money for the purpose of buying in any additional policing services within the district. There is no need for such an amendment. It is unnecessary. The Government, recognising the widespread concerns about the Patten recommendation on this, did not include it in the Bill, so they have no such power.
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already made clear that the DPPs would not have this fund-raising power. He has said that he would review it in the light of the criminal justice review conclusions and the operation of DPPs. The Bill does not give DPPs such a power and the provision saying that they should not have them is unnecessary. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press Amendment No. 71.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Perhaps I should concede that the noble and learned Lord may be justified in complaining that he is being pulled in two different directions. However, he has indicated that that had the effect of achieving a balance. I hope that that balance will be sustained and maintained throughout the remaining clauses. On that basis, I generously withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [General functions of district policing partnerships]:
  [Amendments Nos. 65 to 71 not moved.]
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.50 p.m. and inform the House that unfortunately, despite this delay, it appears unlikely that the commission can occur during the dinner break.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 7.53 to 8.50 p.m.]
  Clause 17 [Annual report by district policing partnership to council]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 72:
  Page 9, line 9, at end insert—
  ("( ) When a district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1), it shall at the same time send a copy of the report to the Board.").
  The noble Baroness said: Under Clause 17, at the end of the financial year each district policing partnership is obliged to submit a general report to its district council. The Bill provides that a copy should be sent to the policing board by the council. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland expressed concern that a council might accidentally or otherwise delay
  84
  sending a copy of the report. It argued that the DPP should send a copy to the policing board at the same time as it sends one to the council.
  We have said throughout that we will consider constructive suggestions. We have accepted that suggestion and have tabled Amendments Nos. 72 and 74 accordingly. I am pleased to say that the Government have anticipated Amendment No. 73. I hope that it will not be pressed, given the changes that we are proposing.
  Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 to Clause 18, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, provide that the DPPs may report on any matter. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in response to similar amendments in another place, they are not necessary. The clause simply empowers the board to require reports. It does not prevent DPPs from reporting on their functions. Given that assurance, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
  Amendment No. 78, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cooke, Lord Laird, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Rogan, would require the board to make an order if a DPP failed to produce a report when asked to do so by the board. The theme of the fear of non-compliance runs through several amendments. The Government do not think it right to bind a body comprising elected representatives and those appointed by the board in that way. The board could take other avenues. For example, if members of a DPP fail to fulfil their terms of appointment, they can be removed. The logic of the amendment would require similar provisions throughout the Bill, such as in Clause 68, which requires the board to appoint traffic wardens, or Clause 55(4) on the board reporting to the Secretary of State. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
  Amendment No. 79 would place a requirement on the board to issue a code of practice. The Government have made it clear that we have every expectation that the board will issue such a code. However, given the obvious strength of feeling on the point, the Government accept the amendment in principle. Once we have had a chance to check the wording with counsel, we shall introduce an amendment on Report. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
  I hope that it has been helpful to go through the other amendments. I beg to move.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I congratulate the Government. I am in the enviable position of yet again welcoming a government amendment. I am glad that the Government have listened to the shrewd advice of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The Government have clearly thought through in a little more detail the relationship between the board and the district policing partnerships. Smooth and harmonious relationships will be essential to effective policing. Amendment No. 72 is sensible and I strongly support it.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: Saving time is commendable. My noble friend the Minister has

  85
  answered my arguments before I have advanced them. Not for the first time, she has largely read my mind. I am not wholly surprised to be told that my amendments are unnecessary, but I should like to take a moment to explain why I tabled them.
  We are told that the DPP may submit a report on a specific matter whenever so required by the board. The aim of the amendments was to make it clear that the DPP did not have to wait until it was required to do so before submitting a report.
  I was not surprised that my noble friend said that the principle was not in dispute. We all know that those who are closest to the action are best placed to know when a report is needed. The purpose of such a report is often to alert those in the hierarchy who are further from the coal face. When I was privileged to chair the council on tribunals, we were required to submit an annual report to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, but sometimes we discovered a problem that required an alarm signal without waiting until it was time for the next report. Sometimes the most important advice is unsolicited, because its purpose is to alert those who had not grasped the situation. I am delighted that my noble friend and I agree about that.
  I am not wholly sure that the amendments are superfluous. We are imposing the duty to submit a report when asked. It may be wise to make sure that the DPP may also submit a report when not asked, because there is a principle of construction that that which is not included is excluded. However, my noble friend has largely anticipated my points and I shall not take the matter further tonight.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the Government for accepting Amendment No. 79. That is welcome. I may be pedantic, but I have one comment to make. The purpose of our Amendment No. 73, which is almost identical to government Amendment No. 72, was to reinforce the point that DPPs are accountable to the police board. That is why we felt that they should submit the same report to the board. We wanted to make that point a little more strongly, but I accept that it is almost the same.
  I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, but I am delighted that he does not intend to press his amendments.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Laird: As the proposer of Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, perhaps I may say a few words. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, I listened carefully to what was said, even before I put my case. I shall consider that and obviously shall be prepared not to push the amendment but to withdraw it. I simply want to savour the moment. If I understand the situation correctly, as I believe I do, the Government have accepted Amendment No. 79 in my name and those of three of my colleagues. I want to savour that moment because it is the first such moment that I have savoured here all evening. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for accepting the
  86
  amendment. I believe that it will go some way towards bringing back a little public confidence. I thank the Government.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am delighted with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Perhaps I may make certain that the Committee understands that we accept the amendment in principle but want to check the precise wording with counsel. I believe that that is important. I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer that it is a refreshing change for the Government to be told that placing certain items on the face of the Bill sometimes causes difficulty because, by definition, others may be deemed to be less important or excluded in some way. I am sure that I shall recall his wise words when we come to deal with other Bills. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her contribution.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 74:
  Page 9, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 [Reports by district policing partnership to Board]:
  [Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 not moved.]
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Code of practice for district policing partnerships]:
  Lord Laird Lord Laird moved Amendment No. 79:
  Page 9, line 30, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: If I understand it correctly, the Government have accepted this amendment.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The Government have accepted the amendment in principle but would prefer the noble Lord not to press the matter to a Division tonight while we receive the advice of counsel.
  Lord Laird: In view of that clarification, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 9, line 30, leave out (", with the consent of the Secretary of State,").
  The noble and learned Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with this amendment we debate all the amendments up to and including Amendment No. 85.
  Amendment No. 80 is largely a probing amendment. Clause 19 empowers the board to issue or revise a code of practice for district policing partnerships. That is sensible. However, the clause then provides that they may do so only with the consent of the Secretary of State. I wonder why. The

  87
  board is charged with ensuring that policing in Northern Ireland is carried out properly. Why does one not let them get on with it? One assumes that the people appointed to the board will be responsible and sensible. Clearly, ultimate responsibility lies with the Secretary of State. However, we all know that when the Secretary of State moves over from policy to more detailed matters, he is likely to spark off inflammable material and store up trouble for himself. Therefore, I ask simply: what is the thinking behind that requirement?
  I turn to Amendment No. 83. Clause 19 empowers the board to issue a code of practice. Subsection (2) very sensibly provides that, before doing so, it,
  "shall consult … district councils; and … the Chief Constable".
  This amendment simply seeks to explore whether all the other obvious consultees are to be left out of the process. If the answer is that it is unnecessary to make specific provision because they would be consulted without specific provision, then if my noble friend and I can continue our tennis match, perhaps I may lob the ball back over the net and say that, if specific consultees are listed, are the others not relegated to the second division? I wonder why there should be that distinction.
  First, there is the district policing partnership itself. Should it not be consulted about the code of practice which is to be imposed on it? I cannot believe that it is intended that the code should be sprung on it as a fait accompli. However, if the argument is that it is unnecessary, we return to the question of whether that is not also true of the many provisions in the Bill where an authority is enjoined to consult.
  In Clause 5(5), before making regulations for the transfer of staff the Secretary of State is required to consult the board, the chief constable and organisations representing the interests of those affected. Does that imply that in the absence of a statutory requirement he might not consult them? A requirement to consult serves as a reminder. Perhaps that resolves the issue between my noble friend and myself. It is a reminder to officials to consult when working on a project and, perhaps only in the last resort, it is a trigger for a challenge to an uncooperative Secretary of State.
  The amendment would also require consultation with the Police Ombudsman. He or she should provide a mine of information. The ombudsman has been learning where the shoe pinches. Then there is reference to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, which over the years have developed substantial expertise. To make a case for consulting them is superfluous and I shall not take up the Committee's time. It would be an insult or an act of madness to produce a code without inviting their comments.
  At the risk of being tiresome, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 84. This amendment serves as another reminder. Subsection (3) relates to some of the matters with which the code of practice may deal. Surely the DPP will wish to have ongoing consultations
  88
  with those organisations which have something to contribute to the combined wisdom and whose support would ensure that the public are informed about and agree with the arrangements for policing in the area. That has been the subject of an earlier debate and I shall not elaborate on it.
  The code of practice is to set out various arrangements. Would it not be wise to set out how the consultation process will operate: how those concerns will be notified as to what is to happen or what is proposed and how they will be invited to submit their concerns; at which point should those views be fed into the machine; and most particularly, how far the process should have proceeded before various people are consulted and in what order they should be consulted? Very often, such matters can touch off an explosion. As we all know, sometimes an unnecessary crisis is sparked off because A was told about something before B. Would it not be wise to have a structure in place to ensure that no crisis occurs before someone's attention is distracted at the wrong moment? I beg to move.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I seek clarification on this point. I can see the reason for the comment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, about consulting. Am I correct in thinking that he suggests that, in spite of his amendment listing those bodies—the ombudsman, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and so on—he would be happy with Clause 5(5)(c) in place which refers to,
  "such organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of persons affected by the regulations"?
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I am sorry if I failed to make myself clear. I was simply saying that in Clause 5(5)(c) it was felt necessary to set that out. I am only wondering why it was not felt necessary to set it out here.
  Baroness O'Cathain: So the noble and learned Lord would be quite happy with the words included in Clause 5(5)(c)?
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: Yes.
  Lord Glentoran: We are moving onto the area of the ombudsman. I do not believe that it is necessary but I should feel more comfortable to declare an interest in this regard in as much as the present ombudsman, Mrs O'Loan, is somebody with whom I worked on a government committee for some time. I know her quite well and have a great deal of respect for her. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept that any comment I may make about the ombudsman's role or position in relation to this Bill is objective and not in any way subjective. It reflects in no way whatever on Mrs O'Loan, for whom I have an enormous amount of time.
  With regard to Amendment No. 82, the Minister may perhaps be surprised to hear that on this side of the Committee we like the idea of keeping the Secretary of State's hand on the helm at this stage.

  89
  When, it is hoped, the powers in relation to policing and so on are devolved to the Assembly, those powers will be needed in the early stages. Ultimately, I believe that it would be better if the decision for the Secretary of State to withdraw were taken at the time when the power becomes devolved. Therefore, I support those amendments which seek to keep the Secretary of State's hand on the helm; that is, I support Amendment No. 80.
  I do not wish to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and nor do I wish to support Amendment No. 82. We wish to increase the role of the Secretary of State as much as possible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, was clear on his thoughts in relation to that matter.
  On Amendment No. 83, I should be worried and concerned if that field of consultation were made too ridiculously wide. That was the sense of feeling which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, was coming across with too. I understand where he is coming from. He wants reminders. I like reminders too but not lists.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support my noble friend. We need the Secretary of State involved, at least until we can see, in the next year or two, how things are going.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 81 is consequential on Amendment No. 79, which we dealt with in our last group of amendments. I gave an undertaking to bring forward an amendment. In the light of that assurance, I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment No. 81.
  Amendment No. 82 represents another of those areas where some want to see greater involvement by the Secretary of State while others would want to see less. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. We have already included a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consent to the board's code. We believe that this is a higher test than the need to have consultation. Therefore, in the light of the response, we hope that the amendment is not felt to be necessary.
  I also ask for my noble and learned friend Lord Archer to resist pressing Amendments Nos. 80, 83 and 84. Amendment No. 80 removes the ability of the Secretary of State to approve any code issued by the board and removes a safeguard which the Government included because of the level of concern about the nature of DPPs.
  My noble friend asked for the sort of circumstances in which the safeguard could be necessary. Perhaps I may say that it could avoid a situation where the board produces a code which is clearly at odds with the legislation for which the Secretary of State is responsible.
  Amendment No. 83 expands the list of those to be consulted on the code. I simply say that the current provision does not preclude the board from consulting the bodies listed. I have no doubt that it will consult those it thinks it is relevant to consult. But we do not
  90
  believe that it is necessary to place a requirement on the board to consult, bearing in mind that it would then apply to any revision to a code, and that the district policing partnerships will not be in existence to be consulted. I hope that this is one clear distinction for the Government's reasoning on this point.
  Finally, perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer that the third of these amendments, Amendment No. 84, is more a matter to address under the Criminal Justice Review than under the Bill. I therefore hope that Amendments Nos. 80, 83 and 84 will not be pressed.
  Last in this group is Amendment No. 85, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. It seeks, as did Amendment No. 70, to protect the police from being required to answer questions or disclosing information which would breach their general duty in Clause 32.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for giving way. For the record, Amendment No. 85 is not tabled in my name, although I certainly would have supported it. I did not hear anybody speak to it from the Unionist Benches.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I understood that we had not reached that yet. Is that not the case?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may check whether the noble Lord wishes to speak to the amendment before I reply.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: If that group had been called, I would gladly have responded, particularly to the Minister's welcome request that we might no press the amendment. If we were to do so, I would have to amend the scribbled notes I had made earlier in the day in the expectation that Amendment No. 79 would be rejected.
  I shall read the three lines I would have said and see how that fits in with the provisional approval given earlier. Amendment No. 81 is necessary in the light of Amendment No. 79 in principle. If compulsion to issue were accepted, there would be automatic compulsion to revise, and there should not be compulsion to revise. The use of the word "may" provides an effective solution. I shall not even expect a reply to that, because, as I have said, it is obsolete because of the generosity of the Front Bench over Amendment No. 79.
  If I can be regarded as having moved this group of amendments, perhaps I may mention Amendment No. 85. This refers directly to Clause 19(3) regarding the question of officers. It is self-explanatory. An officer shall not be compelled to disclose sensitive information to loyalist or republicans on DPPs. I am not sure whether I beg to move the amendment. To avoid confusion, I shall not.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, with great

  91
  pleasure, that I am sure his learned comments on Amendment No. 81 will be beneficial to counsel when we consider the government amendment that will emerge. In response to his comments on Amendment No. 85, perhaps I may place on the record that it goes without saying that the police should not breach their duty in their dealings with the board.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: This debate has been a salutary experience for me. I now know from personal experience what it feels like to be in a minority. Rule number one of any strategy is: "Do not seek a battle when you are surrounded". I promise to think further about what my noble friend has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 not moved.]
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Police districts]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 86:
  Page 10, line 20, leave out (", other than Belfast,").
  The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move Amendments Nos. 86 or 87 and perhaps I may give an explanation. The system fell apart and these amendments were aimed at the wrong clause. We shall return at Report stage with amendments to Clause 21, which we do not like very much.
  [Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
  Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 88:
  Page 10, line 22, after ("Constable") insert ("after consultation with the Board").
  The noble and learned Lord said: This is a small amendment but is perhaps one worthy of discussion.
  The whole Bill is about balancing. There is a balancing of interests; there is a balance between authority and safeguards; there is also a balancing of powers at various levels in the hierarchy—the Secretary of State, the board, the chief constable and the district councils.
  One is therefore driven to ask the question: should the number of districts and their boundaries be entirely a matter for the chief constable? Is that purely an operational question? If the board is to act as a monitor on behalf of the community, ought it to have an input into that process? It is arguable that the arrangements should require the consent of the board. I have not sought to go as far as that. My amendment requires the chief constable to "consult" the board. I believe he would wish to do that in any event. But a requirement in the Bill would serve as a useful reminder.
  Before I sit down, perhaps I may say that to some extent we seem to have desegregated this group of amendments and it might be convenient for the Committee if I spoke to Amendment No. 97 now. I am sure that would save time.
  Amendment No. 97 requires the district commander to say what representations he received from the district policing partnership and how far he had taken them into account. That has two advantages. First, it is a way of notifying the public of the thinking of the partnership on the one hand and the district commander on the other; secondly, I hope that the district commander would find it helpful.
  When we are considering someone's representations, it is a useful discipline to have to paraphrase what they said; it focuses one's mind. Then, if we have to say what our reaction was, it focuses the mind on how to address that. I beg to move.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I support Amendments Nos. 88 and 97. I fully recognise that the chief constable is best placed to determine on operational grounds how the staff resources should best be organised and deployed. But decisions about force structure and the boundaries for operational commanding are a matter of legitimate public interest about which there are often contentious local views.
  It is therefore right that the chief constable should consult with and seek the views of the policing board on such matters, though the ultimate decision would remain his. I am sure—I know that mine would—chief constables would bring such organisational proposals to the police authority for discussion in any event, and that is a matter of good practice. So it is right to include the provision in the Bill and I ask the Committee to support the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: The purpose of my Amendment No. 89 is straightforward. As I mentioned earlier, there are now 26 local authorities in Northern Ireland plus an assembly/government in Stormont. My amendment allows flexibility within the Bill should there be a restructuring of local government—by that I mean the authorities and not Stormont—and it will be possible to adjust the DPPs to fit in with the new arrangements.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall deal first with Amendment No. 88. Under the Bill, the police are required to make each district council a police district, other than Belfast. In Belfast, the boundaries of the police districts must coincide with the district council area but within that the Government have concluded it is right that the Chief Constable should have flexibility to determine the number of police districts up to a maximum of four. He has four at present and I do not believe that he has any plans to change that. It should not be up to the board to guide the Chief Constable on the boundaries to set within Belfast. That should be a matter for his operational judgment. I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to withdraw his amendment.
  I turn to the three government amendments, Nos. 90 to 92. They combine to provide that a district commander may be a regular or a reservist. At present

  93
  he may only be a regular officer. The Government see no need to make such a distinction and the appointments should be on merit.
  As regards Amendments Nos. 93 and 94, under Clause 21 each sub-group of the Belfast policing partnership is to provide views to the police "and the hoard". It should read "and the Belfast partnership". The amendment fulfils the commitment which the Government made in another place to correct that reference and to clarify that "district", in line 40, means a police district.
  I turn to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. The Committee should know the admiration the Government have for the work of the CPLCs and, indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister of State addressed the annual CPLC conference at the weekend. Under Clause 22, before issuing or revising a local policing plan the police district commander must consult the local DPP and take account of any views expressed. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96, which are virtually identical, seek to oblige the police district commander to consult also with any local consultative groups set up by the board.
  While I can understand the motive behind this amendment, I think that it is pushing the Bill into a level of detail that is not appropriate on the one hand and on the other could be undermining the role of the DPPs themselves. The Government's view is that it should be the DPPs who should retain contact with the local bodies established in their areas and they should then sift or filter these views and represent them to the local commanders.
  Indeed, if the board is convinced that this is the right way forward, I see no reason that it should not include such an arrangement in the code that it will issue under Clause 19. The code can cover the arrangements for monitoring the performance of the police in carrying out the local policing plan. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, not to move her Amendment No. 95 and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, not to move his Amendment No. 96.
  Amendment No. 97, which is also in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, is not what Patten proposed. Patten said in paragraph 6.31 that,
  "The District Commander should consult with the DPPB in the preparation of the district police plan".
  The Bill provides for that. If the DPPB wishes to publish comments that it has made and comment on the extent to which they have been taken into account in the plan, it is a matter for it. In those circumstances, I ask my noble and learned friend not to move Amendment No. 97.
  Amendment No. 89 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would enable the Secretary of State to alter by regulations the number of police districts in the event of changes. Patten was quite clear that police boundaries should be coterminous with council areas (paragraph 12.4), and the Chief Constable agreed with that in his response to the commission. The amendment is at odds with that, and I ask the noble Lord riot to move it.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: Amendment No. 80 sought to raise the question whether the arrangement of districts was a matter for the operational judgment of the chief constable. My noble and learned friend's answer was one sentence: it is a matter for his operational judgment. With great respect to my noble and learned friend, that is not an argument but an assertion. However, it may be that even if we pursued the matter it would not be carried much further than the assertion today.
  As for Amendment No. 97, my noble and learned friend's argument is that that is not what the Patten commission proposed. I cannot help feeling that the Government look at the recommendations of the Patten commission a little selectively. A number of the Government's proposals are not what the Patten commission proposed. I do not regard that as a conclusive argument on the subject, but since tonight we are not in the business of making a great deal of trouble I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 88.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 92:
  Page 10, line 25, leave out from ("a") to end of line 26 and insert ("police officer of the required rank").
  Page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (5).
  Page 10, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) "Required rank" means a rank not less than that of chief inspector.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 [District policing partnership sub-groups for Belfast]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
  Page 10, line 39, leave out ("Board") and insert ("district policing partnership").
  Page 10, line 40, after ("that") insert ("police").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 22 [The local policing plan]:
  [Amendments Nos. 95 to 97 not moved.]
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Other community policing arrangements]:
  [Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 [The Secretary of State's long term policing objectives]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 12, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 99 is again concerned with the role of the ombudsman. We believe that performance targets which are included in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 are an integral part of the police planning process. They have now been

  95
  removed from the face of the Bill and are to be included in government regulations which set out minimum requirements for the annual policing plan. Such regulations can be changed and are under the control of the Secretary of State, thereby diminishing the role of the board. Will the Minister outline the reasons why government have felt it desirable to remove from the face of the Bill the power of the policing board to set performance targets, which is an important power accorded to the police authority under the 1998 Act? What are the reasons for the change? How will such a measure enhance not only the credibility of the policing board in holding the police service to account for its performance, but, more importantly, the efficiency of that service?
  The effect of Amendment No. 101 is that it removes the police ombudsman from the consultation process for the setting of both the Secretary of State's long term policing objectives and the board's policing objectives. I move the amendment in the interest of the management of the police service in which the ombudsman does not, and should not, have a role. I also move it in the interests of the independence of the office of the police ombudsman. That is an independence that might, in the public eye, be prejudiced by her proposed involvement in objective setting. The ombudsman has an important and significant role to play in dealing with complaints. She will also report to the chief constable and the board on police policies and practices arising from such complaints. Where appropriate, those reports could be taken into account by the board and the Secretary of State in the setting of objectives.
  It is not necessary further to complicate the objective setting process with the involvement of a body corporate which has no role in the process and which could in the long run be to the detriment of that independent body; namely, the ombudsman. I ask the Minister to take that amendment particularly seriously.
  There are a number of other amendments concerning the role of the board. Turning to Amendment No. 103, the statutory base for local policing plans is welcomed. However, it is felt that a wider approach should be taken in terms of those to be consulted about the plans. That would ensure that, where a district council fails to set up a DPP and the policing board makes alternative arrangements, that group would be consulted. Perhaps the Minister would consider inserting at the end of this subsection the words,
  "and any other bodies established pursuant to section 23(2)",
  in order to ensure a more inclusive approach.
  Perhaps I may say a little more on Amendment No. 103. The police authority for Northern Ireland is currently charged with producing an annual policing plan for Northern Ireland. That is an important function. The plan, produced on the basis of widespread community consultation, sets out the full range of annual policing priorities, objectives and associated targets. It is the plan against which police performance is measured at the end of the year.
  The setting of performance targets is an integral part of, and a vital tool in, this process. Current Northern Ireland legislation replaces GB provisions. The legislative provision for the policing plan process in GB, referred to as local policing plans, is contained in the Police Act 1996. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 introduced the process into Northern Ireland and mirrors the GB provisions. Under the legislation that power is transferred to the Secretary of State who can prescribe the contents of the policing plan in regulations.
  The contents of the board's policing plan are, and should be, determined by the expectations of the community and what it wants from its police service. The authority historically consults widely with the public in order to determine the contents of the plan. Removal of that power and its transmission to the Secretary of State will lessen the board's involvement in the planning process. The redefinition of the board's role in the planning process is, in our opinion, at the expense of both the planning process and the community in Northern Ireland.
  If one thought about the process logically one should ask how the Secretary of State is able to ascertain what the community would like to see included in the plan in order to regulate its contents. Perhaps the Minister will say why he thinks that power should more appropriately sit with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also say why he thinks such a measure would enhance the credibility of the policing board in holding the police service to account for its performance, and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of that service.
  Amendment No. 107 is linked to Amendment No. 105. Current Northern Ireland legislation replicates GB provisions, and changes to those as contained in the Bill will reduce the role of the policing board and enhance that of the Secretary of State in comparison to the situation in Great Britain. I beg to move.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 104 and 107. Part IV of the Bill, which deals with policing objectives and plans, goes right to the substance of whether we put in place a police board which can effectively hold the chief constable to account on behalf of the community. Our amendments are essential if the policing board is to be able to do the job that it is purportedly set up to do. Amendment No. 104 is almost identical to Amendment No. 103 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will take note of the strength and unity of opinion on the Opposition Benches on this point.
  The board must have the power to set targets both for those objectives laid down by the Secretary of State and for the local objectives which the board itself sets; otherwise, how else will it ensure that the community of Northern Ireland has an effective police service committed to improving its performance? Amendment No. 107, which is equally important in

  97
  my view, seeks to ensure that the Bill clearly states the broad contents of the policing plan. Amendments Nos. 105 and 106, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also seek to achieve a similar end. However, Amendment No. 107 replicates the position elsewhere in Great Britain and reinstates the existing provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. It works extremely well in Great Britain and to my knowledge has worked well in Northern Ireland, too, over the past couple of years. The wording is sufficiently flexible to enable everything that needs to be in the plan to be included. I really do not understand why the Secretary of State has chosen to depart from that position.
  I note that Amendment No. 108 brought forward by the Government seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that the policing plan must contain information about the education and training of police staff. While I support the principle of including such information, I cannot understand why that is to be specified but the rest of the plan's contents are to be left to regulations. I have seen a draft of the regulations prepared by the Government. They cover much the same ground as is covered by my amendment with the addition of best value requirements, which we shall discuss a little later on. If that is the case and the Secretary of State is not seeking to do more than that, why can this not be included in the primary legislation?
  I am slightly mystified. It was my understanding that the purpose of the Bill is to implement the Patten report and to regularise as far as possible the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. Reserving to the Secretary of State powers which he does not need does not achieve that purpose. I urge the Committee to support my amendments.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I do not know whether it was deliberate on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that, in introducing this group of amendments, he spoke unattributably to my Amendment No. 102, and, if I may say so, made out a very persuasive case for it. I can only say that I am grateful to him.
  I can now be very brief. Perhaps I may spend a few moments repeating the noble Lord's question. Section 15 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 empowers the present police authority to set performance targets. The police authority has made it clear that it regards that power as an important one. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Patten report to suggest that the commission did not wish to see a similar power vested in the board. We may be told, not for the first time, that the amendment is unnecessary because it is obviously the intention that the power should be continued. If that is the case, would it not be wise for the power to be made clear in the Bill? Perhaps I may say on this occasion to my noble and learned friend that it really is not obvious.
  Clearly it is intended that performance indicators shall be put in place for the board. Clause 28 addresses that and the power is in the Bill. However, if no equivalent provision is made in respect of the board's
  98
  power to set targets for the police service, then it might be thought that the omission was deliberate and that it was not to be given that power.
  If, on the other hand, it is deliberate and the power to set performance targets for the police service is to be discontinued, then no doubt my noble and learned friend will explain the thinking that lies behind that decision.
  9.45 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may suggest that it is not easy to compare the make-up and, therefore, the probable behaviour, of this police board and police boards in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom police boards have no political agenda. It seems to me that it will be necessary to retain powers for the Secretary of State precisely to correct that. We could see a situation in which the performance plan is delayed or faces difficulties and the entire work of the police is complicated by political arguments between members of the board. I should like to know how that will be dealt with.
  I support entirely the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and my noble friend Lord Glentoran in their words on government Amendment No. 108. Again, I am anxious that this could allow the board to intervene in issues such as shortening the length of service in the Special Branch to only one or two years. Although there may appear to be grounds for doing that, in fact, it is impossible to recruit a valuable source and then run him or her unless a long period of relationship building and trust between the officer concerned and the source is allowed to develop. Such details may be crucial to the effectiveness of the police service, but may be taken to be within the rights and purlieu of the board and the authority. That gives me cause for concern.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I should like to lend my support to Amendment No. 104 and to support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, in moving it. I believe that the performance targets and indicators are essential and, for the life of me, I cannot see why there should be any reluctance on the part of any responsible person or body to accept the subparagraphs in the amendment, which state:
  "(a) any objectives established by the Secretary of State…
  or,
  "(6) the objectives determined by the board for a financial year under this section".
  It is essential that that should be confirmed and I hope that we shall receive a favourable response from the Government Front Bench.
  As regards Amendment No. 105, tabled by myself and my noble friends, I think it is important to ensure that the new arrangements should remain as close as

  99
  possible to what is still in place in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Section 17(2) of that Act is perfectly clear and reasonable. Perhaps I may read it:
  "The annual policing plan shall include a statement of the Police Authority's priorities for the year, of the financial resources expected to be available to the Authority and of the proposed allocation of those resources by the Authority, and shall give particulars of—

  (a) any objectives determined by the Secretary of State under section 14;

  (b) any objectives determined by the Police Authority under section 15; and

  (c) any performance targets established by the Police Authority under that section".

  I cannot see any sound case for altering that clear directive in the 1998 Act.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, which set out in Clause 26 that the policing plan must include a training and education strategy. Amendment No. 109 requires the Secretary of State to consult such bodies as may be relevant before issuing a code of practice to the policing board under Clause 27.
  It has been the Government's intention to include in regulations a requirement on the board to assess the training and education needs of police officers and support staff, and to give particulars of how those needs were to be met. The Government set this out in draft regulations which were made available when the Bill was considered in Committee in another place. This issue was addressed in regulations because Patten specifically recommended that the legislation be simplified.
  However, the Government have been criticised by some for not putting the training strategy in primary legislation as it is such an important issue. To show that the Government are willing to listen to these concerns we have introduced Amendment No. 108. The Government remain fully committed to the board's role in developing such a strategy.
  Amendment No. 109 allows the Secretary of State to take on board the expertise of various organisations where their input would add value to any codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State to the board or, in permitted circumstances, the chief constable. The reference to consultation is generic because it would be impossible to list every organisation that might have an interest in a particular code. The Government have shown themselves to be open to appropriate consultation in a number of areas in the Bill and again have responded to concerns on this particular point. I ask that this amendment be accepted. In the light of my comments and government Amendment No. 109, I hope that Amendment No. 110, which stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Shutt, will not be pressed.
  Turning to other amendments to Part IV of the Bill, the effects of Amendments Nos. 99 and 101 would be to remove the ombudsman as a consultee on policing objectives. Patten said, at paragraph 6.42, that he could not emphasise too strongly the importance of
  100
  the ombudsman's role in future policing arrangements. The Government agree. The amendments would detract from this position and I ask the Committee to resist them.
  The ombudsman will feed her experience and the lessons learnt through her investigations and the research of police policy and practices arising from complaints into the planning process. The Government understand the importance of the ombudsman's role. We consulted fully on the issue before including this role and feel it to be appropriate.
  Amendment No. 100 would require the Secretary of State to set objectives for three to five years. Again, Patten specifically recommended that the board should set objectives for this three to five year period, taking account of any longer-term objectives set by the Secretary of State. The Bill implements Patten's recommendation, simplifying the planning process to create a system for effective strategic planning. Again I ask the Committee to resist this amendment.
  Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 deal with targets and other contents of the policing plan. I appreciate the aim behind these amendments and the Government share the commitment of noble Lords to measuring police performance through targets. But the Government also want to implement the Patten report, and recommendation 22 of that report states that the legislation and the system should be simplified.
  Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 all seek to prescribe the need for performance targets on the face of the Bill. A number also seek to specify that the plan should contain the Secretary of State's and board's objectives. This would replicate the provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Patten described these provisions as "labyrinthine" and said that these "complicated provisions" should be simplified.
  To achieve this the Government have included in regulations issued under Clause 26 a requirement for the board's police plan to contain targets and other matters covered by the amendments. Amendment No. 106 seeks to remove this power.
  These regulations which the Government have made available show that there is really very little separating the Government from Members of the Committee who have tabled amendments in this group. I hope that they will feel able to withdraw them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked why the board's power to set targets should be removed. The government proposals do not remove the board's power to set targets. That will be set out in regulations, as the noble Lord acknowledged. The provision is the result of recommendations in the Patten report.
  The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to comparisons in terms of the police planning system with England and Wales. The system of police planning and objective setting is broadly similar to that in England and Wales; but the system set out in the Bill is to implement Patten's recommendation and to be adapted to suit Northern Ireland, with its one

  101
  police service. It is not designed to replicate what is suitable for England and Wales, where there are 48 different areas.
  The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, raised the issue of why there should be this change and what would be gained by it. The board will retain power to set targets. This can be seen from the draft regulations which have been made available. The board will gain control of annual planning and strategic planning—formerly down to the chief constable alone. The board will set strategic and annual objectives, which was formerly a function fulfilled by the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State now sets only long-term objectives.
  I ask the Committee to resist Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 so that the Government can implement Patten's proposals on simplifying the primary legislation. I ask the Committee to resist Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 which are contrary to the spirit of what the Government are attempting to achieve by implementing Patten's proposals in this area. I think the intent of Amendment No. 110 is covered by the Government's own Amendment No. 109.
  I ask the Committee to support Amendments Nos. 108 and 109.
  Lord Hylton: Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may say a word of welcome for government Amendment No. 108. Assessing the need for educating and training police officers may be particularly important in the transitional period before we reach, as is to be hoped, 50:50 parity in composition.
  Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  10 p.m.
  [Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [The Board's policing objectives]:
  [Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 not moved.]
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 [The Board's policing plan]:
  [Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 not moved]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 108:
  Page 12, line 22, leave out from ("shall") to ("matters") in line 23 and insert ("—

  (a) contain an assessment of the requirements for educating and training police officers and members of the police support staff and give particulars of the way in which those requirements are to be met; and

  (b) include such other statements and give particulars of such other").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Codes of practice on exercise of functions]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 109:
  Page 13, line 4, at end insert ("; and
  ( ) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 110 not moved]
  On Question, Whether Clause 27, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I oppose the Question that this clause should stand part of the Bill. My opposition is advanced in the interrogative mood. It is simply a useful way of ascertaining the Government's thinking. As I understand it, Clause 27 would require the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice For the board and the chief constable. Once again, it is a question of balance. Of course the last word in policing policy must lie with the Secretary of State, but a "code of practice" suggests a fairly detailed set of guiclelines. Therefore, is there not a danger of undermining the independence of the board and the operational freedom of a chief constable? It is, of course, always a matter of judgment, but I derive some comfort from the debate in another place where it was said that the code would only be "advisory" and would probably relate largely to financial controls. It would be helpful to know what it is envisaged the codes will cover—I note that the reference is to "codes" in the plural—and what their relation is to the "guidance", which the Secretary of State may issue under Clause 51.
  It is also worth saying a few words about who the Secretary of State is to consult. The Bill says that he is to consult the board and the Chief Constable. However, there is no requirement for him to consult anyone else. At this stage I have a feeling of déjà vu but I do not propose to resurrect all our former arguments. In fact, I believe that my noble friend said something about this a few moments ago.
  I notice that my right honourable friend Adam Ingram said in another place that, if a code were to be issued touching on human rights or equality, he could envisage no circumstances in which the commissions—that is, the human rights commission and the equality commission—would not be consulted. However, the Government seem loath to make that a part of the Bill. We have been over this argument before, but sometimes requirements in a statute to consult can serve as a useful reminder. In our experience, we can all think of occasions when, in the course of getting everything else ready, governments simply forgot to consult people who ought to have been consulted, with disastrous results. As I said, I oppose the Question. But if my noble friend can enlighten the Committee about the Government's thinking, I may revise my position.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The effect of Clause 27 is to allow the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice to the board and to the Chief Constable in relation to planning, efficiency, financial

  103
  and other resources and support staff. The Secretary of State must consult the board and Chief Constable on any code, and must publish it.
  The Government believe that it is reasonable that the Secretary of State should, as an integral part of the tripartite structure of governance, be able to issue codes of practice to the board and, in certain limited areas, the Chief Constable. The Patten report certainly does not suggest or support the removal of the Secretary of State's role in police governance.
  The power to issue codes is in line with practice in Great Britain and with previous legislation. Patten does not recommend removal of this power as he did in respect of the Secretary of State's existing power to issue guidance to the police. The Government have responded by repealing the provision, Section 39 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
  Codes cannot impose new statutory obligations on the board. I hope that that answers some of the points raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. Any code will address only detailed matters strictly in accordance with the Bill's provisions where this is necessary. They cannot be used as a back door to undermine the board's role.
  I say in answer to my noble and learned friend's other question that we can conceive of no circumstances where the organisations he mentioned would not be consulted to hear their important contributions.
  The main areas for any codes will concern detailed matters such as funding. In fact, the only existing code concerns detailed financial arrangements. This is consistent with the Government's 100 per cent funding of policing in Northern Ireland. I hope that I have reassured my noble and learned friend. I draw to his attention my right honourable friend Mr Ingram's comments at col. 250 of Hansard of 27th June of the other place. He said:
  "If a code was issued that touched on equality or human rights issues I cannot envisage circumstances in which they would not he consulted in order to draw on their knowledge".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 27/6/00; col. 250.]
  With those reassurances I hope that my noble and learned friend will not object to Clause 27 standing part of the Bill.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am sorry that my noble friend hesitated before describing me as her noble and learned friend. I am sure that that was a lapse.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was a loss of breath, not a loss of friendship.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful for that explanation as well as all the other explanations my noble friend has given. She has given us food for thought; I promise to digest it. I shall not press my objection to Clause 27 standing part of the Bill.
  Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Arrangements relating to economy, efficiency and effectiveness]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 111:
  Page 13, line 9, leave out from ("make") to ("to") in line 10 and insert ("arrangements").
  The noble and learned Lord said: We now come to a large and complex set of amendments which I shall try to explain briefly and simply.
  The amendments in my name, although I shall have to correct some references, on Part V of the Bill effect a fundamental shift of responsibility from the Secretary of State to the policing board in dealing with efficiency.
  The changes deliver commitments made by the Government to give the board the central role in delivering efficiency and effectiveness. They maintain a methodology which is loosely based upon the "best value" provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 in England and Wales and retain a default role for the Secretary of State.
  As currently drafted Part V of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make an order setting out how the board and the Chief Constable should undertake the delivery of best value. The amendments to Clause 28 place the duty to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of the board's and police functions squarely upon the board. The board and the Chief Constable are required to review their functions as part of these arrangements and the board is required to produce a single performance plan for itself and the police on how best value is to be delivered. It is also required to set targets and benchmarks against which performance can be judged.
  In all these arrangements the Government's intention is that the board and the Chief Constable will work together to deliver best value. We would like to see the Chief Constable involving members of the board and its audit department in reviewing police functions and conversely we want the board to work closely with the police in drawing up targets and performance plans.
  There are a number of consequential amendments to Clauses 29 and 30 which provide for the best value arrangements to be scrutinised by the National Audit Office and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. Clause 31 has been amended to define the Secretary of State's default power. His power to direct the board to take specific action will now only be triggered on adverse reports from the National Audit Office or the inspectors of constabulary. Having made these changes, and noting that other noble Lords have their names to similar amendments, I ask that Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 116 be withdrawn.
  The Committee should note for the record that Amendments Nos. 113 and 116 have my name wrongly attributed to them. I will move Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 115, which are in my name alone, and no others on Clause 28.
  Turning to the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, Amendment No. 114, he raises issues of fairness aand impartiality. They are clearly of the highest importance, but I would point out that they are dealt with elsewhere in the Bill and in Part V we are dealing specifically with efficiency.
  The Chairman of Committees: As amendment No. 115 is also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 116.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 116, notwithstanding that the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, should not be attached to Amendment No. 116.
  Although the words are not mentioned on the face of the Bill, Clauses 28 to 31 are about best value, as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us. From 1st April this year police authorities, along with local authorities in England and Wales, came under a duty to secure best value. That is continuous improvement in the provision of local services. I have to tell your Lordships that this has been the most significant and important addition to our role since the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in 1984, which initiated community consultation about policing.
  I am delighted to see that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed in another place and to those which we voiced when the Bill was before us at Second Reading. My Amendments Nos. 113 and 116 seek to achieve much the same as government Amendment No. 115 and I very much welcome most of the substance of that amendment. We have moved a considerable distance, but the Government still have a little further to go. A key part of best value is the fundamental reviews that must be undertaken into every aspect of the service. These reviews mean that we look at everything we do from first principles.
  Should we be doing this? How else can we do it? How can we improve on what we do? What do the public want? How would they like things to be done better? These are simple questions, but in fact they result in rigorous scrutiny.
  In Great Britain the responsibility for such reviews rests with the police authority and not the chief constable. That has been both a real eye-opener and a significant lever for ensuring that improvements are made. It also ensures that local people get a real say in this important work. I cannot understand why the Minister has deviated from that approach here. Under Amendment No. 115 responsibility for reviews of the police force will rest with the police constable and in many ways that defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. The police board will only be allowed, so to speak, to gaze at its own navel.
  The Minister has done extremely well, but he does need to go that little bit further. He needs to explain and justify, if he can, why he has taken this approach, because I am afraid it still does not make much sense
  106
  to me. The police board is responsible for securing efficient, effective, economic and accountable policing. How can it do that if the gate is barred?
  On a separate note, perhaps I may offer the noble and learned Lord any help that I can. As the Bill is drafted, the police board will publish two separate plans each year: a policing plan; and a best value performance plan. That is a recipe for confusion. The best value plan needs to be integrated into the policing plan. We have had some difficulty in managing to do that up and down the country but we are getting there. I am happy to put what expertise I have, and that of the National Association of Police Authorities, at the disposal of the noble and learned Lord in order to identify how that can be simply and sensibly achieved; and to discuss with him before Report stage how we can put in place the best value framework which delivers just that.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: Like the noble Baroness, I congratulate the Minister on the changes he is making to the Bill. I believe that they are improvements and he has earned a beta plus. He could so easily earn himself an alpha.
  Perhaps I may speak on Amendment No. 114. Self monitoring by the board is a praiseworthy concept. Perhaps more of our public bodies would he the better if they were required, and not merely encouraged, to conduct an ongoing review into the way in which they were doing their job and how they could do it better.
  My amendment would examine what the board will be looking for. Subsection (1) requires it to have regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Those are certainly worthy objectives. But should not it be looking at some other values? The value of efficiency and effectiveness depends on what one seeks to do. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that there is nothing in principle between us. He simply says that one does not need to put the additional values here because they are found elsewhere in the Bill. But the board will be asking itself questions about how it is doing in these various respects: "Are we being efficient and effective?" Should not it at the same time ask itself, "Are we being fair and impartial?" I believe that it would wish to do that in any event. There is little satisfaction in being part of a project which is not fair and impartial. It might help to concentrate its mind. Even if the amendment is unnecessary and the proposal to consider this matter is taken for granted, would it not reassure those in the population who feel anxieties if those factors are included at this point in the Bill where the board is required to look at what progress it is making?
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: It will be known to many Members of the Committee that I am an accountant. Therefore noble Lords will reasonably suppose that I am in favour of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In fact I believe that those three words are in the wrong order. I think that effectiveness should be first. followed by efficiency and then economy. But we have

  107
  not tabled an amendment to that effect and I shall not press the point. The Bill refers to a combination of those three factors.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, spoke of fairness and impartiality. They are extremely important. It is good that they are written into the Bill, even if in other places. But this clause refers to the performance plan which is supposed to measure the effectiveness, and so on, of the force and the policing operations undertaken.
  If there are to be two separate plans—a performance plan and a policing plan—I can understand that. However, there is a problem with having two plans. Effectiveness, efficiency and economy cannot be seen in isolation from policing. Effectiveness, be it the first or the last of the criteria, relates precisely to what the force is trying to do—catch criminals, deter crime and all the rest of it. The awkwardness stems from having two separate plans.
  That is not exclusive to Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, knows about it from her other responsibilities. However, it is a difficulty. I recognise that there is a difference between the things that accountants can measure and the things that cannot be measured, which are often equally important. That is also recognised in the Bill, because performance indicators and performance standards are separately allowed for. The indicators can be measured. Whether a target has been met can be worked out by an arithmetical calculation. It ismore difficult to say whether the standards have been met. The fact that they cannot be measured does not make them less important.
  It is difficult to see the performance plan separately from the policing plan. I have not proposed changes to the Bill and I do not intend to oppose any of the Minister's amendments, because his proposals to give the board greater responsibility go in the right direction. However, the performance plan and the policing plan will need to be published together and thought of together to ensure that they are properly co-ordinated.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, congratulated us but said that we could go a little further. As we have said on other issues, we are devising arrangements for Northern Ireland. These are complex provisions and we shall consider the points that she has raised. I assure her that we intend that the board will be involved in reviews of its own functions and the police functions.
  The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to the possible difficulty of there being both a policing plan and a performance plan. We envisage that the performance plan under this clause will form part of the policing plan under Clause 26. Clause 3 of the draft regulations, which have been published, makes it clear that the board's policing plan should include, among a long list of things, any performance plans prepared and published under Clause 28.
  108
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, did not press his suggestion of changing the order of the three words. On the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, it is sensible to focus on effectiveness, efficiency and economy in this clause. The points that he raised on Amendment No. 114 are important. We fully subscribe to them and they are covered elsewhere. It must be right that one clause deals with matters of efficiency. That is the right focus.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 112:
  Page 13, line 11, after ("functions") insert (", and those of the Chief Constable,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 115:
  Page 13, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert—
  ("(2) The arrangements shall require the Board to conduct, at intervals specified in the arrangements, reviews of the way in which its functions are exercised.
  (3) The arrangements shall also require the Chief Constable to conduct, at intervals specified in the arrangements, reviews of the way in which his functions are exercised.
  (4) The Board shall prepare and publish a plan (its "performance plan") for each financial year containing details of how the arrangements made under subsection (1) in that year are to be implemented.
  (5) The performance plan shall—

  (a) identify factors ("performance indicators") by reference to which performance in exercising functions can be measured;

  (b) set standards ("performance standards") to be met in the exercise of particular functions in relation to performance indicators; and

  (c) include a summary of the Boards assessment of—

  (i) its and the Chief Constable's performance in the previous financial year measured by reference to performance indicators;

  (ii) the extent to which any performance standard which applied at any time during that year was met.

  (6) Before publishing its performance plan, the Board must consult the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable.
  (7) In this Part—

  "performance indicators" and "performance standards" have the meaning given in subsection (5); and

  "performance plan" means a plan published by the Board under subsection (4).").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
  Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 [Audit of performance plans]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 14, line 5, leave out from ("plan") to ("shall") in line 6.
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 117, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 118 to 125, which I am happy to say are all correctly in my name.
  I explained the overall position on "best value" when I spoke to Clause 28. The amendments to Clause 29 are consequential to the changes to Clause 28. They remove references to the Secretary of State's order-making power which has now been deleted from Clause 28, as have references to the Chief Constable. The policy that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will audit the best value programmes, commenting, for example, on whether targets are realistic, is maintained. I beg to move.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 117 to 125 and Amendments Nos. 126, 127, 130 and 131. The amendments in my name are consequential on those that we have just discussed. I welcome the Government's support for them.
  Perhaps I may express my concern in relation to government Amendment No. 121. That amendment would give the Comptroller and Auditor-General the power to substitute his judgment for that of the police board with regard to what are appropriate performance indicators and targets. First, is that the job of an auditor? Is it not a matter on which we should look more properly to HM Inspector of Constabulary to take a view? Secondly, it is a complete departure from the best value role given to auditors in Great Britain. I do not understand the logic behind the move. Again, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter further with the noble and learned Lord before Report stage so that we get right this important part of the legislation.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I have one or two questions which arise from these amendments. I notice that Amendment No. 121 suggests that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should express a view only on the functions of the Chief Constable and not on those of the board. It seems to me that, as he is auditing the functions of the board as well as those of the Chief Constable, he might be expected to express an opinion, if he wishes, on both those matters.
  Secondly, why is it proposed that the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report should be published by the board as opposed to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself? I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference because presumably the board will not alter the report. Perhaps it is only a question of timing. However, I considered it to be worth asking the question.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, raised the question as to whether such matters are the job of an auditor. Of course there are differences between the role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the government sphere and that of a private sector auditor, which many years ago I was. The auditor of a company examines the books and accounts to ensure that they present a true and fair view and to ensure that there has been no fraud, and so on.
  The Comptroller and Auditor-General in government has had a much wider role, particularly in recent years, expressing his view on the efficiency of
  110
  the delivery of the service in government which he is investigating. I believe it is right that the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the public sector should have a wider role in comparison with the company auditor in the private sector. I believe that that is reflected here in the Bill.
  There is also a difference between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this respect. Because the police in Great Britain essentially are answerable to the local authority, the Inspector of Constabulary looms larger in overseeing matters.
  In Northern Ireland, the Comptroller and Auditor-General looks at all the functions of government, and the police is a function of central government. I admit that it is under the direct rule of a single department and now, as we know, the Secretary of State and the board under him. Therefore, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is drawn into the role almost of the Inspectorate of Constabulary.
  There is a slight difficulty that those two bodies may be looking at the same things and we may reach a position in which the Comptroller and Auditor-General is making one recommendation in relation to, for example, the effectiveness of the police in Northern Ireland while the Inspectorate of Constabulary is recommending something else.
  But if that happens, I presume that it will be a case of divide and rule. The Secretary of State, the board and the Chief Constable will, in their respective roles, be able to choose which advice they follow. That is not necessarily bad but it is something which we should note as we take through these provisions.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to Amendment No. 121. He asked why the provisions do not cover the board as well as the Chief Constable. At first blush, that looks to be a good point. Perhaps I may return on Report with a response to the point which the noble Lord has made.
  Secondly, reference was made to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, wondered whether it was appropriate for an "auditor" to be auditing the best value performance plans. The answer to that was given in part by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, particularly in Northern Ireland, as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom, is more than that simply of an auditor. He has roles beyond that. Therefore, it is not inappropriate, in the context of Northern Ireland, that he should inspect the best value plans. That is certainly not detrimental to the board.
  The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised a point in relation to who should publish the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. As for England, we shall need to work out the relationship of the Comptroller and Auditor-General with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. That is not a matter which should be dealt with specifically in the Bill.

  111
  We are genuinely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for the detailed matters which she has raised. It may be appropriate to arrange a meeting between Committee and Report stages so that the detailed proposals can be discussed, the vast majority of them not being appropriate for the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 118 to 124:
  Page 14, line 10, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("the requirements of section 28").
  Page 14, line 15, leave out ("the Board's") and insert ("a").
  Page 14, line 19, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("the requirements of section 28").
  Page 14, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(bb) stating whether he believes that the performance indicators and performance standards, so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable, are reasonable and, if appropriate, recommending changes to those performance indicators or performance standards;").
  Page 14, line 21, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("the requirements of section 28").
  Page 14, line 30, leave out ("published by the Board").
  Page 14, line 31, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
  ("(7) Subsections (7A) to (7C) apply if the Board receives a report which contains a recommendation made under paragraph (bb), (c) or (d) of subsection (4).
  (7A) Within the period of one month beginning on the day on which it receives the report, the Board shall prepare a statement.
  (7B) The Board shall consult the Chief Constable about the report and the statement it is required to prepare under subsection (7A).
  (7C) The Board shall, without delay, submit the statement it has prepared to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  (7D) The statement shall—

  (a) specify the action, if any, which the Board, or the Chief Constable, intend to take as a result of the report:

  (b) contain a summary of the result of the consultation required by subsection (7B).").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (8).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Examinations]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 14, line 42, leave out ("or the Chief Constable's").
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 to 135. Those are consequential upon the changes to Clause 28. They remove references to the Secretary of State's order-making power and to that of the Chief Constable. Those references are no longer required in the light of the changes to Clause 28. Clause 30 continues to provide for examinations of the board's
  112
  delivery of best value by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: Perhaps I may point out that taking out the words "or the Chief Constable" from this section of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's duties seems to me to lend weight to the suggestion that I made in relation to the previous grouping that the Comptroller and Auditor-General might look at the functions of the board as well as those of the Chief Constable. Here, he has been cut out from looking at the chief constables and made to look at the boards. In the previous grouping, it was entirely the other way round.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think I indicated that on the face of it, the point appeared to be a good one; that I would consider it and come back to it later on Report.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 135:
  Page 14, line 43, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28").
  Page 15, line 2, leave out ("or the Chief Constable's").
  Page 15, line 3, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28").
  Page 15, line 17, leave out ("or the Chief Constable").
  Page 15, line 18, leave out ("an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28").
  Page 15, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall lay copies of every report under this section before each House of Parliament.").
  Page 15, line 30, leave out ("or the Chief Constable's").
  Page 15, line 31, leave out ("any provision of an order under section 28(1)") and insert ("section 28").
  Page 15, line 35, at end insert ("as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Enforcement of duties under section 28]:
  The Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 136, I must inform the Committee that, if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 137 to 139.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 15, line 41, leave out from ("State") to end of line 3 on page 16 and insert ("has received a report under section 29(4) or 30(5) of this Act, or section 41(4) of the 1998 Act, and he is satisfied that—

  (a) the Board is failing to comply with the requirements of section 28; or

  (b) it is appropriate to change performance indicators or performance standards contained in a performance plan, so far as relating to the functions of the Chief Constable.

  113
  (2) Subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State may direct the Board—

  (a) to take any action which he considers necessary or expedient to secure compliance with the requirement of section 28; or

  (b) to make such changes to the performance indicators or performance standards mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as he considers appropriate.").

  The noble and learned Lord said: There has been some confusion on the Marshalled List. I do not wish to be associated with Amendments 137 and 144, which are tabled in my name, though the government amendments achieve the same effect as these amendments. I wish it to be clear that I now move Amendment No. 136 and later shall move Amendments Nos. 140 to 143 inclusive, and Amendment No. 240, all of which are tabled in my name alone. I invite noble Lords to withdraw the other amendments in this group.
  We have already covered this ground in general terms under Clause 28. Many of the changes to Clause 31 are consequent upon the changes to Clause 28. The clause provides for the Secretary of State's default role should the hoard fail in its duty to secure best value for its own and police resources. If the Secretary of State receives an adverse report from the Comptroller and Auditor-General, he will be able to take action to direct the board to take measures to secure best value.
  This is a strong power but it is only triggered following independent professional scrutiny. As the Secretary of State provides 100 per cent of the £650 million it takes to run policing in Northern Ireland each year, that is hardly an unreasonable power. I beg to move.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. Nevertheless, I have to press this and put down a marker about the content of Amendment No. 136 in the name of the noble and learned Lord. It follows on from the concerns I expressed earlier about Amendment No. 121. I still do not understand why the Secretary of State is giving himself power to change the board's indicators and targets. We would oppose the move. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister, as he has promised, before Report.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I was a little confused as to where we had reached. Clause 31 states:
  "Subsection (2) applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Board or the Chief Constable is failing to comply with the requirements of any provision of an order under section 28(1)".
  However, I thought that, under Amendment No. 111, we had knocked out the order. That amendment deleted the words from page 13, line 9:
  "such arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
  It seems to me that the drafting has slipped a little. Perhaps I have missed something. However, I thought it worth drawing this to the attention of the Minister.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on my Amendment No. 121
  114
  about not referring to the board seemed a good one. At present I am not in a position to answer it. It may or may not be a good point in relation to the drafting. Perhaps I may undertake to write to the noble Lord. If the point is a good one so far as concerns the drafting, we shall obviously return to it on Report.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked why the Secretary of State has the power to amend the targets. As I have explained, the Secretary of State provides 100 per cent of the funding. However, that may be a matter which we can explore in a meeting between Committee and Report.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 137 to 139 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 140 to 143:
  Page 16, line 5, leave out ("subsection (4)(d)") and insert ("paragraph (bb), (c) or (d) of subsection (4)").
  Page 16, line 6, leave out ("received by him under subsection (7)(b)") and insert ("submitted to him under subsection (7C)").
  Page 16, line 8, leave out ("subsection (7)(a)") and insert ("subsection (7A)").
  Page 16, line 9, leave out subsections (4) to (6).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
  Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 [General functions of the police]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 145:
  Page 16, line 40, leave out ("have regard to") and insert ("be guided by").
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 145 strengthens the requirement on officers to adhere to the code of ethics. It changes "have regard to" to "be guided by".
  A number of commentators on the Bill expressed concerns that the code of ethics will not have teeth. That is far from the case, as the Secretary of State is already obliged under Clause 50 to reflect the code in discipline regulations. However, the Government and the chief constable were prepared to go the extra mile to reassure those who had concerns and tabled Amendment No. 145 accordingly. In our view, that is as far as we can reasonably go with what is, after all, a code and not legislation.
  In the light of previous experience I shall reply to Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 after they have been moved. I beg to move.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My noble friend resisted the temptation on this occasion to eat the egg before it was laid. Perhaps I can say a word on Amendment No. 147, though I believe I know what her reaction will be.
  First, I am a little puzzled by what she said in relation to Amendment No. 145. My noble friend seems to think that "be guided by" is in some way stronger than "have regard to". One could debate that at length. Some Members of' the Committee are

  115
  grammarians by profession. But I am not sure it is self-evident. I would have preferred something a little stronger.
  At the moment the Bill simply requires the Chief Constable to "have regard to" the policing plan. Amendment No. 147 seeks to impose a stronger restraint. It requires him to "comply" with it. That is hardly a draconian restraint on his discretion. After all, if we look at Clause 26, we see that the chief constable himself is to draft the policing plan and the board may amend it, but only after consulting him. To say that after that he need do no more than be "guided" by it, seems to reduce the exercise almost to a charade.
  It seems from Clause 27 that the code of practice is envisaged primarily as a matter of financial and managerial controls. And even that is not to be issued before consultation. Both processes represent a carefully considered balance before either document sees the light of day. Is the Chief Constable then required to be no more than "guided" by them? Presumably, if he shows that he had regard to them or was guided by them and then took the view that the best course was to ignore them, no Secretary of State, no court, no authority may second-guess him.
  If the fear is that the restraints and safeguards may prove to be too rigid; that there may be unforeseen situations where the Chief Constable's writ should run unfettered, Amendment No. 147 at least suggests a solution. He would then be free to shed the bridle. However, it would require him at least to persuade the board of the necessity to depart from it. Surely, that is hardly likely to reduce him to inactivity and I hope that my noble friend will at least consider that.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: As regards the difference between the two phrases in Amendment No. 145, I believe that to have regard to something is to look at it. The Chief Constable could say that he looked at the code of ethics of policing plans but then did something else. It therefore seems to me that to "be guided by" strengthens the provision.
  The Minister is proposing to strengthen the Bill with respect to police officers and the code of ethics but not with regard to the chief constable either in respect of the policing plan or any code of practice. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, suggests that he should "comply with" it, unless he has agreed with the board that he need not. That proposal goes a little further and slightly reduces the Chief Constable's freedom of manoeuvre. From time to time, he may need to act quickly and I am not sure that he will always have time to obtain the board's approval to vary the policing power.
  That point is more important to policing in Northern Ireland than perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom because the situation can change quickly and become extremely fraught. The chief constable might need to bend the policing plan or code
  116
  of practice. He would be responsible for that and be answerable to the board under the general provisions but he needs flexibility of movement, particularly in tight situations.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, for acknowledging that government Amendment No. 145 meets his objective in Amendment No. 146 and he will therefore not move it.
  It is true that lawyers could debate at great length the difference in meaning between the phrases "guided by" and "have regard to". The Government's legal advice is that, as noble Lord, Lord Cope said, "guided by" is a stronger formulation. Furthermore, it could cost a great deal of money to have the noble Lord's lawyers debate the issue.
  Amendment No. 147, tabled by my noble and learned friend requires the chief constable to comply with the policing plan and any codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State unless he has the approval of the policing board to do otherwise. The provision as it currently stands requires the chief constable to have regard to both the plan and the codes of practice. Of course we want the chief constable to do his best to implement both the policing plan and the codes of practice and I agree that there will be full consultation and involvement of the chief constable in that process. However, rigid compliance could undermine the chief constable's operational independence. The Patten report stated that that must be maintained in Recommendation 24 and that neither the policing board nor the Secretary of State should have power to direct the chief constable.
  In any event, it is not realistic to suppose that the planning process will foresee every possible eventuality, which is why the Chief Constable must be permitted room for manoeuvre. There is a point at which that professional judgment may well have to be exercised in circumstances which cannot be foreseen in detail. Similar arguments apply in respect of codes of practice which, by their nature, are not legally binding in the same way as subordinate legislation. I hope that that satisfies my noble and learned friend and that he will feel able not to press his amendment.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am not sure that my noble friend's response wholly satisfies me, but I do feel able not to press the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
  Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 33 [General functions of Chief Constable]:
  [Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve]:
  Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 148:

  117
  Page 18, line 30, at end insert—
  ("(4) Any person appointed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve shall serve only on a part-time basis.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: Of all the provisions of the Bill, recruitment is probably the area which gives rise to the most serious problems, as we have seen in earlier debates. The Government tread a minefield. It is here that people are most jealous, suspicious, unwilling to make concessions and ready to explode into anger. I believe that the Government have done their best to address the problems fairly, and I do not wish to upset that balance. However, it would be a pity if avoidable problems arose. In paragraph 14.12 of its report the Patten commission sought to address the problem of the part-time reserve. In many cases this is a useful bridge by which the force and the professional constabulary on the one hand maintain their links with the local communities on the other. They in turn develop an insight into the problems of policing.
  At present there is a full-time reserve and part-time reserve. The first question which will be asked in any conversation is how the two traditions are represented in each. It is with some hesitation that I quote statistics because I appreciate that I may be challenged on the source. Such challenges could be exchanged all evening. (I once saw a document entitled The House of Lords broken down by age and sex, and since then I have rather suspected statistics.) As I understand it, 8 per cent of regular officers are Catholics, and for the full-time reserve and part-time reserve the figures are 7 per cent and less than 5 per cent respectively. The Patten commission observed that in whole areas which are predominantly nationalist Catholics are totally unrepresented in the part-time reserve.
  The commission pointed out that a great opportunity was being missed to establish effective community policing, particularly bearing in mind the high proportion of women in the part-time reserve. The commission recommended the phasing out of the full-time reserve over three years, after a reasonable period of notice as contracts expired. The purpose of this amendment is simply to give effect to that recommendation. I am not sure whether such a provision was left out of the Bill by oversight, but if it was deliberate I hope that my noble friend can explain why the Bill does not appear to envisage acceptance of that recommendation. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise to say a few words against the amendment. The RUC Reserve has played a most important role over many years. It was originally recruited for a three-year term, which I believe has been renewed 10 times in some cases, for the duration of the emergency as it were, to assist the regular RUC. It is true that reservists are not trained to the same high degree as the regular RUC. They are used a great deal for guard duties and important matters of that kind. One regularly finds RUCR officers on the gates in the sangars around police stations and around other vulnerable points, such as the courts of justice and so on. Those duties do not require a fully trained officer and a reserve officer can
  118
  readily do the task. Many of then—the majority as far as I know—are full time, and have been for many years.
  When I was in the Northern Ireland Office the question of their pension arose. There had not been proper pension provision initially because they were supposed to serve only for three years. But after their contracts had been renewed seven times, some of them had served for 21 years and it was necessary to think of that.
  When peace fully arrives—we have not yet arrived at it by quite a long way—the RUCR can be phased out altogether. I hope we shall thank them in a generous way for what they have done. They have been just as exposed to the terrorists as have the regular RUC. Many have been murdered or injured, some while serving and some after retirement. I remember one particular incident when that happened. It is sensible to suggest that in future they should serve only on a part-time basis. On the contrary, it is important that many of them remain on a full-time basis, at least until peace fully comes.
  I did not recall that the Patten commission suggested that they should only serve on a part-time basis. Perhaps I missed that. I have just looked back at the reference which the noble and learned Lord gave. I did not see it there.
  I support the recommendation that new reserve police officers be recruited from the Catholic nationalist areas as much as possible. But we know the difficulties with that. We discussed the difficulties earlier; namely, intimidation and so on. That applies equally to the reserve officers as to the regular RUC officers. Therefore, this is not an acceptable provision.
  In passing, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the RUCR and the contribution they have made to democracy and preserving democracy over the past 30 years.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I, too, pay tribute to the work that has been done and the danger that has been faced by the RUCR.
  Amendment No. 148 requires that appointments to the police reserve should henceforth be on a part-time basis only. In effect, it would prohibit any further appointments to the full-time reserves. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it was recommended in the Patten recommendations—recommendation 103—that the future police service should not include a full-time reserve. I can reassure my noble and learned friend that the Government's intention is that the full-time reserve will be phased out over a three-year period by means of non-renewal of contracts and through enhanced severance arrangements. Neither the Government nor the Chief Constable have any intention of recruiting to the full-time reserve. Draft outline regulations on recruitment, which have been placed in the Library and the Printed Paper Office, make that clear. This also fulfils a commitment given at Second Reading to produce these outline regulations.

  119
  However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, acknowledged, the policy of the Government with regard to security support in Northern Ireland is based on the security situation. The security and public order climate in Northern Ireland is unpredictable and we are simply not in a position absolutely to guarantee future stability. The Chief Constable must therefore be allowed operational discretion and flexibility in determining future policing needs. However, in saying that to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, perhaps I may repeat and stress that the intention is that the full-time reserve will be phased out over a three-year period. I accordingly ask that his amendment be withdrawn.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to the specific recommendation, but I would point out that the Patten commission said that the RUC's own fundamental review in 1996 proposed that in the event of a sustained improvement in the security situation the full-time reserve should be disbanded. I said myself that when we have peace—that is another way of expressing it—the role of the full-time reserve will be over. It was recruited for the emergency situation, even if it has lasted for 30 years instead of three years. I do not disagree with that. But I do not think that we are there yet and I do not think that we should write into the Bill a provision of this character.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: I readily acknowledge the debt we all owe to the full-time reserve. Nothing in my amendment was intended to cast any doubt on that. I am grateful to my noble friend, first, for pointing out recommendation 103. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I think that the reference I gave was erroneous. I am grateful to my noble friend too for pointing out what is intended when the time comes. I do not believe that it would be right to carry the matter any further today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clauses 38 to 43 agreed to.
  Lord Carter: I think that now may be a convenient moment to break. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Speaker of the House of Commons
11.3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to acquaint the House that a Commission has been issued under Her Majesty's Great Seal to several Lords
120
therein named authorising the said Lords to declare in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty Her Majesty's Approbation of the choice of the Commons of Mr Michael Martin to be their Speaker.
Then, the Lords Commissioners (the Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg), the Baroness Jay of Paddington, the Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and the Lord Weatherill) being robed and seated in front of the Throne, the Lord Chancellor directed Black Rod as follows: Let the Commons know that the Lords Commissioners desire their immediate attendance in this House.
Then, the Commons being at the Bar, Mr Speaker-Elect (Mr Michael Martin), addressing the Royal Commissioners, said: My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships that, in obedience to the Royal Command, Her Majesty's faithful Commons have, in the exercise of their undoubted rights and privileges, proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and that their choice has fallen on myself.. I therefore present myself at your Lordships' Bar and submit myself with all humility for Her Majesty's gracious Approbation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, it not being convenient to Her Majesty to be present in person at this time, a Commission has been issued under the Great Seal commanding us and several other Lords therein named to notify and declare Her Majesty's Approbation of the choice of her faithful Commons of Mr Michael Martin to be their Speaker, which Commission you will now hear read.
Then, the Commission having been read at the Table, the Lord Chancellor said: Mr Martin, we have it in command from Her Majesty to declare Her Majesty's entire confidence in your talents, diligence and sufficiency to fulfil the important duties of the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons to which you have been chosen by that House, and in obedience to the Commission which has been read and by virtue of the authority therein contained, we do declare Her Majesty's royal allowance and confirmation of you, sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Speaker: My Lords, I submit myself with all humility and gratitude to Her Majesty's gracious Commands. I pray that, if in the discharge of my duties and in the maintenance of the rights and privileges of the Commons I shall inadvertently fall into any error, it may be imputed to myself alone, and not to Her Majesty's most faithful Commons.
The Speaker and the Commons then retired.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
11.31 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 44 [Recruitment arrangements]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 149:

121
Page 21, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard, in particular, to the need to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 154 and 248. This amendment is designed to ensure that the various lay representatives who are to participate in the recruitment process—both the assessment and vetting of candidates—are bound by the regulations not to disclose information that could be potentially damaging for the public interest.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that, while increased transparency can only be a good thing, the integrity of the system and the interests of the candidates must be protected. It is entirely appropriate that such safeguards should be built into the regulations. Amendment No. 154 is complex and may be worth a brief explanation. Patten said (in paragraph 15.10):
"In the event that the level of Catholic application does not initially produce enough qualified candidates … it may be necessary to aggregate the figures over two or three years".
As it stands, the Bill allows for the 50:50 recruitment quota to be adjusted for the purposes of recruiting police trainees, not police support staff, in two sets of circumstances: first, where there is an insufficient number of candidates of either community background to fill the number of required posts, the Secretary of State may make an order to set aside 50:50 (this is known as a set aside order). Secondly, where at least one such set aside order has been made in the previous three years, the Secretary of State may make an order to aggregate the quota for the purposes of redressing, or partly redressing, any imbalance that has arisen as a result. This is known as an "aggregation order". It is the latter that will be affected by this amendment.
It has been suggested that, as the provision stands, the Secretary of State could, in theory, adjust the quota to permit 100 per cent recruitment from members of either community background group—Catholic or non-Catholic. In effect, this would exclude members of the other group from being recruited in that particular competition. Accordingly, this amendment sets a ceiling on the Secretary of State's power to aggregate the quota at 75 per cent. That ensures that any aggregation order must require a minimum of 25 per cent of either community background group to be appointed.
Members of the Ulster Unionist and Liberal Democrat parties have brought this issue to the Government's attention and we are grateful for that fact. We trust that this amendment will allay concerns that there could be extreme and undesirable consequences to the 50:50 recruitment policy. Amendment No. 154 will prevent that happening.
Amendment No. 248 will enable references to "the Board" in the provisions dealing with recruitment to be construed as references to "Police Authority", in advance of the board being established. In effect, this will enable subordinate legislation, in respect of which the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the board,
122
to be progressed. Given the tight timescale involved—the aim is to have a recruitment agent in place by January 2001, with the next recruitment competition beginning in April—progress simply cannot be delayed pending the board's appointment. I ask the Committee to accept Amendment No. 149. I shall not deal with the other amendments in this group until Members of the Committee have spoken to their own amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Smith of Clifton: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his elucidation of his proposed amendment which I welcome. The Committee will remember at Second Reading these Benches were much exercised on the issue of the merits of targets versus quotas. Amendment No. 159 which stands in my name, as does Amendment No. 166, concern this matter.
Amendment No. 154 has done much to modify the bald impact of quotas as they originally appeared in Clause 45. Roman Catholic under representation is considerable and has proved resistant to change. The proportion of Roman Catholic officers has increased by just 1 per cent over the past 10 years. In 1990 it was 7.3 per cent and this year, only 8.4 per cent. In the past the RUC has had targets set for it and has failed to meet them. Quotas may not succeed, but I have been persuaded since Second Reading that targets certainly have not.
Moreover, since Second Reading the Government have achieved a derogation from the European Union's protocols on employment discrimination so the quotas are now legal. Therefore this reservation has also been removed. In supporting Amendment No. 154, I propose not moving Amendment No. 159 standing in my name although I shall still want to see Amendment No. 166 considered as I believe the necessary affirmative action is now vitally necessary.
Lord Glentoran: I support Amendment No. 149. Amendment No. 154 is undoubtedly helpful. However, there is the whole question of quotas versus targets and of realism versus hope and—I do not mean this in a derogatory way—hopeful imagination. As we discussed much earlier today in relation to recruitment to the RUC, if we are not to get the support and the backing of the nationalists, the republicans and the Roman Catholic Church, we can legislate as much as we like but we shall not meet the quotas. My only fear with Amendment No. 154 is that if the nationalist/ republican community continue to dig in their toes and refuse to join the RUC, the police force—whatever its name may be—will start to operate under strength. That is a matter of concern.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Patten said that real community policing is impossible if the cornposition of the police bears little relationship to the composition of the community as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, pointed out, the present composition of the RUC is 8 per cent Catholic, as against 88 per cent Protestant, some 3.9 per cent being classified as non-determined.

123
Affirmative action measures, referred to in Amendment No. 166 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, target setting, and so on, have been attempted for many years but their impact has not been sufficient to bring about the representational balance that is needed. Fifty-fifty recruitment—as it has come to be called—has been accepted by the Government as an exceptional remedy to an exceptional problem. The aim is to bring about a sharp upturn in the level of Catholic representation in the shorter term.
Selection will continue to be based on merit and the system will remain under regular governmental scrutiny, as provided for by Clause 46. We accept the exceptional nature of the problem and we also accept, as I indicated earlier, that we would strongly welcome the Patten suggestion of the SDLP and Church members calling for members of all communities to join the police service. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, for having indicated that he will not be moving some of his amendments. I would also ask him to do the same in respect of Amendment No. 166.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 21, line 37, leave out ("6") and insert ("2").
The noble Lord said: This amendment runs along with Amendments Nos. 155 and 156. They are all in the same spirit that the noble and learned Lord has spoken about. We all want to encourage 50:50 recruitment. Amendment No. 152 allows for a change in the minimum number of vacancies to be declared before the quota applies. Currently it says that there have to be six vacancies in civilian support staff before this quota kicks in, and my amendment reduces this to two. That makes it easy.
It may be that this is a difficult thing to do. If there are only two vacancies arising in a particular area, it may be difficult to apply a quota. My amendment is in line with the stated position of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. What I propose in the other two amendments is that for any vacancies between two to five the 50:50 principle should be applied by the Chief Constable as far as is practicable. If it is not practicable to apply the quota then it simply does not apply and a chief constable will have discretion to balance the need to apply the quota against any other competing needs. He has to account publicly each year and report on how he has exercised his discretion.
This group of amendments will allow for the quota requirement to kick in at a much lower level of vacancies. They also allow flexibility for a chief constable to balance the needs of quota fulfilment with other needs. I think it is quite sensible and recommend it to my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has tabled Amendments Nos. 152, 155 and 156 relating to the recruitment of police support staff.
124
These amendments would reduce the threshold for the application of 50:50 recruitment from six to two, with the proviso that where the number of vacancies is five or less the quota will be applied when it is practicable to do so. The Government do not accept that the 50:50 mechanism could properly or effectively be used where such small numbers are involved. For instance, in practical terms, how could 50:50 be applied where there are three or five places to be filled? To apply a quota to such tiny numbers would, to all intents and purposes, negate the merit principle completely, even with the proviso referred to. The impact on overall composition at such levels would clearly be negligible. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw Amendment No. 152.
Lord Desai: I thank my noble and learned friend for those remarks. I was worried that six vacancies may not arise at one particular time, but I shall read his remarks in Hansard with care. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 153:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

  RECRUITMENT ARRANGEMENTS: OTHER RANKS
  (" .—(1) In exercising its functions in relation to the appointment of senior officers, the Board shall take such steps as it considers necessary to encourage applications for appointment from suitably qualified external candidates.
  (2) In exercising his functions in relation to the appointment of police officers (other than senior officers), the Chief Constable shall take such steps as he considers necessary to encourage applications for appointment from suitably qualified external candidates.
  (3) In complying with subsections (1) and (2), the Board and the Chief Constable shall have regard to the progress which has been made towards securing that membership of the police is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
  (4) "Suitably qualified external candidates" means candidates who—

  (a) are not currently serving in the police; and

  (b) satisfy the qualifications for appointment which—

  (i) are prescribed in regulations made under section 25 or 26 of the 1998 Act; or

  (ii) are otherwise determined for the rank in question.").

  The noble and learned Lord said: Patten recommended that,
  "the recruitment agency should seek to identify such officers (ie. Catholic police officers from Northern Ireland serving in police services elsewhere), contact them and encourage them—particularly those in more senior ranks—to apply for positions in the Northern Ireland police".
  He also went on to say that secondments or recruitment from non-police organisations should be encouraged. This proposed new clause is designed to encourage what has become known as lateral entry.
  I should explain that lateral entry already happens between UK police forces although in the RUC only a few posts are filled each year in this way. This provision provides the basis for a wider degree of lateral entry including from the Garda.
  As Patten highlighted, the proportion of Catholics in the senior ranks of the RUC—that is superintendent and above—stands at around 16 per cent and is therefore significantly higher than in the service as a whole. Nevertheless, it is still not reflective of community composition.
  Our aim is to provide for lateral entry at all levels within the police service. But selection will be based on open competition and merit as Patten recommended. The provision does not provide for a sudden influx of, say, Garda officers by some preferential route. The Government hope that the provision will assist in bringing about compositional change; but, I repeat, all such recruitment must be on merit.
  The provision will be defined at Clause 46 as a temporary one. It will, therefore, be subject to review and renewal every three years by the Secretary of State, as with the 50:50 recruitment arrangements. In deciding whether to renew, the Secretary of State must take account of the extent to which the police service is representative of the Northern Ireland community. I beg to move.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: The amendment refers to the qualifications for appointment prescribed in regulations made under Section 25 or 26 of the 1998 Act. Will the Minister remind me of the nationality requirements in that regard? The noble and learned Lord referred to members of the Garda, who presumably hold substantially the nationality of the Irish Republic rather than British or British Commonwealth. I shall be grateful to know.
  I do not suggest that no officers from the republic who are not British or British Commonwealth citizens should be recruited but I should like to know the position.
  Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps the Minister will clarify one point in subsection (4)(a) of the amendment. It refers to those who,
  "are not currently serving in the police".
  Does that refer to those who are not service in any police force or simply the police force of Northern Ireland?
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: This is a sensible amendment. It reflects the realities of the 21st century. I am a member of the Home Office working group on leadership in the police. I am convinced that we must have a more open and accessible approach to identifying and selecting those appointed to senior positions. This is a provision which the remainder of the UK will envy.
  Lord Hylton: I have in the past corresponded with various Ministers on the question of widening the pool of possible applicants for the Police Service in
  126
  Northern Ireland. It would be helpful if one did not exclude applicants from any police force in the English speaking world.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I should be grateful if the Minister could comment—it may not be under this amendment although this seems the right place—on the balance of experience in the police. I think, for example, of the current situation in our Army, which is losing a great many experienced people. It is true that we are also recruiting, but those recruits have to be trained. They have to learn and gain a considerable amount of experience to be valuable.
  There is a parallel if a great many current senior officers leave the police service. Even if, by a miracle, we gain a number of Catholic and nationalist recruits, they will be wholly inexperienced. It will be at least five years, maybe more, before they gain sufficient experience even to be useful police officers. I should like to know whether there is some arrangement to leave the RUC over-strength for a while to retain sufficient experienced people to train the inexperienced intake.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The nationality requirements are set out in draft regulations, which have been made available. Schedule 1 to Regulation 10 says that to be eligible for appointment as a constable, a candidate must be a British citizen or a Commonwealth citizen, or other than a British citizen, or a citizen of the Irish Republic, in which case he must satisfy one of the following conditions: at least one of his parents is, or was at death, a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic; or he has resided in a country or territory within the Commonwealth or the Irish Republic; or he has been employed elsewhere in the service of the Crown. The regulations go into further detail that I shall not read. If such a person is not qualified under those provisions, he must satisfy the Chief Constable that he is so closely connected with a country or territory within the Commonwealth by ancestry, upbringing or residence or by reason of national service that an exception may properly be made in his favour.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monrnouth, asked about the balance of experience. We are dealing with people who enter laterally. They will have experience in another police force. I do not know what the noble Baroness was getting at when she suggested that someone who had not been in Northern Ireland would still need more experience. As I have already said, and as the Patten report recommended, recruitment must be on open competition and merit. Standards will be maintained. We are talking about encouragement, not about standards being dropped in any way.
  The answer that I have written down from the box to the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, is "just the police in Northern Ireland". I hope that that is a satisfactory answer.
  I think that that answers all the questions.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Discrimination in appointments]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 154.
  Page 22, line 22, at end insert—
  ("( ) No order may be made under subsection (2) as a result of subsection (3)(b) which has the effect, as respects an occasion specified in the order, of requiring more than three-quarters of the persons appointed on that occasion to be—

  (a) the persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; or

  (b) the persons who are not so treated.").

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I should like some clarification. Will the ethnic communities come under paragraph (b)? They may be a small percentage in Northern Ireland, but they are expanding rapidly and are very sensitive, particularly in the aftermath of the Macpherson report.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 157 and 158.
  Page 23, line 11, leave out ("police reserve") and insert ("Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve").
  Page 23, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 16.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 45, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Rogan: Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which was signed on 2nd October 1997, came into force on 1st May 1999. That article empowered the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, to,
  "take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation".
  The European Commission published two draft directives on 25th November 1999. The directives are directly effective in the member states and are due to be implemented by 31st December 2002. The draft directives were aimed at implementing Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty. When in force from 31st December 2002, they could—and, indeed, I believe will—make 50:50 recruitment illegal. Indeed, 50/50 is already illegal for men/women under European law, based on the pool system that the Government are seeking to use. It is not possible to derogate from a directive. They will be directly effective.
  The British and Irish Governments have already agreed to the directives in principle. In a joint statement at the Lisbon Special European Council of 23rd and 24th March, the United Kingdom and Irish Governments urged the member states to,
  "make early progress on the Commission's Article 13 antidiscrimination proposals".
  128
  Therefore, they have endorsed the draft directives before they have been formally approved.
  I wish to ask the Minister, an eminent Queen's Counsel who understands the effects of European law in this country, about a legal point that has been raised in another place. The legal issue is the relationship between the 50:50 recruitment proposal in Clause 44 and the EC directive, which establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation approved by the Council last week. The directive must be implemented in the United Kingdom by 31st December 2002.
  Will a young Catholic or Protestant man or woman who is admitted to "Patten's pool" on merit but then not subsequently recruited into the police have a remedy, probably in damages, for discrimination on the ground of religious belief in the Northern Ireland courts using that EC directive?
  Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may draw his attention to a relevant parliamentary precedent from this Government's first year. The late Donald Dewar favoured reverse discrimination in favour of women for the first Scottish Parliament, contrary to United Kingdom sex discrimination law. That issue was discussed in a Cabinet committee and a minute was sent to the Prime Minister. The source for this internal government debate is the Guardian newspaper of 3rd March 1998. This Labour Government had taken legal advice from another eminent Queen's Counsel, Mr Patrick Elias. The four government law officers concurred with his opinion to the effect that reverse discrimination to increase the number of women in the first Scottish Parliament was contrary to the men and women anti-discrimination directive.
  The only difference between the position in 1998 and that of today is that the directive had entered into force. Therefore, will the Minister tell the Committee whether the 50:50 proposal will be contrary to European law from 1st January 2003?
  In 1998, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Prime Minister that,
  "any Minister bringing forward or accepting an amendment would not be able to assure the house that it was ECJ proof. This would put him in an impossible position and create handling difficulties".
  A member of that Cabinet Committee was Peter Mandelson, now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  By way of conclusion, I ask the Minister whether that 50:50 proposal has been ECJ-proofed? Have the Government taken advice on what the legal position in Northern Ireland will be after 31st December 2002?
  Midnight
  Lord Glentoran: I want to make clear a couple of points from this side of the Committee about which I may have muddied the waters earlier.
  First, on this side of the Committee, we accept totally the urgent need for recruitment of more Catholics to come forward in proportion with the population. We support almost all that the Government are doing in this Bill and elsewhere to

  129
  make that recruitment happen. We should love dearly to see at least 50 per cent, 48 per cent, or whatever the proportion may be, of the police force to be members of the Roman Catholic or nationalist communities.
  However, we do not believe that the 50:50 quota system is the right way forward. We believe that there should be a form of targeting and that there should be serious recruitment provided that the environment exists for it. We have already discussed why we do not have 50:50 or 48:52 or whatever the numbers need to be.
  We seriously support and understand the need for equalising members of the police force. We want that to happen. But we do not support the straight 50:50 proposal.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I too support the aims of the 50:50 proposal, as do most other Members of the Committee who come from Northern Ireland. I do not believe that there is any question about that.
  On the other hand, if we have that pool of people who have passed the entry exam to become part of the recruitment pool, how are they rated within that pool? I have a note from the noble and learned Lord which says:
  "The point of the pool system is that all entrants to the police service will have had to achieve a single consistent standard of merit".
  Does that mean that there is absolutely no order of merit at all and provided that people achieve a certain level, thereafter, their names are taken out of a hat, except that under the 50:50 rule, more Roman Catholics will be taken in order to try to equalise the numbers? I cannot believe that any police force or business has a pool of applicants ready to come in who are not rated in an order of merit in some way.
  If they were left on an even plain, how long do the Government realistically think—and remember that there are 4,000 entrants to each competition which may fill up to three recruit cadres—that some people, who may have degrees and feel that they are particularly suited to this will wait for a person to merely pull them out of that pool by sheer luck? I cannot believe that it will be long. There will be an order of merit, because, quite clearly, no chief constable would want to lower the standards or fail to attain the standards within his force which he would wish to see.
  If there is a pool by merit, then there is discrimination, let alone on grounds of sex.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Three separate points arise. First, I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about the effect of the EU directive. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, rightly pointed out, a directive was agreed pursuant to the terms of Article 13 last Tuesday at the Council of Ministers. It includes an explicit exception for the provisions of this Bill, for the 50:50 recruitment. So with that exception, we are satisfied that there is no breach of the provisions of Article 13, nor is there a breach of the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty.
  130
  Therefore, it is not contrary in any way to EU law. Reference was made to the comparison with gender. However, the gender comparison is not appropriate. There is no exception for gender. The answer to that is that 50:50 recruitment will not be contrary to EU law now or in the year 2003.
  We note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. However, we had that debate earlier. As far as concerns the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the position is that minimum standards will have to be met before somebody gets into the pool. There will be an order of merit but selection will be on the basis of 50:50 in accordance with Clause 45. There will be no lowering of standards.
  Viscount Brookeborough: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. We do not have those numbers at present. Surely by virtue of what the Minister said, if out of 2000 people that pass this level there are only 20 Roman Catholics in the top 50 for the first course, once you have chosen the 20 plus 50 Protestants, or ethnic minorities being other than Roman Catholic, you will have to search lower down the order for your remaining 30 Roman Catholics, if they exist. Therefore, you may be taking number 550 in order of merit and number 2100. How does that work?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The standards are not lowered because there are minimum standards before one can be selected to join the police service.
  Viscount Brookeborough: But you will therefore have accepted somebody from lower down the order of merit than others of either an ethnic minority or Protestant, something other than Roman Catholic who are higher. Numbers 51, 52 and 53 could be Muslim, Chinese or whatever. However, you have gone to number 250 in the order of merit to achieve 50:50 by taking a Roman Catholic from further down the list.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think that we are going round in circles. The point is that all must pass a particular standard of merit to get in.
  Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: One could never always have people of equal merit. Some will pass the minimum standard by a considerable amount. Does that mean that whichever they are, they will be omitted and people from a lower standard from the other side will be appointed?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: That will obviously depend upon the numbers that apply. As I keep stating, there will be a minimum standard above which everybody has to reach before they are admitted.
  Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
  [Amendment 159 not moved.]
  Clause 46 [Expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions]:
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 160:
  Page 23, line 32, after ("(6);") insert—
  ("( ) section (Recruitment arrangements: other ranks);").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 161:
  Page 23, line 34, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (3A)").
  The noble Lord said: This simple group of amendments is designed to extend the time limit for administering the quota. Currently, there is a three-year expiry limit unless the Secretary of State renews it. Experience from other countries shows that it takes much longer for this sort of discrimination to be over and for quotas to be properly fulfilled. I never suggested that quotas should be allowed to continue indefinitely. However, if the Secretary of State concludes that enough progress has been made after three years, he can review the situation and end the quota. The amendment allows flexibility so that if it is achieved within three years, that is fine. However, if it is not achieved, we have the flexibility to extend it. I beg to move.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendments Nos. 161 to 164 would remove the provision requiring the Secretary of State to review and renew the 50:50 recruitment arrangements every three years. They would only require renewal after 10 years unless the Secretary of State chose to intervene to remove the provision by order after three years.
  We are not persuaded that these amendments represent an improvement to the existing provisions. They only require the renewal of 50:50 recruitment after 10 years, regardless of how much the composition of the organisation has changed. Patten did say that 50:50 recruitment should endure for "at least … 10 years". But a triennial review appears reasonable for such exceptional measures.
  The sensible approach is surely to allow for its ultimate duration to be subject to regular review, based on the level of impact it has produced on the overall composition of the service, which is what the Bill's existing provisions allow. In those circumstances I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Desai: I thank my noble and learned friend for that answer. In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall read it tomorrow. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 162 to 164 not moved.]
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 165:
  Page 23, line 43, leave out ("force").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 167:
  After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—

  ACTION PLANS
  (" .—(1) The Board shall make, and from time to time revise, a plan (its "action plan") for monitoring the number of women in—

  (a) the police,

  (b) the police support staff, and

  (c) the Board's staff,

  and, if they are under-represented, for increasing that number.
  (2) The Chief Constable shall, if requested to do so by the Board, prepare and submit to the Board a draft plan for monitoring the number of women in the police and, if they are under-represented, for increasing that number.
  (3) The Board may adopt the draft submitted to it under subsection (2) as part of its action plan, either—

  (a) as submitted; or

  (b) with such amendments as the Board may determine, after consultation with the Chief Constable.

  (4) Before making or revising its action plan, the Board shall consult—

  (a) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland:

  (b) the Chief Constable; and

  (c) the Secretary of State.

  (5) The Board may publish its action plan in such manner as it thinks appropriate.").
  The noble Baroness said: The Government gave an undertaking during Committee in another place to look at the question of female representation in the police. As has been pointed out, the RUC suffers not only from a marked imbalance in terms of community background, but also in terms of gender. Only 12.6 per cent of police officers are women, one third of whom are in the part-time Reserve. Of course, the problem is not peculiar to the RUC but is a feature of police forces everywhere. While recent recruitment figures suggest that the situation may be improving, nevertheless we consider the imbalance to be of sufficient concern to justify special measures.
  Amendment No. 167 enables the policing board to monitor the representation of women in the police, the police support staff and the board itself, and to take measures to increase their representation if necessary. The board may invite the Chief Constable to draft the plan, which may then be accepted or amended by the board. Consultation is required with the Equality Commission, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State before the plan is made or revised. Publication of the plan will be a matter for the board.
  The noble Lord, Lord Smith, tabled Amendments Nos. 168 to 171 to this clause, and I shall respond to those after he has spoken to them. I beg to move.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond moved Amendment No. 168 as an amendment to Amendment No. 167:
  Line 3, after ("women") insert ("and members of minority ethnic groups").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 168, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 169 to 171.
  I congratulate the Government once again on their far-sighted amendment. It needs only a slight extension to cover minority ethnic communities to be absolutely perfect. In England and Wales we have 10-year targets for improving our performance. As a result, most of us devised action plans to achieve those targets and progress is being made. But at this time it is nice to see the Government putting the horse before the cart. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, moved Amendment No. 168 and spoke to Amendments Nos. 169 to 171, which seek to amend Amendment No. 167. The suggestion is that the aim should be not only to increase the representation of women in the service, but also that of ethnic minority groups, and that it should also contain targets and timetables.
  As Patten pointed out, ethnic minorities comprise less than 1 per cent of the Northern Ireland population. The report concluded—and we agree—that such groups should at the present time be targeted through an imaginative advertising strategy. However, we do not consider it would be realistic to set specific targets for ethnic minority recruitment given the small numbers involved.
  As to the requirement for the gender action plan to contain targets and timetables, we do not feel that that needs to be stipulated in the legislation. The formulation of the action plan will ultimately be a matter for the combined judgment of the Chief Constable, the board, the Secretary of State and the Equality Commission. The Government anticipate that it is likely to include targets and timetables but we must be careful not to overly constrain the board in this area.
  Accordingly, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments and invite the Committee to accept Amendment No. 167.
  12.15 a.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Trying to encourage people and setting targets is all very worthy and wonderful. However, Amendment No. 167 proposes the monitoring of the number of women in the police and, if they are under-represented, increasing that number. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, particularly at this hour of the night, in order to discover how on earth it is planned to increase the number but I should be grateful if someone could write to me and let me know. It would be useful for people in industry to adopt the same kind of attitudes.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is my understanding that the policy is in place in a variety of industries and services. Different strategies are adopted, some of which involve processes referred to earlier; for instance, people applying to move from one police service to another where representation may be lower, recruitment and profiling, and examining the ages of the people who are targeted in advertising to see whether it affects the gender balance.
  If there are further points of information I shall write to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Harris of Richmond: I listened with great interest to the Minister but I still believe that the provision could usefully apply to some areas. I hope to return to the matter at a later stage but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 168, as an amendment to Amendment No. 167, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 169 to 171, as amendments to Amendment No. 167, not moved.]
  On Question, Amendment No. 167 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 minutes past midnight.

  Education Action Zones
  Education Action Zones
  Millennium Dome
  Millennium Dome
  Nandrolone
  Nandrolone
  British Museum South Portico
  British Museum South Portico
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Population Breakdown: Ethnic Minorities
  Population Breakdown: Ethnic Minorities
  Bovine Material in Vaccine Manufacture
  Bovine Material in Vaccine Manufacture
  Chief Dental Officers: Support Staff
  Chief Dental Officers: Support Staff
  Housing Benefit: Backdating
  Housing Benefit: Backdating
  Working Time Directive: Extension to Excluded Sectors
  Working Time Directive: Extension to Excluded Sectors
  House of Lords Office Accommodation
  House of Lords Office Accommodation
  Refreshment Department: EPOS System
  Refreshment Department: EPOS System
  Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor: Palace of Westminster Survey
  Tuffin Ferraby and Taylor: Palace of Westminster Survey
  Lorry Drivers' Hours
  Lorry Drivers' Hours
  Train Drivers' Hours
  Train Drivers' Hours
  Multi-ethnic Britain: Runnymede Trust Report
  Multi-ethnic Britain: Runnymede Trust Report
  Life Sentence Prisoner Releases on Licence
  Life Sentence Prisoner Releases on Licence
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Human Rights
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal and Human Rights
  Human Rights: Protocol No 12
  Human Rights: Protocol No 12
  Asylum Seekers' Appeal Rights
  Asylum Seekers' Appeal Rights
  UN Peacekeeping Operations: Deployment of UK Forces
  UN Peacekeeping Operations: Deployment of UK Forces