It is half past three; we may begin. Before the Minister moves that the first order be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each order, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee has considered the order in question. I should make it clear that the Motion to approve the order will be moved in the Chamber in the normal way.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Representation of the People (England and Wales) and the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007.

The noble Lord said: With these regulations we are also debating the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 In those regulations, I wish to ensure that Committee Members have before them the most recent draft, as there was a small but crucial drafting error in the previous version. The election timetable for mayoral elections will be governed by the regulations. Where polling day is 3 May 2007, that timetable would commence with a notice of election on 27 March. As there are authorities with mayoral elections this year, it is crucial that the regulations are in effect on 27 March. The earlier, incorrect draft of the regulations excluded from their effect elections that commenced on or before 27 March. That would therefore have excluded the very elections that we are especially seeking to capture, that is, those where polling day is 3 May. Accordingly, the most recent, correct draft of the regulations should exclude from their effect at Regulation 1(2) only elections where the last date for notice of election is on or before 26 March.

Despite having been read through by several individuals, that apparent typographical error in the draft was not spotted until after the instrument had been laid and scrutinised by the JCSI. As the significance is, by contrast, large, we have had to withdraw and re-lay the draft with the corrected date, rather than use a correction slip. Given the shortness of time remaining, I am extremely grateful for the assistance provided by the House authorities and the agreement of the chairman of the JCSI that the Committee debate on the re-laid draft can take place before the JCSI re-consideration. Of course, any subsequent Motion for approval on the Floor of the House will take place only after that JCSI reconsideration.

The purpose of the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 is to implement the changes made for parliamentary elections by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, so ensuring consistency of electoral practice between the conduct of elections for local councillors and those for local authority mayors held on or after 3 May this year. These include changes to nomination procedures—candidates may use their common names on nomination forms and papers. The rules on the use of authorised descriptions by candidates standing on behalf of registered political parties are amended to reflect amendments made to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Returning officers will be able to correct minor errors on nomination papers.

New security measures introduced by the 2006 Act are also provided for in this context and separate security markings and unique identifying marks are required for ballot papers. Ballot paper counterfoils are replaced by corresponding number lists, and postal voters and proxy postal voters are required to provide both their signature and date of birth when returning postal ballot papers.

Alterations are made to the circumstances in which a person may be given a tendered vote. New requirements are introduced as to the information and accessibility of information to be provided by returning officers to electors. Changes are made as to the persons who may be admitted to polling stations and the count to observe elections. Amendments are made to provide for the transmission of information to a presiding officer of alterations to the electoral register taking effect on the day of the poll. Amendments are also made to facilitate the introduction of a scheme for the anonymous registration of certain electors, which is due to come into force on 1 June 2007. Changes are made to the arrangements for the retention and inspection of election documents after the poll. A full set of forms is appended to the rules reflecting the changes made to implement the 2006 Act.

These regulations also increase the election expenses limit for candidates at mayoral elections. The limit is now calculated by taking £2,362 as a base figure and adding 5.9 pence for every entry on the register of electors. This was to allow for inflation and the change was made on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. The 2002 limit was based on a base figure of £2,000 plus an additional 5 pence for every entry on the register.

When approved, these regulations will replace the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 that currently apply to the elections of local mayors. The detailed rules for the conduct of mayoral elections are based on the rules contained in the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006. Throughout May 2006, advisory groups consisting of key interested groups with practical and in-depth knowledge of running elections were asked to provide feedback on how the changes in the Act were being applied for the principal area rules. In addition, the Electoral Commission was also consulted on the detailed provisions in these regulations. Feedback on both cases was very useful and the vast majority of the suggested changes have been incorporated.

The purpose of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) and the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 is to make changes consequential on the decision not to implement provisions in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 which require a voter in a polling station to provide a signature before being issued with a ballot paper. As a result of this, we are amending the prescribed forms in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations to remove the signature column from Form L2, the corresponding number list to be used in a polling at a parliamentary election held on its own, and from M2, the equivalent of that form, to be used in polling stations where a parliamentary election is combined with another election or referendum, and remove references to electors signing for their ballot paper in the official poll cards. In these regulations we are also removing references to electors signing for their ballot papers from the guidance for voters that was issued at combined polls. In these regulations we are also correcting minor drafting errors in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations.

The Electoral Commission was consulted on the provisions in these regulations and its views were taken into account. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Representation of the People (England and Wales) and the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2007.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

I thank the Minister for that long introduction. I know that he sat through some of the debates on the electoral Bill although he was not the Minister in charge. It is nice to see him opposite, though I am sorry that I will have to be cross because we are not in a very happy situation. I have not scoured the mayoral elections regulations 2007 but, in the light of what has happened today, I probably should have. I am hoping that they are absolutely as expected.

It is the representation of the people regulations which we are being asked to approve today that cause us the most concern. Throughout the passage of the electoral registration Bill we had enormously long discussions on fraud and the prevention of fraud—particularly by postal voting, where we made considerable changes to the Bill—and the personation of people in polling stations. The Government’s measure provided that people appearing at a polling station should have to sign for their ballot papers. It was generally agreed by everybody that that was an extremely sensible measure. The provision therefore did not command a great deal of attention at the time.

I am, however, bound to say that this is a fiasco of the greatest order. We have local elections coming up this year and local and mayoral elections next year. We have the possibility of a general election at any time after the retirement of the Prime Minister. Yet, these measures which would have ensured that people turning up at polling stations had to sign for their ballot paper are going to be rescinded and will not be available to provide that protection when the election takes place.

I cannot overstate the fact that this is a monumental blunder. The fact that the Electoral Commission, the administrators themselves, had to pick up the fact that there was a flaw—that returning officers would have to give somebody a ballot paper even if they refused to sign—just beggars belief. We have no alternative other than to let this matter go. But I must ask the Minister to tell us when primary legislation will be produced to rectify the matter. This is the second time that we have dealt with this order. We took it through and agreed it in December. Now we are taking it back in March and have to disagree it. So there is clearly a mega-problem. We must know when the primary legislation will be there.

It is not only the Electoral Commission that is concerned about fraud. The commission on standards has pointed out all along that personation at polling stations is one of the major ways of committing fraud in elections. We have spent weeks and weeks trying to tighten up the legislation to ensure that we build out of elections any possibility of fraud; and what happens? The Government have managed to build it all back in again. It is a shambles. I am sure that the Minister, who read the notes very carefully, will agree that this is not the sort of standard that one expects from the Government or from those who draft the legislation. Ultimately we have to agree to the removal of one of the most substantial bits of legislation to prevent fraud.

I have nothing more to say other than to ask when the primary legislation will be introduced. I reiterate that the Government should be very shame-faced over this.

I want to strike a more positive note about the regulations than the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, did. They bring about the things that we talked about at length during the passage of the Electoral Administration Bill, now the Electoral Administration Act 2006, and bring about new things with which some of us who are concerned with electoral administration issues have been concerned for many years. I am therefore delighted to see most of the provisions. But I would have liked them to go further.

Now is not the time to reopen the debate on matters such as individual voter registration, but I would hope that the Minister noted the comments of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on that. That committee was unduly harsh and unfair to the Electoral Commission on this issue, because the commission argued strongly for individual voter registration, as did a number of us. However, I very much welcome these regulations because they provide for a requirement for a signature and date of birth on applications to vote by post, and it will be possible to check afterwards that the person returning the postal vote is more likely to be the person to whom the postal vote has been allocated. That is very welcome.

I am glad to follow the positive remarks of the noble Lord and I thank my noble friend the Minister for his concise statement. Of course, he carries no responsibility for the areas that are being debated, but he took a positive line in his exposition.

Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“there is a lack of a clear sanction to withhold the ballot paper should an elector refuse to sign”.

Tackling that issue was a central objective of the legislation. Has my noble friend an explanation of how the Government brought forth such defective legislation? Do Ministers know who was responsible for the mistake—for the misjudgment? Was it one person? Was it several members of a legislative team? Should the 2006 Act have been subject to greater and more effective professional scrutiny? Was that the defect in the consideration of all these matters? Do we know the outcome? Have there been any consequences? Is parliamentary draftsmanship in decline? Surely not—yet, as my noble friend said, there was a crucial drafting error and the system did not cope with it. When was the Welsh Assembly’s First Minister informed of the defect? When did the Assembly know that it was not what they thought it was going to be?

The Electoral Commission was the dog that barked. It did its duty, and its scrutiny was effective. But how did lawyers and draftsmen manage to bring forth such defective legislation? Has there been an inquest? Do we know how it happened? Who was responsible? I am not asking to be told who the people were, but does the system know? Have Ministers looked at it to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen again?

I have two quick questions, but the Minister may be relieved to know that they have both been asked by my noble friend Lady Hanham and the noble Lord, Lord Jones. Before I put them, I shall pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on personation; it may not be as widespread as some think it to be, but the problem has always been that we do not have the means of actually knowing. Electoral registration officers have said, “We do not think there’s a problem”, but they have no definitive way of knowing.

I reinforce what my noble friend has said. The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee has drawn this specially to the attention of the House. It says at the end of its commentary that the consequence of this error is that:

“An important measure to combat electoral fraud will not now be available for the May 2007 elections, and the Government's policy objective of reducing the amount of such fraud may, consequently, be imperfectly achieved”.

That encapsulates the point, and it is damning about how we have got into this situation.

As I say, the questions I was going to ask have been asked. One was that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jones: how did we get into this situation? I mention in passing the fact that the Government are their own worst enemy. Had they accepted some of the amendments made in Committee, we would have avoided this by going for somewhat more stringent provisions than those the Government pursued.

My second point was simply that raised by my noble friend: when can we expect primary legislation? The Government state that they plan to clarify the primary legislation at the earliest opportunity to bring in a clearer requirement for signatures in polling stations. We need to know just how early that opportunity is, because the situation we are in now requires urgent rectification.

I take no pleasure in this, but it is necessary for me to apologise again to the Committee for the errors that occurred. Obviously they are serious matters. They are rectifiable, but they have happened. In all walks of life errors sometimes occur, and I stand here representing the Government apologising for these errors, remembering the debates we had on the Electoral Administration Bill and remembering well the points the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made. I hope the answers I give will go some way to satisfying the anxieties expressed. I am not sure that today I can go all the way, but at least we acknowledge that there is a problem; it is a problem of our own making, and again I apologise for that.

The noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee have asked whether we intend to introduce primary legislation to solve the problem of signatures for ballot papers. Yes, we plan to clarify the matter as soon as possible in order to bring in a clear requirement for signatures in polling stations. As the noble Baroness said, that will require primary legislation. I am afraid that I cannot give a firm commitment on when that will happen, nor can I provide any details of the Government’s legislative programme in future parliamentary Sessions. It is essential, however, that this should happen. It is clear that such an amendment, as I said in my opening remarks, will not be made before the elections in May 2007.

We continue to believe, as do other Members of the Committee, that requiring electors to sign for their ballot papers will bring a number of benefits. Many voters find it reassuring that they have to provide some sort of identification in order to vote. It will also help to deter opportunists—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised this point—from defrauding the system. I know that that answer will not satisfy the noble Baroness but—

It does not satisfy me at all. It is not a surprise because I had already been given the information that the Government had no idea when the measure could be introduced. It must be a one-line Bill. Both opposition parties would see it through quickly. We would not oppose it. We want this measure in. A lot of elections are coming up. If we leave this and the situation just drifts on, the Government having so much legislation that they cannot introduce another Bill, we shall never get it on the statute book. The opposition—certainly the Official Opposition—would co-operate with getting the measure through quickly. I should not think that it needed to be longer than a page with one clause.

The point is well made by the noble Baroness. We shall consider this matter with some urgency and report back to the Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was more positive about the regulations, for which we are grateful. He made a number of general points about what might be done on an annual basis, which we take on board. He asked about individual registration as described in the CSPL report. The Government note the findings of that report and will respond to it in due course. My noble friend Lord Jones asked how the effects came about. Legislation was constructed so that the issue of a ballot paper was conditional on signature. However, there was no specific sanction provision. This gave rise to doubt, a risk of inconsistent approach and a legal challenge. On the advice of the commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators, we have decided not to commence this measure yet, but we take on board all the concerns raised. I say to my noble friend that in any organisation and in any walk of life mistakes are made. I made a huge number in my career as a publisher. It happens. If I may go on the offensive for a moment, it is a bit hard on the Government to take one example and say that it is indicative of something more than a particular incident. I am not in a position, nor would I wish, to start attributing blame for this matter either to Ministers or in particular to civil servants.

My noble friend is heroic in ploughing on as he has. Shall we assume that he will write to Members of the Committee giving details? Shall we assume also that this may be put right in the Queen’s Speech at the beginning of the next Session at the latest?

Is my noble friend asking me to write a letter to the Committee describing where the blame lies for the errors that have been made, or a letter explaining what we plan to do about introducing primary legislation to solve the problem we are discussing?

Not at all, if my noble friend feels that he cannot do that. However, it is reasonable to ask for explanations to be given. With the best will in the world, the explanations given to the questions that I asked were not explanations but simply reiterated the statement that my noble friend made so well in opening the debate.

I hear what my noble friend says. We shall consider the matter that he raised. Problems will have to be addressed.

I accept the point about the problems of attributing blame, but does the Minister accept that it is not as if we are legislating in a completely new area? We have rather extensive experience of legislating on electoral law and it is surprising that a mistake should be made in an area that should be relatively well trodden in drafting terms.

I agree with the noble Lord, but there is nothing more I can say. A mistake has been made and I have apologised to the Committee on behalf of the Government. I have said that we will address the absolutely legitimate concerns raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.

I am grateful to my noble friend; he is very patient. If he cannot give the answer to the original questions, there was one other one. Can he say when the Wales Assembly Government were told that this is not likely to take place on 3 May? Does he have an urgent timetable on when to put things right?

I do not have the date when the First Minister was informed of the defect in the legislation, but I shall write with the date on which he was informed and send a copy of that letter to the Committee. Meanwhile, I commend the Regulations to the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: As is well known, the purpose of the renewal order is to continue the temporary provisions—I emphasise that they are temporary—for the appointment of police officers and police support staff for a further three years with the aim of increasing Catholic composition in the Police Service of Northern Ireland to a level which is considered representative of that community. As many noble Lords are all too aware, the temporary provisions have been debated extensively both here and in another place on numerous occasions. Indeed, I anticipate an informed debate today following the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, on this issue a year ago. The noble Lord is still laid up—I do not know the details—and is unable to be with us. I am certain that he would have wished to be here today; all he is able to do at present is send in lots of Questions for Written Answer. I look forward to seeing him back here as soon as he is well enough.

For those less familiar with this issue, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 gives effect to the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, commonly known as the Patten report. This report made a number of recommendations on policing in Northern Ireland, including the need to address the religious imbalance within the police service so that it is representative of the society that it polices. It recommended that all candidates, either as police officers or support staff, who wished to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland and who reached a specified standard of merit in the selection procedure should be placed in a pool from which one-half of those appointed would be Catholic and one-half non-Catholic. This arrangement became known as 50:50 recruitment and is in place today for all trainee police officer recruitment campaigns and directly recruited support staff where six or more similar posts are being filled.

The report also recommended that Catholic police officers from Northern Ireland serving in the police service elsewhere, particularly at more senior ranks, should be identified and encouraged to apply for positions in the Northern Ireland police. This arrangement is commonly known as “lateral entry”.

The Government are committed to the need for this legislation and the opportunity it offers in giving the Northern Ireland community a normal police service which is acceptable to all. We are firmly of the belief that these temporary provisions—I again emphasise temporary—are one of the most significant reasons why public confidence in policing is increasing across the community. However, we are also committed to removing the legislation once the religious imbalance is addressed. As clearly set out in the St Andrews agreement, the Government’s target is to increase Catholic composition in the Police Service of Northern Ireland to 30 per cent by March 2011.

Under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 the temporary provisions may be renewed by the Secretary of State, for up to and not exceeding three years, following consultation with the Northern Ireland Policing Board. The provisions were first renewed for a three-year period in March 2004 by the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2004. This renewal order seeks to keep the provisions in force for a further three years until March 2010. That is a year before the target date.

As recommended by the Patten report, the temporary provisions are an,

“exceptional measure to try to provide a more representative police service within a reasonable timescale”.

I fully understand that many people remain opposed to the measures. However, the benefits that these provisions have had on increasing Catholic composition, as well as the positive impact on increasing community confidence in policing in general, justify the order in order to address this historical imbalance in the composition of the police in Northern Ireland. The order has also, as I shall go on to address in a moment, had the side effect of increasing the female composition of the police.

Since the Patten report’s recommendations and the implementation of the temporary provisions, the Catholic composition of police officers has almost trebled. From a mere 8.23 per cent in November 2001, the Catholic composition has increased to 21.43 per cent as of mid-February 2007. This progress is exceptional and reflects the support and faith in the process, including among the 73,000 applicants who applied to join as police officers during this period. Since 2001, 73,000 people have applied to join the Police Service of Northern Ireland, a police service with a total composition of fewer than 8,000 officers. This change has been made possible due to the example set by the courageous and dedicated men and women who have served the community as police officers over the years. But it has not been an easy task: 302 lost their lives serving their fellow citizens during the Troubles.

Patten highlighted the imbalance between the number of Catholics and Protestants in the composition of the police as “the most striking problem” and it is this that the temporary provisions are aimed at addressing. However, I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the importance of gender and ethnicity in the police service. In the Second Reading debate on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Laird, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, articulated her concerns about the effect that the temporary provisions may be having on ethnic minority applications However, one effect of the 50:50 process in increasing community confidence about applying is that representation of female officers within the Police Service of Northern Ireland has increased from about 12 per cent in November 2001 to more than 21 per cent as of the middle of February 2007.

With regard to ethnic minorities, while Patten recommended that every effort should be made to recruit them, given the very small population involved he did not set a target. However, the police have undertaken a number of positive outreach measures aimed at recruiting people from ethnic minorities. The current PSNI ethnic minority composition is 0.3 per cent, which compares favourably with the overall level of the working-age ethnic minority population in Northern Ireland of 0.46 per cent. The translation of advertisements has seen a significant rise in applications from the Chinese community as well as from foreign nationals such as those in the Polish community. For example, in the most recent campaign there were 968 applications from Polish applicants half of whom, I should point out, were still living in Poland. However, I want to take this opportunity to put on the record any concerns that these applications are automatically disadvantaged by being placed in the non-Catholic category.

All applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland are required to complete an equality monitoring form in accordance with the Fair Employment and Treatment Order (Northern Ireland) 1998 and the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999, irrespective of their country of origin. The information given by applicants on this form is used in making these appointments under the 50:50 policy. Since Poland is a predominantly Catholic country, Polish applicants to the Police Service of Northern Ireland are generally treated as Roman Catholic. However, each and every one is assessed in terms of the religion they declare on the monitoring form.

When the temporary provisions issue was previously debated, it was done in a climate where elements of Northern Ireland’s community remained uncommitted, unsupportive and unco-operative with their police officers. Crimes, regardless of how violent, remained unsolved all because of a lack of assistance given to the local police. I have said it many times: if you are not for the police, you are for the rapists, the muggers and the robbers. It is as simple as that in my terms. Today, in this critical period, the climate is notably different and continues to change for the better. I have come armed with statistics to show that this is the case, given the number of people applying for posts, where they come from and so on. Recently, Sinn Fein’s decision to support policing, however much that might be criticised, shows that the word has gone over. Progress made by the Northern Ireland political parties in achieving a political settlement, which we hope will be a final and long-lasting one, provides an historic opportunity to support inclusive policing. With the aid of this order we fully anticipate that the Catholic composition of the Police Service of Northern Ireland will reach the Government’s target of 30 per cent by March 2011. It is at this point that we believe the temporary provisions will have achieved their aim in providing a representative and inclusive police service, and these provisions will no longer be necessary. They are temporary until the target of 30 per cent is achieved. Our estimate, and it can be fairly precise with the recruitment processes taking place, will be achieved by March 2011. At that point, this legislation will lapse. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Renewal of Temporary Provisions) Order 2007.—(Lord Rooker.)

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the legislation before us. My party has opposed 50:50 since day one. We never agreed with it and believed that there had to be a better way of tackling the problem of the overbalance of Protestant members of the RUC as it was then, and the PSNI as it is now. To put that into context, we have to remember the reasons why we reached that imbalance. It was because members of the nationalist/republican community were under threat of death if they were so courageous as to join the Northern Ireland police forces. Under those circumstances, it was probably understandable that not very many did so, except for those living in what might be called safe areas. Nevertheless, a number did and a number were killed. If the Government are determined to continue with this order, they are once again at risk of institutionalising sectarianism and religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, something that they, we and others have been trying to get away from for a very long time.

Yet again, I find myself on a hiding to nothing when dealing with Northern Ireland orders. I thank the Minister for introducing the order. We recognise that since the provisions were introduced in 2001, there has been a significant increase in the number of Catholics applying for the police. The Chief Constable’s annual report for 2005-06 states that on average, since the provisions were introduced, 36 per cent of applications come from Catholics, compared with a high of 22 per cent before Patten.

I am particularly pleased that 37 per cent of applicants are women. As the Minister has said, the number of those who go on to become officers has increased from 12 per cent in 2001 to over 21 per cent now. That is excellent progress.

We have heard anecdotal evidence in the past of ethnic minority groups feeling that the 50:50 quotas had discouraged them from applying for the police. Because of the way the legislation is worded, candidates from ethnic minorities are considered in the non-Catholic pool of applicants, which is still larger in number than the Catholic pool. Some of those from ethnic minority backgrounds are reluctant to report hate crimes. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that the officer dealing with them may not fully understand or empathise with their situation and would feel more comfortable talking to an officer from a similar background to themselves.

Returning to the provisions of the order, which deals specifically with the recruitment of Catholic officers, we were pleased to see from the Chief Constable’s report that the police service is on target to increase the representation of officers from a Catholic background in the regular service to 30 per cent by 2011. As of 1 April 2006, 19.59 per cent of the regular force is from a Catholic background, compared with 8.28 per cent in November 2001. That is significant in any measure. Given the recent declaration of support for the police in Northern Ireland by Sinn Fein at the Ard Fheis, we hope to see the number of applications and recruits from those of a Catholic background increase even further in the three-year period that this order covers.

As we have heard, the Patten report envisaged that these special measures should be exactly what they are called in the legislation and in this order: temporary. The report envisaged a 10-year model to increase Catholic representation in the police to 30 per cent. This must be the last time we expect to renew these provisions for a three-year period. We firmly believe that as the time frame established in the order comes to an end, the Government must seriously investigate whether it is necessary to renew the provisions or whether the goal of a police service that is representative of the community should continue to develop naturally. We are putting this as a clear marker for the Government: if, in three years’ time, they propose to renew these provisions for yet another three years, we will not accept it. We accept the renewal of these provisions only up to the 10 years envisaged in the Patten report.

I have one further question. In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned lateral entry. Does he know if any Catholic police officers from Northern Ireland, especially any senior officers, have applied to return to Northern Ireland to become officers in the PSNI? If he is not able to answer that today, I will obviously accept a letter from him. Even though we accept a great deal of the concern that has been expressed about the 50:50 recruitment process, we will support this order today.

I was interested in the comment of the noble Baroness that in three years’ time her party will be opposing this 50:50 arrangement. That assumes, of course, that there will not be devolution in Northern Ireland, and that policing matters will not by that time have been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is my first question to the Minister. If devolution proceeds in Northern Ireland as planned, and if, eventually, there is a devolution of policing matters to Stormont, will the Government or the Executive, or whatever authority will be named, have the power to end that 50:50 arrangement prior to the date provided in this legislation?

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, rightly outlined the reasons why we had a low Roman Catholic membership of the policing institutions—the Royal Ulster Constabulary and subsequently the PSNI—and I shall not go over those issues; I know them in detail. There was tremendous intimidation of Roman Catholics; some of my friends who were Roman Catholic members of the RUC were assassinated by the Provisional IRA. Such people were even a priority target, compared with other members of the RUC. Roman Catholics were the number one target for assassination. That was one of the main reasons why we had a low Roman Catholic participation in the policing structures in Northern Ireland. As a Member of this House, I am delighted to see the progress in increasing the number of Roman Catholic members of the PSNI. That is what we really want to see in Northern Ireland—full participation in our policing system of people from all traditions.

However, the Minister must recognise that the 50:50 rule has caused great offence to the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland. Young men who are Protestants and who are better qualified are being discriminated against because they happen to be Protestants; they cannot get a position in the PSNI, and that causes a lot of sectarian feelings within the community. This is sectarian legislation and it is causing offence. Therefore, the sooner it is removed from Northern Ireland, the better.

However, on the background, the Minister said that Sinn Fein had now accepted the PSNI. I find it difficult to accept that statement and I will be interested to see if other parties accept it by 26 March. The English press says that Sinn Fein supports the PSNI, without examining that in detail. My understanding is that if you look at the issue in detail, Sinn Fein accepts the PSNI in relation to ordinary day-to-day civilian problems—such as traffic issues and rape which happen in civil society—but did not make it clear that it would support the PSNI when terrorism was involved. That needs to be clarified in Northern Ireland. It was not sufficiently clear to satisfy someone such as me. It may have satisfied Dr Paisley, but I will be watching this matter closely before 26 March to see whether Sinn Fein is clear in its support for the PSNI and all policing matters in Northern Ireland—civilian and terrorist.

There is one other problem in Northern Ireland and we must not run away from it. We still have the Real IRA, which, in my opinion, is an increasing threat in Northern Ireland society. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister thinks that the Real IRA is in decline or whether it is increasing its presence and potential for terrorism in Northern Ireland. The PSNI has to operate in that context of modern policing, which, sadly, might mean that Roman Catholic members of the PSNI will still be intimidated by breakaway groups from the Provisional IRA.

Mention has been made of the Garda Siochana. Paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum goes further, saying that there will be,

“a wider degree of lateral entry”,

from the Garda Siochana—not just the existing arrangements, but a “wider degree”. Can the Minister explain what that wider degree of entry from the Garda Siochana will be? I repeat the question I asked the Minister last time: has he read the oath of allegiance that members of the Garda Siochana take? At the time he replied that he had not. I hope that he has now read it because I suspect that it would not be acceptable to the vast majority in parts of Northern Ireland.

The trouble with any regulations or legislation of this nature is that when you speak from within Northern Ireland you will immediately be interpreted as extending sectarianism. When you voice any opinion on something such as what is known colloquially as the “50:50 disposition” you can be open to the interpretation that “everything is right and you are going against what is wrong”.

This afternoon, I suggest two things to the Minister in this context. First, in the light of what has already been said by previous speakers, the time has come to reconsider whether this provision should even be renewed for three more years. The situation in Northern Ireland has changed vastly since the initiating of this thinking, and certainly since Patten. I feel that it would be of tremendous encouragement to the whole of our community if it could be seen that that change is recognised in a tangible way, such as I am suggesting.

Secondly, it gives me no pleasure to be critical at this stage of the legislation and the rules, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is presenting this to us. I have always admired his contribution as a Minister during his time in the Northern Ireland office. He took endless trouble to become acquainted with the various briefs given to him about the conditions in Northern Ireland. However, in my professional live, involved as I was in the community of Northern Ireland for 43 years, I have had numerous representations made to me by parents and unsuccessful candidates, victims of the 50:50 legislation who did not just meet the preliminary requirements for membership but far exceeded them. It was acknowledged in explanations given to me in Northern Ireland that many of these candidates would have excelled in any police service in western Europe, but because of their religion they were not allowed even to enter training.

I speak as one who has devoted his life to opposing sectarianism in all its forms. Therefore, I do not want any of the Members of this Committee to interpret what I am saying as anything other than a feeling of frustration if the 50:50 position is not reconsidered, which would be tangible evidence of how far our society has moved in such a short time.

As the previous speaker said, it is not a case of 50 per cent Catholic, 50 per cent Protestant; it is a case of 50 per cent Catholic and 50 per cent others, made up of various ethnic groupings. Indeed, I say to my noble friend Lord Kilclooney that 40 per cent is quite large in terms of the Protestant population representation. I am certain that there is insufficient recognition in Government that in Northern Ireland this will be interpreted as saying one thing and doing another. They are saying that the situation has improved, yet they are putting on the table for three more years something which is perceived as a contradiction of the progress that we have made.

Finally, I do not believe that this is a party political issue; I do not believe that it is a question of party views. I accept that it was a genuine approach, as a result of the Patten recommendations, to allow a representation in the Police Service of Northern Ireland which was not possible in a voluntary way. But the time has come for serious reconsideration of whether it is correct to have this on the statute book once more, even for three years.

I pay tribute, from my personal knowledge, to the tremendous courage of Catholic families whose members joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary and, later, the PSNI at great personal risk. When the history of these times comes to be written, I hope that adequate tribute will be paid to that courage, for I have buried too many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, too many members of my community, not to know what the Catholic community has gone through in the losses inflicted on it and its members who served in the police service.

As I said, it is very easy to interpret any criticism of the order as sectarian. I beg the Minister, to whom I have already paid tribute, to treat what I am saying in terms of reality rather than anything of that nature.

As has already been said about the 50:50 rule, I can remember when fair employment was introduced in Northern Ireland, back in the 1970s. I was a shop steward within the trade union movement, and it was a very difficult time. None the less, it was worked out, and today employers in Northern Ireland have a rule they live by.

I have never quite understood why the police force had to be sectarianised in this way. I had two friends from a Roman Catholic family who joined the police, and both were murdered by the IRA. Why did religion have to be the thing? All my life I have fought for people getting jobs on merit. I am a great believer in equality, so I cannot get my head round why we are looking at having this law in place for another three years when we are told on all sides that Northern Ireland is entering a new world and everything is different, with the PSNI going forward with legislation, and women and people from ethnic minorities joining the force.

I cannot understand why we still have to do this because back in Northern Ireland this is looked on simply as a sectarian issue. Many previous speakers mentioned that they had been approached by young people. As many Members of the Committee know, I live along a peace line and a number of Roman Catholic families have told me that their kids cannot join the force because of the 50:50 rule. They fitted all the criteria but they could not join the force. So it works both ways. In the light of what Sinn Fein has done and what the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, said, and if it has all been accepted, I do not really see why we are pursuing this measure for another three years. I find this very difficult. I have never understood why there are only two derogations on Northern Ireland in European law, one concerns the police and the other education—two major pillars in building a new Northern Ireland and yet they are the two areas in which we can discriminate.

We would all do well to reflect on the two speeches that have just been made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite. It was welcome that they couched the issue in terms that departed from the narrow political and sectarian approach. There is much to commend in what they said. I understand the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about whether the republicans have gone all the way that they should to support policing in Northern Ireland. But for the purposes of my remarks I shall assume that if they have not yet gone the whole way in their language, they will, in short order, go the whole way in their conduct. On that basis I very much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said about the changed circumstances. We are now in a different situation.

Part of the reason that was adduced to explain these measures was that of the need to give Catholic applicants a helping hand as it was feared that there would be insufficient numbers coming forward as a result of republican hostility to policing. But we are in a different situation now in that respect. Republicans are clearly moving towards supporting policing even if they have not gone the whole way. We have heard statements by the leadership of the republican movement calling on members of the Catholic nationalist and republican community to join the police. The Minister might find that he will become the victim of the law of unintended consequences. Nationalists and republicans have now moved to support policing—nationalists in the shape of the SDLP have clearly done that; Sinn Fein is clearly moving in that direction—and they are encouraging young nationalists and young republicans to join the police. Given that situation, is it not likely that we will now see a significant number of young republicans, who up until now have held back from involving themselves in policing, becoming involved in it and that there will be a surge in recruits, or applications to the police, from that quarter?

If that is the case—and there is good reason to expect that it will be the case within a short period if it is not now—the order that the Minister is bringing forward tonight will start to disadvantage Catholic applicants. Young republicans and young nationalists might have held back in the past because the republican movement was hostile to policing. As was mentioned, at the moment we are still getting more applications to the police from people of a Protestant background than from people of a Catholic background. It is quite possible that within a matter of months or a year or so that will switch and we shall find more Catholic than Protestant applicants coming forward. The Minister should bear in mind that as regards the relevant age group—young men aged 18 to 25—there is a rough equality in numbers in terms of the demographics, so what I have described is quite likely to occur. So we could see a situation where more applications are coming forward from a Catholic background but this legislation limits recruitment to 50 per cent. You will find it working against Catholic applicants. I understand that the Minister said that he can calculate that with the recruitment that is taking place, the 30 per cent target will be achieved by 2011 without the order. It is perfectly possible that that target could be achieved earlier than 2011. I do not know whether anyone has bothered to think this out.

I will do my best to answer the questions I have been asked, as well as addressing some of the myths and unfortunate—how shall I put it?—foresuppositions based on the figures. I genuinely mean that I will try to address every point. It is 20 March. The deadline is 26 March, and the one thing I will not do is change that. I cannot be certain what hour of the day the deadline is—I presume it is the whole 24 hours from midnight, when the clock starts ticking. I do not intend to comment on or allude to anything here today that could be used in one way or another, and I do not think I would be expected to. Therefore, I will not be able to comment on who said what, who feels what or whatever. We are in a very sensitive period. We all understand that.

There are a lot of figures, I accept that. I do not accept that discrimination is necessarily a bad thing, if there is a policy purpose at the end of it which one seeks to drive to. Twelve competitions have been launched since the new Patten provisions were introduced. Each competition recruits 440 police officers. The lowest number of applications received in a competition—not the number of those who got through the system, but of applications—was 4,410, while the highest was 7,861. The grand total is 70,000-odd. Each time there are only 440 entrants. As can be seen, the lowest figure was 4,410; that was for competition number four. The highest was for competition number 11. Competition number 12 in September 2006 gave the highest percentage so far of applicants from a Catholic background: 41 per cent.

I was very conscious of what I was saying earlier when I talked about Catholic and non-Catholic. I realise that I am not talking about 50:50 Catholic and Protestant, but about Catholics and others—which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, includes ethnic minorities. I fully accept that, at 440 a go, with 70,000-odd applications in the past few years, there will by definition be an awful lot—thousands—of disappointed people. Some of them will have got through the threshold of being eligible for recruitment, and they will still have been disappointed. The police force itself is somewhere under 8,000 strong; I think it is 7,557, although I do not know if that is the figure for today or for the date when this note was written for me. The scale of numbers of people wanting to join the police force is so great that there will inevitably be disappointment for people, whether they are male, female, Catholic, Protestant or from an ethnic minority. Starting from that premise, there will be huge numbers of people who do not get in, for whatever reason. I suspect that that may be the case. There will be a limit on the numbers of police in Northern Ireland for a career structure.

We have not hidden at all the fact that this arrangement is discriminatory. Everyone understands that; I am not arguing otherwise. But there is a policy objective to be achieved at the end of it. It was thought in the Patten report that the scheme’s single most striking feature—and I was quoting from the report at the time when I spoke on that—was the issue of the numbers of Catholic and non-Catholic police officers.

The arrangement has received the support of the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission, but we do not deny that it is discriminatory. I will answer all his other points, but at one point I think that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, referred to discrimination by my political party. I was not sure what the discrimination was. If it was the fact that we do not fight elections, that is tough, but there is no discrimination on membership anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Just to correct the Minister on that, the Labour Party stopped discriminating on membership only within the past year or two as a result of legal action taken by a shop steward from Northern Ireland, who is also now bringing a discrimination action over the attitude to fighting elections. Don’t say “tough” to 1.7 million people whom you are discriminating against in terms of their civil rights. That is not the attitude to adopt.

No—political parties are voluntary groups. We have a policy of not fighting against parties that are members of the Socialist International. It is as simple as that. That has always been the case. We make no bones about that; that is our policy; that has always been our policy. That is the policy in England, Scotland and Wales; it is the policy in Northern Ireland. There happens to be a party that is a member of the Socialist International there. I have not come here to debate this; I do not even know why this got raised. Nevertheless, I had to respond because I was not clear about the point being raised.

On the issue of people expected to score higher—it will take me a while to go through this—the fact is that the selection procedure of all applicants prior to reaching the pool, because there is a more than one-stage process, as Patten underlined, is based on merit. There is no requirement for members of one community background to score higher or lower than another as part of the process to get into the pool. The 50:50 provisions only apply once people are in the pool. There is no secret about that. Of course, by the time people are in the pool, they have met the United Kingdom requirements to be a member of the police force.

The other point was that it would happen naturally. I had to have this explained to me at some length, but that is not the case. If we consider the total numbers of the police force and its current composition, we know that there is a recruitment competition of only 440, so knowing what the endgame of the number of police will be with retirements and other movements, the best estimate is that it will be March 2011 before the 30 per cent target is reached. It is possible to make that calculation because the entry is fixed at 440 and the total number is fixed and we know the composition that we start with today. It cannot be done any quicker.

The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, is absolutely right—two seconds before he raised the point, I satisfied myself on the answer—that if the proportion of applicants is 41 per cent, the highest it has been, and rising, it will not be long before it is more than 50 per cent. I will then make the same speech to members of the other community supporting the 50:50 in order to achieve the policy objective as I must make today. The same situation will apply; there cannot be any difference. That will not mean that we achieve the objective faster.

I much regret that, looking at the demographics, if we approach March 2011 and the situation is still the same—I will come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about devolution—someone else will have to come to seek a temporary provision order for one year, because the target will be that close. I much regret that this is not a four-year order, but the legislation requires it to be for three years, because then it could be put to bed. That is the end date on these calculations with these entry numbers by which the policy objective of 30 per cent will be achieved. I will also cover the point about why the figure is 30 per cent rather than another one. A noble Lord has asked about that.

At the present time—the post-Patten period—over 93 per cent of all Catholic applications have been unsuccessful. Let me make that absolutely clear. Only those who meet the UK standards have been appointed, and even then we have had to turn away a significant number of those who have met the standard because the demand is so high. I go back to the original point: there have been 440 entries on applications running at an average number in the competitions of 5,000, 6,000 or 7000, with the lowest competition at 4,400. We are looking to address the imbalance of the community background so that the police service is more representative of the community that it polices. That is what Patten said; it was accepted at the time and it serves no useful purpose for me to go over the history. Patten said that it was the most striking issue relating to the police and that it ought to be addressed.

In respect of lateral entry which I referred to in my opening remarks, the wider degree of lateral entry as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum is based on the opportunity of opening lateral entry from other forces, not just the Garda Siochana. Entry is not narrowed to that one, it extends to other forces. I can also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that I have looked at the new oath. It is similar to the oath for the Police Service of Northern Ireland and it is certainly human rights compliant. If there is a point about it that the noble Lord objects to or if he feels that it fails in some way, I shall be happy to try to respond to that. Further, the oath can be converted to an affirmation so that the words “Before God” do not have to be used. I do not know whether that was the issue here, but I can confirm that it is human rights compliant and very similar to the PSNI oath.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he indicate whether any senior officers—

I am coming to that. First I should say that no one has been recruited under the lateral entry process. There have been no entrants. In answer to the noble Baroness, within this system I understand that there have been two promotions from entry as constables, both of them male.

On the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, about support for policing, I shall get into trouble if I start quoting who said what and giving weight to the statements that have been made by various members of the political parties. The noble Lord himself referred to the fact that within the next few days, political leaders in Northern Ireland are going to have to make up their mind about whether they have the confidence in each other and in the system to go into devolved government on a power-sharing basis. They have to do that by midnight next Monday. I do not think my quoting one leader as opposed to another or referring to one type of crime as opposed to another would take the matter forward. That is not for me as a UK Minister, it is for the political leaders in Northern Ireland. I wish them well in their decisions.

I accept that it is not easy for any of the parties involved because it is not an easy situation. But the prize here is the government of Northern Ireland by Northern Ireland people rather than having to keep coming here to Grand Committee to listen to Westminster Ministers—commuting Ministers administering direct rule who cannot be full-time on the job. We cannot serve the people of Northern Ireland and we are less than second best. The best has to be local people in Northern Ireland; that is their prize. It is their choice, and it is six days away.

I was asked about discrimination on the other side. In the first 10 competitions, 4,507 suitably qualified non-Catholic candidates were not approved, but it is not true that they were rejected because of the 50:50 rule. We estimate that 708 of that number were affected by the temporary provisions. In other words, 4,500 suitably qualified candidates, fit enough to be UK police officers, have got through to the pool on merit and have not been appointed, but 708 of those were affected by the 50:50 rule. There will be a lot of disappointed people because the demand for places is so high.

The Minister has just confirmed what I was saying earlier; he has conceded that 780 people would have been appointed but for this. In other words, had the appointments been made purely on merit, those 780 would have been appointed. That, therefore, means a huge imbalance in terms of ability within the cohort that has been recruited.

I said no such thing. They were in the pool. Getting into the pool gets you qualified under the UK standard. I cannot say where in the pool the 708—it is 708, by the way, not 780—were. It is not possible to say that they would have been appointed because they were all suitably qualified above the threshold to get into the pool. However, I can say that they were not appointed because of the 50:50 rule, but that does not mean to say that if it were not in place they would have been appointed. It does not necessarily follow.

The ill feeling that results from these temporary provisions is due to people thinking that they have lost out and so-and-so down the road has got the job because of their religion. That is not true with the vast majority of people; it cannot be true on the figures I have quoted. It is simply because of supply and demand: the supply is so great and the demand so small. Thousands will be disappointed and it will be nothing to do with the 50:50 recruitment process.

I am a bit confused. I understand what the Minister is saying. He says that 708 got into the pool. The perception in Northern Ireland is that you are turned down because of your religion. Would it not be more honest to do away with this legislation and let people take their chances under normal recruitment practice? Or does the Minister think it fair that you get right through the process and then get a letter saying sorry, you fit the criteria but you are the wrong religion. That is what people are being told.

I understand the discomfort that has been caused in the past by the drafting of the letters that have been sent out. I do not have such a letter in front of me but I understand that, as of the most recent competition or the one before that, the nature of the letter gives people a more accurate explanation of why they have not been appointed. In some cases, it is not because of the 50:50 rule. That is the point.

Let me give the example of the 11th competition, held in March 2006. There was a merit pool of 504 suitably qualified candidates. There were only 220 posts available—in other words, half the annual total. Five hundred and four suitably qualified candidates had gone through to the pool and there were only 220 posts. Therefore, a significant number of both Catholic and non-Catholic candidates were rejected, but not because they were not suitable and had not qualified. They were qualified; they were in the pool. The fact is that there were more of them than there were jobs available. It is as simple as that. There is no way round that while the numbers of the police service are fixed. We have no plans, as far as I know, for vastly increasing the police force. It is not justified.

The Minister is in danger of confusing himself, or maybe he is trying to confuse other people. As I said in my original comments, the term “merit” has a funny interpretation here. Five hundred people get into the pool, having met the minimum standards. What then should have happened is that the 200 odd places that were going to be filled should have been filled on merit by choosing the best 200 odd of those 500. It is at that point that the 50:50 rule comes in and causes discrimination. On the Minister’s own figures, the cumulative number of persons who have suffered that discrimination is 700. Take that as a proportion of those actually recruited over that time and you begin to see the enormity of it.

Seven hundred people were positively discriminated against, but the rest, which was thousands, were rejected because the demand for places is so high.

What about the 700?

That is a minor number compared to—

It is only 700; it doesn’t matter.

That is a minor number compared to the thousands. The noble Lord homes in on discrimination for that number. I freely admit that that is the inevitable consequence of demand for places being so high. You cannot alter the figures. I cannot manufacture extra police posts when they are not available. There are 440—220 for each competition. Each place has 10 times the number of applicants. It is inevitable that qualified people will be discriminated against because they have got through to the pool, and the operation is trying to get a police service that is broadly representative—I do not think anybody is looking for the last decimal point—of the society it serves.

The totality of our estimate within the 50:50 provisions means that less than 1.7 per cent of all non-Catholic applications will have been rejected as a direct result of the 50:50 process. The others will have been rejected because the demand for jobs is so great and the supply of jobs is so small. So we are talking about a very small number who are affected by 50:50 compared to the vast thousands of qualified Protestants and qualified Catholics who cannot get a job because the jobs are not there.

Let us make a mountain out of this if we like, but let us be realistic about it: tens of thousands will not have got in from both communities and it is nothing to do with 50:50. That is the reality. A few qualified people will not have got in because of 50:50, and the 50:50 is the mechanism to achieve the policy objective of getting a police service that is broadly representative of the society it serves. That is not under the lateral arrangements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about ethnic minority applications. Those are broadly in line with the population. The ethnic minority population in Northern Ireland is less than 1 per cent. When you are dealing with tiny numbers it can be difficult to get any targets. There have been, as I have said, positive decisions to translate advertisements. I made the point that some applicants for the Northern Ireland Police Service did not live in Northern Ireland—35 Latvians applied; eight of whom were not living in Northern Ireland, but in Latvia, and half the Poles were still living in Poland. The point I wanted to make is that not all ethnic minority applicants are automatically classified as non-Catholics. That will come down to the monitoring forms they are required to fill in.

It helps to clarify my question but it confirms that the 50:50 question does not automatically move to Stormont even if there is devolution and a transfer of policing powers. Apparently, the Assembly has to make a specific request that the 50:50 question be included. That is very interesting indeed.

That is precisely the answer that I thought I had given. I am glad that I need qualify it no further as I do not want to dig any holes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify aspects of the policy. I hope that I have given more updated figures. The policy is very unpopular in certain quarters but the Government believe that it is wholly justified by the circumstances.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: A few weeks ago I warned that this order would be introduced either in Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House. It looks like a contradiction or plan B, but it is not. We do not have a plan B: it is devolution or dissolution on Monday. We are at a crucial point in the political process in Northern Ireland and minds are focused on the deadline for the restoration of devolved government on Monday of next week. There are no obstacles in the way of the formation of a power-sharing Executive on 26 March. It would be a tragedy beyond belief if the political classes in Northern Ireland failed to deliver what the electorate has just endorsed. The recent elections to the Assembly demonstrated a resounding desire for a return to stable and inclusive government. With the deadline so close, bringing this order forward now looks like an anomaly, so I will explain.

The main purpose of the order is to extend the power to legislate for Northern Ireland matters by Order in Council for a further six months. We do not want to do that. When the Northern Ireland Assembly was suspended in 2002, the provisions of the schedule in the Northern Ireland Act 2000 were invoked whereby the Government had the power to legislate for Northern Ireland by Order in Council. The power was initially limited to the first six months of suspension. Regretfully, it has been extended on eight previous occasions for a further period of six months.

This modification order would provide for a further extension of six months from 15 April this year to 14 October—in other words, the current arrangements expire during Parliament’s Easter Recess. The order is being brought forward purely on a contingency basis. We fully expect that devolution will be restored next Monday, 26 March, which would cause the power to legislate by order to fall away anyway. Devolution of powers will take place once the process has been undertaken at Stormont. If failure occurs, however, the Government will be left with no alternative but to proceed to direct rule, and the Secretary of State has made it clear that that would be for years rather than months.

Noble Lords previously raised concerns, and I want to put this on the record as well, that legislating in such a manner is democratically deficient. It is. We accept that, and we have done so for some time. We recognise those concerns, and we have made the commitment, which I am happy to repeat, that if for some reason devolution does not occur, we will move to introduce measures designed to increase accountability in this Parliament under direct rule. The measures would be discussed through the usual channels, and would constitute a distant, remote second best to Northern Ireland politicians doing what they have been elected and paid to do—that is, taking responsibility in Northern Ireland.

As I said, the tightness of the parliamentary calendar dictates that there would be insufficient time to lay and pass an order before the Easter Recess. We cannot take a risk on leaving that until after next Monday. Believe you me, the best brains in the Government—which do not include me—and the Northern Ireland Office have thought long and hard about this. It looks like a plan B, but it is not. There is no plan B. We expect devolution to be back next Monday. However, we have to prepare a contingency. We could not automatically assume that in the few days at the end of next week, with the Budget debate and everything else, we could get both Houses of Parliament to pass what would look like unthought-out emergency legislation. That is not what this is; we have thought about it. Purely as a contingency, we are bringing forward this order. We hope and trust, of course, that it will never be operated and that the devolved powers will return to Stormont and a devolved Assembly some time during the hours of 26 March. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2007.—(Lord Rooker.)

I thank the Minister for his lengthy reply to the last debate, and for the clear manner in which he has explained what we are doing now. I thank him too for ensuring that I got the very early warning that, and the explanation of why, we would be taking this statutory instrument today. I have little more to say, other than that I hope to God the Government do not actually need it. I thank the Minister for his undertaking, in the awful event that we need it after all, that the method of managing Northern Ireland affairs will be improved.

I too thank the Minister for bringing the order before us. After it had been laid in another place, the Minister responded to my colleague with an explanation that the order was laid on a contingency basis, and that is what we are talking about. We know that the current order runs out on 14 April. Given the Easter Recess, there was not a great deal of time to pass the order. We do not criticise the Government for laying the order and pressing ahead with the debate. It would probably be irresponsible to do otherwise.

However, I would like the Minister to explain a little more clearly why it would not have been possible to debate this order next Tuesday, 27 March, if it was necessary. By then, of course, we would have known on 26 March, the deadline, whether or not it would have been necessary: if an agreement was not reached by then, the debate could have gone ahead. But as things stand we are in an uncertain position because we do not know whether we actually need the order.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness—

I should have said that we support the order, albeit reluctantly.

I am not hiding behind anything here. So far as the business managers in this House and the other place are concerned, there simply is no parliamentary time next week. I suspect that in a sovereign Parliament, where there is a will, there is a way, but the fact is that we do not want what is in effect a contingency measure to look like emergency reactive legislation. Further, there is no time in the parliamentary calendar next week to deal with this business. That is the best advice I have; in fact it is the only advice I have because there is no other answer. It would not be possible to deal with this order next week.

The order has to go to the Privy Council, and that is where the problem arises. If I had known that in the first place, I could have said so. I am sorry; it is not the Privy Council. Again, the fact is that the business managers have said that there is no time available next week, and that is it.

I apologise to Members of the Committee. We had a communication that went astray across the Floor of the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Social Security, Occupational Pension Schemes and Statutory Payments (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007.

The noble Lord said: In moving the first set of social security regulations I shall speak to the other two sets grouped with it. In summary, the three sets of regulations provide for the application of a backdated national insurance contribution liability on the amount of employment income which is charged to tax by the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Finance Act (No. 2) 2005 and Section 92 of the Finance Act 2006. They also put in place rules regarding the recovery and collection of that national insurance contribution liability and ensure that those backdated earnings count for contributory benefit, occupational and statutory payment purposes. All the regulations apply to both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and perhaps it would be helpful if I put the regulations into context by giving a short summary of the background to the National Insurance Contributions Act 2006.

The Paymaster General made a statement in the 2004 Pre-Budget Report that the Government were determined to ensure that all employees and employers pay the proper amount of tax and national insurance contributions on the rewards of employment, however those rewards are delivered, and on becoming aware of arrangements which were intended to frustrate this intention, we would introduce legislation to close them down where necessary from the date of the statement, 2 December 2004. To allow national insurance contributions legislation to be backdated to mirror retrospective tax changes, a National Insurance Contributions Bill was introduced on 11 October 2005, which became the National Insurance Contributions Act 2006 following Royal Assent on 30 March of that year.

The powers in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2006 enable the Government to deal effectively with any tax and national insurance contributions avoidance arrangements that emerge in the future which are designed to frustrate the intention that employers and employees should pay the proper amount of national insurance contributions on the rewards of employment.

The Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007 amend the principal Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001 to apply a backdated national insurance contributions liability on employment income from employment-related securities.

Provisions in Schedule 2 to the Finance Act (No. 2) 2005 and Section 92 of the Finance Act 2006 apply a tax charge to income from employment-related securities and securities options used in avoidance arrangements, backdated to 2 December 2004. The powers in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2006, being used here for the first time, allow for making regulations to apply a national insurance contributions liability to the same income, backdated to 2 December 2004.

The Social Security Contributions (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007 make provision to enable the recording, collection and recovery of the backdated national insurance contributions liability. Employers will be required to amend the pay records of those employees in receipt of retrospectively treated employment income for the years in which the income was actually received, applying the rate of national insurance contributions in force for the year in question. For national insurance contributions arising by virtue of the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007, employers will have until 19 June 2007 to pay to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the additional contributions due. Before 20 May 2008, employers must submit a separate return for each relevant year, setting out each affected employee’s amended earnings and national insurance contributions. Where additional national insurance contributions due include primary contributions, employers will be liable to recover those contributions from the affected employees’ earnings during 2007-08 and 2008-09.

These social security regulations mirror the collection and recovery of tax provisions. The Income Tax (Pay as You Earn) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 similarly require employers to amend the pay records of those employees in receipt of retrospectively treated employment income for the years in which the income was actually received, applying the tax code or higher rate of tax in force for the year in question. Payment of the tax will also be due by 19 June 2007 and a return for each relevant year, before 20 May 2008.

If employers are unable to recover the additional tax due from employees’ pay in the period ending 5 May 2007, by virtue of existing provisions in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as amended by the Finance Act 2006, if an affected employee does not make good to their employer within 90 days of 6 April 2007 the tax due and paid by their employer, that sum will become additional taxable income of the employee in 2007-08.

Thirdly, the Social Security, Occupational Pensions Schemes and Statutory Payments (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007 ensure that payments subject to backdated national insurance contributions liability also count for contributory benefits, occupational pension and statutory payment purposes in order that employees do not lose out on their entitlements had the payments been earnings at the time they were paid.

These regulations and the collection regulations I mentioned earlier also provide the framework for dealing with any future payments which are retrospectively treated as earnings and not just those brought into liability by the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007.

In keeping with the commitments given during the passage of the Bill last year, the regulations were published first in draft on 14 November 2005 and then on 16 August 2006 for comment. In general, the comments were helpful but did not suggest any substantial drafting issues. HMRC has published on its website a summary of the comments and responses. The majority of the comments focused on the national insurance contributions avoidance disclosure rules, which were also published at the same time. Those regulations are made under powers in the Act but are subject to negative resolution procedure. The comments received were exclusively points of fine detail and raised no issues of policy or principle.

The Government are committed to deterring future avoidance activity and the regulations, as I mentioned earlier, are the first use of the powers in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2006. Accordingly, I commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Social Security, Occupational Pension Schemes and Statutory Payments (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007.—[Lord Davies of Oldham.]

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. We debated the issues behind them at length when we considered the National Insurance Contributions Act 2006. While we have no desire to defend national insurance or tax avoidance, we did not then like the degree of retrospection that was involved in that Act and we have not much changed our minds since. However, I failed to convince either your Lordships’ House or the Government that this would all end in tears, so I will not revisit those issues today.

The regulations, so far as I can tell, produce the effect we expected from last year’s Act when we considered it during its passage in your Lordships’ House, and to that extent they raise no new issues. However, I have some questions for the Minister, and the first relates to timing. The National Insurance Contributions Bill had its Third Reading in your Lordships’ House exactly one year ago today. At that stage it was merely sweeping up the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2005, but it has taken us a whole year to get to the stage where the regulations are finally working their way through the parliamentary process.

I understand that the Minister has said that the drafts were issued for consultation last August, but it seems incredibly laid-back of HMRC to take five months to put the regulations out for consultation, especially as the Minister said they were available in draft when the Bill was being considered. This does not seem an appropriate way for HMRC to behave; it seems arrogant. HMRC now has the ability to go back to 2004, so why on earth should it hurry to tell taxpayers how this will work in practice?

Why has it taken so long to publish the regulations for consultation? The consultation took until December, and I do not suppose much new came from that extended process. It is now towards the end of March. That throws up questions about the commitment of HMRC to finalising such matters, or perhaps about its own efficiency.

My second question concerns whether HMRC is actually oriented to taxpayers’ needs. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Social Security Contributions (Amendment No. 2) Regulations says, and I paraphrase, “It would take us an awfully long time to produce consolidated regulations and may even mean that we would have to go and talk to other departments, so we are not going to bother to do that. Who cares about the taxpayer trying to find out what he has to comply with? Certainly not HMRC”.

One of the obligations that the Government and HMRC should have is to recognise that as they complicate and lengthen the tax code—we debated this in connection with the Income Tax Bill last night—and now a national insurance code, they have a corresponding obligation to ensure that taxpayers can easily access the rules that govern them. In this instance, HMRC has failed on that score.

Lastly, I shall return to the issue of consultation. What I had prepared to say was partly contradicted by the Minister’s remarks. I was going to say that the regulations do not tell us much about the consultation process—only, in paragraph 7.3 of the Social Security, Occupational Pension Schemes and Statutory Payments (Consequential Provisions) Regulations, that no significant comments were received. I was going to ask where those consultation responses had been published. I have searched the HMRC website and could not find them. Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum does not say that they were going to be published. But what paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states is that HMRC’s response to the consultation comments will be published on its website. Does HMRC think it appropriate to publish the comments and its response to them before the parliamentary process, or does it regard the process as something that does not really trouble it? The Minister responded that they are published on the HMRC website.

I shall say two things: first, it is jolly difficult to navigate around HMRC’s website using conventional search terms such as the titles of these orders—I did not find them. If they are there and I did not find them, then clearly something has gone wrong, but I want also to make a more general plea that when documents are laid before Parliament and if important additional material relevant to their consideration is available, a clear signposting to precisely where they are located on the website would be helpful. That would aid those of us who struggle to find out what issues are troubling those who have responded to the consultations.

I am not an enthusiast of the regulations and the Minister will see that my principal concerns are related to HMRC’s approach. It seems often not to care too much about taxpayers or even about Parliament. Perhaps I may suggest that HMRC displays qualities rather similar to those of its boss, the Chancellor, based on the fascinating analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, in the papers this morning. Does the Minister agree with me that the performance of HMRC in relation to these regulations leaves something to be desired? Do Ministers have any will to make improvements in this regard?

In the debate in the House on the Income Tax Bill yesterday evening, both the noble Baroness and I took offence when the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, described us as “docile”. Having just listened to the debate on the statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland, I suspect that the noble Lord must have been listening to Northern Ireland exchanges to colour his judgment of the way in which we approach these matters. While I am not sure that I will take any lessons from the debate we heard in Grand Committee earlier this afternoon, certainly the level of emotion which was evident is rarely exhibited by myself on statutory instruments or, indeed, on virtually any other matter that arises in your Lordships’ House on the Treasury brief.

We discussed the substantive Bill behind these regulations last year. At that point the issue of retrospective legislation was considered: we do not like it, is the best way of summing up our attitude. However, we accepted that we had to put up with it in this case, and these statutory instruments flow from that primary legislation. There are no further matters of principle arising here.

I agree absolutely with the comments of the noble Baroness regarding the consultation timetable because the sooner you can put through regulations that are retrospective, the less retrospective they will be. That must be a good thing. We often hear complaints about the timetable on consultation in other areas. People claim that they can be very tight. In this case the timetable appears to have been unduly relaxed and to have gone on for a long time. Given the nature of the legislation and the fact that the number of people who would be likely to comment is clearly small because these issues are highly technical, the consultation could have been completed six months sooner.

I have only one question. In his introductory remarks the noble Lord mentioned that the purpose of the powers under which these regulations are being proposed is to deal with any arrangements which have emerged that have led to the avoidance of tax. What evidence is there that these regulations are necessary? Are they theoretically necessary or have specific cases been brought to the attention of HMRC which have proved that these regulations are needed? To the extent that they are necessary, is it possible to say, even broadly, whether these are major problems that have been dealt with here? Is there a lot of avoidance going on, or is it very narrow? I said yesterday evening that I thought it would be helpful in explaining the benefit of what was happening if we knew how many pages of legislation were being repealed. Here it would be useful to know how effective these regulations will be, simply because they are needed and there is a substantial problem. It would be helpful as a general rule when regulations of this sort come forward if the Government could give some assessment of the scale of the problem being addressed because it helps justify the regulations. With those caveats we support the regulations.

I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. It is a relaxing day compared with our efforts last evening when we were at our most “docile”, according to the noble Lord, Lord Newton.

I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, starts from a significantly different point of principle from the Government; namely, she finds the aspect of retrospection so unacceptable that she does not like these regulations at all. I recognise that point.

I should make it clear that, on the specifics, that was made clear when the Bill went through. That is what lay behind my comments. I did not like the regulations in the sense that it they had taken so long to get here, but the issue was made clear when the Bill went through. We need to keep as a separate issue how the Act might be used for further regulations. These regulations were in contemplation when the Act went through. When it is used later, you may get a slightly stronger speech from this Dispatch Box.

I appreciate that point and look forward to that occasion with undue enthusiasm, as the Committee will recognise. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof; so for the moment I will concentrate on the issues that the noble Baroness raised on these regulations. As I see it, these will not end in tears just yet but will in due course produce regulations that may cause us to relapse into tears. At the moment, it is just expressions of regret.

The noble Baroness addressed the delay of the regulations. I was a little concerned about the question on publicity, but I have the address. I would hesitate to read out a long and complicated website address, but if I find it I will certainly ensure that the noble Baroness has the address at the end of the sitting. That might satisfy the Committee. I can assure her that it has been put on the website. I am sorry that the signposts were not good enough to give her the assistance she needed. That is an important point, as we all know as we try to find our way round the complexities of websites. I will have a look at that and see whether it is in a more obscure corner than it should be. For the time being, and for the satisfaction of the Committee, the address is www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/nicbill05.htm. I will furnish a copy of that address to the noble Baroness at the end of our deliberations.

The noble Baroness said that the consultation has been over-lengthy. She is bound to be critical about that because the regulations have a retrospective quality to them. I imagine that she would like them to take effect almost immediately the Bill becomes an Act. I understand that point. It is an easier demand to make in opposition than to fulfil in government, where it is quite clear that we have to go through the processes of consultation. These are not easy issues. If they were easy issues to handle, we would not need the regulations in the first place. The noble Baroness knows why we have the concept of “future retrospection”, if I can get my head around the tenses embodied in that. We have that because only after a time can we identify the nature of certain tax avoidance strategies that need to be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked whether they were necessary.

I am interested in the noble Lord’s views on why it took so long to get the draft regulations out. Perhaps he could explain what changes were made between the point at which the first draft regulations were available, which was some time before the Bill was finally passed, and August, when they were finally published. Were there a lot of difficulties between the version that was produced before the Bill and the one that finally came out? It is my understanding that the issues were all settled.

Without going into the most abstruse detail, I do not know how I could identify the nature of the processes of consultation and effective changes, but I assure the noble Baroness that the coherent set of regulations we have today are the result of some considerable work. We took into account both the drafting refinements from the original draft regulations and the consultation process.

I was seeking to emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that he will know that from time to time a range of strategies are pursued, in which remuneration is offered to often rather well remunerated individuals in any case by a whole range of stratagems to avoid tax contributions. We all remember the bottles of wine and the gold bars at one stage. We are now looking at schemes that are different from those. Our strategy is designed to reduce the taxation impact of certain kinds of bonuses.

The Government’s objective is quite straightforward. If an individual receives this remuneration by dint of their employment, they owe tax on that, and the employer also has an obligation to meet any payments with regard to contributions on it. That is an item of principle. I do not think we disagree across the Committee on this matter. It may be that the noble Baroness has a strategy for how one could anticipate such developments in a way that one would develop legislation that was all-encompassing, farsighted and all-foreseeing but still short enough for the noble Lord, Lord Newton, elsewhere to bring it within a compact Act with regard to the finance legislation as a whole, and all this would be encompassed by a skilful Government. We have the best skills to deploy at our disposal. We have very clear objectives, and we are prepared to put the resources in to reach them. But we do not find it quite as easy as the noble Baroness does; perhaps because she is putting the proposition from opposition while we are dealing with the reality in Government while also meeting all our requirements in terms of consultation and proper response.

I hear what she says. I agree with her entirely that regulations with a retrospective aspect to them are more urgent than may be the case with other regulations. We ought to seek to minimise the time factors involved, because by definition the aspect of retrospection is bound to increase as time goes on. I share that objective with her. I am merely indicating that it is no easy matter to produce regulations consequent upon legislation as significant as the 2006 Act.

I also emphasise in this context that the regulations are now in place. That has given us the chance to present with great clarity what we are seeking to achieve. That may help to meet the point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, identified. Existing tax laws do not appear sufficiently comprehensive or well enough drafted to inhibit tax avoidance strategies. We have made it absolutely clear that we intend to be firm in this area. We have legislation on this, which the regulations reinforce. That sends a very clear signal to the wider world that no avoidance strategy is likely to be successful. We hope that we shall see a great deal fewer such strategies.

We all recognise that in the past year certain members of our society have received significant bonuses. Everyone wishes those who rise to a high position in society or in the City well. Nevertheless, we expect them to meet their obligations in full and not to become involved in stratagems to avoid tax, or for employers to avoid paying national insurance contributions.

I accept that the noble Baroness wishes that we had reached this point six months earlier. However, here we are on this day of grace with this coherent set of regulations which, if endorsed by the Committee, will enable us to act effectively to achieve the objectives that Her Majesty’s Government desire.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Social Security Contributions (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2007.

The noble Baroness said: The orders before us are made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act, which allows for necessary or expedient changes in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. When Section 104 orders amend primary legislation, the Scotland Act requires them to be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.

The first order is the Tourist Boards (Consequential Modifications) Order. This is made in consequence of the Tourist Boards (Scotland) Act 2006—an Act of the Scottish Parliament which received Royal Assent on 30 November 2006. The purpose of the 2006 Act was to put the new VisitScotland integrated network on a proper legal footing. The Scottish Tourist Board is already operating under the banner of VisitScotland, but it is the 2006 Act, which comes into force on 1 April, that will officially change the name of the organisation. This is why it is necessary to take forward this order now.

This order amends primary legislation by removing references to the “Scottish Tourist Board” substituting with “VisitScotland” in the following pieces of legislation: House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975; Race Relations Act 1976; Tourism (Overseas Promotion) (Scotland) Act 1984; Greater London Authority Act 1999; and Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001. The order will also amend the Development of Tourism Act 1969 by replacing references to the “Scottish Tourist Board” with references to “VisitScotland”. The 1969 Act also contains references to the board of the Scottish Tourist Board and its maximum size. The order will amend these references to reflect the changes made under the 2006 Act of the Scottish Parliament.

I thank the Minister for giving such a full explanation of these measures before the Committee. I gather that she is already an old hand at taking these Front-Bench presentation positions and I look forward to having my knowledge and understanding increased as we talk across some of the Scottish elements that come through these days.

One has to wonder why the legal name of the Scottish Tourist Board has to be changed when a new marketing brand is desired. It seems to me that marketing brands are a bit like the suburban housewife who likes changing the wallpaper. I wonder whether there is a body called “VisitEngland” with which the newly-named body will link up to make a more unified presentation for the United Kingdom. Perhaps England has area tourist boards, whereas the Scottish area tourist boards have been done away with.

The measure is fairly innocuous, but tourism in Scotland is an important topic, considering that 9 per cent of employment is in that industry and a great deal of investment and encouragement is directed at improving tourism. Noble Lords will know that tourism currently generates some £4.2 billion for the Scottish economy. I was reading the current report of the consideration of these measures in another place; it was either a misprint or a slip of the tongue on behalf of my honourable friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, when he said that the tourism industry generated £46 billion for the Scottish economy. If that were true, I have a funny feeling that Mr Alex Salmond would not be looking, as he is, for the oil revenues to be added to the Scottish block grant.

In tourism we love the English—despite many of the rather hostile things that Scots can be accused of—because 86 per cent of our visitors come from the rest of the United Kingdom. I gather that overseas visits increased by 14 per cent in the first nine months of 2006. I wonder how much that was due to the name change. That makes the VisitScotland target of increasing visitors by 20 per cent by 2015 seem like a fairly laid-back approach. Perhaps the ambitions will be increased—but certainly the quality should be increased.

The second order on the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act is a good measure and has generally been welcomed by Conservatives north of the Border. The successful separation of law and law enforcement has been a great feature of our Union, but modern crime and law infringement has become very sophisticated and powerful. As noble Lords are probably aware, drug crime is a great problem north of the Border and identified drug crime has increased by 46 per cent in the past few years. So we need measures that open up cross-Border co-operation and enforcement—not just between Scotland and England, but between the United Kingdom and other countries. The ability to share information is important.

I thought perhaps that a few more interested bodies might have attended this Grand Committee, given that we were talking about football banning orders—and I know that many noble Lords have much enthusiasm for football.

I was amused to notice in the order that if a person has,

“reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirement”,

of a football banning order, he can be excused. However, one wonders at that, given that there are many keen, imaginative minds in football; and while some of the excuses might be rather far-fetched, the provision states “reasonable”, after all. Someone could say that he just happened to be on a bus that was going in a certain direction. Much will depend on the extent of the banning order. It would be interesting to know if the Minister knows to what degree geographical areas will be covered by the banning orders, or will they just cover the area near the match itself?

I, too, congratulate the Minister on getting through all those acronyms at such a speed, which I probably would not have managed at all. I have very few comments. Exactly as their titles state, these orders are consequential provisions and modifications on decisions that have been taken by the Scottish Parliament on devolved matters and simply make the adjustments that are needed in UK statute. We support them fully and see them very much as tidying up issues of Scottish devolved responsibility—that is our only role.

I must admit that I was interested to see that the name change to VisitScotland affected legislation regarding the Greater London Authority and the exemptions list in the Financial Services and Markets Act. I wondered whether that was carte blanche for members of VisitScotland to go off to start all sorts of derivatives and options markets without interference by the Financial Services Authority. I am sure that that is not the case.

On the police order, I must admit that I did not realise that the Civil Nuclear Police Authority actually existed, so this has been a most educative process. I support these orders.

I agree with both of the previous speakers that these orders are benign and necessary. I want to ask the Minister one question, if she does not mind. The second order mentions agreements between the partners and agencies north and south of the Border in order to get the issues that arise from devolution sorted out. We are coming to a situation where it is possible that there will be a different political party in power in the Scottish Parliament to that at Westminster, which means that there will be considerable strain on such agreements—much more than there is at the moment.

We all recognise that. Personally, I think that the Scotland Act is standing up well to the stresses and strains of events as they move forward; but as we develop such agreements it will be important that they stand. Can the Minister tell us whether those agreements are enforceable? Are they written agreements to which people have committed themselves? How will they stand up if there is a strain in the coming years imposed by having different political parties in power? She probably understands what I mean. It is important that the arrangements continue to work smoothly, particularly in relation to the police and the new police complaints commissioner in Scotland and how his or her arrangements will work south of the Border—and in relation to police pensions.

I thank noble Lords for their kind welcome and their kind words about my first appearance at the Dispatch Box on a Scottish matter. As a Celt, I am proud to be speaking on Scottish and Welsh matters and this has been a very interesting introduction for me, too. Like the noble Duke, I found this an instructive beginning.

Are those agreements in writing? I do not know whether they are enforceable, but are they written agreements?

I am advised that they are in writing and enforceable. If the noble Baroness would like me to write to her in more detail, I should be happy to do so. She asks an important question.

I am grateful. This matter is critical in making these agreements stand. Perhaps the noble Baroness could send copies to other noble Lords who have spoken.

I would be delighted to do that. I hope that these orders meet the approval of the Committee and I commend them.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007.—(Baroness Morgan of Drefelin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

That completes the business before the Grand Committee today. The Committee stands adjourned.

The Committee adjourned at 6.20 pm.