What steps he is taking to raise the level of innovation in the United Kingdom's industrial base. [139531]

The Government believe that innovation is the key to industrial success. By providing economic stability, the Government are giving business the opportunity to raise its levels of innovation.

My right hon. Friend may be aware that, tomorrow, my local business innovation centre will be presenting the annual London innovation awards. On show will be 126 new technologies, many of which can be turned into commercial ventures. Last year's winner has already established a turnover of £600,000 and is poised for major expansion. Will my right hon. Friend give us some tangible examples of innovation making the difference to both jobs and investment in the British economy?

I congratulate those who will be receiving awards at the London innovation awards ceremony tomorrow. There are several good examples of innovation that has been developed here in the United Kingdom, which have been beneficial to employment and have had wider benefits. One immediately thinks of Viagra, which has been useful to a number of people in the UK—[Interruption.] I have not had to use it myself. One thinks also of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, the Psion organiser and something that came directly from a Department of Trade and Industry grant—a smart award—to the production company responsible for "Walking with Dinosaurs", some of whom are on the Opposition Benches. That was a very good money-earner for the UK, and based on a grant that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) would abolish.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many long-term technology programmes are dependent either directly or indirectly on Government contracts? That is particularly so in defence-related industries. Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that one factor that should be taken into account when deciding on defence procurement contracts is the ability to sustain the technological research and development base in the UK rather than among American competitors?

I have no doubt that public procurement can be a very effective way of developing innovation and supporting research and development in the UK. Over the years, the defence sector has played a valuable role in achieving that. I know that the Ministry of Defence continues to keep under review its procedures to ensure that the decisions that it takes on its procurement programme will not weaken but support the UK's industrial base, while at the same time providing our armed forces with the quality of equipment that they need to discharge their responsibilities.

I welcome the commitment to promote innovation in British industry, but how will my right hon. Friend ensure that it will be relevant to the needs of engineering companies such as Alstom Power in Lincoln, which faces hefty competition on the world market?

I compliment my hon. Friend on her very active work with Alstom, which I know is a major employer in her constituency and plays an important role in the UK's manufacturing and engineering base. Alstom is one of the forward-looking companies that has been prepared over the years to innovate. That is one reason why it has been successful in a highly competitive international market.

The role of the Government in such circumstances is not to try to tell companies such as Alstom how it should innovate or develop products for the future. We should offer incentives and try to work alongside such companies. That is why I hope that the Chancellor will consider the extent to which R and D tax credits—he announced this in the pre-Budget report—can be extended beyond the small and medium sector, to support larger employers and companies such as Alstom in my hon. Friend's constituency.

This week, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that the additional burden on British industry over this Parliament totals £32 billion. How does the Secretary of State think that helps competitiveness and innovation? Instead of inflating his Department—by 1,000 civil servants since the election—and fiddling around with a lot of gimmicky initiatives, will he at last start to stand up to the Treasury for the real interests of British business, begin to roll back the tide of red tape and regulation and do something about the £32 billion extra burden about which the CBI complained this week?

The £32 billion of red tape to which the CBI referred includes the cost of providing people with four weeks' paid holiday a year, which the right hon. Gentleman would scrap. It also includes the cost of implementing the national minimum wage, which he would scrap. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, in his principal position as shadow Secretary of State, and his deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), do not believe in the principle of a national minimum wage. They are clearly on the record as saying that, so there can be no doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman attacks red tape, but in reality he is trying to attack basic decent standards in the workplace. That is a classic Tory agenda which the Government reject. We believe that decent standards in the workplace support improved economic performance.

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about our policies on the minimum wage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He is factually incorrect, but we are right about his policies. He is more concerned with preserving all the extra jobs and expenditure in his own Department than with helping British industry to generate jobs in its sector. How can he be so complacent when the Institute of Chartered Accountants has produced another survey that shows that the cost to the average small business of implementing the additional regulations and legislation has risen from under £5,000 last year to over £8,000 this year? Will the Secretary of State leave his fantasy world of initiatives, advisers and extra civil servants and start to stand up for British industry? Will he take the lead from us and switch some of that expenditure over to make a cut in business rates for all small businesses?

Let us get away from that fantasy world and address what Opposition Members have said on the record. The right hon. Gentleman's deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, called the national minimum wage a "cretinous" idea—he should know. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the national minimum wage would undermine the country's economic performance, as the record shows—

Totally untrue.

The shadow Chancellor did not consult the right hon. Gentleman when he suddenly announced that the Conservative party was going to endorse the national minimum wage.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the problems that the Government face. However, the facts show that over 1 million more people are in work since the Labour party took office. Today, we are announcing that we have delivered on one of our key manifesto pledges, as 250,000 young people are in jobs as the result of our measures. That is the reality of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman can live in his own fantasy world, but we are delivering for the people of our country.

If he will assess the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands. [139532]

The Office for National Statistics figures for 1997, which are the latest figures available, show that the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands, on a gross value added per employee basis, is 91.5 per cent. of the UK average.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many manufacturing businesses in the west midlands face an uncertain future. At a meeting with the Engineering Employers Federation this week, there was considerable concern about the impact of the climate change levy on the competitiveness of companies with high energy costs that do not qualify for negotiated agreements under current arrangements. One business faces additional costs of £1,000 per employee. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to raise with the Chancellor the possibility of a rebate for companies that undertake to reach ISO 14001 environmental standards? In that way, CO₂ emissions can be reduced

Order. The hon. Lady's question is far too long.

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and the representation made by the Engineering Employers Federation. She will accept that taxation is always a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I shall ensure that her concerns and those of the industry are passed on to my right hon. Friend at the earliest opportunity.

Is the Minister aware of the CBI's view that the climate change levy favours only organisations that are going to make a change, rather than those that have already invested in change, which include Sony in south Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "West midlands"]—and many organisations in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I am a west midlands Member of Parliament, as you know, Mr. Speaker. Has not legislation introduced by the Government destroyed industry in my constituency, including Armitage Shanks, one of the largest manufacturers of toiletware in the United Kingdom? It is all very well for the Minister for Trade to laugh, but hundreds of people were employed by Armitage Shanks, which was a major exporter—

Order. I think that the Minister has got the point.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the director general of the CBI, Digby Jones, made clear in his speech that he was pleased that boom and bust had been removed for the first time in a long time. One of the most expensive commodities for business is uncertainty. This country now has the soundest macro-economic framework that it has had for many years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we also have the best employment figures for many years. We have reduced by a quarter of a million the number of young people who were unemployed when we came to power. This country's biggest impediment to growth is lack of skills and the diabolical position in which the previous Administration left the economy, which we are now struggling to put right.

If he will make a statement on the development of biotechnology clusters. [139533]

My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury led a team to look at the development of biotechnology clusters. Its report was published in August last year and the Government have acted on all its recommendations.

In a recent high-profile debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:

Biotechnology is the next wave of the knowledge economy. This is an industry whose market in Europe alone is expected to be worth over £70 billion by 2005. The number of people employed in biotech, or who depend on its uses, could be as high as three million, as we catch up with the American industry—currently eight times the size of Europe's.

My right hon. Friend said that we would catch up, but how is that possible when Americans measure the establishment of new companies by the hour, week or month, and we measure it by the year? Why are we not ensuring that biotechnology companies progress in areas such as the west midlands and Bolsover, where new and exciting talents and industry are desperately needed?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance and potential of the biotechnology industry. He will have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement last week of a £725 million increase in the science budget. Of that increase, £110 million is earmarked for genomics. My hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that we are investing during the next three years a further £165 million through the regional development agencies, including those in the east of England and in the west midlands, to support cluster development, including biotechnology clusters.

Does the Minister understand that the reason why new companies form every week in the United States is that it has a low-tax, low-regulation economy? Will not the £32 billion of additional regulation introduced by the Government drive the clusters to other countries around the world?

It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to talk down the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is that we have the second-largest and most mature biotechnology sector in the world. We remain the biotechnology leader within the European Union. Three quarters of the new drugs developed in the European Union are developed here in the UK, which has excellent companies. By investing in the science base, as we are doing, and by helping science institutions more effectively to commercialise their research, we will get many more new companies. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the announcement made by Conservative Front Benchers yesterday, stating that the Tories would cut the funding that we are investing in those new companies.

I welcome Lord Sainsbury's report, but what steps will the Government take specifically to assist industrial biotechnology? Bearing in mind the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been doing along with others in the north-west, will my hon. Friend consider carefully the fantastic successes in industrial biotechnology in the north west and urge the Government to inject more support into the projects going to our academic institutions there, thus helping our industrial partners?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am glad to say that, as a result of the north-west science review competition, we have already invested more than £26 million from the science budget in the north-west's science base. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up the north-west science and Daresbury development group, which includes a wide range of local partners, to consider how further to build upon the north-west's considerable science strength, and that group will report shortly.

When he last met the Tobacco Workers Association to discuss job prospects in British tobacco manufacturing. [139534]

My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I met representatives of the Tobacco Workers Alliance on 26 October. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) were also present.

That has not done much to satisfy the workers who will be affected by the Government's deliberate and wilful campaign to destroy 1,600 tobacco manufacturing jobs in Southampton. We know that the Labour party received £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone to save a few jobs in Formula 1, but what price is the Minister demanding to save 1,600 jobs in export manufacturing in Southampton?

I do not recall the hon. Gentleman expressing any concern about the fate of the hundreds of thousands of miners whose jobs were destroyed by the previous Administration. Crocodile tears from the hon. Gentleman will not impress anyone. I stress that the EU directive on labelling and tar levels, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will not take effect before January 2004 at the earliest. There is a great deal of time for the tobacco industry and other sectors in the supply chain to adjust to those changes. I have every sympathy for the workers, who of course are anxious about their job prospects, but I have stressed to the Tobacco Workers Alliance not only that the companies have time to adjust to the prospect, but that direct help will be available to any workers who lose their jobs. We do not accept the estimates that have been made, but if any workers face the threat of redundancy, we shall ensure that we give them every help to find other jobs.

I, too, have constituents who work in the tobacco industry who are equally concerned about job losses. Has my hon. Friend made any rough estimates of the job losses if the directive is implemented, and will she agree to meet representatives of the tobacco industry in my constituency to hear their concerns?

Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any colleagues whom she wishes to bring to discuss the matter with me. I stress that neither the European Commission nor my Department accept the estimates that have been offered by the Tobacco Workers Alliance and the industry of potential job losses. British American Tobacco has said that much of the overseas market for its cigarettes depends upon the premium "made in Britain" brand. There is every reason to think that the industry can continue to export successfully even if the tar levels are reduced. It is also worth saying that, when the earlier directive on tar levels was introduced, the industry predicted that there would be hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect job losses, but they did not materialise.

Do the Government recall that, in past years, tobacco workers sounded a clear warning about the consequences of increasing taxation on tobacco? That was ignored, and we have seen a constant rise in smuggling and the consequent loss of jobs in the United Kingdom industry. Why do the Government continue to ignore the warnings that are being sounded by tobacco workers on the EU ban?

It is worth remembering that tobacco kills and that high-tar cigarettes kill more people more quickly. Our estimate is that the new directive will strengthen the internal market and protect health. In particular, we estimate that between 400 and 750 lives a year could be saved by the implementation of the directive in the UK. We must take account—the president of the Tobacco Workers Alliance herself made this point to me—of the health impact of smoking. That is why we strongly support the directive.

What steps he is taking to ensure that the citizens advice bureau service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales. [139535]

The Government help to ensure that the citizens advice service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales through their support for and funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. This year, the Government provided £15.7 million to that organisation to maintain standards through support and training to the individual citizens advice bureaux in England and Wales.

I welcome the Government's support for the national association, to which I pay tribute for its work throughout England and Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of consistently maintained support is of use only if it is accessible to people in all parts of England and Wales? Will he encourage local authorities in every area of the country, especially those providing services to deprived areas in towns and cities, or flexible services in more rural areas, to ensure that local services are adequately supported and funded?

First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in the voluntary sector—he has been a great supporter of citizens advice bureaux. Local authorities deal with the local distribution of the service. It is worth noting that the UK gets £30-worth of work for every £1 spent on voluntary support, which makes the service very cost effective. I concur with my right hon. Friend—any local authority that does not take cognisance of that should now do so, to ensure that that valuable service is available to its electorate. Secondly, the consumer support network, which was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in October, is giving a first-class service to many people who have problems with consumer affairs.

What would the Minister say to any county council that refused to help citizens advice bureaux?

I would say that such a council should review its position. Although the Government are very supportive of citizens advice bureaux, the decision rightly rests with local authorities. However, I would ask any such authority to revisit the electorate's need for the service.

If he will make a statement on the future of the post office network. [139537]

The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. That commitment was clearly demonstrated when we accepted all 24 recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report, "Counter Revolution: Modernising the Post Office Network", which was published in June. A key recommendation was to develop the role of sub-postmasters and mistresses as government general practitioners. I am pleased to inform the House that, later today, the contract will be signed to begin the government general practitioner project.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the number of post offices and sub-post offices in the Vale of York that have closed under his stewardship? Is he also aware that utility companies such as Northern Electric and Gas have written to sub-post offices such as that run by Mrs. Holden in Huby to say that they are passing on the climate change levy to post offices and sub-post offices? I am not aware that they are heavy industrial users of electricity. Is that not another hammer blow against sub-post offices, which will put them out of business in rural areas such as the Vale of York?

I shall certainly examine the hon. Lady's example with great interest and concern. On the wider issue of the post office network, we have recognised the important role that post offices play in rural and urban communities. That is why, for example, we have introduced measures to provide a subsidy to the network. That is the first time that that has been done and it clearly demonstrates our commitment to maintain a nationwide network.

Post offices in central Scotland are going through a period of renewed confidence as a consequence of the announcement that was made in the summer. They are already benefiting from being online, and there has been a reduction in the tedious work load that so troubled post offices in the past. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is a genuine feeling in many areas of the country that the post office problem is on the way to being resolved?

I am pleased to hear that the network in central Scotland is responding positively to the measures that the Government are introducing. There is no doubt that we need a modernised network to meet the new demands that are being made. I believe that the more than £500 million that we are investing in the computerisation of every post office will pay enormous dividends in the future, and will allow post offices to extend their facilities and the range of services that they offer the public. That would never have happened under a Conservative Government, who were prepared, through neglect, to see the network decline. We believe that we now have a clear process in place that will support the network and ensure that it can meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Does the Minister recall his recent answer to my written parliamentary question, which confirmed that the annual rate of decline of post office branches has accelerated from 200 a year to 333 in the first six months of this financial year? Is not a major factor in the uncertainty of the branches the lack of confidence in the concept of the people's bank? Although it is welcome that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation has this week endorsed the people's bank, are not other leading clearers rubbishing it in the press? As Treasury Ministers have declined the opportunity to put the social obligations of the banks on a statutory footing, what confidence has the Secretary of State that the people's bank will take off and provide income for the banking system?

It is worth reflecting on the fact that in the first half of this year closures in rural areas were 20 per cent. down on the corresponding period for last year. There are clear indications that people are responding positively to the programme that we have outlined.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important role that universal banking services can play in a modernised post office network. Like him, I welcome the announcement by HSBC earlier this week of its broad support for the concept of a universal bank—a post office-based solution. However, the hon. Gentleman should not believe all he reads in the press. The discussions and negotiations with the banks are proceeding well, and I hope that an agreement will be concluded in the not-too-distant future, so that we can provide banking services through the post office network.

A couple of weeks ago, the Minister responsible for the Post Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), met sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in my constituency, and he went a long way towards satisfying many of their concerns. However, he was unable completely to satisfy their concern about the perception that the Department of Social Security is still encouraging benefit recipients, including pensioners, to have payments made direct into their bank accounts. May I urge my right hon. Friend to have further discussions with his colleagues to ensure that all sections of the DSS understand Government policy in this area and realise the importance of maintaining the post office network?

I am aware of those concerns. I ask my hon. Friend to provide any evidence of such action by the DSS. I had the pleasure of addressing the national council of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters last Friday, when this issue was raised. I invited them also to provide evidence. The agreement in government is clear. Although from 2003 there will be a progressive move towards automated credit transfer, that will not be the case between now and then, so we have a period in which to ensure that new revenue streams are developed within the post office network.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, with two sub-post offices closing every day, with the universal banking service looking increasingly flabby and unlikely to plug the gap, with the rural White Paper acting as a fig leaf of support for sub-post offices and with the savage introduction of ACTs, he is presiding over the meltdown of our sub-post offices?

Bearing in mind the embarrassment of the dome, the confusion on the railways, the collapse of our textile industry and the climate levy which will destroy business after business, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall have a Minister who will take responsibility for his or her actions? When will he do the decent thing and resign?

That was almost worth waiting for.

There is a serious point here—I have been trying to find out what constitutes Conservative policy on the Post Office. One of the issues with which we have had to deal in government is the problem of years of neglect of the network, over which the Conservative party presided.

Yesterday evening I consulted "Believing in Britain" to see whether there was a page about the Post Office, a paragraph about the Post Office, a sentence about the Post Office, or even a word about the Post Office. The Tories' programme for the future did not include a single word about the Post Office.

That stands in stark contrast to what we have done in office. There is now a statutory requirement to protect the network, and we have the ability to give it a subsidy. More than £500 million is being spent on computerising post offices up and down the country, and £270 million is guaranteed in this year's spending review. We are a Government committed to the post office network and delivering it with a real vision of a network of the future.

That, as I have said, is in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which says nothing about the Post Office. Ours is a party with a vision for the future, which we intend to deliver.

What plans he has to provide stronger consumer protection by way of regulation of trade associations. [139538]

The Government consider self-regulation through codes of practice run by trade associations to be an effective way of strengthening protection for consumers. My Department has no plans to regulate trade associations.

When our constituents want the services of a tradesman—perhaps a plumber, a builder or an electrician—and turn to "Yellow Pages", they find lists of people who claim to be members of this association or that federation, all of whom seem to offer some kind of protection for those who buy into their services. The fact is that that protection is entirely bogus: no protection at all is built into the schemes involved. Why cannot the Office of Fair Trading provide a kite mark, so that those who use members of such schemes are given the reality of protection rather than just the appearance of it?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We hope to present a Bill when we have time to do so. In the meantime, let me say that my hon. Friend has made his point before, and that my Department is discussing with "Yellow Pages" how the arrangements can be tightened up. There are a number of pilot projects with various trade associations to ensure that there is policing of the trade marks that have been issued by the OFT. I hope that when the pilot projects have given us a little more experience, we shall be able to legislate.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) made a good point about misleading advertising in respect of services in particular, but does the Minister accept that trade associations are vital to business? They enable businesses to negotiate from a position of strength with Government and local authorities. Might not further regulation of such associations be counter-productive?

That is exactly the line that the Government are taking. We are not legislating in the sense that we are making regulation mandatory; we are saying that we will have a code of conduct. We believe that a code is the right approach, as it permits flexibility and does not require legislation to be changed. We think that that is the right way forward. Adopting that flexible approach, and working with the Government and the Office of Fair Trading, the trade associations can protect consumers and run out many of the rogues to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) referred.

Will the Minister bring a little Christmas cheer to millions of beer drinkers in Britain by introducing stronger consumer regulations, so that we can achieve a full and fair pint?

I know that that subject is a personal concern for my hon. Friend and one on which he has campaigned for many years. Unfortunately, the Government have not yet made a decision on the matter, but I hope that we will be able to make one in the not-too-distant future.

I listened very carefully to the Minister's comments on regulating trade associations. When will he find time to examine the problems in the funeral industry—in which, as he must know, different codes of practice are operating in different associations? When will the Government take action to ensure that the industry introduces a unified code of practice, to include standards and training, to set at rest the minds of millions of people who, in the past few years, have heard stories about the industry?

That is a valid point, and I hope that we will be able to discuss it with the Office of Fair Trading and trade associations. I recently spoke to the secretary general of the Confederation of British Industry, which has 168 affiliated trade associations. Nationally, there are more than 600 trade associations. A little rationalisation might be effective in helping consumers to receive a better service. There are a few problems on the business side, such as the need for rationalisation, and if we could solve that problem not only consumers but their members would receive a better service.

How many ex-miners and their families in the east midlands have received mining-related health compensation in the last 12 months. [139539]

In the past 12 months, the Department has made more than 252 individual payments, totalling over £1 million, in full, final and interim settlement to claimants living in the east midlands. Progress in settling claims has been too slow everywhere. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe announced in September a programme of improvements to the process, and said that we would be making more than 19,000 higher and additional expedited payments by Christmas, totalling £100 million.

I commend the hard work of the Energy Minister. However, is it not the case that tens of thousands of sick, disabled elderly and dying colliers are trapped in a compensation maze populated by dilatory doctors, lethargic lawyers and middlemen on the make? Can the Minister reassure the House that claims handlers IRISC and medical assessors Healthcall are up to the job of clearing that sorry backlog? Do not the miners who sacrificed their health in winning the nation's coal deserve from the nation much, much better than this?

I agree completely with my hon. Friend's final comment, and I realise how deeply important it is to communities across the country that we get that money to the people who need it as quickly as possible. As I know he appreciates, it is a very complex scheme. We are getting in records and claim packs much more quickly, but there is a bottleneck in medical assessments. We are clearing 400 medical assessments a week, but my right hon. Friend intends to get that up to 1,000 a week.

On the specific medical points that my hon. Friend mentioned, we are introducing nine new mobile scanning teams to collect medical records and, centrally, another four new teams. There is a major push to get more doctors involved, with considerable success so far, and 13 new recruits being added to the current 173. We are, therefore, very well aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and we shall be redoubling our efforts to ensure that that money reaches those who need it and deserve it as quickly as possible.

Given that 6,314 claimants have died after submitting a claim but before receiving settlement of it, would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what proportion of those 6,314 cases is in the east midlands? Will he guarantee that in each and every case, without fail, the next of kin will receive the sum due, and that in no case will the money be allowed to remain sloshing around in Treasury coffers?

That is a rather superficial question on an important topic. Of course the money will go to the next of kin of those claimants who have died. We have moved to get compensation to miners as quickly as we can—£1 million a day was being paid in compensation last week, and the total cost will be £2 billion. We will provide proper compensation for people who have suffered through all these years. People in the mining communities realise that if a Labour Government were not in power now, there would be no chance of receiving those moneys—that is a different matter from the delays that we face now.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Labour Government on their efforts to make sure that miners and their families get the compensation that they deserve. In the east midlands—including my constituency—there is continuing concern at the speed with which claims are being sorted. Will my hon. Friend make sure that any changes made to speed up the process will be monitored by the Government? Will the Government take speedy action if we do not process the claims from miners in my constituency, Nottinghamshire and beyond?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Energy Minister is looking at these points carefully. It is true that in a little short of 18 months in office she has done more for the mining communities than the previous Government did in 18 years.

What representations he has received on the progress of mineworkers compensation claims. [139540]

As I have said, there is wide frustration that progress has been so slow. We have received many representations about this from Members of Parliament and claimants and through the media. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe recently received three petitions, signed by 17,000 people, to which she has responded. The Department and all concerned are working urgently to improve throughput, but we should not forget that this is a part of a continuing legal process. Mr. Justice Turner, who is still handling these cases, noted at the hearing in Sheffield earlier this month that the scheme is of necessity complex in making sure claimants get all the compensation due to them. This inevitably means there have been delays in putting the process into effect.

My visit to the IRISC headquarters in Sheffield prompted me to write to our right hon. Friend the Energy Minister suggesting a range of ways in which the process could be speeded up. For instance, we could remove the wasted time of checking non-existent employment and pension records, which currently delays the payment of claims, and the wasteful process that Healthcall has followed in pursuing claims with GPs, whereby someone arrives, takes just one record and goes away when there are 10 or 12 miners' records in the GP's practice. Will my hon. Friend insist on a review of the entire process to stop time being wasted? I have seen some progress, which I welcome.

Will my hon. Friend work with Healthcall to secure a centre to examine ex-miners in the south Derbyshire coalfield? It could serve that area and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) I would suggest Swadlincote, Coalville or Burton as a location.

My hon. Friend makes good points and my right hon. Friend the Energy Minister will consider them. We must clear the bottleneck quickly, but there are legal complexities. It is not just a matter of visiting a GP as though one were making a normal visit for a health check; it often requires a second visit. All our attention is centred on clearing the bottleneck and we will take up my hon. Friend's suggestion. We will keep in touch with him and all other Members of Parliament concerned with the developments.

The Minister has referred to the issue of recruiting doctors who can perform the assessments required for the compensation claims. How would he respond to the case of a constituent of mine who is experienced in this area but is expressly banned from working on the scheme because she once worked for an agency which had some relationship with the Benefits Agency medical services? She was told that within the contractual arrangements from the DTI, any doctor who had ever worked for BAMS was prevented from working on the compensation processes now. Will the Minister consider looking again at this matter, given that many doctors who have expertise in compensation claims may have had some incidental relationship with the Benefits Agency in the past?

The hon. Member raises a matter of which I am unaware and about which I suggest he writes to me. Something about it sounds wrong to me, and we need to look at it. The handling agreement was reached in early 1998, but I am sure that there is enough flexibility to deal with the sort of points that he has raised.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the judge monitoring progress in this matter has recently expressed the view that ex gratia payments would not be the way to deal fairly with compensation? He said that they would overcompensate some, and undercompensate others. Will my hon. Friend also take this opportunity to condemn Plaid Cymru, which has distributed literature in south Wales calling for ex gratia payments? The party has misled miners' families into believing that ex gratia payments represent a simple solution to the problem.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Mr. Justice Turner did indeed make those comments about ex gratia payments, and it is important to remember that there is a big difference between such payments and compensation payments. If we went down the route of ex gratia payments, we would not be benefiting the people whom we are seeking to assist.

What action the Government have taken to encourage the development of sustainable energy. [139542]

The Government have taken a wide range of actions, which are contained in the UK climate change programme, which was published on 17 November.

What steps are the Government taking with respect to the development of offshore wind energy? Aberdeen has a great deal of knowledge about the technologies involved in offshore development in the oil and gas industry. Have the Government looked to see whether some technologies in the oil and gas industries can be transferred for use in the development of offshore wind facilities, so that areas such as mine can stay ahead of the game?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Great skills and expertise have been developed, especially in cities such as Aberdeen, as a result of the exploitation of the North sea. There is an opportunity to diversify from the traditional work involved in that exploitation, and to examine ways to harness the power of wind as an alternative form of energy.

The Government have been looking closely at the matter. I was pleased that we were able to announce just three weeks ago that we were now able to make available £89 million in capital grants to support energy crops and offshore wind developments. I have no doubt that that financial contribution will make a real difference in the development of offshore wind technology. That development will be good in terms of renewables, and good in terms of creating employment opportunities in cities such as Aberdeen.

As far as it goes, I welcome that money, especially if it leads to an increase in the generation of renewable energy from offshore wind. However, will the Secretary of State explain how he squares the provision of that capital grant with the recent lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations? [Interruption.] In addition, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the application for a combined cycle gas turbine station in Enderby in my constituency? It is causing a great deal of concern there.

I make no comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said from a sedentary position, although I think that he may have been quite accurate. On the important issue of sustainable energy, we were able to support the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations because we want a diversity of provision in the United Kingdom energy sector. One way to achieve that balance is to ensure that gas-fired power stations have the opportunity to make a contribution.

However, encouraging that contribution must run alongside the need to maintain the coal industry, and that explains why we will be providing a subsidy of £110 million to support the coal industry over the next two years. That goes along with having a sustainable energy policy for the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we sustain our reserves of oil and gas in the North sea for as long as possible by ensuring that as many marginal fields as possible are fully exploited? There was a clear message in the pre-Budget report that the Chancellor was looking for new levels of investment from the oil companies, which was why he resisted the temptation to impose some kind of windfall tax. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of new levels of capital investment by the oil companies?

In the context of how we can develop further the reserves that are still held in the North sea—and certainly off the coast of my hon. Friend's constituency of Waveney—there are opportunities, but they will require additional investment from the oil and gas companies. It was wholly appropriate for the Chancellor to indicate that, in reviewing—as we always do—the fiscal and tax regimes affecting the sector and the industry, he will take into account the level of investment made by those companies. I hope that they will look carefully at the new opportunities in the North sea. Carrying out such investment will place them in a far stronger position, so we should encourage them to do so.

How does it help the promotion of an environmentally friendly energy policy to have banned the building of new gas-fired power stations for the past three years and to have the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements delayed yet again, adding £57 to the average electricity Bill? We have higher electricity prices and higher CO₂ emissions. They seem to be the cornerstone of the right hon. Gentleman's energy policy—damaging business and damaging the environment.

Who is responsible for the delays to the new trading arrangements? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, is it Ofgem, or is it, again, the Secretary of State?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have supported the decision to lift the moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. It is not true that there was a ban—I allowed one or two to go ahead because of their particular circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the price of electricity. We have changed the way in which electricity is to be traded, and he referred to the new trading arrangements. Of course, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was an architect of the system that we inherited—an inefficient system that inflated prices artificially.

Because of the changes that are being introduced and the forward market, electricity prices are already down. The new trading arrangements will be in place, and prices are already down as a result of that. They are down on last year, the year before that and the year before that. Consumers are seeing a reduction in their electricity prices because of the action that the Government have taken. We have moved away from the failed privatisation of the previous Government. Our system is delivering to consumers, which theirs failed to do.

If he will make a statement on progress made in encouraging businesses to communicate electronically with (a) customers and (b) other businesses. [139543]

There are now 1.7 small and medium-sized businesses online, and we are extending the UK online for business programme to help more businesses use the full potential of information and communication technologies to get real business benefits.

I welcome the Government's determination to lead the way in Europe in delivering e-commerce business opportunities. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Shrewsbury's businesses? They are among the first in rural areas to invest in asymmetric digital subscriber line technology, which is being rolled out by BT and is delivering better services and better quality communications.

I am delighted that Shrewsbury and the rural communities have been included in BT's ADSL roll-out programme and I congratulate the businesses that are taking advantage of it. We are determined to ensure that broadband, high-speed internet access is delivered to businesses and consumers across the United Kingdom as quickly as possible.

In the past fortnight, the prospects for electronic communications have not progressed; they have taken a complete and utter nose dive. The auction of broadband fixed wireless licences has been a complete flop. Of the 42 licences on offer, 26 remain unsold; the auction raised £38 million instead of the predicted £1 billion; and rural areas, in particular, will continue to be an internet black spot. Why does the Minister think that the auction was such a failure? Does she accept responsibility, or does she blame her civil servants? Will she now make a clear statement to the House on how she will retrieve this sorry state of affairs and reintroduce some sort of competence and momentum in developing this important part of the communications infrastructure?

It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman has completely failed to acknowledge the fact that more than half of the United Kingdom population live in areas that will now be served by a new source of high-speed internet, which is broadband fixed wireless access. Those include Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. That is good news for businesses and consumers in those areas. I am reviewing with the Radiocommunications Agency how we should make best use of the remaining spectrum in other parts of the country.

rose—

Order. We have not made good progress today. I hope that in the new Session I shall hear shorter questions and briefer answers. It would also help if Ministers resisted the temptation to discuss Opposition policies, which are not their responsibility—[Interruption.] Order. Let the Speaker chair the proceedings.

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

The other place agreed in Committee that this clause should stand part of the Bill, but it then voted to remove the clause on Report. Hon. Members will not be surprised that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has tabled a motion to reject the Lords amendment. The original clause 1 is the central clause of the Bill to which all the other clauses relate. Without it, the Bill is meaningless. Indeed, its only effect would be to repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which enables members of the Irish Senate to take seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was not the Government's intention and I do not believe it would have the support of hon Members. The intention of the Bill, quite simply, is to enable Members of the Irish Parliament to stand for, and to take up seats in, the United Kingdom legislatures. That is precisely what clause 1 in its original form would achieve.

The Government's reasons for pursuing the provision are simple. We believe that the Bill, with the original clause 1 included, shows the Government's recognition of the close and welcome ties between Britain and Ireland—ties that have been considerably strengthened in recent years with the coming into force of the British-Irish agreement and the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I understand that we and the Opposition are in accord on that. We want the Good Friday agreement to be taken forward.

It was not in the Good Friday agreement.

I will come to that point in a moment.

Where in the Good Friday agreement is there any indication that the Bill would be introduced?

I will come to that very point in a moment, but I shall answer the specific question about the agreement now. I do not claim that the Good Friday agreement made provision for the Bill. My claim is that it is consistent with the Belfast agreement, not an integral part of it.

Britain's ties with Ireland set our relationship apart from those with other nations. Indeed, the relationship is stronger than that with most Commonwealth nations—a reality that is recognised by the fact that in all other substantial aspects of British electoral law, Ireland and the Commonwealth are treated the same. It is only in this one remaining area that that parity of treatment is absent, and the Bill is intended to rectify that.

We do not believe that there is any intrinsic objection to the principle of enabling Members of foreign legislatures to stand for, or be elected to, legislatures in the United Kingdom, so long as they are prepared to stand by the obligations implied by membership of each of those Parliaments.

Can the Minister give a single instance in the past 100 years of a Commonwealth parliamentarian being elected to the House?

No, and the hon. Gentleman knew the answer to the question before he asked it.

Yes, I did.

So the hon. Gentleman will not be any more enlightened than he was before. The provision in this Bill is there not because anyone will necessarily take advantage of it, but because it recognises the special relationship between Ireland and ourselves.

Given the fact that for more than 100 years no one has taken advantage of the law that means that Commonwealth parliamentarians are able to sit in this House, does that not suggest that the law itself is an anomaly and should be done away with?

The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is that the law implies a set of relationships. It does not necessarily involve a right that will always be taken up. It recognises the warm relationships that exist between the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom. This Bill recognises the warm relationships that exist, particularly following the Good Friday agreement and the whole peace process, between ourselves and the Irish Government.

We accept that, in some cases, the holding of certain offices simultaneously may lead to conflicts of interest. That is why the Government significantly amended the Bill during its passage through the other place. Those amendments are in the second group that, I hope, we shall debate later this afternoon. They were tabled in response to the well-reasoned and legitimate concerns that were expressed in the House on Second Reading. They have made the Bill better and stronger.

I took part in those proceedings at very short notice, so will the Minister be good enough to tell me what would happen if a Member of the Dail, who had been a member of a proscribed organisation, wished to take up a place in this House? If he were elected, would he not be obliged, and should he not be expected, to eschew terrorism in all its forms as well as taking the oath of allegiance?

The Good Friday agreement set in train arrangements between Ireland and ourselves and for the different legislatures in the United Kingdom. The principle behind them was to move beyond the phase in which terrorism sadly scarred relationships in Northern Ireland and, on many occasions, in England and elsewhere. We are concerned with moving beyond that phase into a set of relationships with which all people can feel comfortable. This provision is a logical development in that direction, but it does not necessarily mean that anyone will take up a place in this House. Although that possibility is provided for and people are entitled to stand for election, the measure is more a recognition of the special relationships that exist.

I wish to take that point to a definite conclusion. The Minister is not telling me what I had hoped to hear. If a member of a proscribed organisation came to this House in the circumstances that I have described, would it not be essential that, before taking his seat, he publicly repudiated terrorism so that everyone would know the basis on which he sat in this House?

My point is that the purpose behind the Good Friday agreement with which, I think, we all agree, is that individuals in the parties that were associated in the past with terrorism should repudiate terrorism. We want to judge them by their actions. Quite honestly, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, if someone with a background in a terrorist organisation took up his seat, he would have to make certain assurances that would amount to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

The Minister said that the Bill represented moving on from the terror that dominated Northern Ireland—and my word, we all welcome that—but surely terrorism still dominates society there. He appears to be refusing to acknowledge that such people are still armed to the teeth and still terrorise whole communities.

It was not my intention to give that impression. There is a ceasefire, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear that it is imperfect, and unacceptable activities happen from time to time. We have to consider the ceasefire in the round and judge its current state at any particular moment in time on advice from the security services and other agencies. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation is not perfect, but my right hon. Friend has to look at the situation in the round and judge whether the ceasefire is holding.

The amendments in the second group were tabled in response to the well-reasoned and legitimate concerns expressed in this House and the other place. Although we accepted that the safeguards were reasonable, at no point did we accept that representing two separate constituencies in two separate jurisdictions must result in a conflict of interest. In addition, we believed that the principle was firmly established in the precedent set by our relationships with Commonwealth countries and by section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which enabled Members of the Irish Senate to take up seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Can the Minister say whether, as part of the discussions that led up to the proposal, the Irish Government gave an undertaking to rejoin the Commonwealth?

No such undertaking was given and I do not know whether it was requested. I am not trying to make the case that the Irish Government are part of the Commonwealth. The similarity is in the warmth of the relationships that exist between us and the Irish Government in light of the Good Friday agreement.

The Bill was produced in the spirit of greater co-operation that is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement, which the House will remember well. The agreement allowed for a referendum, and it was ratified by an overwhelming majority of the population who voted in the north and south of Ireland. There are arrangements for closer co-operation not only between north and south but between east and west, because that is also important.

Nationalists in Northern Ireland and their political representatives strongly supported the Belfast agreement, which included the principle of consent. The agreement did much more than recognise Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. It also recognised the legitimate political aspirations of Irish nationalists for a united Ireland and provided for new institutions to develop better co-operation between the Irish Government and the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.

Just as Unionists could not have accepted the new north-south arrangements without the principle of consent, nationalists could not have accepted the principle of consent without recognition of the very close and special relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the south. That relationship is not static; it is dynamic. The Belfast agreement provides for co-operation to be developed, and that is what we are doing in the Disqualifications Bill.

The legislative basis for the arrangements was the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so the arrangements and institutions have been approved by Parliament. Consequently, the principle of closer co-operation with Ireland has already been debated and agreed. The Bill is welcomed by the Irish Government because they, too, recognise the great benefits that close co-operation can bring. The Irish have amended their constitution—a significant and permanent act that required a referendum—in order to renounce the long-standing territorial claim over the north. I know that that has been welcomed by some hon. Members who might not welcome the totality of the Good Friday agreement.

With the enactment of the British-Irish agreement and the Irish Government's part in the Good Friday agreement, the Irish Government have displayed their commitment to working with this Government to build a better future for Northern Ireland. That future will be firmly based on the principle of consent. Those steps are not insignificant. The actions taken have been central to the peace process and to the dawn of a new period of peace and reconciliation, for the benefit not only of the people of Northern Ireland but of everybody in the United Kingdom.

I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members would agree that the contribution of the Irish Government deserves to be praised and recognised. For all those reasons, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.

Let me make it clear straight away that I agree with the Minister when he says that clause 1 is fundamental to the Bill. It is the Bill. As we are totally opposed to this very long Bill, we shall be dividing the House on the Lords amendment. We also share the Minister's view that the other amendments are consequential, and we have no objections to them. Today's debate should be entirely on the Bill.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. It is so long ago that it will almost certainly have slipped your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it will the minds of most Members, but when we last debated the Bill way back in January, the poor old Home Office took the brunt. Its Ministers were not very well briefed because it was not really their subject. The debate was decidedly embarrassing for everybody concerned. So, the House will be grateful that the Northern Ireland Office has at last come clean and made it clear that this is really a Northern Ireland Office Bill. I am pleased, in addition, that we have not a Home Office but a distinguished Northern Ireland Office Parliamentary Private Secretary on the Bench. We are pleased to see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) in his place.

Originally, there was a charade that the Bill was a modest piece of tidying-up legislation dreamt up by the Home Office, which suddenly felt that it would be right and proper for the Irish to sit in our Parliament and for us to sit in the Irish Parliament. That seemed completely untrue at the time—nobody believed the charade. Mercifully, the Government are now at least coming clean and claiming that the Bill is important to the peace process. At least we shall have transparency and honesty this time round.

1 pm

I shall briefly re-examine the history of the Bill, which was not in the Queen's Speech. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has pointed out, it was not, in any shape or form, in the Belfast agreement, which we support. It suddenly appeared in January and was rushed through the House in one sitting. I suspect that all its stages were rushed through on the Floor of the House because the Government rightly identified it as a constitutional measure. We were told that the Bill was urgent, but the urgency diminished when it left the House in January, went to the other place and disappeared into a sort of Bermuda triangle, only to reappear many months later. The timetable for this debate on the penultimate day of the Session is the result of the Government losing interest in it and introducing it for proper debate and discussion in the other place extremely late in the day.

We can therefore disregard the idea that the Bill is important and urgent, as it is neither important nor urgent in the peace process. If it were, the Government would have made sure that it progressed expeditiously to the other place and it would probably have returned to us nine months ago. Instead, the Bill has had one of the most leisurely passages through the House that any piece of legislation has ever had.

The Minister has been helpful today, as he always is, and has given us a few more reasons for introducing the Bill. I think that I am paraphrasing correctly—I know that he will jump up at the Dispatch Box if I mislead the House in any way and traduce him—in saying that he stated that we want Members of the Irish Senate to sit in both legislatures because we get on well with the Irish. He said that we have a good relationship with the country of Ireland and the Irish Government—[Interruption.]

I never make a speech without the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) intervening, and people appreciate our great double act. However, before he gets excited, let me say that I endorse our close, happy and good relationship with the Republic of Ireland, our immediate neighbour and a fellow partner in the European Union.

We have much in common with the Republic, but we also have a special relationship—although the Minister did not use that phrase in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—with the United States of America, which has come to the aid of Britain and Europe in two world wars. The USA also spearheads NATO which, despite proposals for a separate European army, is still our principal defence umbrella. Like our Irish friends, the Americans speak the same language as us, and we have a close relationship with them. There is no reason why American politicians should not sit in our Parliament or the Northern Irish Assembly or why we should not have reciprocal access to Congress. Equally, as someone who believes that it is in the country's interests to be in the EU, we generally have a good, robust relationship with all our EU partners.

indicated assent.

I am glad that the Minister agrees. There is no reason whatever why we should not have French, German, Spanish and even Danish people—with whom we have the closest relationship of all—in our Parliament. Therefore, there is no good reason for singling out the Republic of Ireland, which is only one of the many countries with which we have a good, happy relationship, and saying that its people can sit in our legislatures and vice versa. That is not a happy state of affairs.

Let me move on to the Bill's constitutional aspects. The Bill is significant as it fundamentally changes rules on who can sit in this Parliament and who can sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We must consider carefully whether it is right and proper for people to sit in two Parliaments in two different countries, with two different allegiances. Any reasonable observer would say that such arrangements were anomalous and extremely unwise, and that there would have to be exceptional reasons for adopting them. Even the Minister would admit that no exceptional reasons whatever have been given.

Before the right hon. Gentleman gets carried away with that argument, is he aware that it is possible under European electoral law for people to stand for election in a European constituency in countries other than their own? Thus a British national could represent an Italian constituency in the European Parliament.

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was becoming carried away. I was only mildly warming up. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the arrangements to which he refers. However, he will confirm that, in the European Parliament, one cannot represent two constituencies in two separate countries at the same time. The point that the Opposition are making is that it is anomalous for a politician to be elected to two separate Parliaments in two separate jurisdictions. There is no good reason for such a practice.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was correct, but his argument is inconsistent. He wants to apply the measure not to all members of the European Union, but only to the Republic of Ireland.

It is up to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to address that point when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at least one member of the Conservative party sits in this House and in the European Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not any more."] I apologise—she does not do so any more. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to do that and that other hon. Members have a dual mandate? Does he accept that, despite the potential conflict of interest between legislatures, those hon. Members have managed to pursue their activities responsibly and do both jobs reasonably well?

I was fascinated by that intervention. As usual, the Liberal Democrats are out of date. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) no longer represents an Essex constituency in the European Parliament. Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to sit in two Parliaments if one represents one country. It is entirely up to electors and to individual political parties to decide whether it is wise or popular to allow that, but the Opposition have no fundamental objection. The hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) sit in two Parliaments, but, both here and in the European Parliament, they represent parts of the United Kingdom. That is not equivalent to the matter under discussion.

I hope that we now have the Liberals' support. This week, they have continuously made U-turns on the Floor of the House on all Northern Ireland matters. They started on the Government's side in January and are still on their side in the Lords. However, we now have every right to assume—I welcome and accept the olive branch—that the Liberals will now move to our side of the argument. Of course, that will be significant when a vote occurs later in the other place. I welcome that support, for which I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).

May I put to my right hon. Friend a small example of the incompatibility of being a Member of two Parliaments? I have just come from a meeting with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at which we talked about sugar. It would be impossible if, for example, a person represented a constituency in one of the Commonwealth countries in the everything but arms regime which was demanding the inclusion of sugar in that regime, and also represented a constituency in Britain in which sugar was grown, because there is a direct contradiction between the interests of the two.

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. He might seek to expand on that interesting example later.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of U-turns. The House might like to be reminded that, on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:

As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]

That was proved by the Division on clause 1 stand part, when 221 voted for the clause with only 24 against. The right hon. Gentleman jibes at the Liberal Democrats for their view on the detailed principles of the Bill, but he might seriously consider whether that is appropriate given that he is on not-too-secure ground.

The Minister has a short memory. Back in January, he sat on the Treasury Bench for a full 27 hours without any sleep, which has clearly affected his memory a little. That is understandable, so I do not unduly complain. However, he will recall that I said earlier today that the Government, for which he was an advocate on that day, were saying that the measure was urgent and vital if the peace process was to move forward. That was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) accepted. It has now been proved that that was a false premise; it was not urgent, as I said earlier, because it was not taken through the other place for another 10 months.

Secondly, much has intervened. It was clear in January, and in yesterday's debate, in which the Minister took part, that he does not have a full grasp of what is going on in Northern Ireland. To be charitable, that is no doubt because of his other duties as a Home Office Minister. But the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does have a full grasp of the situation. He is a distinguished Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and he will confirm that what I am about to say is correct.

Life has moved on since January. This is a point that I wanted to make in my speech, so it is convenient to do so now on the back of the Minister's intervention. If there was to be a further concession to republicans, there had to be other things in return. Despite the promise of the legislation, it has been all take by the paramilitaries and no give. Has one gun or one ounce of Semtex been handed in since January? Has there been an end to violence, racketeering, beatings, kneecappings, or the so-called punishment attacks and exclusions? The answer, sadly and tragically for many people in Northern Ireland, is no.

Let us forget about all that we have spoken of earlier. The Minister knows, and more or less admitted, that there is only one reason for introducing this bizarre constitutional Bill—this is my central and fundamental point—and that is as an additional confidence-building measure for Sinn Fein-IRA. Certain members of Sinn Fein might like to sit in this House, definitely want to or are sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly and also wish to sit in the Dail. They wish to do so for a variety of reasons, one of which is to claim a united Ireland when they speak in both. The second is to sit in the Dail and say that they are speaking for people in Northern Ireland. That could, just possibly, be a price worth paying if there had been full and complete decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives—they were obliged to do that by last May under the Belfast agreement—and if there had been a total end to violence. However, none of that has happened.

1.15 pm

The people concerned cannot even bring themselves, after the passing of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, to encourage Catholics to join the new force. It would be wrong to go down this dangerous constitutional route, which is hugely flawed, without getting anything in return. The process, which we all want to move forward, has been damaged by the fact that, although there has been concession after concession, precious little has been received in return. That fundamentally undermines the law-abiding majority in both communities in Northern Ireland and, equally important, those Members who represent them.

We may allow the Bill to pass today, but I do not believe that we will. Although we will be defeated in the House in a few hours' time by the Government's majority, the other place will again reject this wretched Bill, which will not reach the statute book. It will be very good if it does not, as it is a further concession to, and appeasement of, the men of violence, from whom we have received nothing in return.

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes—he may still have some way to go—will he explain why he always talks down, minimises and denigrates the achievements of the peace process? We have had three years of ceasefire. I accept that it has been breached by some organisations—there has, for sure, been violence from loyalist and dissident republican groups. Does he accept that many in Northern Ireland are very disappointed by the way in which the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 ended up? It is important to enact the Bill because it builds on an agreement that has already been made. If we are serious about achieving peace in Northern Ireland, we must go the whole way with it.

I translate that to mean the whole way to total appeasement, which, fortunately, is not what the majority of Members of the House want.

I reiterate that we started the process under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was Prime Minister, and my predecessor Lord Mayhew of Twysden. We support the Belfast agreement. Our continuous complaint, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly hears, is that the agreement has not been implemented in full. The fact that it has been implemented only in part makes it badly flawed with respect to the peace process. In my view, the peace process will work effectively only if the agreement is implemented in full.

That part of the agreement that so worries us involves the fact that there has been no decommissioning whatever—not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex—by any of the people, so-called loyalist or republican, who signed up to the Belfast agreement. On the other hand, every single terrorist prisoner has been released back on to the streets. Republican paramilitaries have been elected to the Assembly, as have so-called loyalist paramilitaries. In the case of Sinn Fein, two of them have become Ministers. However, violence has not been fully renounced. Yes, there is a ceasefire, which I have welcomed; it is good news. There is goods news; of course there is.

Then why does the right hon. Gentleman not say so?

I do, regularly. The hon. Gentleman, who I willingly grant takes considerable interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, will have read regularly in the newspapers there, in Hansard and elsewhere that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I admit that there is some improvement, in that there is a ceasefire at the moment. However, no ceasefire looks permanent while, first, there is no decommissioning whatever—the Province is awash with illegally held arms and explosives—and, secondly, there is still racketeering, drug dealing and violence from the paramilitaries.

I am being tempted into areas that are beyond the amendment, so it would probably be wise for me to return to the subject.

The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave the impression that he has not spoken to any of the parents of the victims of terror during the so-called ceasefire. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that those victims, and especially their parents, have a different view of the situation and may doubt that there is peace, given the terrible loss that they have suffered at the hands of the men of violence?

Order. This is not a general debate about the situation in Northern Ireland. We have a Lords amendment before us relating to the Bill.

In that case, I had better not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Instead, I shall return to the point that I was about to make on the fundamental reason why we think this is a dangerous, bad, little Bill that should be rejected in total, which it will be if the motion to disagree is rejected in this House.

The Bill is a constitutional outrage and wrong. We are told that it will go ahead only if there are exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances are an appeasement and a sop to Sinn Fein, are not warranted and will be hugely damaging to the process. The Bill will undermine the law-abiding majority and those who represent them. They feel that it is another concession to the men of violence, whereas they have received precious few concessions themselves.

Given the savage but accurate complaints that the right hon. Gentleman is making about the Bill, can we safely assume that a future Conservative Government would repeal it?

Yes.

Other hon. Members want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we are painfully aware that we are on a tight timetable, which is regrettable. As I said yesterday, that is due to the Government's incompetence in taking so long to get the Bill back to this place.

I urge the House to reject the motion, because in doing so we shall kill off the Bill, which will be in the interests of the peace process, the peace-loving majority in both communities in Northern Ireland and constitutional justice.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is a charming fellow, and I always enjoy listening to his contributions to the debate. He postulated whether, given that our position on various aspects of Northern Ireland policy has evolved, we would do a volte-face on the Bill. It may come as a surprise to him and others to learn that we have decided to maintain the position that we have held for most of this year. I shall explain our reasons for doing so in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has spoken on the Bill—I think he was our spokesman in January. My noble Friend Lord Smith of Clifton spoke on the subject in the other place. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that the Government seem to have been rather schizophrenic about the Bill. In January, it was an urgent requirement that we get this legislation through, and no effort was too great to get it on to the statute book. However, it ended up gathering dust on the shelf for 10 months. Although I may have a difference of view on some aspects of the official Opposition's position, I agree with them that it has been difficult to ascertain why such pressure was placed on us to get the Bill through at the beginning of the year, but it has been left until now, 48 hours before the end of the Session, to be finished off.

On the up side, I concur with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that the Minister did a better job of explaining the importance of the Bill than anyone who has previously spoken on the subject on behalf of the Government.

We have been treated to an almost gasping effort to post-rationalise what has at times seemed a rather obscure Bill, but I give the Minister credit for at least presenting a plausible and, I think, fairly practical explanation of the Government's disagreement with the amendment. I must add, however, that had the Government acted a few months earlier, we might not be spending Commons time on the issue now. We might be doing something of more immediate importance, such as liberalising new year's eve licensing hours—but I shall not pursue that now.

The justification for the proposal is, in part, unquestionably symbolic. The right hon. Member for Bracknell questioned whether that and, indeed, the confidence-building element constituted sufficient justification.

Is it not about time that Unionists in Northern Ireland had some confidence-building? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as this recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast agreement, it merely heightens suspicion that only the Lord Himself knows what secret deals have been made between the Government—through the Prime Minister—and Sinn Fein? What lies before us next? If a proposal that is so unrelated to the Belfast agreement is being introduced at this stage, what can we expect in future?

Although I may vote differently from the hon. Gentleman on this, I think he makes a fair point. The Unionist community has had to put up with a lot during the peace process—as, indeed, have nationalists and republicans. One of the unintended consequences of the faltering fashion in which the Government have handled the Bill may be the creation of an unnecessary nervousness in that community. Nevertheless, I do not consider that to be sufficient justification for rejecting the tenets of the Bill. I realise that certain Conservative Members are concerned about the balance in my argument, but that is to be expected.

The hon. Gentleman mentions balance. Can he identify any reciprocity? What is to be given in return for this largesse? Will the hon. Gentleman, for example, be entitled to sit in the Dail?

I am too busy to sit in the Dail. I am not even a councillor at this stage.

The Minister may wish to correct me, but I understand that the Bill provides for no direct reciprocity—although the vision of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell standing for seats in the Dail almost makes it worth lobbying Dublin to think again. Who knows? Perhaps one day, if the world evolves, the right hon. Member for Bracknell will be in a position to stand as a potential Taoiseach. If he achieves that high office, I shall certainly expect an invitation to tea.

Let me return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). There is, in fact, an element of reciprocity. We may not get seats in the Dail, but, having spoken directly to Irish embassy representatives, I have no doubt that this represents a helpful evolution in the relationship between the House of Commons and Dublin. We should recall the dark days not long ago, in terms of relations between Dublin and Westminster—relations that were so strained that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body was established with the specific intention of rebuilding a fractured relationship. When we remember those days, only 10 or 15 years ago, we see how far we have progressed.

We should bear in mind that the present strong relationship with Dublin was not just discovered; it was earned. It was built up through various testing actions and legislative decisions—made, I must point out, by the Conservatives as well as the current Government.

Therefore, considering the overall context, the measure is another opportunity for us to strengthen the relationship between ourselves and Dublin. However, Conservative Members are entirely entitled to make a judgment call and to ask whether the development itself is a sufficiently powerful element of the peace process and relationship-building process to be justified.

1.30 pm

Earlier, I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bracknell to ask whether he felt that it was unreasonable for hon. Members also to be Members of the European Parliament. I had forgotten that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) had ceased to be a Member of the European Parliament—which she undoubtedly did just in time to avoid the possibility of defecting to the Liberal Democrats, as other Conservative MEPs have seemed prone to doing lately.

MEP singular.

I make it clear that I am not talking about MPs—although no reasonable offer would be refused if the right hon. Gentleman is looking for a new home.

One will unquestionably occasionally have conflicts of interest if one is both an hon. Member and a Member of the European Parliament. Unquestionably, there are two jobs to be done. Although I certainly would not choose to take on those two roles, I would judge that those who have attempted to do so have been reasonably effective. That situation fairly closely parallels the one that we are discussing.

Am I not right in recalling that the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, who is now the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, stood on an Italian Liberal ticket for the European Parliament? Although he was not elected, he might well have been.

Lord Steel did exactly that. He stood abroad, as the hon. Gentleman said, and he did so to make a point. Technically, he could have been an MEP—for Italy, I think—while being an hon. Member.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will do so only briefly, as I do not want to detain the House for too long.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I must point out to him that the European Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament, and that we are talking about people who can sit in different sovereign Parliaments. The hon. Gentleman should not be dishonest with the House by trying to give the impression that the European Parliament is equivalent to a sovereign national Parliament.

The last thing that I would want to do is to mislead the House. I remind the House that what I actually said was that there are surprisingly close parallels between the matter that we are discussing and the situation of those who work simultaneously as an elected, professional MEP and a Member of Parliament. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to take a different view on the matter. However, one of the facts persuading me that combining jobs is at least theoretically possible is that similar jobs have been combined before.

The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) alluded to the important issue of sovereignty. It is unusual that a non-Commonwealth country should be given the status that we are considering. However, for geographical and political reasons, we have a special relationship with the Republic of Ireland. If anything, Unionists should be pleased that, in some way, the link between Dublin and Westminster is getting closer. Much of the difficulty in Northern Ireland politics has been caused by the fact that that relationship has been strained.

The hon. Gentleman talks about close links between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. If I am not wholly mistaken in my understanding of history, did not the Republic of Ireland spend the best part of a century and a half trying to get rid of us?

Surely that would be a very good reason for a Unionist official Opposition Member to welcome current developments—which are a certain convergence of thinking between Dublin and Westminster and, more to the point, the normalisation of a relationship that has been strained for a very long time.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall give way one last time, but then I shall conclude my remarks.

The hon. Gentleman talks about wanting a close relationship between the British Parliament and the Dail, which I endorse. Is he not forgetting that we have the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, of whose steering committee I was a founder member? That body works well and effectively in improving relationships between the two Parliaments, but it is not a constitutional matter. That is where it should rest, and it is slightly insulting to that body to suggest that there is not already a good relationship.

That is not a very nice thing to say; intellectually, I am upset. There is no conflict in having the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which has done tremendous work in building links between parliamentarians, and the constitutional modification that we are talking about today. This is a matter of evolution and of building links between Governments. Crucially, we must show the general public in Northern Ireland—particularly the nationalist and republican communities—that they are being thought about in this House and that actions are being taken to ensure not that Dublin overruns Northern Ireland or grabs control of the Mace in this Chamber, but that those communities have a legitimate aspiration that is recognised and that they can get representation.

Let me get back to the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am virtually having a conversation with Conservative Front Benchers. Once again, it is an honour to be mentoring the right hon. Member for Bracknell, although this perhaps is not the right place to pursue that.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell regards the measure as a form of appeasement towards the men of violence. He welcomed the ceasefire, but said that nothing had been given by the paramilitaries in exchange for the concessions that we see here. I disagree. The ceasefire, by and large, has been an effective and important step forward. Northern Ireland is closer to a normalised political and military environment now than for many decades and that is encouraging.

The hon. Gentleman speaks about the peace process. Does he recall that since the ceasefire started, the IRA has murdered three people?

The hon. Gentleman is right, but fewer people have been injured and killed in Northern Ireland than before. It is not acceptable for anyone to suffer as a result of paramilitary violence. However, we are dealing with real-world politics and real lives. I would like to think that the moderate majority in Northern Ireland would agree that the situation is far improved on five or 10 years ago. If hon. Members choose to disagree, they are perfectly entitled to do so, but that flies in the face of the facts.

The Government have handled the matter in an unusual and slightly clumsy way this year. I hope that the official Opposition, Unionists and Liberal Democrats could agree on that. We hope that there will be a degree of contrite acceptance of that when the Minister replies to the debate. [Interruption.] It is a hope, at least. However, this is a confidence-building measure for the Northern Ireland community and for Dublin, and an overdue strengthening of links. It is always a risk to do something differently, but time will tell if it works.

I hope that the Conservatives in the Chamber will feel edified and assisted by the insights that I have provided. I hope that, as a direct consequence of what we have said, we will get a positive response from the Dublin Government. Importantly, I hope that there is a positive response from the SDLP and Sinn Fein, on which there is now great pressure to support the creation of a truly cross-community police service. I hope that they will see that this is another reason why it is unreasonable for them to hold out against encouraging Catholics to apply in significant numbers to the police force in Northern Ireland.

We have listened to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) expressing yet again the pious hope that making further concessions to thugs and murderers will elicit a favourable response from them. The history of humanity's dealings with such people shows that making concessions to them does not bring a favourable response from the point of view of the civilised but, rather, encourages them in their evildoing. Given what has happened during the past few weeks in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which we discussed yesterday, one can also see that such concessions do not work with the IRA. The IRA simply asks for more and more and gives nothing—and that is what it will keep on doing.

As the Under-Secretary pointed out when he opened the debate, we are dealing with a Bill that was beheaded in the House of Lords. In its present form, it is nothing but a dead carcase. In my view, it would be best to leave it that way, but the House is trying to resurrect it and give it back the life that was removed in the other place.

The Bill appeared nearly a year ago. It had its First Reading on 21 December last year, within a day or two of the House rising for the Christmas recess and when no one was paying much attention to what was being produced. I have not had time to check when the House rose for Christmas last year, but it could have been as late as 22 or 23 December—certainly no later. That recess, therefore, came only a day or two after the Bill was introduced. It was a time of year when people did not have time to assess the Bill. No one was paying much attention to such things, and First Readings do not matter all that much, as we all know—they are a purely formal procedure—so no one took much notice.

Second Reading took place on 24 January. It was followed by the events that kept us up for a long and pleasant evening in the House—one of the longest sittings in the Chamber for some time. I look back on that night with pleasure, because it illustrated once more that if one talks and talks in this place, one will eventually start to get through to those who, up to that point, have taken no interest in an issue. Eventually, people will start to say, "Some people think this is serious. Some people believe this should be discussed and that it is worth a second look to see whether we have got it right." That is why the Chamber is so important to the legislative process of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but if he wants to exercise that right again, he had better do it tonight. From next week the Government will have successfully neutered this place with their so-called modernisation programme.

I regret that the hon. Gentleman said that, because he may well have alerted Mr. Deputy Speaker to the fact that I was beginning to stray beyond the confines of the debate. However, the point that I was making was that the neutering of the House does grave damage to the legislative process and to democracy in the United Kingdom. That should be explained, because this Chamber is where each Minister has to justify every proposal put forward, and the decisions on modernisation will prevent them from doing so in future. I hope that that is another measure that the Conservatives will reverse whenever they get the chance. [Interruption.] That is the trouble—Governments pass legislation diminishing the power of this House which, when their turn comes to sit on the Opposition Benches, they regret doing. I hope that for the first time in a very long time the Conservative party will reverse the mistakes that have been made in this respect by the Government.

1.45 pm

The Bill subsequently disappeared, and reappeared on 28 July—again, just before the House went up for the summer recess. Why was the Bill away for so long? Had the Government all at once realised that something was seriously wrong, that no benefit was to be derived from the Bill and that they might as well bury it and forget about it? The fact that it came back gives rise yet again to two questions: who wants this Bill and why do they want it? There are many objections to the Bill, as we all know.

Order. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged earlier that he was straying rather wide of the amendment, and he is now going down another byway. I should be grateful if he would come back to the amendment before the House.

It is clear that people in the other place had very serious objections to the clause, which is why they decided to remove it. They said to themselves that one cannot serve two masters. As the good book tells us, we either hate the one and love the other, or despise the one and cleave to the other. If the first of those two elements holds true, as I believe it does, we will tell people that they can sit in two separate sovereign legislatures with two totally different views of what should happen constitutionally to the Province of Northern Ireland. This is a constitutional Bill, which is why I, and others like me, object to it.

The hon. Gentleman left a very interesting question up in the air a moment ago when he asked who wanted the Bill. With his experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs, can he identify even one political party with any enthusiasm for the Bill?

There is one political party with enthusiasm for it—Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked to terrorism. I will come back to that central question. I was merely putting down a marker so that people could have time to consider it; I was going to come back to it later. We have some time yet—about another two hours. No one should be in any hurry in discussing these matters; we have the time and should examine them in detail.

I do not think that the conflict of interests enters into Sinn Fein-IRA's view of the Bill. So far as they are concerned, there is no conflict of interests. They are united Irelanders pure and simple; they treat the Bill as a means to an end, particularly this element of it.

Everyone knows that it is impossible to be in two places at the same time, but a person can, as we know from earlier exchanges, serve on a council, in Parliament and on a European body. As that person is always representing the same national interest and the people of a particular area—be it of this kingdom or of another—in national assemblies, local assemblies or the supranational assembly, however, there is no conflict of interest at that level. But the possibility of such a conflict is precisely why we have a rule regarding membership of this House which says that no person can represent two constituencies at the same time.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider that people who wish to sit in any of those institutions, whether local authorities or Parliament, have to swear an oath of allegiance to this country, making it plain that they are acting on behalf of and in the interests of this country and not on behalf of a foreign Government?

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me. I was coming to that matter. A person cannot represent two constituencies here because it would diminish the level of representation overall for the nation and the House and because there would be a conflict of interest. One can stand for election and be elected to two constituencies, but one must give one of them up immediately. One cannot represent both in this place and everyone knows that. I do not know when that happened last, but I assume that it has happened at some time in our long history.

Gladstone.

Well—

I can answer that question. The last time that anyone was returned to two seats in this place—of course, he would have had to relinquish one—was in 1910, when a Mr. O'Brien was returned for Cork and West Cork.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is not intending to follow his namesake's attitude and seek two seats at the same time. That is beyond even his vaulting ambition.

The hon. Gentleman is slightly over-egging the pudding. One can be elected to a devolved Parliament in Scotland or the Assembly in Northern Ireland or Wales and represent an entirely different constituency to the one that one represents in Westminster. Someone could represent an English constituency but also sit in the Scottish Parliament. Such a person would have two constituencies.

Yes, but that does not relate to my argument.

In theory, yes; in practice, no.

An objection is being raised. Even if the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is correct, as I said, such a person would still be representing the same nation and national interest.

I was turned off my course by the recent exchanges. I was pointing out that one cannot represent two constituencies because there may be a conflict of interest. The conflict becomes even stronger if one is representing two different constituencies in two sovereign nations' Parliaments. That is a totally different ball game. The plain truth is—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow again. Presumably, he will confirm that, following his logic, he would want the regulation that permits people from other member states of the Commonwealth to stand for election to this House to be repealed for the same reasons.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is no longer in his place, mentioned that matter. He made a powerful case for following the course of action that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) puts before the House. I cannot see any good reason for permitting a citizen of a nation that does not share our interests—our needs—to sit in this House. There is bound to be a conflict of interests. The process that allows them to do so is based on an archaic law. That law should be swept away. It serves no useful purpose since no one has taken up that opportunity. In the past, it would have been physically impossible for a Member of the Canadian or the Australian Parliament also to serve in this place. Today, with Concorde, it is theoretically possible but still not practicable.

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position and that of his party? If he opposes Commonwealth Members standing for election to the British Parliament, is he also opposed to Commonwealth citizens being elected to this Parliament or Commonwealth nationals voting in British elections?

That is a totally different issue; it is a red herring. If a Commonwealth citizen lives in this nation, is a taxpayer here and is on the electoral register, I have no objection. I recall that Australian and New Zealand citizens—the most recent was Mr. Gould—sat in this place; there may be Canadian or Australian Members at present. If they live in this country and give it their allegiance—

If they take the oath.

Indeed. If they fulfil the normal obligations, that is all right with me; no one could seriously object to that.

No reciprocal arrangement has been made with the Dail; it would need to amend its constitution. This type of cross-over sitting would be available only to Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, not to Members of Parliament from Great Britain—in that sense, it is strictly a one-way street.

When I objected that the matter was not in the agreement, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave an extremely weak answer; he said that it was consistent with the agreement. In other words, the agreement is a take-your-pick. There is a row of hooks on the wall, with the agreement hanging on one of them. We can hang anything on that hook, as long as we tell the House that it is consistent with the agreement—that it falls within the general theory of the agreement. That is no way to take decisions; something must be in or out. There is no good reason to accept this provision just because someone's strictly subjective view is that it is consistent with the agreement.

The hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that some parties have managed to hang whatever they want on the agreement. However, his experience will show him that parties such as his, which possess no weapons and condemn those who hold weapons, and which do not threaten the Government with weapons, do not benefit from any attachments to the agreement. Those who threaten receive all the benefits.

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman; he correctly expresses my view of the matter.

There is no consensus for this constitutional reform. No one in Britain asked for it. Apart from Sinn Fein, no one asked for it in Ireland. Indeed, in the other place, Lord Fitt said that none of the major parties in the Irish Republic were in favour of the reform. He had asked them; they were not in favour, because if there were reciprocal arrangements, a whole can of worms would be opened. They would have to change their constitution. They would have to hold a referendum and they were not prepared to go down that road.

I return to my question. Who asked for the reform? Who wants it? Who is pushing the Government? Who is demanding this legislation? The only people who seem to want it are Sinn Fein-IRA—that inextricably linked terrorist organisation cum political party. This attempt to reinstate in the Bill a deleted provision is on all fours with what happened during yesterday's proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—only Sinn Fein-IRA benefited from an exemption clause on financial matters in that long and complex measure.

Of course, the Under-Secretary will tell us that the matter is merely one of perception. However, as he is well aware, in politics, perception—if not all—plays a large part in people's understanding of the law. The perception in Northern Ireland, and of any sensible person who has examined this matter in detail, is that the Bill was produced at the behest of Sinn Fein-IRA and for no other reason.

Why do Sinn Fein-IRA want this provision? Because they want to sit in the Dail and in the Assembly, and to be non-attending Members of this House. They can then claim that they represent their electorate on an all-Ireland basis in an all-Ireland body. That is fully in keeping with the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution, in which it shifted its claim from territory to people, saying that it hoped to draw together all the people of Ireland who can claim its citizenship. What the 44 million people in north America think of that is a matter of conjecture, but we need not go down that road today.

2 pm

Let us consider what might happen in future, given the current political shifts in Northern Ireland. We cannot pass a Bill without considering the consequences, for those who will the means also will the consequences. We cannot simply say, "Oh, we passed the Bill, but we don't worry about the consequences." Everything that we do in the House has a consequence for citizens—whether a few or many—given Sinn Fein's rampaging electoral success in Northern Ireland.

It is clear to those of us who live there—perhaps it is obscured as yet from those who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom—that there is a strong possibility that Sinn Fein-IRA will replace the SDLP and some of its Members in the House. If that happens and IRA members are elected to the Dail, the whole concept of the Union and the consent principle embodied in the agreement will be undermined, hollowed out and destroyed. That is what the IRA is about.

The IRA is perhaps rather cleverer than some hon. Members seem to think. I have never thought that there was such a thing as mindless violence in the IRA's lexicon. Its violence is always for an end and it is always carefully thought through, and the Bill is part and parcel of its attack on the integrity, territory and constitution of the United Kingdom. In all truth, unless the Minister sees it in that light and understands it, he does not know what he is trying to push through the House today.

Why have the Government given the IRA those consequences? What threats were made or implied—bombs in London, Manchester and Birmingham? The capability exists; the IRA has the weapons, explosives and people. It has spent the past two or three years recruiting, and shifting weapons and explosives. We are facing an even more sophisticated and dangerous organisation than that which existed several years ago. Its troops are on the street. Far worse, its sleepers are on the street, and they are over here.

Is that body of people—Sinn Fein-IRA—worthy of the concession? The Minister has told us that they must meet the obligations involved in sitting here—they do not; they will not. They do not want to sit here. They have a totally different agenda. They are simply using the House as the excuse to claim that they are the representatives of a people in an all-Ireland republic. No doubt, there are warm relationships with Dublin, but at what price have they been bought? What is the warmth of the relationship between Sinn Fein-IRA and the Government of this country?

The Government maintain that the ceasefire is intact so long as the terrorist leaders do not say that it is over or do not take part in active attacks—but that means active attacks on the security forces. Murders of civilians, especially of those of the same denomination and religious community, are dismissed as mere housekeeping. Neither I nor the victims and their families think that that is housekeeping: it is murder, but some folk in the House sanitise it using the phrase "killings in Northern Ireland." Killings? They are cold-blooded, ruthless murders in furtherance of Sinn Fein-IRA's political and constitutional objectives and of undermining normal, decent society in Northern Ireland, which in many parts of the Province such as the inner cities, has been replaced by mafia rule.

Numerous concessions were made on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The Dublin Government, the SDLP and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church pocketed them, but they were not considered to be enough. The concessions made yesterday were not enough. Further changes will be demanded of the police, and the special branch will have to be broken up. Local policing boards will have to be put in place and that will give greater power to Sinn Fein-IRA. It is all part and parcel of the Government's capitulation to terror, murder and violence. The people of Northern Ireland pay the primary price now, but the lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom are real and dreadful.

Honour in this place demands integrity over democratic structures. Our national interests have to be protected and we should reject the Government's attempt to reinstate the Bill. We have got to forget about sordid little deals with thugs and murderers for political gain. We should stop being afraid of what the IRA might do to us and concentrate on what we can do to the IRA to destroy it as a terrorist, military and political force. Only when that evil organisation is destroyed—it can be destroyed only by being exposed—will we achieve real peace. That is why the Bill is wrong: it helps, rather than diminishes, the IRA's influence.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Not only do I agree with virtually everything that he said, but I had the great pleasure of being with him all night on 25 and 26 January when he was able to give us the benefit of his very sound advice. I know that Ministers particularly appreciated that.

I place on record my apologies to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for not being present when he opened the debate. Unfortunately, one cannot be in two places at once, and I was doing a press conference with Baroness Young in the other place on the age of consent, another measure that the Government have sought to railroad through Parliament. The Under-Secretary and I shared the night together on 25 and 26 January—if I can use that expression without it being misunderstood.

The House should remind itself of what happened on that occasion. The Minister rightly reminded us that not many Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading, which took place the day before the Committee stage. I was one of them, because some of us had the suspicion that the Government were trying to smuggle through a measure that they described as modest. They suggested that there was nothing of great moment in the Bill and that we could all be perfectly comfortable with it.

I, along with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, thought that there was something odd about the Bill. It was clearly designed to extend to Members of the Irish Parliament the same rights enjoyed by Members of Commonwealth legislatures. It is a bizarre idea that, given all the struggles of the 19th century, citizens of the Irish Republic should want once more to be part of our Commonwealth, or empire as it formerly was.

Given the Prime Minister's obsession with the word "modernisation", it occurred to me that, instead of repealing the legislation that to this day allows Members of Commonwealth legislatures, such as those in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, to sit in this place, he wanted to extend the right to sit in the House. However, that right was being extended not to another Commonwealth country or to one, such as South Africa, that had been a member and was then readmitted, but to a country that had emphatically renounced any idea of wishing to be part of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty the Queen is the head. It struck me as astonishing that, far from seeking to repeal the measure in the name of his pet obsession of modernisation, the Prime Minister actually wanted to use it. I tried to discover why. The reason is that the Government found a purpose for the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. We began to wonder whether that purpose was legitimate or whether there was something more sinister behind it.

There is no doubt that when we discussed the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, some of us were concerned about concessions being made to Sinn Fein. We tried to press the point. In my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I pointed out that the Minister said on Second Reading:

The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement.

The hon. Gentleman sought to give us the impression that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, no part of a wider deal and no part of a side agreement, but that it merely reflects the overall feeling of good will between the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland and others. He suggested that we were wide of the mark to think that the measure was being introduced at the behest of Sinn Fein.

We pressed on through the evening to try to discover whether that was the case and I referred to something else that the Minister said on Second Reading. He sought to allay our fears by saying:

It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill.

Any fears that we had about the involvement of Sinn Fein were smoothed away by an extremely suave Minister, but we were having none of it and kept pressing the Government. It was not my intention or, I venture to suggest, that of other hon. Members to keep the House up all night. We wanted to drive at the truth and get an answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—what was the purpose of the Bill? We wanted to know why it was so urgent that we had to have Second Reading one day and remaining stages the following day. The Minister said that it was not urgent, but the Government's actions spoke louder than words, and we were not satisfied that we were getting truthful answers.

Is not the claim to urgency the most bogus claim of all? We have had since 1949 to put the matter right, if we had wanted to.

My hon. Friend makes a telling point and is entirely right—we could have acted earlier.

There was a great discrepancy between the Minister saying that the Bill was not urgent and the business managers pressing it through two days on the trot. The Government's actions were at variance with the Minister's assurances, and assurances about the origins and purposes of the Bill were at variance with what we were beginning to understand about it. We were pleased that we pressed the Government through the night because eventually, at about 2.40 am, the Minister told us what the Bill was about. He said:

I dealt with the question of whom we discussed the matter with on Second Reading, but let me make it clear that representations have been received from, and discussions held with, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the Irish Government. I understand that representations have been received by the Government from Sinn Fein. However, let me make it clear that the Government are not trading on issues. As always, representations are judged on their merits, and I believe that the measures in the Bill are justified on their own merits. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will be aware also of the issue in relation to clause 2 and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

I am not quite sure what the last few words mean.

In the early hours of the morning—one good reason why we should not suspend our proceedings at 10 o'clock—we finally extracted an admission from the Minister, who I believe is an honourable man, that representations had been received from Sinn Fein, although the measure is not part of the Belfast agreement. His admission led us to the justifiable conclusion that there was more to the Bill than simply trying to create a more formal institutional relationship between this Parliament and the Parliament of the Irish Republic. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we began to believe that the Bill was a further appeasement of the men of violence.

The Bill is not on its own: it is part of a raft of measures, one of which—on the financing of political parties—was debated yesterday. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a powerful point when he said that the Scottish National party will be committing a criminal offence if it raises money from expatriate Scots to fund its campaigns in Scotland, but that Sinn Fein will not be committing a criminal offence if it raises money for its party political purposes from Noraid and the United States. Special treatment will be given to Sinn Fein and, indeed, to other parties in Northern Ireland.

I suspect that you may rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the exclusion in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill for parties in Northern Ireland is not at the request of Sinn Fein. It arose from discussions that we had with all political parties in Northern Ireland.