To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to comment on the gas supply and market.

The facts are that so far this winter there have been no gas shortages and supply and demand have remained in balance. Demand from gas is being met by deliveries from the North sea and the rest of the UK continental shelf, the interconnector, imports through the Isle of Grain and storage. We are also seeing a reduction in demand from gas-fired power stations and some large industrial users of gas in response to increased prices.

Gas storage levels remain full or nearly full. National Grid's daily report for 21 November shows short and long-range storage as being at 100 per cent. and 98 per cent. respectively. Medium range remains at 66 per cent. pending the new Humbly Grove facility, which is in the process of filling up.

We will continue to liaise closely with National Grid throughout the winter.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he confirm that on Saturday 93 GWh were taken from medium storage and 393 GWh from long-term storage; on Sunday 138 GWh were taken from medium storage and 469 from long-term storage; and on Monday 231 GWh were taken from medium-term storage and 496 GWh from long-term storage, which has maxed out at that rate? At that rate of withdrawal, we could breach the safety monitors during winter. At what point will the Secretary of State be concerned if that continues?

I should point out that I am not the Secretary of State. [Hon. Members: "Yet."] Let us wait until the end of the winter.

The serious point is that in terms of the gas market, supplies are taken from storage from time to time. They are then filled up. Let us remember that the North sea is this country's natural storage. The market is building—it is a matter for the market, not for the Government—more storage facilities, with 10 new projects under way. Reports from National Grid this morning say that what is happening to the spot gas price is irrational. It tells me that it is awash with gas at the moment.

While I understand that there is an issue about gas supplies, that has a bearing on the cost of gas to intensive energy users. Will my hon. Friend ensure that as soon as the cold spell is over, the price of gas will go down to what it was before? Will he meet pottery and ceramic manufacturers, who are concerned about the effects on production capacity of the price increase to £1.60 per therm?

Of course I will meet my hon. Friend's colleagues from industry. Since the spring, we have met intensive users of energy and their representative bodies. Most of business buys gas in the normal way, as do domestic customers. Globally, prices for energy are rising, often linked to the price of a barrel of oil. However, our prices are often lower than the median in the rest of the European Union. That is a fact. The particular problem is with intensive users of energy, who use gas as the feedstuff for producing chemicals, for example. They—not the Government—have chosen to buy on the spot market. It is one private company signing a contract with another, and they are suffering from very high prices. We are concerned about that and we are working with them, but as was said during Prime Minister's questions, the market is a liberal, commercial, privatised market in which judgments are made by private companies. We do not need someone posing as a shadow Stalinist Minister of Power saying that the Government should take command. To put the matter in context, the companies in question, although important British industries, represent 0.2 per cent. of companies that use gas and 0.05 per cent. of all companies in the UK. I am not complacent, but we have to put the present concerns in an intelligent and factual context.

But the Government are responsible for the framework for long-term investment in the security of energy supplies in this country. Industry will be astonished to hear the Minister say that we are "awash with gas" when it faces the prospect of interruption to its gas supplies. The failure of the security of UK gas supplies reflects the failure of eight years of Labour energy policy.

We have not sought to provoke unnecessary anxiety about gas supplies, but we have been raising the issue with the Department of Trade and Industry for many years. I wrote to the Secretary of State weeks ago to ask about contingency measures, but he never replied. The right hon. Gentleman promised a debate on security of supplies, but we have not had it. Is it not astonishing that the Government have held their first meetings with industry only in the past few weeks?

Can the Minister confirm that for many industries the price of gas for delivery is five times higher than it was a mere four weeks ago? Does not that give the lie to the Prime Minister's claim that we are still paying the lowest prices in Europe? The Energy Intensive Users Group says

"Industry is already facing the highest electricity and gas prices in Europe this winter."

Will the Minister for Energy inform the Prime Minister, who did not seem to know that? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the emergency summit at No. 10 on 9 November concluded that there is a very high possibility that industry will have its supplies interrupted?

Now that the Minister has done all the contingency planning that he claims to have done, will he tell the House who decides which businesses are cut off and to whom is that person accountable? Is it possible that gas-fired powered stations, which affect electricity supplies, will be cut off, too? Can he assure the House that every business that might have its supplies interrupted because of gas shortages has been informed and that they will not receive a fax five minutes before the gas is shut off, as has happened before? Have businesses been informed of the criteria that will determine which ones are shut down first? How much warning will they receive?

Does not the present situation, together with the splits and disputes going on in Government, underline the chaos of the Government's energy policy?

The last question was the simplest and the answer to it is: no. One or two people might be trying to talk up a crisis in gas prices, but the energy companies, most of business, the DTI, National Grid and Ofgem are not part of that. The more loose and totally inaccurate talk we hear, the worse the position may become.

The companies that have chosen—they have chosen, not I—to have contracts under which they buy on the spot market are suffering from high prices. I have acknowledged that and we are talking with the companies concerned, which include chemicals companies and some of the steel companies. However, let us look at the prices for medium-sized businesses—the hon. Gentleman might want to know the facts as opposed to the bluster. For such businesses, the latest figures available—for the summer—show that the price of gas is 17 per cent. lower than in Germany, 4 per cent. lower than in France and 4 per cent. lower than the EU median, and the price of electricity is 49 per cent. lower than in Germany, 10 per cent. lower than in France and 20 per cent. lower than the EU median. Those are the facts.

As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to a meeting at No. 10 Downing street, to suggest that my Department reacted only in mid-November is totally nonsensical. If he cares to table a written question—no, I shall write to him anyway detailing our meetings. In summer, I met representatives of the oil and gas industry operating in the North sea and the UK continental shelf to make sure that they were doing the repairs and had the spares necessary to ensure that they were in the best possible position this winter. I met the supply companies on two occasions—my officials have done so more often—to make sure that they are in the best possible position this winter. In November, the industry suggested that there were one or two other actions that we might wish to investigate, and of course we listened to their advice. However, to suggest that we are not prepared is nonsense.

Has the Minister seen reports in some newspapers suggesting that domestic customers could be cut off? Will he take the opportunity to deny such scaremongering and confirm that even in the most severe winter, gas supplies to domestic customers will continue?

I am very happy to do so, because while we need to reassure business that its prices are not higher than the European average—we need reassurance as opposed to panic—it is even more important that householders, including some of our eldest and best, the vulnerable and the frail, are reassured. If those people hear that there may be energy cuts from reports that, in fact, are inaccurate, scaremongering nonsense, they may fear the effects of the cold weather that we are now experiencing. The domestic customer is not threatened at all, and through home energy efficiency schemes, winter fuel payments, the targeted focus of pension credit and so on, the Government are doing their best to make sure that elderly people are warm this winter. That is my first priority.

The Minister said that his first priority is the elderly, so with the increased prices for energy, how many more people will suffer fuel poverty this winter compared with last winter? Will he emphasise the important lesson that we must improve energy efficiency and the housing stock so that people can keep warm in their houses and make best use of their energy?

Next Thursday, the Minister will chair the Energy Council of Europe. How does he plan to deal with what the European Commission has identified as serious malfunctions in the European energy market? While our liberalised market is connected to a malfunctioning market there are serious concerns about the way in which the latter market will impact on our market. What progress does he plan to make next Thursday in sorting out that market? He has held meetings with representatives from industry and UK continental shelf operations, but what meetings has he had with the Environment Agency to ensure that there is minimal impact on the environment and that we maximise the economic benefits this winter? Finally, while there are arguments about our relative position in Europe, the reality is that prices are going up this winter, which is a serious concern for the economy, especially for those parts that may be shut down.

The hon. Gentleman raised two or three serious matters. I chair the Energy Council during our presidency, and it meets next week, on 1 December. We have made it clear from the beginning of our presidency that the issue of market liberalisation in the rest of Europe was at the top of our agenda—indeed, it is the top item on the agenda next week. The Commission has published two major reports on the issue, and it has made it quite clear that there are "serious malfunctions" in the European market. We will discuss that with Ministers, and we need to take action, because we have market liberalisation in the UK, and we need it across the European Union. That is the policy, and it should quickly become practice.

On fuel poverty, I accept that prices are rising for the domestic customer. However, they are rising across the world, so we need to see the problem in a global context. Energy demand in China, for example, is increasing by 15 per cent. a year, and the hurricanes have not helped. There are therefore serious difficulties, but we must do our utmost to protect people to whom we refer as the fuel-poor. I tend to think of them as elderly and other vulnerable people who will be cold this winter. We have taken action on several fronts, as I detailed earlier, to protect that high-priority group.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that while increased demand is forcing gas prices up, the very fact that gas prices are connected to oil prices is also forcing the price up? Will he also confirm that last winter, at peak cold periods, 48 per cent. of our electricity was generated by coal stations, which are ready and available to produce electricity in cold periods this winter?

It is right to be reminded that we have a mixture of energy sources in this country, including the still very significant role of coal. For that reason, when the details of the energy review are announced by the Prime Minister, possibly quite soon, it will be a review of energy as a whole, contrary to what some people are speculating, and the future of coal will be one of the focuses of that important review. I am very mindful of that point.

There will be a degree of scepticism about the Minister's claims about relative prices in Europe and the UK, but leaving that on one side, he has rightly highlighted, in answer to the question from the Liberal Democrats, the importance of the single European market in energy. When he came before the Trade and Industry Committee a few weeks ago, the Minister said that that was the highest priority, but there is not much sign of progress yet. He speaks about forcing compliance on other countries when he chairs the meeting next week. How does he intend to do that? Does he think that there is a realistic chance of making a breakthrough in those crucial negotiations? The market is determined by Governments, and the British Government have a golden opportunity to help resolve it.

There has been progress. The market has been the major focus during our presidency. The Energy Council does not meet till next week. Meanwhile, with our strong approval, the Commission has published two major evidence-based hard-hitting reports. Commissioner Piebalgs, whom I met earlier this week, is as enthusiastic as I am to drive the matter forward. I believe we will see real action on it. The hon. Gentleman expressed some doubts about prices. Whenever these issues are raised, I try to produce evidence—an old-fashioned hankering after the facts. I hope that might become more fashionable on the Opposition Benches. I have given the House some evidence already. Let me also say—I am surprised that the party of the market is not parading this more than I—that between 1990 and 2004, British industry paid an estimated £7.9 billion less than German industry for gas. Those are the facts, as opposed to the nonsense and the scaremongering.

The Minister rightly refutes the suggestion that he has been in touch with industry only over the past few weeks. I know that he has met high intensive users, including the pottery industry, throughout the year, and they have told me they are grateful that the Government are listening. None the less, there is great concern about gas prices in particular. What can my hon. Friend do to assure the industry, including ceramics, about the prices that it will have to pay not only in the months ahead, but next year and in the future?

We have touched on some of that in relation to the importance of market liberalisation. The dialogue with the industry which, as my hon. Friend acknowledges, and I thank him for that, has been going on for a very long time at both ministerial and official level, is part of that process. One body of evidence to bring to bear on the debate at this stage is that there is now a great deal of investment in new infrastructure. I opened the Isle of Grain terminal yesterday, and I am told that the next ship will arrive today with liquefied natural gas. The Langeled pipeline to Norway is being built. There are many, many other projects, including upgrades of the interconnector, which will mean that in terms of the infrastructure of terminals, LNG and pipelines, we will have capacity for some 26 per cent. more gas in a year or so than we currently have. So the infrastructure and the investment by the private market are there.

The Minister will understand that we in Scotland find it extraordinary that there is a gas shortage and rocketing prices, when we produce eight times the amount that we consume—indeed, we land at St. Fergus alone six times what we consume. He mentioned infrastructure, but does he accept that much of the problem in the UK as a whole with supply and rising spot prices is due to the lack of investment in the pipeline system over many years, leading to a lack of flexibility and capacity for storage to meet periods of exceptional demand? He spoke about improvements in infrastructure, but when can we go back to manufacturers in our constituencies and tell them that there is no chance of interrupted gas supplies in the future?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the strong partnership between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I have mentioned the investment that is now taking place, which should make an impact on the price issues. I repeat that for most of the economy, certainly for the domestic customer, the spot gas prices are not the relevant feature; they are for those companies who are the intensive users, using gas as the feedstuff for chemicals and other materials, who have chosen freely, as part of the private market, to sign such contracts, which often enable them to reduce their own demand at difficult times. But I hope that, with the extra supply of gas and more generally with the announcements that we have recently made about connecting up the Scottish islands to the national grid in terms of wind power, the situation will steadily improve. I expect it to.

The Minister may have heard on the radio this morning the director of the interconnector saying that 30 per cent. of his capacity was not being used due to structural problems in the German gas market that were inhibiting our ability to obtain supplies. What does the hard-hitting report in the Energy Council to which he has just referred say that Germany should do and when should they do it by? Will he ensure that the matter is on the Prime Minister's agenda when he meets the new German Chancellor to ensure that we have some action on this by the end of the year?

The Prime Minister has recently talked about energy and energy strategy as an important component of the European debate, so he needs no reminding about the importance of that. I have acknowledged and talked about what needs to be done in terms of ensuring fair competition across Europe. We believe that liberalisation—an end to monopolies—is not only good for the UK consumer, but, critically, is also important for the German consumer, business and domestic, as well as elsewhere in Europe. That is why we are driving this forward.

One has to keep reminding the House that the interconnector is a matter for private enterprise; it was built not by the state or the EU, but by entrepreneurs with their money so they make the decisions about it. Nevertheless, I am advised that on a daily basis at the moment—these are bound to be average figures that will vary from day to day—some 25 to 30 million cu m of gas are flowing through the interconnector to Great Britain.

The Government have no excuse for complaining about the state of the European market. Three years ago at the Energy Council there was a qualified majority in favour of imposing on France and Germany a liberalised market in gas and electricity by 2005. Mr. Brian Wilson, the Minister's predecessor, chose not to press the issue and to do a deal with the French and the Germans that has led to the compromise that means that now there is not a liberalised market in Europe, which is causing us precisely the problems that we are now experiencing with the Germans being able to withhold supplies to the United Kingdom through the interconnector. Equally, the Government failed to take decisions in the Energy White Paper, and now we are to have an energy review by the Prime Minister. Will the Government understand that they must face up to their responsibilities to take decisions in a timely fashion and not go on putting off difficult decisions because of the presentational problems?

I do not understand the reference to presentational problems, because the issue is top of the Energy Council agenda next week. We have put it there and we have consistently—[Interruption.]

Order. When the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have an opportunity to question a Minister, I expect them to be silent for his reply.

It should be gas, not gassing, I think.

We have significantly pushed the issue within the EU. I have described the two new reports as hard hitting. The hon. Gentleman may want to read them one day. They are hard hitting. We need to push the matter through during our presidency, and after that. We do believe in market liberalisation; it is good for European business and good for British business.

In evidence before the Trade and Industry Committee, we were told that wholesale gas prices in the United Kingdom were more than 50 per cent. higher than in the EU. When will the Government fight for a level playing field in the EU on the matter, or have they given up totally on the EU?

We are committed to the EU. Following my appearance before the Select Committee, we sent it some statistical evidence. I repeat that, when one looks at the record over 10 or more years and the data today, our gas prices, both for domestic customers and the business community, are lower than the median. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) shakes his head. I can present him with the evidence; I cannot make him understand it. I have acknowledged—it is an important acknowledgement—that those heavy users choosing to buy on the spot market are having to pay very high prices, and we are doing our best to look at that and improve the situation. The market is through great investment.

The Minister said that Britain does not need a strategic gas reserve, as we have for oil, because of the reserves in the North sea. Will he describe the circumstances and the legal powers under which, in an emergency, he could require private companies to sell into the market?

As I have explained, the contracts that some intensive users freely sign mean that in certain circumstances they will take less gas than in normal times. Some companies make money by selling it back to the grid. That is the reality of the market in that situation. It would be in only the most extreme and unlikely circumstances, in serious emergency conditions, that the state, via the national grid, might have to intervene. I answer the question because the hon. Gentleman asked it, but no rational commentator anticipates such a situation.

The Minister has openly acknowledged that we now import gas through the interconnector. That has profound political implications, particularly with regard to the energy mix. Does he have a long-term policy on whether there should a limit on an acceptable level of gas imports?

My own Member of Parliament has asked me an important question. [Interruption.] I always think that how one votes is a secret. The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about national security and the geopolitics of energy policy, and that is a matter of growing concern. In 2004 we became a net importer of gas, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and in a year or so we will become a net importer of oil. Therefore, we are moving from energy island to a heavy dependence on imports of energy, notwithstanding the issues around coal and the contribution of renewables, and so on, which I could go into if we had more time. Therefore, as the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference in Brighton—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was there on that occasion—we now need rigorously to consider issues relating to our depending on some unstable parts of the world, and that will be an important dimension of the new energy review.

The Minister has accused Opposition Members of scaremongering about the prospect of cuts in the gas supply. May I direct him to the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), a former Minister with responsibility for energy, in January 2005 in Westminster Hall, when he said that gas supplies could indeed run short if there were a cold snap this winter, or next winter? Will he take time to familiarise himself with those remarks, and perhaps look into what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant by that?

We all recognise that the balance between energy supply and demand for two or three years is difficult. That is to some extent why we are having this discussion. Why is that? I am advised that it is partly because the rundown of oil and gas from the North sea and the rest of the UK continental shelf has happened at a faster rate than was being predicted only a few years ago. It is also because—it is regrettable but it is where we are—the heavy investment by the market in infrastructure, such as pipelines, liquefied natural gas terminals and the rest, is only now coming on stream, or will be in a year or so. I rather wish that it had been there a year or so ago. Of course I do. But there is this time lag. There is a tightness in the market, but domestic consumers will not be affected and most of business will not be affected, although high prices are now a global phenomenon. However, there is the issue, and I am repeating myself now, of the heavy users, which is where the difficulty is, if people have chosen, rightly or wrongly—it is their commercial judgment—to buy on the spot market.

BILL PRESENTED

Climate Change (Contraction and Convergence)

Mr. Colin Challen presented a Bill to make provision for the adoption of a policy of combating climate change in accordance with the principles of contraction and convergence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 92].

Registration Service

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about certain offices under the Registration Service Act 1953; to make provision about the holders of certain offices under that Act and the appointment of persons to such offices; and for connected purposes.

I declare an interest as the honorary patron of the Society of Registration Officers in England and Wales. I was appointed to that position shortly after my election to Parliament in May 1997 and succeeded the former Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, Joyce Quin, when she was appointed Minister of State, Home Office, in the new Government.

Registration officers are appointed, accommodated and paid by local authorities, which also provide their pensions. However, because they are statutory officers, they have no legal employer, and only the Registrar General at the Office for National Statistics in Pimlico has the power to dismiss them. A registration officer has duties and responsibilities imposed by the Marriage Act 1949, the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Registration Service Act 1953.

Registration officers are held responsible for their own acts or omissions. As statutory officers, when they are dismissed they have no right of appeal against unfair or constructive dismissal to an employment tribunal. The Registrar General will hear an appeal, but only if new material evidence is available. My Bill will result in the post holders becoming employees of the local authority. Notwithstanding that, they would retain their statutory duties under the Registration Acts. My Bill will also result in consequential amendments to the Registration Service Act 1953.

The Bill has the full support of the Government, the Registrar General and the Front-Bench spokesmen for the two major Opposition parties, whom I thank for their support. It also has the full support of the representative organisations of the employees whom it will affect, namely their professional organisation, SORO, Unison, the employer's organisation and the Local Authority Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services.

My Bill is non-controversial. It would bring the employment of registration officers into line with all those currently employed by local authorities, and would impose no additional financial burden on local authorities. When registration officers change their status and become local authority employees, there will be no redundancies and their existing pay and conditions will be unaffected. Moreover, there will be consultation in accordance with a national joint council agreement that is being negotiated between the employer's organisation and Unison.

There are currently 1,700 registration officers, who are known as principal officers, working in accommodation provided by local authorities, and they will be affected by my Bill. In the past 10 years, 18 of them have been dismissed from their posts. Since 1997, I have tabled several written and oral questions and suggested a debate on the issue more than once at business questions, and I held an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall in June 2003. I have lost count of the number of Ministers whom I have dealt with, in both the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, in an attempt to correct the anomaly that this Bill would right.

Following my early lobbying, I learned that the White Paper "Fairness at Work" contains a proposal to allow existing employment rights to be extended to all statutory officers and that section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 provides a way forward. The DTI embarked on a consultation exercise on section 23 of the 1999 Act in 2003, which is known as the employment status review, and a statement about the use of section 23 is expected towards the end of this year or the beginning of the next.

Section 23 allows the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to extend to persons who do not currently enjoy them certain employment rights, but an employment order under section 23 has not yet been made. In parallel with those DTI procedures, the Treasury planned a major reform of the civil registration service, the first since the service was established in 1837.

In September 1999, the Registrar General published a consultation paper, "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", which resulted in the publication in January 2002 of the White Paper "Civil Registration: Vital Change". The Government announced that civil registration reform would be delivered by means of the order-making powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, and another consultation document, "Civil Registration: Delivering Vital Change" was published in 2003. The document proposed that the titles of superintendent registrar, registrar of births, marriages and deaths or additional registrar of marriages should disappear, and that local authorities should become the legal employers of all those involved in the civil registration service, in which case the demarcation between registration officers at marriage ceremonies and registering births, deaths and marriage events would cease.

The first of two planned draft orders, the Regulatory Reform (Registration of Births and Deaths) (England and Wales) Order 2004, was laid before Parliament on 22 July 2004. It is the largest regulatory reform proposal ever presented to Parliament, with 68 articles and 15 schedules amending 20 Acts. The House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee report on the first draft order was published in December 2004. It rejected using delegated legislation to reform the civil registration service or the part of it that deals with births and deaths. A second regulatory reform order was planned to reform the civil registration service relating to marriage, but it has not been laid. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also rejected the first draft order. Both Committees regarded the overall package of proposals as an inappropriate use of the powers in the 2001 Act.

On 16 November this year, the Financial Secretary launched a further consultation paper, "Registration Modernisation", which sets out how local authorities are to be given greater responsibility for the delivery of the local registration service. It also contains details of other important changes to modernise civil registration. Some of these changes will require primary legislation, and further delays are inevitable. Because of that, I beg leave of the House to introduce this Bill, which in the meantime will remove the uncertainty that has hung over the employment of registration officers for so long and which will deliver them the right of appeal to an employment tribunal should they be unfairly or constructively dismissed. Surely that is what this House wants in the 21st century? I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

I was going to start by saying that I hesitate to intervene in a matter in which the hon. Gentleman has such expertise, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, I rarely hesitate to do any such thing.

I want to say a few words because I have been contacted by a registration officer, who has expressed some concern about the process that the hon. Gentleman has described and the way in which it has been conducted. My reservations are more about process than about content, although I must say that when I see a Government paper that begins with, "The modernisation of", my blood runs cold and I have serious reservations.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the subject and his expertise, and I defer to them. I am glad to see that the Financial Secretary is on the Front Bench, because the Bill that the hon. Gentleman is introducing has two problems.

First, I suspect that he is trying to implement what should be Government policy by using the private Member's Bill route. I say to him in all friendliness that if he thinks that that will be a method of quickly delivering the solution that he seeks, he could not be more mistaken. Whatever date he selects for his Bill, it will already be some way down the order because most of the primary slots have already been taken. There is therefore little chance of its being debated and agreed by the House. I hope that he does not raise too many expectations about his Bill, because choosing this route is naturally hazardous.

Secondly, the Bill is at cross purposes with the very consultation process that the hon. Gentleman openly describes. As recently as 16 November, the Financial Secretary said:

"the Government announced that they would actively consider other ways of delivering the key elements of civil registration modernisation."—[Official Report, 16 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 51WS.]

He went on to say that the consultation paper, "Registration Modernisation", had been published on the same day. That paper gives a deadline for reply to the consultation in February.

My question is therefore this: is it reasonable to expect the House to agree to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, which deals with matters in the consultation paper, when the consultation has hardly started and before the end period for the consultation in February? That strikes me as being a somewhat bizarre way of going about things and, to put it mildly, puts carts before horses. I appeal to the House not to approve the Bill today but to wait until the consultation process has been completed. There is some unease among registration officers about the speed with which this has been done, about whether full consultation has been allowed, and about whether individual officers have been able to express their point of view fully.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a quiet word with his colleague, the Financial Secretary, so that they can sort out exactly what they are trying to do—the Government on the one hand and the hon. Gentleman on the other—and try to match more closely the consultation process with the suggested track of the Bill. If it survives today, some of us will be keeping a very close eye on it in the hope that it does not ultimately conflict with the consultation process or with the unease that is being expressed by registration officers outside the House.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to brought in by Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. David Anderson, Mary Creagh, Jim Dobbin, Kelvin Hopkins and Mr. David Kidney.

Registration Service

Dr. Brian Iddon accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about certain offices under the Registration Service Act 1953; to make provision about the holders of certain offices under that Act and the appointment of persons to such offices; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed [Bill 78].

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I tabled two questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with a named date of reply of 17 November. They related to the Bill that we are about to consider. I have as yet received no reply to those questions. Can you advise hon. Members what action they should take when such replies are not received?

I have taken some advice to help the hon. Gentleman out. He has put the matter on the record, and he should follow that up with further questions. Perhaps he should make another visit to the Table Office. That is the piece of advice that I would give him at the moment.

A nod is as good as a wink.

The right hon. Gentleman is right.

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathies and condolences to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) on the sudden and shocking death of his brother, Endel. All our concerns are with him and with the family. I know that it must be a terrible strain for him to be in the Chamber today. It is a mark of the duty that he gives to this House, and always has done, on this important issue that he is here. Will he please accept our sympathies?

Because I realise that this is a controversial Bill, not least among victims in Northern Ireland, I shall be especially generous with interventions, but if the House will allow me I would prefer to resist them until I have had a chance to set the context for six or seven minutes. I shall then be happy to take as many as possible.

Northern Ireland and Irish terrorism have, over the generations, presented unique challenges to this House, to Governments of both parties, to the forces of law and order, and to society, particularly in Northern Ireland but also in the rest of the United Kingdom. This House, and successive Governments of both parties, have been faced with difficult—often exceptional—problems to deal with. As a result, Ministers have had to adopt exceptional policies—and, in recent times, abnormal measures—to normalise Northern Ireland, so that today it enjoys more peace, stability and prosperity than ever.

I believe that the proposals in the Bill should be considered in that light. It sets out to deal with one of the most difficult and sensitive issues that the Government have faced in the long and complex process of taking Northern Ireland forward—that is, those terrorist suspects who are "on the run" outside the reach of our police or our courts.

Anyone who is, or has been, involved in trying to make political progress in Northern Ireland will know that having to take difficult decisions is no new experience. The former Prime Minister, John Major, knew that only too well when he took the decision to begin the engagement that would ultimately lead to the Good Friday agreement. That engagement with the IRA at that time was difficult—very difficult. It was unpalatable to many people, not least in this House, but it was right. And because it was right, it had the support of the then Labour Opposition. John Major and his colleagues, Lord Mayhew, Lord Brooke, and the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) paved the way for the Good Friday agreement signed under our Government in 1998. Their role was as crucial as it was courageous. It was attacked and criticised just as our Government are today, but it had the support of the then Labour Opposition.

The agreement required all sides to compromise and meant taking immensely difficult decisions, not least that on the early release of prisoners, which was completed in 2000. Victims of the troubles were, understandably, in uproar at the sight of murderers or former terrorists walking free, but it was the right thing to do to seal the agreement. However, it left unresolved an equally difficult matter: the issue of what to do about those who had committed terrorist offences before 10 April 1998 and who, had they been in prison at the material time, would have been part of that early-release scheme.

It is important that the House recalls that this has not suddenly materialised. I remind the House that it was raised with the British and Irish Governments at Weston Park in July 2001, but, rightly, was not dealt with then because not enough progress had been made on bringing an end to paramilitary activity. It was raised again in April 2003 in the talks that led to the joint declaration between the British and Irish Governments in May 2003, and a statement for the record was published at that time. It was not dealt with then—again, rightly—because not enough progress had been made on bringing an end to paramilitary activity.

It is not disputed that the IRA statement of 28 July, ending its violent campaign was of great, indeed historic, significance. That statement, with the subsequent decommissioning of the totality of its weaponry, verified by General de Chastelain's Decommissioning Commission and the two independent clergymen in September, has fundamentally changed the political landscape. So now is the appropriate time to deal with this difficult issue.

I know that many people will find the Bill very hard to bear. I understand that. If I had not known it before, I was left in no doubt when I attended with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) the annual prison officers' memorial service at Millisle on Remembrance day and spoke to widows of prison officers murdered by the IRA.

I also spoke to a man who, as a seven-year-old, had seen his dad gunned down next to him more than 20 years ago. I could still feel the pain and misery of a family torn apart. The decent and dignified people to whom I spoke on Remembrance day, together with the thousands of victims of over three decades of conflict in Northern Ireland and beyond, have suffered grievously. That is why one of Mo Mowlam's first actions in 1997 was to ask Sir Ken Bloomfield to look at practical suggestions about how the Government could best recognise the suffering endured by the victims of violence and their families.

Is not the very least that those bruised and wounded people can expect the appearance in a court in person of the murderous thugs who perpetrated that atrocity?

I understand the powerful arguments that have been made about the matter. We are trying to strike a difficult balance—[Interruption.] The House will make its own judgment. It is difficult to strike the right balance. In the end, I decided that it was more important to get more people through the process than would otherwise be the case—

Why?

My right hon. Friend asks why. The decision was made to get closure not least for the victims—[Interruption.]

Order. We must let the Secretary of State speak.

The point that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) rightly made is the first matter that we should consider. It is probably the most sensitive issue in the Bill—I understand that. There is a question of balance and of whether we can get more people accounted for, brought to justice and convicted, if the evidence justifies that. The victims then have at least the satisfaction that the people who are now on the run outside UK jurisdiction or who might be uncovered by the historic inquiries will be brought to justice.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the figures for deaths and for victims who lived but are scarred physically and mentally do not reflect the total number of deaths resulting from the Sinn Fein-IRA campaign of genocide, especially against the Protestant community? Does he accept that many deaths resulted from fathers and mothers with broken hearts and children who committed suicide because they could not face the reality of how their loved ones met their deaths at the hands of those murderous scum?

Indeed, I do. I fully agree with the hon. Lady. She knows better than me many of the victims and many who felt that life was not worth living after their loved ones were blown up and their lives destroyed. I greatly appreciate that point. As I shall make clear later, the Bill is aimed at bringing closure and an end to the murderous IRA campaign, which the 28 July statement achieved and was confirmed by General de Chastelain's statement on 26 September. The Bill is aimed at ensuring that the armed campaign is over and that there are no future victims of the IRA.

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. Does he realise that the Bill will bring not closure but more anger and pain, because those people relied on the Government to allow them to see justice done to those who perpetrated the heinous crimes?

That will happen if people are convicted—[Interruption.] There may not be sufficient evidence to convict them, but if they are convicted, they will have a criminal record and have to give DNA and other intimate samples. There will at least be such accounting and closure for the victims.—[Interruption.] I understand—we are all in the same boat. [Hon. Members: "We are not."] We are—[Interruption.]

Order. We are conducting a debate and the Secretary of State has a right to put the case before the House and to be heard. If there is so much shouting, I shall suspend the sitting. That is the danger—that no one else will get an opportunity to speak.

Although I fully appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker, I also recognise the strong feelings—indeed, the anger—that the hon. Lady expresses. She knows from first-hand experience, as do many of her colleagues, the suffering that has gone on. All I would say to her—I stress that I do not make the point adversarially—is that, at the moment, the people whom the Bill covers are on the run, outside UK jurisdiction. There is the prospect—no more but no less—of bringing them into UK jurisdiction and putting them through a process of justice. If the tribunal convicts them, it will mean that they have a criminal record. That should be some comfort to the victims.

The Secretary of State talks about bringing closure. Why does he insult the victims? It is bad enough to introduce the offensive and nauseating Bill, but to say that he is doing it for them—how insulting can the Secretary of State be? Has he not heard the victims say that they do not want this obnoxious Bill? If he had any decency, he would withdraw it immediately.

The hon. Gentleman is right—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw it."] He is right that the Bill is unquestionably hated by victims. I am sure that the RUC widows whom the Prime Minister and I will meet with the hon. Member for North Down this afternoon in Downing street will express the same point of view as the member of the Police Federation.

My point is that the Bill is about the closure of a dark, awful and murderous terrorist campaign by the IRA. That ought to be of benefit to the victims in the sense that, at the moment, nothing is being done about the people whom we are considering. The on-the-runs are beyond UK jurisdiction and that is no consolation to the victims.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he will meet some of the victims from the police this afternoon. I hope that he realises just how deep, dark and terrible the cut to the quick of their souls is. Does he appreciate that the Bill is not closure when 202 police officers were murdered and nothing has been done? They were put into what the Chief Constable described as the cold. They were cold cases. No action has been taken over the deaths of loved ones who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and in the Army. How does the Secretary of State believe that the Bill, which wipes the stone clear, will ever close what is in the hearts, minds and souls of those people?

Again, the right hon. Gentleman knows more individuals than me who have suffered so grievously. It is not a question of bringing closure to their anguish—that is not possible. I am not presuming to suggest that. I am arguing that this legislation is part of an international agreement with the Irish Republic announced in 2003, and part of a process of bringing to an end this awful murderous activity and terror by the IRA—I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs Robinson), who made clear her views about the IRA.

rose—

Before I take more interventions, which I will be happy to do, I want to inform the House that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), and I have between us met representatives of the RUC George Cross Foundation, the RUC George Cross Widows Association, the RUC George Cross Parents Association, the Police Federation and the Superintendents Association. I also met many victims at Millisle on Remembrance day, as I explained earlier. I do not deny that the victims are very angry about this legislation, but the Government sometimes have to take a view on difficult decisions in order to make progress. That is what we have done.

When the Secretary of State says that the Government are seeking closure, does he realise that the House and, probably, many of the victims are actually seeking justice? They are also well aware that the Government are sending out conflicting messages. If someone is a white, murderous Protestant or Catholic terrorist, they might get closure, but we have another message for black Muslim terrorists if they attack us.

I find that suggestion reprehensible. The problem that my right hon. Friend and others are refusing to face up to is that these people are not being brought to justice now—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"] In the case of the on-the-runs, they are beyond UK jurisdiction—and have been for decades, in some cases. In the case of the historic inquiries, we are trying to use the new techniques available, including DNA, to track people down. This includes some of the cases involving murdered police officers rightly mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). We are trying to find out who was responsible for those historic cases, some of which go back almost 40 years, then arrest them and charge them. That will be pursued.

Does the Secretary of State not recognise why people feel so strongly about this? My predecessor in my constituency bears daily the scars of IRA activity. He and his wife, who sits in a wheelchair, had to swallow very hard—as did I, and many others who had misgivings about the Good Friday agreement—as the Government moved again and again on these issues. But we swallowed. Does he not recognise that the difference now is that he is proposing to give people who ran away from their crime, and who have never been brought to book, the opportunity to avoid that completely? That goes far beyond anything that has happened before. Does he not recognise that people think that this is a grubby and reprehensible move by the Government, and that it is going one step too far?

The right hon. Gentleman made his point very powerfully, and I understand it. I would just make this point in return. He will recall the absolute outcry when the Conservative Government started talking to the IRA. Those early negotiations began a process— which this legislation is concluding—which led to the statement by the IRA on 28 July that no one here ever thought that it would make, namely, that it was giving up its armed, vicious, murderous terrorist campaign. The Bill is part of that process—[Interruption.] Well, it is, because it is part of the process agreed with the Irish Government in 2003—[Interruption.]

Order. I understand how strongly hon. Members feel about this matter, but the Minister must be allowed to respond to one intervention at a time.

The point is that the Bill is part of the process announced in 2003, and part of the process that has led to the historic experience for the people of Northern Ireland of the IRA ending their terrorist war. There will therefore be no Provisional IRA victims in the future, as there have so grievously been in the past.

In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that the Government had not moved earlier on this legislation because the IRA had not moved sufficiently on decommissioning. Of course, the Bill will benefit not only the IRA but the loyalist paramilitaries, who have made no moves on decommissioning whatever, so where is the logic there? The Secretary of State also suggests that the Bill somehow flows from the Good Friday agreement. Let me remind him that when the agreement was signed, yes, we sold it and promoted it on the basis that there would be prison releases within two years. We were told at the time that the key date for prison releases was after the date for the completion of decommissioning, but the Government then dropped that. We also assured the victims of crimes that had not been solved that their cases would still be pursued, even if it meant that the perpetrators would serve only two years in jail. That is what the victims were told by Ministers and by the parties, and that is why the victims are being betrayed by the Government today.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about loyalist paramilitaries. Whether they are on the run or uncovered by the historic investigations, they will of course find themselves the target of this legislation.

Has the Secretary of State received any indication from the IRA or its political representatives that they will return to violence if he does not take this further step beyond the agreement?

No. However, rightly or wrongly—the hon. Gentleman takes the view that it is wrong, and I respect that; indeed, that view is being expressed very vehemently today, and I understand that—Her Majesty's Government entered into two agreements that have led to this Bill being introduced. The first was an international agreement with the Irish Government, and that cannot be lightly disregarded. Any responsible Government would have felt that that was the right thing to do to get to where we are—and we have got there. Secondly, as part of the negotiations that led to that process and then to the 28 July statement by the IRA, yes, this was one of the factors in those negotiations and an agreement was made there. Yes, this is following the 28 July statement, but it was part of the process that led to this historic change by the IRA, which I know was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman and every other hon. Member.

Why is the Secretary of State attempting to hang his argument on the fact that the Bill affects on-the-runs? The majority of people who will benefit from it ran from no one. It will affect everyone who committed a terrorist crime before 10 April 1998, not just those who are on the run. Will he please explain why there are to be two different standards: one in Dáil Eireann and one here in Westminster? In Dáil Eireann, the killers of Garda McCabe are not to be brought within the scope of this legislation. Is a garda in the Republic of Ireland more valuable than an RUC man in Northern Ireland?

No, of course not. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Irish Government are responsible for bringing to justice—or not, as the case may be—cases within their own jurisdiction. That case does not fall within UK jurisdiction. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Irish Government have chosen to address this issue by pardoning people. We are not doing that. We are making sure that people are brought to justice. He is right to say that the Bill affects not only those on the run outside UK jurisdiction but, potentially, those who are the subject of the Chief Constable's historic inquiries investigation. That investigation will involve a difficult process, and if it uncovers those who have been responsible for awful atrocities such as that in Enniskillen, for example, they will be arrested, charged and brought to justice. They can choose how to proceed.

I stood in a mortuary and looked into the face—or part of the face—of a young girl, my cousin aged 21 and engaged to be married that day. I then asked to see my other cousin, her brother, aged 16, blown up by the IRA. He was not on a table. There was not enough to put on a table. His earthly remains were lying on the floor in a sheet. I ask the Secretary of State to tell me this: am I to bury justice to appease the murderers, the IRA?

The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point very movingly, in a way that only he could, given the experience that he has described. I appreciate the emotion with which he made his point, and it is very compelling. Let me say in all good faith, however—and I accept his right to disagree with me vehemently—that one of the reasons why we were able to achieve an end to the IRA terror campaign and the IRA's statement of 28 July was the agreement that we made with the Irish Government to produce this legislation at the appropriate time.

This morning on Radio 4, the Secretary of State referred to what he described as political prisoners. We take great offence at that description of terrorists. If the term is to be applied to one set of terrorists, why should it not be applied to all of them?

Do not the IRA men who murdered Garda Jerry McCabe fall into that category? Are they different from the murderers of RUC officers in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State spoke of an international agreement that he had reached with the Irish Republic. Why do standards differ in the two jurisdictions?

The Secretary of State said earlier that he had met representatives of the Superintendents Association. Is he aware of the association's view that the Bill is so deeply flawed that it is potentially injurious to the overall administration of the criminal justice process in Northern Ireland and to public confidence therein? If that is the view of police superintendents in Northern Ireland, how can we be expected to support the Bill in the House?

That view was indeed expressed to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, but not, on that occasion, to me.

I was not aware that I had used the term "political prisoners" on the radio. In fact, they are paramilitary prisoners. Let me correct the record for the benefit of the House. As for the way in which the Irish Government choose to treat this matter, we are not in favour of acting in that way in the United Kingdom, within our own jurisdiction. That is why, rather than engaging in a process of pardoning, we are introducing a process whereby although people will not have to serve in prison, if convicted they will be released on licence. If they breach the terms of the licence, they can be rearrested at any time.

Will the Secretary of State reflect on the wise words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who has huge experience of these matters, and will he respond to the part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention to which he failed to respond earlier? This ill-thought-out and unpleasant legislation does not flow from the Belfast agreement, which many of us supported and for which most people in Northern Ireland voted in a referendum. It flows from deals done at Weston Park in 2001, and there is therefore no reason for it to be supported. It does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland; neither does it have the support of most of those in the House who backed the Belfast agreement.

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to the extent that the Bill did not flow from the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement. He said earlier today that it was negotiated well before I started my job. [Interruption.] I am not trying to shift the responsibility; I am merely correcting the record. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the process began at Weston Park in 2001 and was concluded in the joint declaration by the two Governments in 2003.

The Secretary of State spoke of people being released on licence. That will give little comfort to the people of Northern Ireland, who are aware of the despicable way in which he behaved over the imprisonment of one Sean Kelly for breaching his licence conditions. Sean Kelly was released within weeks because the IRA had demanded his release as part of the price for its statement. The licensing provisions therefore do not give the people of Northern Ireland any reassurance. Does the Secretary of State accept that his attempts to defend this obnoxious legislation do not inspire confidence in Members of Parliament or in people outside this place?

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sean Kelly. That was a unique situation.

The next one will be as well.

That case was unique in that about six weeks after I had had Sean Kelly arrested—I was widely attacked for doing that, but it was the right thing to do—it was clear that the IRA had given up its terrorist campaign, as it was due to announce the next day, and that he had signed up to that. The situation was entirely different. I had Sean Kelly arrested because I was told by the Chief Constable that he was engaging in activity that constituted a breach of his licence.

The point I am making is that, under the Bill, anyone with a conviction who is released on licence and who breaches the terms of that licence can be hauled back. That cannot happen at present because such people are outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction.

The Secretary of State has referred seven times to two agreements—an agreement between the Irish and British Governments and an agreement between the British Government and Sinn Fein. Was it agreed with Sinn Fein that these criminals—these murderers—would never stand in a court of law? Was it agreed that they would never have to appear before any tribunal? Was that agreed by our Prime Minister?

A whole process of negotiation led to this position, but the hon. Lady is right to say that the Bill originated in the negotiations of 2001 and 2003.

As the Secretary of State has neither logic nor justice on his side, and as he is clearly deeply uncomfortable with the case that he is having to put to the House, why can he not accept the offer made to him on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which suggested that the Bill be referred for pre-legislative scrutiny? It cannot by any stretch of anyone's imagination be described as emergency legislation. Why can we not have time to take evidence and decide on the best way to deal with a problem that we acknowledge exists? Why does the Secretary of State persist with this tawdry measure, which is not worthy of him?

In all fairness, the hon. Gentleman did make that point to me when I gave evidence to his Committee a few weeks ago. Let me repeat what I said then. Pre-legislative scrutiny is an admirable process, initiated by this Government and by me and supported by me, but it cannot be applied to every Bill. This Bill is being introduced at this time as part of a sequence of events negotiated by both Governments some years ago. The hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, as do many others, but we are fulfilling—I am fulfilling—an agreement made with the Irish Government and others.

My right hon. Friend has already described the Bill as unpalatable, which I think is parliamentary language meaning that it is abhorrent to many people because of the repercussions for victims. Some Labour Members may not be in a position to understand that, but we entirely understand where the Opposition are coming from.

Given what my right hon. Friend has said about the balance to be achieved, the Bill may be unavoidable. However, to reassure people that there is at least some justice in it, will he keep an open mind on the issue of appearance in court, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)? He may agree with me that people would have a greater sense of justice if they saw the individuals involved standing in the courts.

I understand my hon. Friend's point, which was also expressed powerfully by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. The Bill has a long way to go in order to complete its passage and we shall listen carefully to the arguments, but for reasons that I have explained the Bill provides that people will not have to appear in court. It was a difficult balance to strike, but it is the balance that we struck.

The Secretary of State sprinkled the term "justice" throughout his speech. He is not prepared to make certain people accede to a request to appear before a court—I ignore all the other measures in the Bill that do not require the perpetrator of a crime to appear or co-operate in any way—yet he is prepared to give them a licence, which, as we have heard, he can throw out against police advice at some later date. Will he explain how that can be viewed as "justice", and, if it is justice, what comfort is there in it? The victim does not see the perpetrator and the perpetrators do not have to appear, so where is the comfort for the victim?

If individuals who appear before the special court are convicted—the hon. Gentleman will understand that that will depend on the evidence—they will have a criminal record. [Interruption.] That is the point that I am making about a system of justice.

Let me also deal with the point about comfort. As I have said, I understand the anger of victims, but there is no comfort for them at all under present circumstances in which many of the people likely to come through the process are outside UK jurisdiction and evading justice. They will continue to evade justice, as far as anyone can see, for ever. Compared with that position—[Interruption.] They are evading justice, so the Bill represents an improvement, in my view, because those involved are brought through a proper process.

Was the commitment for defendants not to have to appear in court given in writing to the IRA? If victims can be subpoenaed to appear in court, while the perpetrator can be sitting in a pub down the road waiting for the result, how can the court achieve a fair and just result? If the perpetrator cannot even be questioned, how can the court get to the bottom of the matter and achieve a result that is fair and just? Will the Secretary of State explain that?

Some in absentia trials do occur, but I recognise the hon. Lady's point. Defendants might well choose to appear before the special court because they do not want the sentence that would result from the conviction. I repeat the point that I made and reconfirm that no assurance was given in writing to the IRA about this specific matter—[Interruption.] Of course no such written assurance was given.

rose—

I face an abundance of hon. Members wanting to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).