If he will make a statement on the decommissioning process in Northern Ireland. [103413]

What progress he can report on decommissioning of weapons. [103415]

If he will set out a timetable for the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [103417]

If he will set out a timetable for the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. [103419]

What discussions he has held with the Taoiseach on matters relating to the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. [103421]

Decommissioning remains an essential part of securing full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The Government and the political parties in Northern Ireland agree that decommissioning should begin as soon as possible. The report published on 10 December by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reaffirmed that, and noted that a timetable for voluntary decommissioning is best agreed with the authorised representatives of the paramilitary groups. I discussed that with the Taoiseach when I met him during the inaugural British-Irish Council meeting on 17 December. I look forward to receiving the commission's next report, later this month.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and the commitment that urgent decommissioning remains part of the Good Friday agreement; the murder of Richard Jameson is the most recent reminder of why decommissioning is essential. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the people of Northern Ireland that the British Government's opinion is that any decommissioned arms should be destroyed, rather than dumped, and that, if destruction does not prove to be possible in the short term, any weapons that are dumped remain permanently secure?

The people of Northern Ireland can remain assured that decommissioning remains absolutely central to the fulfilment of the Good Friday agreement. It is not possible to have progress on one part of the Good Friday agreement, but for another to be forgotten. If that were to happen, confidence would simply drain away from all that we have achieved in Northern Ireland.

The Secretary of State must know that, across the United Kingdom, and beyond it, there is huge good will towards the peace process in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us what plans he has—either with the Taoiseach or with other parties in Northern Ireland—to ensure that the process that he has just described, under General de Chastelain, is not only seen to produce decommissioning, but has the community's confidence that that is really happening, and happening now? In that way people will see progress made in every month until May, rather than three months of tension before the final agreed date.

We can generously understand the reluctance of people in the republican movement to decommission except in the context of an overall settlement. However, that settlement has now been put in place: we have the Good Friday agreement, and that condition has been fulfilled. Therefore, we may reasonably expect, as the people of Northern Ireland do, that decommissioning should now start apace, so that it can be completed within the one timetable—the one deadline—that has been established under the Good Friday agreement, which is May 2000. However, for that deadline to be met, a start must be made. All of us—every party that has signed up to the statement, and the belief that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process—will want and expect that start to be made very soon.

I have listened very carefully to the Minister's replies on decommissioning. Does he agree that, in the absence of early and urgent decommissioning, in a free and civilised society, it is wrong to have Ministers of Health and Education who continue to be inextricably linked with a fully armed terrorist organisation?

No, I do not. If one were to believe that that is wrong, one would question the very basis of the peace that has been struck, the ceasefires that have been maintained, and the normalisation of politics that has been returned, at long last, to Northern Ireland.

Will the Secretary of State accept from me that nobody is keener on peace in Northern Ireland than my constituents, who saw my predecessor, Ian Gow, murdered? However, they have seen hundreds of terrorists released and ministerial portfolios given to those with clear terrorist links. When can they expect something tangible in return?

We have already seen significant progress on decommissioning. The establishment of the political institutions in Northern Ireland has created a new context in which decommissioning can and should occur. For the first time, all the main paramilitaries have appointed representatives to General de Chastelain's decommissioning body. In December, the general and his colleagues reported that those and other events

"provide the basis for an assessment that decommissioning will occur".

With reference to my question concerning the Taoiseach, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that there is broad agreement between the two Governments concerning the need for decommissioning to take place on or before the May deadline. In light of the impressive developments that have taken place—to which my right hon. Friend has referred—does he agree that the time has come for the leader of the Ulster Unionist party to give the most serious consideration to a rethinking of his February deadline? If he were to do that, those impressive developments would surely take strong and healthy root in Northern Ireland.

It is not unreasonable for the process to be put on some sort of probation while progress is made on the implementation of all parts of the Good Friday agreement. Let us be under no illusions: the implementation of the agreement depends on trust being built by all sides and on all sides. It requires reciprocal confidence-building measures, so that everyone can be assured that every part of the agreement is being properly implemented. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the Ulster Unionist party has the expectation—which is shared by the British Government, the Irish Government, the American Government and all the other political parties in Northern Ireland—that an early start is made on decommissioning.

Is the Secretary of State as concerned as I am that intelligence reports give no indication that Sinn Fein-IRA is preparing for decommissioning within the time scale that we all expect? Does he agree that we cannot go on trying to purchase disarmament by increments? Will he assure us that the ethos of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will be neither diminished nor distorted in order to flatter Sinn Fein-IRA into a process of decommissioning to which it already assented during the Mitchell review?

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman makes the link between decommissioning and the Patten report. I will do nothing that undermines the ethos or the organisational cohesion of the RUC and whatever police service flows from our implementation of the Patten report; nor will I tolerate any action that impugns the integrity or the professionalism of the police in Northern Ireland. Equally, the police themselves recognise that a fresh start is needed in policing in Northern Ireland so that it is effective and embraced by both communities. Therefore, in implementing the Patten report, we will be mindful of those things, and I will make clear the Government's decisions on its implementation in due course.

Will the Secretary of State point out to all the people who continually ask negative questions about decommissioning that they are being most unconstructive and ignoring all the positive things that have happened, with peace restored to our streets? They do not seem to have noticed that the main political parties, the official Unionists, my party and Sinn Fein are all totally committed to the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement, which includes the full implementation of decommissioning, demilitarisation and disarmament. We must take the positive view, as all the negativism is only in danger of stirring up trouble.

How nice it is to see the hon. Gentleman back among us, restored to good health. He is absolutely right: we should give credit for the political progress that has been made. It is easy for some to underestimate the sheer enormity of what has been achieved in Northern Ireland following the breakthrough made at the end of the Mitchell review.

I very much hope that decommissioning will work, but will the Secretary of State confirm that it is inconceivable for Sinn Fein Ministers to remain in office if it does not take place?

I can only repeat what I said to the House before: if there is a report from General de Chastelain and his colleagues that there is a default on the part of any party signed up to the process—just as would be the case if one of the other parties defaulted in relation to devolution—the Government will take action to suspend the operation of the institutions, as I do not believe that it is right for any party to profit from a default. The whole process would then go back into review and we would do everything that we could to get it back on track as quickly as possible.

If he will make a statement on the development of restorative justice schemes. [103414]

The experience in many jurisdictions is that restorative justice has a role to play in making offenders more aware of the consequences of their actions, facilitating reparation to victims and allowing reconciliation between offender and victim or between victim and the wider community. It is extremely important that the rights and interests of both victim and offender are protected. Such schemes must be complementary to the criminal justice system, not an alternative to it. Investigation of crime is the responsibility of the police and the determination of guilt or innocence solely the responsibility of the courts.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that there are lessons to be learned from the experience of restorative justice for the rest of the United Kingdom? I welcome what he said about the complementary nature of restorative justice: it would not be good for it to take the place of the due process of law. Will he comment on what an important part it plays in returning to a normal social environment and leaving behind the horror of the past?

I agree with all those points. If we are able to get schemes in operation in addition to those that we are already piloting in Northern Ireland and to draw on international as well as British experience, that would further normalisation in Northern Ireland, which I am sure that everyone would welcome.

Does the Minister agree that some of the restorative justice schemes that are operating in Northern Ireland could be accurately described as alternative justice schemes? Does he also agree that those schemes are operating wholly outside the legal system and involve significant abuse of the rights of the people who are caught up within them? Will he give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced to ensure that the only restorative justice schemes that operate are those that have a clear legal basis, are integrated into the legal system, fully respect the rights of those involved and comply wholly with the letter and the spirit of the European convention on human rights?

The right hon. Gentleman has hit on an important aspect of some of the developments that are taking place outwith the normal process of the rule of law which ignore that important right of everyone—offenders and victims—to the protection of his human rights. Some schemes clearly do not conform to what is desirable, do not recognise the police and, indeed, may not even recognise the due process of law. Such schemes do not fall within the ambit of restorative justice but of a different type of civil administration and are, therefore, unacceptable. A review of the criminal justice system is due to be completed shortly and we will report in due course to the House.

As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, and whether we like it or not, a perceived vacuum in policing is being replaced by paramilitary actions and their distinctive brand of restorative justice. How long does the Minister think it will be before that paramilitary action is replaced by the rule of law?

It is not just down to those who administer the rule of law—the police, the Government or the criminal justice system—it is also down to the community to recognise the primacy of the rule of law and to co-operate with those schemes that have been defined and conform to the fundamental principles that I enunciated in an earlier answer. [Interruption.] I would hope that that could be achieved immediately, but we will continue to work to remove that unsatisfactory and unwelcome aspect of society in Northern Ireland.

rose—

Order. I would be much obliged if conversations were a little less noisy. It is difficult for Back Benchers and Ministers to be heard. [Interruption.] Order. I am asking for conversations to be less noisy. I can hear what hon. Members are saying, but I want to hear what they say when they are on their feet.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Clearly the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the earlier reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We listened to the hon. Gentleman's question and he should have listened to the reply that was given on the point that he has raised. That issue is a matter for the independent commission under John de Chastelain to verify. It has to provide security on the decommissioning of weapons and we have placed our faith in it. I had understood that the hon. Gentleman's party had done so also.

Does the Minister appreciate that many people in Northern Ireland feel that the principles of restorative justice would be more firmly founded if those officers of the RUC who issued death threats to Rosemary Nelson were prosecuted and if there was an international inquiry into her murder?

I should have thought that it was much more important that the perpetrators of the crime were brought to justice and that support was given to those who are investigating that crime in order to bring those responsible for such a terrible deed before the courts. I understand the way in which my hon. Friend has framed his question, but he has gone slightly wider than the subject of restorative justice schemes. I am happy to discuss with him further the detail of our attempts to ensure that proper restorative justice schemes are applied in Northern Ireland.

If he will make a statement on the current security position. [103416]

Over recent months, there has been a marked decrease in the overall number of security-related incidents, and the main paramilitary groups are maintaining their ceasefires. There remains, however, a threat from dissident paramilitaries on both sides who are opposed to the Good Friday agreement.

Although I wish the Government well in their complex and difficult endeavours, is not it a matter of real concern that the killings and beatings appear to be continuing, as we saw only yesterday? Do the Government have clear evidence that the incidence of killings and beatings is being reduced? Will the Minister remind all the parties involved that a sound and stable peace will depend on them all abandoning the Mafia-type violence that has been in evidence for so long?

I am sure that the whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of that violence. Earlier, I said that there has been a marked decline in the number of such incidents, but even one is one too many. The solution does not lie only with the RUC, the criminal justice process or even with the politicians. The overall society in Northern Ireland must stand up and condemn such actions, give evidence about them and bear witness to them.

Does the Minister agree that the prospect for maintaining and improving the current security situation would be greatly enhanced by the early introduction of the Patten report? The report's proposals would make the police service more efficient and, most importantly, would allow it to attract greater cross-community support. Will the Minister enlarge slightly on the answer given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) as to when the relevant legislation will be introduced? Will he assure the House that the Patten report will be implemented in full, and that there will not be cherry-picking to suit the positions of political parties?

The Patten report examines new ways to deal with policing in Northern Ireland, and the importance of that was recognised in the Good Friday agreement. The report is in the public domain and there has been a long consultation period on its contents. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, he will address the House on the matter in the next few weeks.

Does the Minister accept that the murder of Richard Jameson this week illustrates very clearly that the terrorist threat is ever present? Will he therefore give the House a guarantee that there will be no reduction in armed forces levels, or any other security changes, unless the Chief Constable and the Army's General Officer Commanding believe that any such change would be safe?

First, it would be proper to sympathise with the family of the victim of that tragic incident. As for the on-going development of the peace process, we hope that no more such crimes—ones that groups devoted to terrorism, paramilitarism or some political process seek to justify—are committed.

I wish to return to the deeply regrettable murder of Richard Jameson. If the Chief Constable informs the Minister that the Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible, it will be clear that that group is no longer observing the ceasefire. In those circumstances, will the Minister guarantee that no more prisoners belonging to that organisation will be released from jail?

As we have advised the House time and again, the whole question of prisoner releases is kept under constant review. That would apply in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous confidence that exists in the work that he has done for demilitarisation in Northern Ireland? The reduction of British troop numbers, the closure of vehicle checkpoints and the opening of the border can only help to improve confidence in the security situation there. Should not my right hon. Friend make greater use of what has been achieved in that regard to encourage people to think positively about decommissioning, as the British Government are carrying out what they said that they would do? Would it not be better to talk about the Government's positive achievements in Northern Ireland than to indulge in the nit-picking approach displayed by the Opposition, who appear to want to set back the whole peace process?

The very principle underlying the points made by my hon. Friend were of course set out in the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published shortly before Christmas a paper setting out the way forward for the normalisation of the security profile, which it says is dependent upon the level of threat. Any further security reductions, which have been considerable over the past year and a half, will be dependent on the best security advice available at that time and in the future.

I am sure that the Government and the Minister will join me in condemning the tragic murder of Richard Jameson in Portadown. Given that last year the Government determined that the IRA ceasefire was intact following its murder of Charles Bennett, what confidence can we have that the Government will apply standards that can be upheld in determining whether a ceasefire has been breached in respect of the murder of Mr. Jameson? Can we have any confidence that the Government will act in those situations to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners?

The hon. Gentleman has been very vocal in his opposition to early releases, but a court assessment has found in favour of the Secretary of State's judgment in terms of the quality of the ceasefire of that particular terrorist group. We continue to monitor the actions of those who are so engaged; judgments are made, and we have shown that we will act resolutely and firmly, based on the evidence that is provided to us on the best security advice available.

If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 January.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

May I say what an honour it is to ask the first question of the millennium? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I only hope that it is not the last.

Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister will select from that question the section which relates to his responsibilities.

Delighted to do so, Madam Speaker. The new deal has meant that 170,000 young people have gone from the dole into work, into unsubsidised jobs. There are tens of thousands more.

Rubbish.

It is a pity that the Conservative party opposed the new deal, but it always has opposed measures that reduce unemployment and help people who are poor. I met some of these young people yesterday. For the first time in their lives, they have some hope, confidence and prospects for the future. I hope, just for once, that the Conservative party will stand up for unemployed people.

First, may I associate the Opposition entirely and sincerely with the Prime Minister's remarks about the missing fishermen?

Let me read out what the chairman of the British Medical Association, Dr. Ian Bogle, has said:

"All parts of the health service have been put under pressure, but doctors and nurses are coping well, from GP services to intensive care. Thanks to the high level of planning across the country, we are coping."

Why does not the Prime Minister wake up and recognise that the system is not coping for some people? That is the fault not of hard working doctors and nurses, but of a Government and of Ministers who did not prepare for the winter. Why did the Prime Minister not listen last night to the daughter of a woman whose operation had been cancelled for the fourth time? On the news, she said:

"I think it is about time Tony Blair started to realise the reality that NHS hospitals are facing on a day to day basis. The Government is trying to cover it up by saying that hospitals are coping, but they are obviously not."

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has attacked the waiting list pledge, as a result of which we have reduced in-patient waiting lists by 80,000. I have outlined previously what has happened on out-patients, but more are being treated than ever before. I do not for a moment dispute that the pressures on the health service as a result of the flu outbreak have been serious. Half our intensive care beds are occupied by people with illnesses related to the flu.

Does the Prime Minister have the courage to give the information that I have requested? We had the first question of the millennium from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell); can we have the first answer from the Prime Minister? Some 248,000 people were waiting to see a consultant when he came to power, and there are 512,000 now—VIPs and ordinary people, as his friend Lord Falconer would probably put it. The only thing that has risen faster under the Government is the cost of political advisers. Does that not tell us all that we need to know about a Government more interested in style than in substance, in making promises than in delivering on them, in blaming others than in taking responsibility— and more interested in spin doctors than in real doctors?

I notice that not a single fact of what I said did the right hon. Gentleman dispute. While we are being lectured by the Opposition, let us not forget that, under the previous, Tory Government— [Interruption.] Let me give them the figures: 40,000 beds had been cut, when we came to office; nurses in training had been cut; and spending as a percentage of national income had also been cut.

Is it not important that we consider the experience of other countries which are suffering from the same flu epidemic? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the United States of America, which spends twice as much on health as we do, but in a largely private health system such as the Opposition are proposing, is struggling, as are we and other European countries? That is despite the fact that, in the States, up to a third of the beds in many hospitals are normally vacant. They still cannot cope with the extra cases. Is that not a lesson for us as regards the foolhardiness of Tory policies?

That is precisely why we shall not implement them. If I might expand on the remarks of my hon. Friend, there were reports in The New York Times, during the past two days—[Interruption.] I was going to read them out in response to further questions from the Leader of the Opposition, but I never got any. In The New York Times, for example, it was reported that the wave of flu has become widespread, overwhelming emergency rooms, filling hospital beds, and forcing postponement of operations. In many overcrowded rooms, people are simply leaving without being treated. In Ireland, hospitals in Dublin and around the country were forced again to cancel almost all routine surgery and procedures. In Sweden, all the intensive care facilities are full; some non-urgent operations have been cancelled and closed-down wards are having to be reopened. Elsewhere—in Italy, Norway, Germany, France and Switzerland—there are huge problems as a result of the flu outbreak.

As the Prime Minister does like to keep his promises, does he not have to admit that his promise to save the NHS is, in the depths of the current crisis, looking very threadbare indeed? As he is recommending—correctly—more money for the NHS, will he make it his priority not to go ahead with another Tory-style tax cut in April, but to give that money to the health service instead?

The right hon. Gentleman needs to co-ordinate his remarks with those of his economic spokesman, who attacks us for putting up the tax burden. Let us get it straight; either we decide that we shall put in the extra investment or we do not—it has to be paid for. We are putting in extra investment. We said that there would be two tight years, and there were, because we needed to sort out the financial deficit. This year is the first year of substantially increased funding. Next year will be the same. The year after that will be the same. If we carry on running a stable economy, we shall get the extra resources for a good three years after that. Already, next year, the proportion of national income spent on the health service is to rise to more than 6 per cent. for the first time. I accept that, meanwhile, there are people suffering and not getting the care that they need in parts of the health service, but it must be done stage by stage, over time, in a way that is consistent with the proper running of an economy.

Going back to the issue of promises, may I ask the Prime Minister about another matter—his promise to pursue an ethical foreign policy? Does he support the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary in opposing the resumption of the sale of arms to Pakistan until democratic guarantees are in place, or is he going to support the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence, which appear willing to put profits before conscience?

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's question is based on a misunderstanding since, as far as I am aware, there is no dispute between Government Departments. The same rules will apply as apply to any arms sales, but as far as I am aware, there are no proposed sales taking place.

I know that it is outwith the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister, but I should like him to assure the House that there will be a fair and just decision regarding the entry to Britain by Michael Tyson. I am appalled by the way that the four candidates for London mayor have used Mike Tyson as a political whipping-boy, and I am concerned regarding the economic effect that it will have on hoteliers and the service industry in Manchester.

Anyone would be ill advised to use him as a whipping-boy. I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in boxing, but the matter is being dealt with by the immigration service, and it must deal with it according to its rules, in the normal way. That is the proper thing to do—to play it by the book.

The Home Secretary has described the English as very aggressive and violent. Does the Prime Minister agree?

That is a complete misconstruction of what the Home Secretary said. I say this as one very peaceful English person to another— [Interruption.] Well, I was born in Scotland but brought up in England—I am delighted to say—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the Home Secretary that the last thing that we want is a resurgence of English nationalism. I am British, and proud to be British.

The Prime Minister's Government has, since May 1997, dealt with many of the bad policies that we inherited from 18 years of Tory rule. Will he look at an issue that is causing housing problems in many parts of the country—the fact that we treat VAT on new build totally differently from VAT on improvements and repairs to our housing stock? Is it not time that we had parity, to enable us to deal with our housing in a better way?

I think I should treat that as an early Budget submission and leave it to the good offices of the Chancellor.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in Sussex the bodies of my constituents are being transported around the county, from overflowing hospital mortuaries, in vans that are normally used to transport rubbish to the local tip? Is he aware that the only reason we have any empty intensive care beds is the lack of staff to attend to them; or that at Worthing hospital, where we already have some of the longest waiting times in the entire country, all elective surgery has been cancelled, affecting particularly harshly my many elderly residents?

What I said was that there were real problems in the national health service, and that we were tackling them. For example, there are 100 more critical care beds, which include intensive care beds, this year than last. In all parts of the country we are trying to bring in more doctors and more nurses, but as the hon. Gentleman's constituents would know, it takes time to train doctors and nurses and we are tackling these problems.

How much longer?

It will take time, but the hon. Gentleman should remember, when he is talking about waiting lists, that waiting lists are now 80,000 below the level that we inherited from the Government whom he supported.

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, child poverty trebled under the previous Government. Is he also aware that the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that, within two years, 800,000 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result of this Government's initiatives? However, the Child Poverty Action Group warns that more may still need to be done to abolish child poverty altogether within 20 years. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Ministers are aware of these findings and work together closely to achieve the target that he has set?

I am pleased that the Child Poverty Action Group has indicated that our policies will indeed lift children out of poverty. That helps to correct some of the reports published recently that were mainly based on statistics up to the time we came to office. As a result of the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the increased child benefit, we will lift a very substantial number of children out of poverty. That is only the first step. The other thing is to make sure that we carry on the new deal, so that we carry on giving work, hope and opportunity to young people.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House what Blairism is?

It had its first outing on 1 May 1997 and resulted in an election victory and a majority of 179.

Does my right hon. Friend recall a year ago the constant dire warnings from Conservative Members of the adverse effects of the introduction of the national minimum wage? Job losses and worse were predicted. Will he now confirm that independent reports have indicated that the national minimum wage has given 2 million people increases in their pay packets, and there has been an increase in employment of 130,000? Indeed, in Luton, we have seen a drop in youth unemployment of 67 per cent. and large employers, such as Whitbread, have thoroughly welcomed the minimum wage and say that it was introduced well and without any adverse effects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that all that suggests that the verbiage from Conservative Members on the minimum wage is about as reliable as their verbiage on tax?

Employment is up by more than 700,000 since the election and long-term unemployment has halved. That is an excellent result. My hon. Friend is quite right. The minimum wage has not had any of the adverse impacts that were proclaimed by the Conservative party. The truth is that Conservative Members opposed it because it was an act of fairness. What they do not understand is that, in a modern economy and modern society, fairness and prosperity go together.

On Monday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said of a particular promise that the right hon. Gentleman had made:

"The commitment he has made … still stands."

As I explained the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked me about this, as a result of the Jenkins report it is not possible to have a referendum on that particular proposal prior to the election. However, our commitment still stands and the debate goes on.

It was a very simple question, and the Prime Minister said earlier that he had the answers to my further questions. Before the last election, he said:

"We have made it clear all the way through that we are committed to a referendum and we are committed to it as part of our programme for the next Parliament".

We said that we would have a commission, which has looked into the matter and reported. We shall of course abide by the commitments that we have made.

Has the Prime Minister seen the Home Secretary's comments? I shall have to turn to another page of my notes for them, but they are well worth waiting for. He said that the results of Labour's grassroots consultation exercise on the voting system, which showed a five-to-one majority against change,

"pretty accurately reflects the mood throughout the party towards PR".

The right hon. Gentleman is certainly looking for the issues on which he can unite with others. As for the Home Secretary's comments, I find them extremely interesting. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] That is a compliment.

Further to the earlier exchanges on the NHS, would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff at the Conquest hospital in Hastings, who, faced with a doubling of emergency admissions over the past three weeks, have achieved the outcome that no one in need has been turned away? In welcoming the significant increase in funding that has made that possible, will he treat with contempt the whingeing by the Tories, who ran down the NHS when they were in power and whose big idea now is more about offering privatisation than encouragement to the staff who are working so hard?

It is absolutely right to say that as a result of extra investment the NHS will get better— I am delighted that that is happening in Hastings—but there is still a long way to go. Hospitals, particularly in some inner-city areas, are still coping with enormous pressures, and we must relieve them.

"What we are proposing will revolutionise private health care. What we are starting is perhaps a Trojan horse because with the patients guarantee, most of them haven't thought through the implications of what we are doing."

Given his professed commitment to freedom of information and the fact that there is no reference in the legislation or the regulations to any such power, how does the Prime Minister justify the Government's decision to prevent local parents from seeing the list of feeder school ballot petitioners in Ripon?

I do not know the answer to the detailed question, but I am perfectly prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him it. The real difference between the system now and the one before is that, previously, local authorities could decide to close these schools, but now the decision is left to parents by ballot. I may say that no such school has been closed.

The Prime Minister earlier referred to people suffering. He must be aware that there are many today shivering in misery, with despair deep in their bones, who feel that they have no future and who turn their faces sadly to the wall. Can he offer balm of Gilead or some soothing words to the Conservative party?

Order. I made a new year's resolution to be much nicer to my colleagues, but I will not allow the Prime Minister to respond to that question.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment No. 2, in clause 8, page 10, line 11, leave out ", 2".

"(4A) The third set of conditions is that—

(a) he was included in a register of parliamentary electors in respect of an address at a place that is situated within the constituency concerned,

(b) that entry in the register was made on the basis that he was resident, or to be treated for the purposes of registration as resident, at that address, and

(c) he either, prior to ceasing to be a resident of the United Kingdom, signed a declaration stating an intention to return to the United Kingdom to live within ten years of departure, or, alternatively, he continues to pay income tax annually in the United Kingdom.".

".—(1) Sections 1 to 4 and subsections (1) and (2) of section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1989, are hereby repealed.

(2) In section 3C of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 (as inserted by the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999), in subsection (2), paragraph (b) and the word 'or' at the end of paragraph (a) shall be omitted."

When my speech was interrupted on 15 December, I was about to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). There has been a more prolonged intervention in my speech—namely the entire Second Reading of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which the House had on Monday. In that debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made an announcement about the content of clause 130 of the Bill, which deals with the subject of this amendment and the others being taken with it. I found both clause 130 and what my right hon. Friend had to say profoundly unsatisfactory. I very much hope that what he said is not the last word. I will come to that in a moment.

The intervening period has allowed us the opportunity for further research. When I seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Lord, I will give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the consistency that he has shown. However, he cannot say that there was no consensus on that matter. In its report in the 1982–83 Session, the Select Committee on Home Affairs unanimously supported a recommendation that all UK citizens registered in EEC countries should be permitted to vote in British parliamentary elections. The thoroughness of the report indicated that there was cross-party consensus for there to be overseas electors, and the subsequent legislation sought to implement that report.

That is not what emerged from the 1984 debates. The Home Affairs Committee in that Parliament took the view that there should not be an overseas vote, and did so unanimously. It is as simple as that.

The right hon. Gentleman has explained that few people want to take advantage of the right that they have, but does not the fact that those few people do take advantage of it suggest that they feel strongly that they want to participate in the national life of their mother country, and is not that a good argument for continuing with that right?

A more direct way of their participating in our national life would be for them to live here rather than trying to affect directly how the country is governed after 20 years abroad.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that I am the only Member of Parliament ever to have lost a seat in a general election when the majority of votes cast by constituents resident in the constituency supported that candidate. He may not be aware of the sense of outrage in the constituency after the 1992 result, which I believe was reflected in the 1997 election, at which I gained the largest majority ever seen in the seat.

That experience illustrates the illegitimacy of the fancy franchise introduced unilaterally by the Conservative party and multiplied by four in the periodicity deliberately to suit itself: not to enfranchise the electorate but to enhance its own electoral prospects, as can be seen by the incidence of application to be registered.

Before we leave the subject of the Vale of Glamorgan example, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the overseas voters in that constituency in the 1992 general election had never had a connection with the constituency? Is that also part of his case, or had they had a connection but left to live overseas? There is a huge difference between the allegation that votes were cast in Vale of Glamorgan on behalf of people who had no link with the area and the allegation that the right to vote was exercised, under the rules of the time, by people who lived abroad but had a secure link to the area.

I do not accept the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw. He may regard my view as banal and elementary, but I believe that if one wants to decide the Government of a country, one should at least have the courtesy to live there. The hon. Gentleman earlier raised the case of his brother. Although I know that the Liberal Democrat party has a different policy for every street, having a different policy for every brother would be taking things too far.

I am especially interested in this point because two relatives of mine live in Palma, although as far as I am aware they do not live there because I live here. They have both contributed substantially to this country over a long time and have paid, and continue to pay, taxes in this country. They are not worthy objects of the right hon. Gentleman's waspish denigration. Why should not they have an opportunity to contribute to the democratic process in this country when they have contributed substantially to its fortunes?

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman's relatives wished to get away from him they would have moved further than the Balearic islands, and perhaps they should consider that in their future residential dispositions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as, before he came into the Chamber, I was pointing out that he sought to intervene when I was speaking four weeks ago.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is right to say that I tried to intervene on him in the previous century. However, he cannot have it both ways. He said that, given the small numbers involved, he was not trying to make a party political point, but then he gave the example of the 1992 election result in the Vale of Glamorgan constituency, which he clearly considers to be a party political matter.

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I urge hon. Members who intervene to do so briefly and succinctly, so as to ensure an orderly debate.

I am interested that the hon. Member for Lichfield assumes that, if a point is political, it must be spiteful. As far as I am concerned, I am making a party political point. I often make such points, and have spent a lifetime doing so. The case that I am arguing has natural justice on its side, but I am also putting it forward on behalf of the Labour party. I was elected by my constituents to act on behalf of the Labour party, and I shall continue to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will certainly give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree that there is no harm in being accused of making party political points. After all, we are elected to this place as members of political parties. However, I remind the House that the Home Affairs Committee report had unanimous support from members of all three parties in recommending a reduction from 20 years to five. That policy was overturned by the Opposition only when they realised that the implication of that would be to deprive them of the monthly cheque for £83,000 from Mr. Michael Ashcroft. That is a clear case of changing policy for cash.

The best way to deal with what one might call the Ashcroft issue would be to abolish the overseas vote. The problem would be solved just like that. However, I accept what my hon. Friend says.

As I said earlier, the right hon. Gentleman has taken an uncharacteristically partisan approach. He said in the last century that he has been consistent—

Will the hon. Gentleman please stop talking about the last century? We are in the 20th century until midnight on 31 December this year. Let us at least get that right.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. In fact, the former Dean of Lichfield, the Very Reverend Dr. Tom Wright, who has now moved to Westminster abbey, pointed this out to me. I had avoided the great cliche of saying the last millennium, but I can certainly refer to the last year.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend, whom I know to be an expert on dates, among so many other things.

My hon. Friend will recall that the right hon. Gentleman said only a few moments ago that he had displayed either grovelling sycophancy towards the Government or, at any rate, a suitable synonym for such grovelling sycophancy. Has he not just demonstrated, by his very sound attitude to the advent of the millennium next year, that he has done no such thing?

Order. Interventions must be relevant, and must relate to the matter that we are debating. They should not be about whether we are or are not in the new millennium.

Thank you for your advice, Mr. Winterton.

indicated dissent.

They are not banned from voting?

indicated assent.

In the past, there was a principle that those who had been committed could not vote.

I seek elucidation. Is not new clause 1 discriminatory in the sense that, if I were rich and lived abroad but could afford a home in this country—or owned a house on which I paid rates—I should be entitled to vote? I should be on the electoral register, even though I did not have to pay taxes because I should be in the country for only 12 weeks in a year. Surely, the new clause discriminates in favour of the rich, who can afford to have a second home in Britain. The central point seems to be that of citizenship— perhaps my hon. Friend can help me in this matter.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The central point is not whether people are rich or poor, but the perception of whether they are likely to vote Labour or Conservative. My hon. Friend, whose constituency almost abuts my own, is right to state that the whole question is one of citizenship. As I pointed out in my preamble, people who are prepared to remain part of the United Kingdom by retaining British citizenship, despite the fact that to do so might disadvantage them fiscally when they are living abroad, are proving their interest in the welfare of the UK. Is that not right? Surely, if one is a citizen of a democracy, one's most fundamental right is the right to vote.

I do not think that my hon. Friend has entirely done justice to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Does he agree that this matter is extremely significant for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? It would be a damning indictment of his amendment if its effect—deliberate or inadvertent—were to protect people living abroad who own property in this country, at the expense of people living abroad who do not.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct; the measure is discriminatory. We should discriminate on one factor and on one factor only: United Kingdom citizenship. If people choose to remain citizens of the UK, whether that advantages or disadvantages them fiscally is irrelevant. If they remain members of the UK, there should be no discrimination against them; they should be allowed to vote.

The hon. Gentleman said that his hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) are both right. In fact, they are both wrong. It is not enough to spend the night of 10 October in some residence in Britain in order to qualify for a vote; the qualification depends on where one is resident on that date. To be resident—whether for electoral or income tax purposes—one has normally to reside at a place. People who are normally resident overseas would not qualify for a vote in the UK, even if they owned a house in this country and spent the night of 10 October there. That has not been tested in the courts, but it is the understanding of electoral registration officers.

The hon. Gentleman is right. Technically, one has to be resident. After all, many Members of Parliament own more than one home, especially if their constituency is beyond commuting distance from Westminster. Technically, people have to be resident not only on the day, but on that very evening. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point. However, we all know that, in practice, that is not the interpretation. Hon. Members or electors may not be at home on that night, so they may not be technically resident. In that case, the electoral returning officer might say, "Perhaps they are away on business or on holiday." The form is not filled in with the idea that one has to be present on that night.

The point under discussion would have been clarified to some extent if my amendment to prevent double registration had been accepted. That would have made it clear that one is supposed to register where one is fully resident. It would have avoided having people flitting about—as MPs do— and being registered in different places. That was a worthwhile amendment; it would have helped to clarify new clause 1, which I hope to defend later.