asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government encourage other governments to meet their financial and contractual obligations. Pakistan's IMF programme envisaged that it would need to seek debt relief from all its creditors. In its agreement with Paris Club creditors, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan agreed to seek comparable treatment from all their other official bilateral, commercial and private creditors.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he accept that an essentially Washington-inspired insistence that Pakistan should default on its debt, particularly in Eurobonds, could give rise to a disastrous political instability in an already tense part of the world? Does the Minister also accept that such a move would set a dangerous precedent, the economic consequences of which would have severe repercussions for developing countries generally?

My Lords, I do not accept the noble Earl's premise for either of those questions. It is not a Washington-inspired commitment. The IMF meeting on 14th January this year and the Paris Club meeting on 30th January recorded what I quoted in my first Answer; that the Government of Pakistan agreed to seek comparable treatment from all their other official bilateral, commercial and private creditors.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation of Pakistan has worsened in the past two months, with approximately one third of its total reserves leaving the country and with a sharp fall in the amount of inflow of capital into the country? Given the possible repercussions of the destabilisation of Pakistan, will the Minister consider whether the Paris Club might look again at the prospect of rescheduling Pakistan's debts so as to encourage the upholding of civil authority and a more moderate government of the kind we have at present?

My Lords, the decision of the Paris Club on 30th January involved a substantial contribution from its members towards the economy of Pakistan; and the reorganisation of the external debt of Pakistan resulting from loans and guaranteed credits extended by participating creditor countries. The amount of debt then involved—I do not have up-to-date figures—was approximately 3.3 billion dollars. I accept what the noble Baroness says about the situation worsening and I have no doubt that the Paris Club is keeping that under consideration.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, according to the UN human development report, more than 40 million Pakistanis live below the poverty line, earning less than £1 a day? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government support a debt relief scheme for Pakistan?

My Lords, we are well aware of the economic problems in Pakistan, which is why earlier this year the IMF set out macro-economic objectives for the next three years. They involve a recovery in GDP growth; a reduction in annual inflation; a reduction of the external current account deficit; stabilisation of total public-sector debt to GDP ratio; and an improvement in social indicators. The issue of debt relief, other than the restructuring I have described, goes wider than that in the Question on the Order Paper.

My Lords, notwithstanding the recent rating increase from CCC to CC, how is the state of Pakistan reasonably expected to service a public debt of 43 billion US dollars with reserves of 1 billion US dollars, an average annual income of 400 dollars, and only 1.3 per cent of the people actually paying taxes?

My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the noble Viscount's detailed figures. The restructuring of the debt is precisely the way in which the IMF and the Paris Club see the way forward. It is recognised that in its present economic condition, Pakistan is not capable of servicing the debt without some restructuring.

My Lords, does the Minister believe that government or multi-national body interference in private-sector lending to governments will help the Eurobond market in London?

My Lords, I do not accept the premise of that question either. The noble Lord implies that it is this Government or governments of the Paris Club which have invited Pakistan to default on its Eurobonds debt. That is not the case. In contrast, the Government of Pakistan have agreed to treat all chair debts, both sovereign loans and commercial debts, on the same basis.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we believe that the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) should exercise fully its authority under UNSCR 1244. We are actively supporting efforts to build up the capacity of UNMIK.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Kosovo is now virtually an international trusteeship with NATO acting on the military side and the UN on the civilian side, which she mentioned. Does the Minister accept that it is essential that the UN civilian efforts should be built up so that the UN can re-establish public services, the rule of law and all the elements of a civil society?

My Lords, I agree with a great deal of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. The UN has been asking for a number of member states to provide people with specialist skills in 10 priority areas which they have outlined. I am happy to tell the House that one of those priority areas is the postal service, which was mentioned in your Lordships' House yesterday.

My Lords, first, can the Minister tell the House the number of British police officers among those now about to be deployed in Kosovo? Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, does she agree on the urgency of this matter? In some areas of Kosovo it is fairly obvious that the KLA is establishing a kind of para-police force presence, which is unfortunate in terms of trying to be seen to be utterly even-handed. Secondly, can she tell the House about the serious problems of refuse collection and sanitation in the province? I understand that in some cities and villages this problem is leading to a public health catastrophe.

My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that it was always recognised that KFOR would have to assume responsibility for law and order during this initial phase; probably even for the first few months. After all, it is more difficult to deploy police officers quickly than those already formed into military units. Currently, of the 100 British policemen I mentioned, seven are assisting United Nations with planning for civil policing; that is, the operation and establishment of the police headquarters. The United Kingdom Government have also offered to supply up to 60 British officers to recruit, train and monitor a local Kosovo police force. So, the offer of 60 has also been made.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the disarmament of paramilitary organisations in Kosovo is a prerequisite for establishing peace in what will undoubtedly become, for many decades, a joint UN and NATO protectorate? Does she agree that that precept in Kosovo also applies to other places?

My Lords, I recognise what the noble Viscount alludes to. I am hound to say that the cases he is comparing, which I recognise, are very different and have very different histories. A comprehensive undertaking was given by the KLA on 21st June. It provides for a ceasefire and for the weapons to be submitted within 30 days, with the exception of automatic small arms, which have to be handed over within 90 days.

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the UN aspirations on recruiting of policemen for Kosovo have been superseded by the reality of the situation? Is not what is needed armed policemen or gendarmerie? Can the Minister encourage the UN to call upon those Mediterranean nations, such as France and Italy, who have gendarmerie to send armed policemen to make up the numbers as quickly as possible? Failing that, would she consider asking the central European nations which have border guards and armed police, to join in?

My Lords, as I indicated, the main body of the UN peace corps is expecting to start arriving in Kosovo over the next few days. The UN secretariat has recommended that all UN police officers should have the possibility to be armed. I hope that answers the specific point raised by the noble Earl. However, the United Kingdom has a tradition of unarmed community policing. Therefore, most of the British police officers will be used in training, specialist skills and in democratic policing where they have particular skills to deploy.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the role of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in all of this? What is likely to be the co-operation between the OSCE and the UN in this field? What specific functions can the OSCE perform, particularly in restoring Kosovo to a modern democratic society?

My Lords, the United Nations is in charge of the overall framework. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the OSCE, the EU and the UNHCR are all taking responsibility for different parts of the administration, reconstruction and civil implementation, which are so important. The OSCE mission is taking the lead role in institution and democracy building and in human rights within the overall framework set by the United Nations. That will include the organisation and supervision of elections; the development of civil society; non-governmental organisations; political parties and the local media. The OSCE mission will also establish and run a police training school.

My Lords, the Minister has been helpful in responding in part to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Cranborne as regards what is required from the KLA in terms of demilitarisation. Can she inform the House what progress has been made on this subject? To date I understand it to be very little. I hope she can report otherwise.

My Lords, I can report that the KLA undertakings appear to be going reasonably well. I am told that we assess the level of compliance by the KLA to be satisfactory and that those on the ground who are reporting back to the United Kingdom on this important issue—I accept what the noble Lord says in that regard—are happy with the position.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the House will he aware that Healthcall Services Limited was awarded the contract for the delivery of the national spirometry programme throughout England, Wales and Scotland in March. It has since opened a dozen assessment centres in coalfield areas and further centres will be opening shortly.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. Does he recall the enthusiastic welcome given earlier this year by miners suffering from pneumoconiosis and related diseases following the High Court decision and the enthusiastic support of the present Government for it? However, is he aware that there are a number of concerns with regard to the way in which the scheme is being administered, particularly in relation to compensation being exempt from recovery? Surely the 1974 pneumoconiosis Act is the basis on which it should be operated.

My Lords, we have already opened 12 assessment centres. Further centres will be opened shortly. There will be a further 13 by the end of the month. In relation to the spirometry test, therefore, we are making good progress. My concern is with the main assessment process, and that is still being negotiated. The exact position on special damages should be known by the end of July. If not, the judge will be asked to rule on any outstanding issues at that time.

My Lords, when this issue was previously discussed in this House, I asked the Minister whether he was satisfied that measures had been taken to avoid a recurrence of these unfortunate diseases in the mining industry, and I received a positive response. However, in the unfortunate event that nevertheless there should be further respiratory problems in mining, can he assure the House that the compensatory processes will be speedier than they have been in the present instance?

My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. We are dealing with a judgment which deals specifically with a situation which was dealt with here. We cannot comment on a hypothetical situation and the speed with which that would be progressed. It would have to relate to the circumstances of the day.

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the information he has given this afternoon is encouraging. However, he will be aware that on 17th March this year Mr John Battle in another place confirmed bereavement payments for widows of mine workers who had worked 20 years in the underground industry and died from emphysema and bronchitis. But is he aware that many of the claims by those widows have been denied because the authorities dealing with the cases say that the records cannot be traced? Having investigated the matter I found that the records of some of those miners were destroyed when the pits closed. That cannot be the fault of the widows. Will the Minister investigate that injustice?

My Lords, we are in a difficult position where we must have evidence that the conditions were caused to people working down the mines. If there are cases where an injustice seems to have been done, of course we will investigate those and see whether there are other ways in which evidence can be found of what happened.

My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be aware that sufferers from pneumoconiosis and other respiratory illnesses may have had impaired performance for some time before they were diagnosed. But is he aware that under Clause 57 of the Welfare Reform Bill people will no longer receive incapacity benefit if they have not paid national insurance contributions in the two years before the claim? Will he therefore consider, as an appropriate compensation, exempting former miners with respiratory problems from the operation of that clause?

My Lords, I cannot speak to that. I can only speak to the specific circumstances relating to the question of compensation which was granted by a High Court decision. That is the issue with which we are dealing at the moment. It is carefully circumscribed by that judgment and we have to act within that situation.

My Lords, will my noble friend consider that if the employer has mislaid or destroyed the records of employment, those responsible should take into consideration evidence that may be provided by the mining trade unions? Can that point be looked at urgently?

My Lords, we will certainly look at that. We need to produce proof of employment and if that proof can be provided in other ways, we will certainly consider that.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since the scheme started—only four or five weeks ago—15 miners have died? In view of that statistic I hope that, despite the assurances he gave us earlier, there will be no let up in the efforts being made. Secondly, will he ensure that maximum publicity is being given to everybody concerned as to what has to be done and what is being done?

My Lords, we will certainly keep up the pressure to get through these cases. We will also be prioritising the medical assessment process on the basis of age to try to deal with this unfortunate situation and will keep up the pressure in every way we can.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Secretary of State has no plans to amend the remedies concerning Milk Marque which he announced on 6th July. They provide Milk Marque and the milk processing industry with the opportunity they both sought; that is, to devise a reform of Milk Marque's selling system which enjoys the confidence of all.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not the case that Milk Marque has only been able to deliver the lowest producer price in the whole of Europe? It has been losing membership in droves. If it is denied milk processing capacity and its selling methods are again to be altered, is not its collapse a serious possibility? If that collapse takes place, is not the industry back in its pre-1933 position, before the establishment of the Milk Marketing Board? I do not know whether that is the Government's intention. But would not there be greater virtue in looking at the need for substantial processing to be in producers' hands, which has led to stability for dairy farming both in Europe and the United States? Also, should we not look at the serious gap between UK producers and retail prices?

My Lords, it is certainly the case that Milk Marque has been losing custom at the rate of around 4 per cent a year. The Government recognise that that is a serious situation. However, I must remind the noble Lord that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that Milk Marque had been operating its monopoly against the public interest at the expense of consumers and the milk processing industry. The Government want a viable diary industry, but it cannot depend on a continuation of bad monopoly practices.

My Lords, is it not true that the quota system allows this country to produce only 83 per cent of the milk that we consume? That adds a terrible distortion to all milk production and the milk industry. With that imposition from Europe, of course the industry is in a muddle.

My Lords, we produce virtually all the milk that we consume as liquid milk and approximately 80 per cent of the milk that we use in butter and cheese. I am not familiar with the statistics to which the noble Earl referred. Despite a lot of scare talk some years ago, there has not been a significant increase in imports of raw milk.

My Lords, the dairy sector will be interested in the Minister's statement. It will hope that the changes will enjoy the confidence of all. The dairy sector is lacking in total confidence at the moment. Does the Minister agree that Milk Marque is the only organisation in that sector with a long-term, total and unswerving commitment to the future of milk production in this country? Any further problems in the industry would have reverberations throughout the agriculture sector in England and Wales.

My Lords, the noble Baroness knows better than most of us the history of the dairy industry and milk marketing in this country. She will be aware that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report advocated the break-up of Milk Marque. Although the Secretary of State accepted many of the MMC's findings, he rejected the idea of breaking up Milk Marque immediately, because he saw that as a very difficult and long-term solution. That is why he gave Milk Marque and the industry another six months to try to come up with the reforms to its selling methods that the report shows are clearly necessary.

My Lords, further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the fact that this country does not produce 100 per cent of its milk and milk products, and bearing in mind the efficiency of dairy farms and the milk processing industry, am I right in thinking that that deficiency in production is made up by imports from Commonwealth countries such as New Zealand?

My Lords, not as far as I know. The noble Earl was referring to imports from the European Community.

My Lords, does not the Director-General of Fair Trading have six months before making a final decision on processing? Is not that causing uncertainty in the industry, because the final outcome is still not known and there are still six months before the decision is taken? Is not a further problem in the milk market the fact that Milk Marque is obliged to be the collector of last resort? Given that it has to collect milk from some of the remotest parts of Wales and elsewhere, its costs are inevitably higher than those of many of its competitors.

My Lords, the noble Lord does not seem to like the long-term commitment that is such an attraction to his noble friend. The six months that the Director-General of Fair Trading, Milk Marque and the dairy industry have to come up with solutions to the defects in Milk Marque's selling methods is not a minimum. If they can come up with solutions earlier, the uncertainty can be dealt with. I thought that the Secretary of State's decision had been generally welcomed in the dairy industry. Mr Ben Gill, the president of the National Farmers Union, said:

"However, we do accept the need for a new selling system and will be actively pressing the Government, the OFT and all the parties to find a new system straight away".

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place.

My Lords, it is most regrettable that the whole process fell today. That was clearly brought about by the refusal of the Unionist Party to carry out its obligations under the Good Friday agreement in relation to the appointment of Ministers.

Oh!

My Lords, can the Minister explain why this morning it was necessary to introduce a new Standing Order that would inevitably result in turning the procedures of the Assembly into a farce? Will the Minister accept that it was the Secretary of State's action in introducing that order that made it impossible for the Alliance Party, which is totally committed to making progress under the Good Friday agreement, to put forward the nominations for ministerial appointments? Will the Government make a commitment that in future their actions will be designed to assist those seeking to work constructively to implement the agreement, rather than chasing after those who are creating difficulties for the process?

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has spoken in support of Seamus Mallon. I totally agree with the noble Lord. I believe that Seamus Mallon has played—and will continue to play—a leading part in developing the peace process in Northern Ireland. I am sure that he will soon be back in a key position to take that process further. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord in regard to the Good Friday agreement.

My Lords, I had hoped that we would today be discussing the amendments which were allegedly going to come from the other side of the building. I had seriously hoped that we would find some agreement with those amendments, which would have prevented the catastrophic events that happened in Northern Ireland earlier today.

"There is still a wide measure of agreement on the issues which have divided people in the past".

"the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms in a manner determined by an independent commission, and the eventual normalisation of society".

My Lords, I certainly agree that decommissioning is a crucial issue in terms of developing the peace process in Northern Ireland. However, when the Prime Minister spent five days in Northern Ireland, together with the Taoiseach, discussing the matter with the parties, it is my understanding that all the main parties agreed with the principle of the decommissioning of paramilitary arms. That is certainly the basis on which the review will take place. Clearly, we must wait the outcome of the review to see how the parties respond to those discussions.

My Lords, in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I wonder whether the Minister could help the House and tell us whether the Prime Minister contacted the Taoiseach during the course of yesterday and shared with him the contents of the three amendments which, apparently, the Prime Minister was suggesting at a certain stage—the text of which I do not think has been made available to the House. If he did contact the Taoiseach and discuss the content of the amendments with Dublin, can the Minister tell us what reaction the Prime Minister received?

My Lords, I am very sorry, but I cannot help the noble Viscount. I know that the Prime Minister has been in touch with the Taoiseach frequently, just as his staff have been touch with the staff of the Taoiseach in recent days. However, I cannot say whether the specific amendments were discussed and I certainly cannot say what the response of the Taoiseach was in that situation.

Does my noble friend the Minister accept that there is a total sense of desolation among most of us in the House that this great opportunity has been lost? When planning future relationships, will my noble friend bear in mind—and ask the House to do likewise—that all the violence has not come from one side, and that it is not helping the decommissioning process to assume that it has? For example, is my noble friend aware of the figures that I have obtained from the Northern Ireland Office which show that, since the Good Friday agreement, there have been 51 shootings by Loyalists compared to 41 shootings by Republicans and 124 terrorist activities by the Loyalists compared to 65 by the Republicans—in fact, half? I do not in any way seek to condone violence by either side; but, please, can we avoid hysteria and get this into proper balance?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the question she has asked and for the points she has made. Yes, there has been a level of violence by paramilitary organisations and it has been somewhat greater by Loyalist paramilitary organisations in the recent past than by Republican paramilitary organisations. Of course, all that should stop on both sides.

My Lords, one can well understand the frustration felt by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has been so patient with us in recent weeks. Indeed, all of them have sacrificed a good deal of their collective time on these very difficult discussions. To avoid a repetition of this collapse, could we all, quietly and soberly, give consideration to a more modest beginning next time—something perhaps akin to the Wales pattern? Then, in due course, we could perhaps add on a legislative tier. However, at all costs, I emphasise that we must seek to avoid top-heavy legislative structures because they always have an in-built self-destruct system.

My Lords, I am sure that the parties in Northern Ireland will take note of what the noble Lord has said. However, the Good Friday agreement was not something in the gift of the Government or determined by the Government alone; it was the result of long negotiations and was agreed by most of the parties in Northern Ireland. Clearly, the review will involve all the parties in the Assembly in Northern Ireland and we must wait to see the outcome. I am certainly in favour of a quiet and sober approach.

My Lords, I think that it is reasonable to say that, right from the beginning, this decommissioning issue has been the bugbear. For understandable reasons, people thought that we would solve the easy questions first. That is a very human reaction. The issue of decommissioning has been rearing its ugly head and it is getting bigger and bigger; indeed, it has now brought the process to a halt. Surely the difference between Protestant violence and Catholic violence, for want of better phrases—no one condemns either more than I so—is that the people who represented the Republican violence in the Assembly were not prepared to accept decommissioning. They had to do that. If the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, or myself were serving as local authority councillors, we would not want to sit down with people who have guns. It is impossible; you cannot ask people to do so. That has been visible for a long time. Therefore, when we go forward, can we make absolutely certain that no one comes into such an assembly without saying, "I give up guns. Here are the guns that I hold illegally"? Without that, it is not going to work.

My Lords, in the complications of the peace process in Northern Ireland, it is of course understandable that the parties would move, first, to deal with the easy questions. That was not a bad thing because it led to the development of trust. Certainly, the trust in Northern Ireland between the parties and the communities is, I suggest, much better than it was at the beginning of the peace process started by the government, of whom the noble Earl was a member—

Oh!

My Lords, perhaps I have, inadvertently, promoted the noble Earl; I meant to say that he was a supporter of that government.

My Lords—

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government now recognise that there is no such thing as "failsafe" in Northern Ireland? Can he tell us whether future plans will be based on that? In addition, there is much conversation about the fact that democrats cannot sit down with people who have guns. However, people in almost all the local councils in Northern Ireland have been doing this for some time. Can the Minister tell us what the difference is, other than the glory, if it applies to Stormont?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her three questions. I expressed the hope that Seamus Mallon would be back soon because of the contribution that he has made and the enormous contribution that I am sure he will continue to make to the peace process in Northern Ireland. My remarks were not based on fact, but on hope.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. I did not see that her hand was raised. We are all delighted to see her here and to hear her speak. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite realise how heartened we were on this side of the House when on the Front Bench the bipartisanship towards this thorny question was revealed firmly and with no doubt. I wonder too—I say this without making any political point whatsoever—how difficult it was, after hearing that statement, to note that every speech that was made from the Official Opposition Benches criticised the Bill and supported in great measure the point of view of the Unionist parties. It can only be helpful for me not to say any more about that.

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. This is not the day for recriminations or apportioning blame. I think that we had a clear statement yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the Official Opposition Front Bench speaker. He affirmed completely the continuation of a bipartisan policy. That is important and I was delighted to hear him reaffirm that. If we play party politics here, we damage peace in Northern Ireland. It is on that basis that the Labour Party supported the Conservative government in their policies in Northern Ireland. I am grateful that the noble Lord has confirmed that the Opposition will from now on do likewise.

My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord has just said. But at the risk of being misinterpreted by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I have three real regrets, not recriminations. The first one is that the villains of the piece, who ought to be central to our concerns, are the paramilitaries and the dogged refusal of Sinn Fein/IRA to give a public commitment on decommissioning. My second regret is that much of the blame is being laid personally at the door of Mr Trimble and more generally with his colleagues in the Unionist Party. I believe that our fire ought to be preserved for the paramilitaries. Thirdly, I think that it is a great pity that we were not given an opportunity to see the amendments, preferably at the stage when the Bill was in the Commons, because I believe that might have made a great difference to the outcome and that today might have been very different.

My Lords, as regards the amendments, the Government were working on them until pretty late yesterday, but at that point it was clear that they would be inappropriate for today because of developments in Belfast. Hence they were not brought forward. I am afraid that I do not know whether they were discussed in detail with David Trimble. I think that he was well aware of the thrust of the Government's thinking. We could not have brought the amendments forward on the day that the other place debated the Bill because they arose directly from speeches made by the right honourable Member for Huntingdon and the right honourable Member for Upper Bann. Their two speeches were particularly influential and we sought to devise amendments which would reflect at least some of the comments made in those speeches. Therefore, I think that the noble Baroness will appreciate why it would have been difficult for us to move faster than we were setting out to do.

My Lords, will the Minister very quietly remind all participants to the situation that, in this as in other attempts to settle with terrorism, peace has a price? That price may be unpalatable. The decision to refuse to pay it may be legitimate, but it too carries consequences. Will he ask all concerned to think of those consequences very carefully and then think again?

Yes, my Lords. I agree with what the noble Earl has said. We always made it clear that the peace process would be difficult, that we would be asking a great deal of all the participants. We accept that it will go on being difficult, and we shall go on asking a great deal of all the participants, in the fervent hope that they will take the noble Earl's point and move forward for the greater good of all the people of Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

moved Amendment No. 1:

moved Amendment No. 2:

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, it is right that I should express my thanks to the noble Lord for taking on board some further concerns that we had.

moved Amendment No. 4:

moved Amendment No. 5:

moved Amendment No. 6:

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, I understand the broad concerns and intent behind the amendment. I find it slightly odd that the amendment is laid to this Bill when we are still considering the substantive legislation. I do not believe that this is the best way to achieve what the noble Earl intends.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask a question. I understood him to say that, when local authorities carry out a duty as a contractor, that duty is parallel to but different from and therefore outside the regime of best value. I wonder whether I have understood that correctly.

My Lords, it is not a duty that is affected by best value. Clearly, the total regime is still one of best value but the performance is almost certainly regulated by the quasi-contractual relationship to the Home Secretary, rather than the best value regime.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that. That is just about what I hoped to hear. I appreciate that there is a problem about whether this is the appropriate place to raise this matter. I informed the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that I intended to raise it here. I hope there has been communication between him and the noble Lord. All I want to hear is that a local authority would not be penalised and would not suffer financial loss under best value if it acted according to a contract with another Secretary of State. If I can take that from the Minister's nods—perhaps I may enter them into the record by mentioning them—I have received all the assurance I could legitimately hope for. Therefore, with thanks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, from these Benches, on behalf of my noble friend and myself, I thank the Minister for proposing the amendment. It certainly meets a point with which we were concerned at earlier stages. I should like to record our thanks.

moved Amendment No. 3:

My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we touched on this issue at earlier stages. The provision under this clause to act in "urgent" cases is included to protect services, and particularly service users and vulnerable people. In using these fast-track procedures, the Secretary of State cannot act in an arbitrary way. Under Section 12 he must have and give reasons for recourse to the fast-track provisions and for bypassing the lengthier procedures; and he must act reasonably. The decision to use them may be subject to public scrutiny and challenge in the courts. Therefore, the noble Baroness's fear that this could be used for minor and technical infringements is not valid.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to take him back to the beginning of his response. I may have misheard him, but when he was talking about the Secretary of State being required to act reasonably I thought that he referred to Section 12, which relates to Audit Commission Fees. I hope that I misheard him.

My Lords, I may have referred to subsection (12) in passing, which requires reasons to be given. That will not apply to the totality of the procedure, but in all cases the Secretary of State will have to act reasonably and will have to give reasons for his action.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has answered my point that attention needs to be given to the circumstances in which the fast-track procedure can be followed. That should be part of the exercise in drawing up the draft protocol and deciding whether it should last for all time or should be subject to change. I take his point about the change in circumstances. I thank him for his comments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.