asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, given the appalling consequences wreaked by the Omagh bombing, I can well understand the noble Lord's motivation in calling for an inquiry. I am, however, less clear on the merits of such an inquiry, given that police investigations are continuing, not just in this jurisdiction but also in the Republic of Ireland. A public inquiry would inevitably cut across those investigations and could prejudice subsequent court proceedings in either jurisdiction.

Although there have been no prosecutions in Northern Ireland to date, it cannot be inferred that none will follow in the future. In the Republic of Ireland, one man has been charged with conspiracy to cause an explosion and membership of an illegal organisation in relation to the Omagh bombing. A public inquiry would call on witnesses who may subsequently be required to give evidence at criminal proceedings. That would raise difficult issues of disclosure, admissibility and conflicting evidence. The position is further complicated since by no means all of the important suspects, and possibly witnesses, live in Northern Ireland.

For those reasons, the Government do not intend to set up a public inquiry. A very public and harrowing inquest into the Omagh bombing has just been concluded on 5th October. The people, and especially the victims and bereaved of Omagh, deserve justice. The best means of securing that justice is to allow the police investigations and any court proceedings to run their full course.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. But is it not somewhat curious that he should cite the danger of jeopardising court proceedings when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland himself supported the BBC broadcast which—I put it to him—strongly prejudiced court proceedings in any event?

Is the noble and learned Lord aware that everyone would agree with the sentiment uttered by the Prime Minister's wife that anyone who has had a child murdered is entitled to know who did that and, if not, why it is not possible to know that?

The Government quite rightly set up an inquiry into the failure to bring prosecutions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. They also, as a sop to Sinn Fein/ IRA, set up a second inquiry into Bloody Sunday. Those events happened so very long ago it is doubtful whether people could usefully add anything to what has already been investigated. If the Government wish this matter to be taken seriously and wish people to believe that they want the murderers to be brought to justice, why can we not have an inquiry into those much more recent events?

My Lords, because, as I have said, what is required here is the criminal process to take its course. A public inquiry could well prejudice the criminal process. That is not what we wish. We urge all political parties to encourage their communities to come forward with as much information as possible to assist the criminal process.

I do not want to comment at all on the content of the "Panorama" programme because I do not want to prejudice any criminal investigations. But I should say that the matter was brought before the courts, which considered that that programme would not prejudice any subsequent criminal trial.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there is not the remotest relationship between the Omagh bombing and the Lawrence inquiry in London? It is quite absurd to suggest that there is any parallel.

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord said. Active criminal investigations are being undertaken in relation to Omagh, which should continue.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Northern Ireland and on this side of the water, there is a view that the Government of the Irish Republic are not helping to the degree that they should in seeking those who are to be blamed for that dreadful atrocity? That is because they do not wish to offend extreme republicans. Will he tell us whether, in his view, the Dublin Government have used the full panoply of legislation which has been introduced specifically to deal with that type of crime?

My Lords, the suggestion that the Irish Government have allowed political considerations to interfere with the investigation has been refuted strongly in the Republic of Ireland. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said in the Dáil that:

"the allegation that the Irish Government have allowed political considerations to interfere with the bringing to justice of those responsible for the atrocity at Omagh is completely without foundation. The Garda has made, and continues to make, every effort to apprehend those responsible for the Omagh bombing and have the full support of the government in that".

I understand that the RUC believes that the Garda is actively investigating the atrocity.

My Lords, is not the truth that there is very close co-operation indeed between the Garda and the RUC on this tragic matter? Is it not further true that a public inquiry would reveal nothing at all because the facts of that terrible outrage are all too well-known? The difficulty which we face is the need for a bit more evidence to bring certain people to justice. It is the co-operation of people in the community on both sides of the Border who may have that evidence which is being earnestly sought.

My Lords, the Government believe that the Garda and the RUC are co-operating in an extremely full investigation. That should be allowed to continue in order to bring the perpetrators to justice in a way which will produce a sensible result in court.

My Lords, has not the noble and learned Lord read that Mr Martin McGuinness has admitted to an American newspaper that he knows who the killers are but refuses to disclose their identity? Is that not a truly shocking state of affairs and does that not render him quite unfit to be a member of a government?

My Lords, I do not know of the specific newspaper article to which the noble Lord referred. However, I repeat what I said in answer to an earlier supplementary question. We urge anyone with information about the Omagh atrocity to come forward and assist the police investigation.

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that there have been at least four arrests in the Republic of Ireland? Will he also confirm that the police in Northern Ireland will do their utmost to protect any potential witnesses?

My Lords, I can certainly confirm the second part of the noble Lord's question. On the first part, there have been a number of arrests, but I do not want to comment any further on the investigation process.

My Lords, as the Real IRA has claimed responsibility for that outrage, was it entirely appropriate last week that its members were allowed to hold a funeral in west Belfast clad in combat gear, wearing masks and armed? Moreover, a fusillade of gunfire was fired over the coffin in the streets and no police action was taken. Who instructs the police to let those matters go by?

My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the operational arrangements in relation to the matter to which the noble Lord refers. As to the Real IRA's involvement in the Omagh atrocity, I simply refer to the observations of the coroner at the end of the inquest:

"The Real IRA claimed responsibility for the car bomb, though they sought to pass responsibility to the police for the casualties. As far as I am concerned they were responsible for all that happened".

Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding his Answer to the noble Lord opposite, this House should place on record its admiration for the dignity with which the families of the victims of the Omagh disaster conducted themselves during the weeks of the coroner's inquest? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that they are an example to the whole community in Northern Ireland, and that that dignity deserves an end to this nightmare as soon as possible?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, updated revenue forecasts will be published in the Pre-Budget Report.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In view of the extra revenue, which may amount to £2 billion, arising from the increase in the price of oil from 22 to 30 dollars per barrel, will the Government consider cutting the high level of transport taxes generally and fuel tax and vehicle excise duties, which I understand for some heavy goods vehicles are eight times higher than in France?

My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to speculate as he wishes on the revenue effects. I can only say that a number of factors affect revenue and work in different directions. For example, higher oil prices increase the profits of companies which operate in the North Sea and, therefore, the amount of corporation tax that they pay. However, they reduce the profits of others who pay more for their petrol and that decreases corporation tax. We gain VAT on oil but lose it on the products which people do not buy because they have to pay more for oil. The increase in price has no effect on fuel duty, which is a fixed amount per litre. These are complex considerations. If the noble Lord is able to make a quick calculation of their net effect he is a better man than I am.

My Lords, in advance of any inquiry into this matter, can my noble friend tell the House what proportion of the average price of a gallon of petrol is made up of UK taxation?

My Lords, for petrol, ultra-low sulphur diesel and red diesel the figures are 75.3 per cent, 73.48 per cent and 27.2 per cent respectively.

My Lords, in view of the recent strong statement by the Prime Minister in favour of the environment, can one assume that a large part of the additional tax revenues earned from the increase in the oil price will be devoted to environmental purposes and particularly in the road transport sector to increase efficiency and reduce emissions?

My Lords, I read the Prime Minister's speech very carefully and did not see anywhere in it the word "hypothecation".

My Lords, does not the vast booty from these taxes, which the Minister is unable to disclose, result largely from problems in the Middle East" Does the Minister agree that the Government are accumulating a vast war chest which they will use in due course to promote themselves at the next election? Can the noble Lord take pride in that?

My Lords, I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is more cautious than his noble friend Lord Northbrook, in that he refers only to a "vast booty" rather than an actual figure. I believe that he goes further than the evidence suggests and underestimates the extent to which taxes on petrol, both VAT and fuel duty, are only a very small part of the total revenue that is available to this country. Therefore, the conclusion that the noble Lord draws about war chests is not valid.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is the tax on diesel fuel for lorries which is one of the biggest problems? All deliveries of retail goods to shops, whether of clothes, food or white goods, are made by lorry in the final resort. Does the Minister agree therefore that this is a tax on every citizen of this country, including hauliers and farmers, and it is very important that it should be reduced?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. That is why Ministers have been engaged in continuing, lengthy discussions with hauliers. The participants also include those who took part in the protests last month, although in the context of a clear understanding that we do not give way to pressure arising from protests.

We recognise that the price of diesel is a significant factor in the cost of many other goods sold in this country. However, although fuel tax may be higher, the total costs borne by haulage firms are very much less in the United Kingdom because of lower rates of corporation tax and the absence, for example, of motorway tolls.

My Lords, we listened carefully to the noble Lord's original Answer. However, surely he must admit that, if the price of crude oil rises, the net effect on the UK Exchequer is an increase in revenues, although offsetting effects should also be considered? Perhaps I may press the noble Lord, as other noble Lords have done, on whether, in the light of events that have taken place over the past six weeks, it would be prudent for the Government to contemplate using at least part of that increased revenue to ease the burden on the travelling public.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is more cautious than the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who in turn was more cautious than the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I was asked to give an assessment of the additional revenue accruing to the Treasury. My response now, as then, is that that is a matter for the Chancellor to consider for the Pre-Budget Report on 8th November.

My Lords, following tangentially on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, can the Minister confirm the view, widely touted in Government circles and one certainly implied by the Prime Minister, that any reduction in motoring taxes would give rise to a corresponding reduction in the availability of funds for spending on core items such as health and education?

My Lords, that must be the case. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, will be aware that a reduction in fuel duty of the kind proposed by the Conservative Party; namely, around 3p per litre—after stating that they would not be influenced by the protests—would result in savings to the average motorist of approximately £3 per month.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government publish an annual report on women's policy in accordance with the United Nation's Beijing Platform for Action agreed by the previous administration in 1995. For the past two years we have published the report in an accessible magazine format called Voices. Last year's report was particularly commended at the United Nations Special Assembly on Women held in June. We expect this year's report to be read by 1 million women, It costs 51p per copy to produce.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her Answer. Does she accept that the dispute does not concern the importance of the subject matter, but rather the fact that the Government have produced their own far from independent magazine when so many commercial titles already cover the same issues? The Government are in danger of giving rise to the impression that they are ignoring the boundary between the legitimate publication of factual information and political self-promotion at public expense.

Has the noble Viscount read it?

My Lords, my noble friend sitting in her place behind me has asked whether the noble Viscount has read the publication. I suspect that he has but—without wishing to trespass on the range of the noble Viscount's reading matter—I hesitate to think that he is probably a regular reader of women's magazines. All I can say to him is that the information contained in Voices was extremely carefully researched. This year we enjoyed the great advantage of receiving specialised help from a particularly well-renowned women's magazine. That contribution enabled us to give women information of a kind which I think that it would be extremely difficult to describe as party political. For example, the magazine includes at the back detailed information as regards help on a range of issues and lists addresses to which people may apply for practical advice. It would be difficult to criticise that on party political grounds. Indeed, it is an extremely good publication on which we received expert help.

My Lords, I have been a regular reader of Voices since its original publication and a rather irregular reader of conventional women's magazines. Perhaps I may congratulate the Leader of the House. This is exactly the kind of publication that many women need and will find extremely useful. Perhaps I may say further that I do not think that it is characterised by propaganda, but rather by information of a kind that, for women, is extremely important. Will the noble Baroness accept those compliments?

Gladly, my Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She has put her finger on the precise point here: the magazine aims to provide choices and information for women in a way which we hope is more acceptable and accessible to them than perhaps would be the case with more conventional government publications. It is also interesting to note that, since the publication was distributed to the 130,000 subscribers to Good Housekeeping—along with a wide distribution to doctors' surgeries and so forth—we have received an additional 2,000 requests made directly to the Cabinet Office for more copies of the magazine.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how the cost of the publication Voices compares with other parliamentary publications?

My Lords, as I said earlier, the cost per copy of Voices is 51p. The average cost of the last 12 publications that I have been able to secure from the Central Office of Information has been £3.37. Noble Lords may be interested to know that the House of Lords annual report, which I am sure that we would all agree is a very worthy and informative publication, costs £6.50 per copy.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House recognise that the point raised by my noble friend Lord Goschen is extremely serious? Does she agree that a distinction must be made between proper material from a government department and material that is clearly party political propaganda? Does she further recognise that the covering letter that was sent out with Voices makes it clear that this is what women can expect from the present Government, whereas anyone who has read the magazine will know that a great deal of the information and material contained in it applied just as much under a Conservative government as under the present administration? The distinction has been blurred.

My Lords, as I made clear in my initial reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, this exercise is a continuation of a process that was initiated under the previous administration. It is precisely because the previous government decided to sign up to the Beijing Platform for Action on women's issues that the annual report is being published by the Government. The fact is that this Government have chosen to publish it in a form that we have found to be readily accessible to women. I do not say that in any kind of patronising way; all the evidence shows that both men and women find the publication of information in a format such as that adopted in Voices far more accessible than is the case for broadsheets or other more conventional government publications. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was kind enough to say, we should be congratulated on achieving that.

My Lords, is it not a fact that there is a lacuna in the general flow of information from government to the public, whichever party may be in power? That is often reflected in the low take-up of many benefits. Is it not therefore important that initiatives such as Voices should be taken to ensure that women can find out about their rights and know what facilities are available to them?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. She, too, has put her finger on an extremely important point. Voices has strived to be as informative as possible. The last three pages of the publication are devoted entirely to a guide containing names, numbers, addresses and websites to contact for advice and information on the issues that matter most to women. Those range from healthcare to the kind of benefits to which my noble friend has just referred.

My Lords, because men tend to live for a slightly shorter time than women, does the noble Baroness not agree that there may be a need for an equivalent health guide for men? Into which magazine does she think it might be inserted?

As one who actually has read the magazine Voices, I have to say to the noble Baroness that, judging by the pictures of herself and Tessa Jowell which are so well distributed throughout the publication, it did somewhat strike me as an organ that details what Labour has done for women. Does the noble Baroness really think that that is a proper use of public funds?

My Lords, the magazine states clearly and firmly on the front cover that it is the Government's guide to opportunities. The fact that that refers to a Labour Government may not be something that the noble Lord finds palatable. However, that is the situation and I suspect that it will remain so. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the front page of the publication makes it clear that it relates to our commitments under the Beijing process. So far as concerns the Conservative Party, perhaps they should publish a magazine called "Boys' Own".

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains as set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997 and restated by the Prime Minister in February 1999.

My Lords, in the light of the Prime Minister's U-turn and the increasingly unlikely chance of early UK entry into the euro, does the Minister agree that further expenditure on the changeover plan is a waste of taxpayers' money?

My Lords, the Prime Minister's comments to journalists last week are entirely consistent with my Answer and with the Government's position. We have always said that to take a decision before the election would not be realistic and that we would therefore not recommend it to Parliament or to the people. In the remote possibility that someone else presented it to the people, it is hardly inconsistent that the Prime Minister would say, "No". That is entirely consistent.

It has been made clear from the beginning that expenditure on the changeover plan is posited on the fact that the euro will be adopted in at least 11 countries and that we have to be prepared for it. We need a changeover plan to deal with both our trading relationships with euroland and in order to present a realistic alternative if and when a decision is taken by the people of this country.

My Lords, recognising my noble friend's deep and abiding affection for the euro, but recalling and recognising the demands for collective ministerial responsibility, would it be unfair to ask him whether, if he were asked today how he would vote in a referendum on the euro, he, like the Prime Minister, would say "No"?

My Lords, my position is the position of Her Majesty's Government. I do not know why so many noble Lords are determined to get me to say something different when they know very well that I will not do so. If I say the same thing often enough perhaps at some stage someone will start to believe it. If not, I shall cut a disc in time for it to get into the top 10 for the Christmas season.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, however irrational we may be on either side of the argument, the plain fact is that 11 member states have agreed to use the euro and in just over a year it will be their currency? Does he also agree that my noble friend the Prime Minister would not say "No" to voting about the euro tomorrow?

My Lords, I am always warned about my noble friend Lord Barnett; lie asks tricky questions. The answer is that the Prime Minister said "today" and not "tomorrow".

My Lords, does the Minister agree that most companies which trade internationally are perfectly capable of switching from one currency to another currency? Some 75 per cent of British companies have no business overseas anyway.

My Lords, all I can say is that those companies which do trade with Europe have welcomed the national changeover plan. There has been a very good take up of the material available and industry bodies, both individually and collectively, have welcomed it.

My Lords, does the Minister think it was good value that a health authority as small as Buckinghamshire was faced with expenditure of £1.5 million this year on preparing for the euro? Is that good value for money in the National Health Service?

My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, saying that the Buckinghamshire health authority spent £1.5 million on preparing for the euro? I should be glad to have further evidence of that. My information is that the public sector is making small, targeted investments as part of the modernisation of public services in order that we can make a smooth and cost-effective transition. If the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has more detailed information on the Buckinghamshire health authority, I shall be pleased to hear it.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we are to avoid further major losses in manufacturing—such as we saw yesterday in South Wales—we need a clearer statement of policy from the Government in regard to the timing of entry into the euro, rather than contradictory statements by the Prime Minister which seem to be based on the findings of his latest focus group?

My Lords, business needs consistency in policy and consistency in achievement. This has been confirmed by the success of our economic policy over the past three-and-a-half years. Neither the business community nor anyone else would thank us for veering from one side to the other on any of these issues. There is nothing inconsistent between what the Prime Minister said and the Government's policy since 1997.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the essential difference between the Government's policy and the policy of noble Lords opposite is that the Government will trust the British people with a decision when the time is right whereas they would keep the decision to themselves by ruling out, in all circumstances, the possibility of joining the euro in the next Parliament?

My Lords, my noble friend is right. It has been the consistent policy of the Government since 1997 that when the economic conditions were right we would make a recommendation to Parliament and then to the people of this country. I have heard no such suggestion from the Opposition.

My Lords, I should like to say how sorry I am that Lord McConnell died yesterday. Had he not died, I am sure that he would have been with us today in his customary place on the Cross Benches, taking a close interest in all Northern Ireland matters and contributing to public life as he has done for the past 50 years.

My Lords, I am grateful to have this opportunity to pay a short tribute to Lord McConnell, who was known as Brian to his friends. It is particularly pertinent for me because he was a link with the old past. He was a friend of my grandfather; he served in the Stormont Parliament with my father; and ever since I have been in the House he was of unfailing good company, help and assistance in trying to keep me "on the right way of it", as we would say in Northern Ireland affairs. He will be remembered by his friends as a man of great warmth with his own special brand of humour; a man who gave his life to the service of the people of Northern Ireland.

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats associate themselves with the tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to the late Lord McConnell. When I entered the House three years ago, I got to know him well while flying across from Belfast to London. I appreciated both his initial welcome and his companionship thereafter. He was a diligent Member of your Lordships' House right up to the end of his life. He will be missed by many on all sides of the Chamber.

My Lords, I had the privilege of sitting next to Lord McConnell at lunch in the Members' Dining Room yesterday. We had a gracious and perceptive talk not only about the place of bishops in your Lordships' House but about the situation in Northern Ireland. We on the Bishops' Benches associate ourselves with the remarks and tribute of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.

My Lords, may I, on behalf of what one might call the Northern Ireland contingent, express sincere thanks to those noble Lords who have paid tribute to our late colleague. As we all know, he showed great courage in fighting a battle against ill health. He will be sadly missed by all of us.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

moved Amendment No. 172:

Page 24, line 42, leave from first ("the") to end of line 43 and insert ("Police Service of Northern Ireland of references to the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve").

In calling Amendment No. 172A, I must tell the Committee that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 173 to 177.

moved Amendment No. 172A:

Page 25, line 3, leave out from second ("a") to end of line 16 and insert ("notifiable membership if membership of the organisation in question might reasonably be regarded as affecting the officer's ability to discharge his duties effectively and impartially.

(1A) The Chief Constable may give guidance to police officers in connection with notifiable memberships.

(1B) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1A), the Chief Constable shall consult—

(a) the Board;

(b) the Secretary of State; and

(c) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.").

Perhaps I may comment on what the noble and learned Lord said and refer also to Amendment No. 173. We welcome the Government's concession contained in the Minister's statement. He has greatly increased the standing of your Lordships' House by setting aside the truly ridiculous form of words which stood as a formula in Clause 49. Amendment No. 173 resembles very closely what the Minister said. We fully appreciate that the Minister cannot be held accountable for such clumsy drafting. I am sure he has identified those objectionable sections which are referred to in our amendment.

The Independent Loyal Orange Institution should never have been on the list. It is an evangelical body devoid of any political connection whatever. The other mysterious reference is to "the Masonic Lodge". I myself, unfortunately, am not a member of the Masonic order. Clause 49(1)(e) refers to "the Masonic Lodge", I should like to ask to which Masonic lodge throughout the civilised world does that refer? It is not "a Masonic Lodge"; the wording says "the Masonic Lodge".

I can speak with slightly greater authority on Clause 49(1)(h)—the Royal Black Preceptory—because I had the honour to be the worldwide leader of that institution for a good many years. The term "the Preceptory" could mean my own preceptory, no. 274, which has 33 members. It is one of 733 preceptories throughout the Commonwealth, the United States, where the members pay their allegiance to the head of that state, Ghana, and Togo, where the members respect their president. I cannot understand how such ridiculous phrases crept into the clause. I do not know whether the draftsman was unsupervised or given free rein, but it would be doing a disservice not to heed the lesson of this draftmanship and ensure, for the sake of all of us—Government particularly—that there is no repetition.

I tabled Amendment No. 176. I can only echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. The problems with the clause began in the other place where it was really a tit-for-tat provision and very unedifying to the dignity of Parliament.

I tabled my amendment before the Recess as I felt that it was unjust and wrong that members of Opus Dei should have to declare their membership if they were to become members of the police force, the assumption being that one might show prejudice and fail to fulfil one's duties.

It may surprise noble Lords that, as a clergyman of the Church of England, I have considerable knowledge of Opus Dei. It has shown generosity in asking me to participate in its philosophical seminars. I have also given talks to various of its groups. As far as concerns Britain, it is a devotional and Christian group whose object is to encourage lay people to live a fully Christian life in society. It is, like many evangelical groups in the Protestant Churches, dedicated to an ardent form of Christianity. That may not appeal to some pragmatists. But the devotion of its members is obvious.

So far as I have seen, Opus Dei plays no part in British politics. I should imagine that the members I have spoken to reflect the whole spectrum of political opinion. As in many evangelical groups—these are evangelical Catholics—the very nature of their devotion would encourage any member who held public office to act with integrity and impartiality. Therefore, although I am delighted that the Government have withdrawn the clause, like the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I think it is very unfortunate that such a clause was ever placed in a statute before a British Parliament. Why it was not stopped in the other place I cannot imagine. It really is quite a disgrace. The Hansard reports of proceedings in Committee in another place when this provision was debated are not a good reflection on Parliament. It would be a caricature of justice to suggest that the ideals of Opus Dei would not be followed if someone became a member of the police force.

I am happy with the government amendment, but I would be shocked and would raise the matter again in this House if Opus Dei were to be designated as an organisation of which members of the police force had to declare membership. If it were so designated, the Evangelical Alliance and a whole range of other bodies would have to be designated also. When the Chief Constable considers this matter, he should consider the very poor drafting in the House of Commons and pay regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and I have said. In no case should political tit-for-tat be used in matters of genuine Christian dedication.

I congratulate the Government on their withdrawal of the qualification list. One has only to read the report of the debates in Committee in another place to realise that there was a totally tribal approach to this issue. Five of the listed organisations could be classified as non-Catholic; two of them could be classified as Catholic. If one reads the report of the debates in another place one can sense the animosity and hostility of those taking part. One must therefore congratulate the Government on removing the disqualifications.

Over the past few weeks tremendous pressure has been put on different people to ensure that particular organisations would not be included in the list. I am sure that the Masonic Lodge and the Orange Lodge were campaigning for their members to do that. I certainly know that Opus Dei organised an absolutely brilliant Catholic campaign to ensure that Opus Dei was not included. Now that those organisations have been removed, there are rumours to the effect that when the Bill returns to the House of Commons an attempt may be made to reinsert the disqualification of some of them. I hope that the Government will resist that attempt.

Although the Government are doing away with the list, Clause 49 provides that a constable will have to register his interests. How does one define "his interests"? Without being frivolous—this can be a serious matter in Northern Ireland—does support for Linfield Football Club, or Glasgow Rangers Football Club or Glasgow Celtic Football Club have to be registered? What about a darts match in the middle of Glasgow or a skateboarding contest in the Falls Park in Belfast? Those could all be taken as registrable issues. Who will have to decide? Let us suppose that the Chief Constable had evidence that someone attended a match at Linfield or Rangers and in a very hostile manner condemned his team's opponents. Would that person be acceptable?

I have spoken to policemen. They would like to know what will be regarded as registrable membership. This could be taken to ridiculous lengths and cover darts clubs, skateboarding, roller skating and so on. The Government should take this issue seriously. They should be certain about what will be regarded as registrable membership. Will any instructions be given to the Chief Constable, or will he take the decision in the light of his experience in Northern Ireland?

I intended to speak in favour of the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. The Committee should be indebted to the noble Lord for raising this important question. Like many other noble Lords, I have made representations to the Government about the undesirability of creating this kind of list and picking out certain organisations, some of which are, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, pietistic; others, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, may be organisations of purely social activity. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, they may be sporting organisations. What has been highlighted is the danger of creating such lists in the first place.

In the other place the Government were trying to highlight the danger of people using their membership of organisations to give some kind of secretive support to other people who might be seeking preferment or employment—in the police force or in any aspect of public life in Northern Ireland. One has to tread with great care in this whole area. Many of the measures which already exist, particularly those dealing with discrimination, can be used quite effectively to combat that kind of insidiousness. I hope that the Minister will look at those tools as a way of dealing with the abuse of power, the abuse of old boy networks or the abuse of informal liaisons and relationships that can take place because of networking inside one part of the community or another. It is against all our interests to accentuate any sense of tribalism.

This brief debate today has illustrated that we would be in grave danger of creating something that could accentuate a sense of tribalism. For that reason, we should all be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for having walked with such sensitivity around these issues and for having brought before the Committee an amendment with which I hope that we and Members of another place can agree. If Members of another place have any sense, they will realise that this amendment has a great deal of wisdom to commend it.

I had intended to speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I am most grateful, as I know my colleagues on this Bench will be, for the statement that has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I entirely endorse all the points that have been made. It would be most unfortunate if anything which came through this House or from another place were to exacerbate the tribalism that has already been spoken of. All of us who follow any denomination within the Christian faith regard the way in which our religion has been so used in such a tragic manner in Northern Ireland as something that we would want in every way to avoid in the future. I hope that lessons will be learnt from the unfortunate way in which this legislation was drafted. I hope, too, that noble Lords will support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has said and will support his amendment.

Perhaps I may apologise to the Committee for not being present on Monday. I fear that I was indisposed and I therefore come in rather late in the proceedings at this stage. I very much welcome the Government's flexibility on this point. I intervene purely to seek a little clarification from the noble and learned Lord when he replies to the debate.

He will have noted—none is more likely to have done so—the commentary by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Referring to Clause 49, the Select Committee makes it perfectly plain, in paragraph 7 on page four of its report, that Clause 49(1) and (2) as originally drafted incorporated a Henry VIII power.

The report makes it clear that any amendment removing, or indeed amending, the list of organisations would be of such political importance that it should be done by affirmative instrument. That judgment is clearly shared by the Government and by this Committee.

The importance and sensitivity of this matter has been recognised on all sides. Are the Government satisfied, therefore, that sufficient arrangements are in place to ensure public confidence in the judgment of those who will issue the guidance on notifiable memberships—in other words, the Chief Constable—and those whom he will consult: the board, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission? Some reassurance should be given by the Chief Constable and those three bodies to the public at large about precisely which organisations will be categorised as notifiable organisations under the Bill, and what amendments will be made to the list.

Although we have properly accepted the Government's good sense in amending Clause 49 as proposed, the fundamental difficulty remains; it has been removed from the forum of Parliament and placed in the hands of the Chief Constable and those whom he has to consult. We still have a highly sensitive matter which could all too easily become a matter of some secrecy, particularly in Northern Ireland. That may or may not be a good thing. The more the publicity that is attendant on such judgments, the more likely it is that there will be controversy. Equally, the more secrecy there is, the more the conspiracy theories will flourish and, if in doubt, it is much better for the matter to be made public.

What arrangements do the Government have in mind for public accountability for actions relating to the list? When the Chief Constable comes to compile the list, will it mirror precisely that presently set out in Clause 49(1)(a) to (h), or does the Chief Constable have it in mind to change that list? If he does, how will he publicise the changes? What reasons will he give? What are the implications of the Chief Constable making that judgment? I imagine that, mutatis mutandis, the implications would be much the same as they would be for debate in this place under an affirmative resolution as proposed by the Select Committee.

I, too, am delighted to welcome the amendment. When I was in southern Spain, I was approached by a number of Roman Catholics from various parts of the hierarchy of the Church who knew of this part of the Bill and were very concerned about it. Therefore, I began to take advice about it.

I believe that the Government have got matters about right in the amendment. I have listened to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. In discussing the amendment yesterday with colleagues in preparing for today's Committee stage, we began to go down the thinking route that my noble friend has clearly chosen. After some time, we arrived at the opinion that at this stage the Government had got it right. I must admit that in our thinking time—which was not very long—we were unable to improve on the government amendment. When one considers how long it is hoped that the Bill will last, and, if it is successful, how the whole police force will evolve and develop, the amendment is a considerable improvement on the clause as presently drafted. I have no difficulty in supporting it.

Perhaps I may say a brief word of welcome for the amendment and those that are consequential on it. The phrase "might reasonably be regarded" is wisely and prudently chosen. What we are all seeking to achieve is impartiality in the discharge of police officers' responsibilities. I hope that may be of slight assistance to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne.

I, too, regret that, owing to responsibilities in Northern Ireland, I was unable to present in this place on Monday. Had I been here, I should have wanted to say simply that I believe that the vast bulk of people in Northern Ireland want to see an effective, impartial police service which will have the respect and accountability to the public that are essential for the future of a stable society. For that reason, I am delighted that the Government have introduced this amendment. I could not see a single section in the original wording of the Bill that would mitigate against the principle I have enunciated more than this.

However, perhaps I may mention one aspect to the Minister and his colleagues. Experience in Northern Ireland has shown that it is so often "situational ethics" which bring to the forefront a question of principle. I wonder whether the guidance given to the Chief Constable on drawing up a list of organisations or interests which may or may not militate against fair membership of the police service will relate chiefly to situations in which a person's loyalty is brought to the fore, and his reaction will then be to consider a list. Great caution is needed to ensure that adequate guidelines are given by Parliament to allow the Chief Constable adequate assurance, confidence and powers to deal with actual situations. Many of the organisations on the list that it is now proposed to withdraw will probably find that their membership will carry a public nuance in terms of demonstrations or conflict on the streets. Irrespective of some of the religious organisations mentioned in the original list, that cautionary note needs to be sounded. But I, too, greatly welcome the government amendment.

I apologise if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has dealt with this point. Unfortunately, I could not be present until just after he had finished speaking. In replying, will he tell us what will be the practical consequences if a police officer finds himself classified as a notifiable member of one or other organisation and therefore, by definition, is judged not to be fully able to discharge his or her duties effectively and impartially? Will he be dismissed from the service? It does not seem so. Will his or her promotion prospects be adversely affected? That seems most probable. Will he or she have to prove impartiality despite membership of the organisation in question? Will the noble and learned Lord give us some guidance on this point?

I join other Members of the Committee in congratulating the Minister on his amendment to Clause 49. It comes as an enormous relief to us all. I cannot imagine another instance in which religion and politics would have become so mixed up; its effect would have been simply awful.

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 180, 181, 182 and 183 which make minor changes to wording and bring about an improvement to the clause. Amendment No. 180 deals with Clause 49(7)(e) and suggests that "does" should be substituted by "could". I believe that that constitutes an improvement. Amendment No. 181 deals with the requirement that the need to have information is,

"in the course of their employment".

I believe that it is desirable to prevent requests for information on a whim. Amendment No. 182 is covered and much improved by the noble and learned Lord's amendment.

I believe that Amendment No. 183 introduces an improvement. It is important to make clear that an issue of bias is the only valid reason for the disclosure of information. It should not occur for any other reason. Amendment No. 184 is also important from the point of view of not allowing information to be used for anything other than proper purposes. The information must be obtained only by someone to whom the subsection applies. I believe that the amendment would assist the noble and learned Lord in his objective of improving the clause.

I, too, warmly welcome the Government's amendment. I hope that when it is carried it means that this absurd, divisive and very partial list will be totally and utterly forgotten. I do not believe that the Chief Constable should pay the slightest attention to what was included in the original draft of the Bill.

Indeed, we should consider the way in which those words got into the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Pilkington mentioned, changes to the original draft were made following a poor debate in Committee in the other place. The amendment was tabled by the Government but, under a guillotine procedure, no debate took place on the clause at Report stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, surely that underlines the immensely important role played by the House of Lords when legislation has been rolled through the House of Commons with no debate and no possibility of the issues being given proper consideration.

Therefore, I believe that this short debate—and, indeed, the Government's action in bringing forward this amendment—has once again underlined the importance of the House of Lords. I hope that we shall hear nothing more of this absurd and stupid list.

Listening to this debate one has the impression that the original proposal was so bad that anything whatever must be vastly better. We should not assume that whatever is vastly better is perfect. Prompted by my noble friend Lord Cranborne, I am in some doubt as to how the proposal will work. There will still be a list but it will not be published. It will be drawn up by the Chief Constable. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head; I hope that he will confirm that audibly in a moment.

It appears to me that the Chief Constable will have to decide which of the organisations should be notifiable. The Secretary of State will still be involved, although not publicly, in conference with the Chief Constable. Parliament will be removed from the process— a relief, I believe, when we see how Parliament has behaved in the matter thus far. However, the fact is that the contents of the list will become public by some means or other, simply from the experience of constables who have found themselves subject to it. I hope that we shall be told how the process will work and how it will be controlled.

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 178. In doing so, I shall pose a question. How should we discipline an officer who knowingly has given false information with regard to "the register" and what we hope is to be "notifiable membership"? Does the Committee believe that giving false information, wrong as it is, is worthy of a summary conviction—a criminal conviction in the magistrates' court? Wrong as I believe that it is to knowingly give false information to an employer, a superior or a boss, I do not believe that such an act is worthy of a criminal conviction, especially when it is a police officer who gives false information to the Chief Constable, not about his work but about his personal life.

I apologise for interrupting, but one effect of the amendment is to remove the part of the clause that would make the provision of false information a criminal offence. Instead, as I said in the course of my remarks when I introduced the amendment, if false information is given it will now simply be an internal disciplinary matter with which the Chief Constable will deal. It would not be appropriate for that to be on the face of the Bill.

I am grateful for that clarification. However, surely it would be much more sensible for a police officer to face the same disciplinary procedure in this case as he would in any other disciplinary matter? In other disciplinary matters, which I, for one, cannot distinguish from this one, officers up to and including the rank of superintendent are disciplined by the Chief Constable. Officers above the rank of superintendent are disciplined by the police authority and, in future, will be disciplined by the policing board. Therefore, why cannot the same be true of this disciplinary matter?

I suggest that this excessive measure, coupled with the soon-to-be-gone list, was designed to demonise perfectly lawful organisations. Fortunately, after listening to reasoned argument from Unionists both in this House and in another place, the Government have reconsidered the ridiculous list. I hope that, after listening to the arguments today, the Minister will reconsider this excessive penalty for false information. My doubts about the penalty—a criminal conviction—are founded on more than simply my belief that the regular disciplinary procedure would be infinitely more appropriate.

I believe that Clause 49(5) would fall foul of the Human Rights Act which we are all aware has only recently come into force. Article 8(1)of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees,

"respect for the right to a private life".

Although Article 8(2) of the ECHR allows that right under Article 8(1) to be qualified, in this case for the punishment, which is the means of achieving the objective, I do not believe that that qualification would be permissible as it is the effective criminalisation of lawful organisations.

Nowhere in the Patten report was it suggested that an officer would be subject to a criminal sanction with regard to the register of interests proposed in recommendation 126. Any logical approach to this clause will repeatedly bring us to the same conclusion.

There is currently in place a disciplinary code for the police in Northern Ireland. This matter is a disciplinary matter. Therefore it should be dealt with in the same manner, before the same tribunal and with the same punishment as any other disciplinary matter. I hope that the Minister will seriously reconsider this ludicrous extension of the criminal law in Northern Ireland.

I am grateful for the welcome to the amendment tabled by the Government which removes the list included in another place, and to the approach taken by the Government which, in effect, puts greater emphasis on the judgment of individual officers with assistance and guidance issued by the Chief Constable. In addition, the Chief Constable will be assisted by an obligation to consult the board, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission before he issues his guidance.

Perhaps I can deal with the specific points raised in the course of this short debate. First, it was asked how it will work in practice. Stage one is for the Chief Constable to consult the three bodies specified in the amendment, the board, the Human Rights Commission and the Secretary of State; he may also consult any other person he wishes, and no doubt he will. Whether he will issue a definitive list, whether he will give more general guidance, whether he will deal with it by way of example is a matter for the Chief Constable to decide.

As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, the criminal offence has been removed in relation to individual officers who fail to comply with the obligation. What is the appropriate disciplinary course, if any, in the context of non-disclosure is a matter for the Chief Constable to decide in accordance with existing disciplinary procedures; it is not a matter for this Chamber to deal with on the face of the Bill.

That is probably as far as it is sensible for me to go in relation to the working of the power. Perhaps I may deal with two specific points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. First, he asked whether the Chief Constable's guidance will be published. The answer is that it will. As I indicated, he may not produce a list. It is a matter for him to determine the form that his guidance takes. Secondly, the noble Viscount asked about the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The Secretary of State's order-making power has gone completely in relation to this clause as a result of the amendment. In those circumstances the question does not arise.

Finally, I deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Fitt, who said that there are rumours that the list may be put back in the House of Commons. I make it clear that the Government have no such intention.

I deal now with Amendments Nos. 180 to 183, which collectively seek to tighten the disclosure provisions. Amendment No. 180 substitutes "could" for "does" in subsection (7)(e) in relation to summaries of statistical information made by the Chief Constable. It suggests that no summary should be disclosed if it could be used to identify an individual. The Government's legal adviser says that that would be an extremely difficult standard to meet in practice. Members of the Committee will acknowledge that the Chief Constable is well informed about the security situation and the need to protect sensitive information. The Government have confidence in his ability to judge what should be released.

Amendment No. 184 seeks to narrow the circumstances in which disclosure of information is defensible. As regards Amendments Nos. 181 and 182, the Government responded to concerns raised in Committee in another place with government Amendments Nos. 179A, 181A and 182A. I note we seem to be taking different directions to achieve the same aim as regards Amendment No. 182 and government Amendment No. 181A. Amendment No. 184 will not work. It seeks to restrict disclosure to cases where there is an issue of bias. Presumably the Chief Constable would have to decide whether such issues were involved in all the circumstances, even where a complaint was involved. That tramples on the ombudsman's jurisdiction. However, the Government are prepared to accept Amendment No. 184 in principle, but it may have been overtaken by events.

For all the reasons I have given, I ask the Committee to accept the amendments in my name.

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he say what will happen to a police officer who, despite all the safeguards being introduced, gets on to the black list—or perhaps grey list would be more accurate? How will it affect his or her career?

The purpose of Clause 49 is that there be disclosure of membership of a notifiable organisation. That is all that the clause provides. The Chief Constable will determine what sort of disclosure should be made. But that is what the clause provides. It is saying no more than that there is a need for disclosure.

moved Amendments Nos. 177A to 177F:

Page 25, line 18, leave out ("registrable association") and insert ("notifiable membership").

Page 25, line 18, after ("officer") insert ("believes he").

Page 25, line 19, after ("he") insert ("believes he").

Page 25, line 19, leave out ("registrable associations") and insert ("notifiable memberships").

Page 25, line 19, leave out ("fact") insert ("belief").

Page 25. line 25, leave out subsection (5).

moved Amendments Nos. 178A and 178B:

Page 25, line 35, leave out ("member") and insert ("police officer").

Page 25, line 37, leave out ("registrable associations") and insert ("notifiable memberships").

moved Amendments Nos. 179A and 179B:

Page 25. leave out line 41 and insert ("is to be disclosed unless the person making the disclosure is a person to whom this subsection applies and the disclosure is made").

Page 26, line 2, leave out ("in the case of information relating to a senior officer,"),

I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 181A is agreed to, I cannot call on Amendment No. 182.

moved Amendment No. 181A:

Page 26, line 14, leave out ("a member of the Board;") and insert ("the Board, each of its members and the members of its staff;").

moved Amendment No. 182A:

Page 26, line 15, at end insert ("engaged in carrying out on behalf of the Chief Constable his functions under this section").

moved Amendment No. 183A:

Page 26, line 20, leave out ("(7)") and insert ("(9)").

moved Amendments Nos. 184A to 184D:

Page 26, line 21, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (7)").

Page 26, line 24, leave out ("registrable associations") insert ("notifiable memberships").

Page 26, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).

Page 26, line 29, leave out ("mentioned in subsection (1)").

moved Amendment No. 184E:

Page 26, line 32, leave out from ("ethics") to end of line 33 and insert ("for the purpose of—

(a) laying down standards of conduct and practice for police officers;

(b) making police officers aware of the rights and obligations arising out of the Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998).

( ) In preparing the code, the Chief Constable and the Board shall have regard to the terms of the declaration set out in section 38(1).").

The Government's amendments are entirely understandable and can be supported. I want to speak to Amendment No. 185 which stands in my name. It seeks to remove Clause 50(4)(c), which obliges the board to consult the ombudsman, as well as the other organisations, before issuing a code of ethics. The ombudsman is an extremely important person who should be supported but our view is that his job is to deal objectively with complaints about the behaviour of policemen and others. Our concern is that she—at some stage it may be he—may be compromised in looking objectively at a complaint because she will have had some responsibility for the wording in the code.

It is not a major point but it is our view that it would be better if the ombudsman were not involved in drawing up the code. She would then be able to be more objective when later judging cases and would be seen to be so.

I rise not to take issue with either of the noble Lords who have spoken, although I observe that at a later stage in our deliberations we shall be discussing the functions of the ombudsman. I rise to speak to my Amendments Nos. 186 and 190.

It is to be hoped that the code of ethics will perform two functions, and they will be important. First, it should impress upon police officers that human rights are not just a mantra which they are required to chant before going into action. I hope that those responsible for training will inculcate in trainees an approach to the code not as one more document on which they will have to answer questions but as integral to every thing which they do and teach.

I remember a safety expert impressing on me that safety is not one subject additional to all the others which an industrial trainee or someone learning to drive a vehicle needs to master and will be taught to them when its turn comes; it is integral to everything in the course. One does not teach someone to control and steer a vehicle in 11 lessons and then say, "Now we come to lesson 12, which is how to do it safely". Safety is part of everything we teach as we teach it and 1 hope that that will be the authorities' approach to human rights.

That is the internal function of the code. The second is the external one which ensures that as regards those outside the force—the community among which it is to operate—the rights of everyone will be taken seriously. That will largely depend on the content of the code but also on how seriously it is taken within the force. If it becomes a joke, it will be a very sick joke.

I therefore make two suggestions. First, as regards Amendment No. 186, the element in human rights which will make the greatest demands on officers— where they will be watched with the greatest suspicion, where the tripwires lie thickest, where mistakes will have the most tragic consequences—is that of equal rights. In that regard, those who draft the code will be in the greatest need of advice from people with experience and expertise. It is therefore surprising that the Equality Commission is not among the list of those with whom there is a statutory obligation to consult. My amendment seeks to rectify that omission.

As regards Amendment No. 190, it is essential that the code is not simply something which a police officer receives when he is recruited and then consigns to a draw in the sideboard for the remainder of his service. He needs to read it and to understand it. I am indebted to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for this amendment. It would make a failure to comply with the code a disciplinary offence. If that is not done, it is certain to raise questions in the minds of the community as to how far all the talk about human rights is a placebo. Therefore, I believe that it should have the status of a disciplinary requirement.

Perhaps I may put a question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. It is not a rhetorical question; I should like to hear the answer if he knows it. Is there any other country in the world whose police force, dealing as it does every day with crime and the seamier side of human nature, has to put human rights above every other consideration?

First, I was not putting human rights above every other consideration. I was saying that it is one essential quality which the police are required to have in mind.

As regards the noble Lord's second question, I doubt whether any other police force in the world is confronted with quite so many problems as the police force of Northern Ireland.

I rise to support the two amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and to speak to my Amendment No. 187. It complements the second of the noble and learned Lord's amendments, Amendment No. 190. In addition simply to reading the code of ethics, officers should undertake to abide by it. The mere intellectual act of reading might not result in the desirable behavioural change which we all seek. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether or not we should firm up the act of reading by requiring constables to undertake to abide by the code of ethics.

Of the amendments we are considering today, I can think of none more important than that tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, which is now before us. It is a consolation to many of us who want to see a fair and accountable police force in Northern Ireland that, as a result of the consultations which took place across the community during the drafting of the programme for training, the subject matter of the amendment was incorporated into the syllabus.

I cannot imagine wording more important to the heart and soul of a police service for Northern Ireland than that contained in the group of amendments now before us. Let us leave aside the words "ethics" and "standards" and think only of the performance in the eyes of the community as a whole of a police service. There, in the cold light of day, standards and ethics for the service concerned will have to be judged. There will be situations in which it will be tested by the individual reaction of officers.

However, as I see the history of Northern Ireland, and judging by the experience that I have come through, as well as listening to those from both communities, those people have every reason to say that, in the past, they believe that they would have questioned some of the actions of the police. They deserve to hear that we take very seriously the way in which a code of behaviour is implemented in a police service for the future.

It is for that reason that I welcome what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said. I reiterate the importance of incorporating these principles in the training procedure. I should also welcome an assurance from the Minister that in whatever way this Bill eventually finds the light of day, strenuous efforts will be made to ensure that a code of ethics, a code of behaviour—indeed, a pattern for professionalism—is placed before the people of Northern Ireland in both communities in such a way that they can respect it and feel sure that it will be implemented with integrity and fairness.

I should like to support the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and to ask my noble and learned friend the Minister to clarify any misgivings that there may be about the code of ethics that everyone accepts is so necessary in police behaviour. It has been said that the young trainees entering the police force will be made aware of this code of ethics during the period of their training. However, can my noble and learned friend the Minister assure the Committee that this code of ethics will apply to officers who are currently serving in the force? Can he confirm that the same code of ethics will be applicable both to those young people who are entering the force and those who have been serving in the force for many years?

I, too, wish to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and to reiterate some of the earlier comments that have been made. This is an extremely important group of amendments. As someone who is interested in equality and in parity of esteem for all sections of the community, I certainly support the two amendments relating to equality.

I am chairman of Ulster Scots Agency in Northern Ireland, which is part of the cross-border body that has been set up, not at the behest of Ulster Unionists but at the behest of others. It is a cross-border implementation body. We are most interested in the entire process of human rights and equality. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be delighted to know that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and I attended a meeting in this building last Thursday which was organised by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. There was a very interesting discussion at that time about police services, both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. As "parity of esteem and total equality" is defined in the Belfast agreement, we were thrilled and delighted that the Equality Commission offered us total support in the reconstruction of the police force in the Irish Republic, which, as noble Lords know, requires to be reconstructed alongside the parameters of the Belfast agreement—an agreement relating to total equality and parity of esteem. That includes not just a change of name but also, in this case, a change in training and of structure. I believe that to be extremely fair. I wish to place on record my delight about the Equality Commission's enthusiasm in its support for our aims.

I did not want to anticipate the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, when I spoke earlier about the other amendment. However, I should like to put on record our support for Amendment No. 186.

Before I deal with this group of amendments, perhaps I may clarify some of the remarks that I made in relation to the previous group. I believe that I did not deal adequately with Amendment No. 184, tabled in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. I hope that I made clear in my response that we are prepared to accept that amendment in principle. It would restrict the defence to the offence of wrongful disclosure. The noble Lord has in fact already withdrawn the amendment, but I should tell him that we shall return to the matter with an amendment after we have consulted counsel about the precise wording. I do not think that I made that clear at the time.

I turn to the amendments now before the Committee. Amendment No. 185 proposes that the ombudsman should be removed from the list of consultees. We are not prepared to accept that the ombudsman should be removed. Clearly she has a role to play in commenting on a code that deals with police conduct. Accordingly, we oppose Amendment No. 185. In Amendment No. 186, my noble and learned friend Lord Archer proposes that we consult the Equality Commission. We agree, and accept the amendment.

The area that has attracted the most prolonged debate is that covered by Amendment No. 190; namely, compliance with the code and with human rights obligations. We fully accept the importance of the code of ethics and compliance with the human rights obligations being meaningful. Indeed, our Amendment No. 188 requires the Secretary of State to reflect the code of ethics in discipline regulations, as far as is practicable. That indicates the importance that we attach to that consideration. It is also worth pointing out that the RUC is undertaking a very full programme of training on human rights, which involves consulting the Human Rights Commission and lay experts. It is also developing a wider human rights programme, which involves the auditing of procedures and practices. We should commend the work of the police in Northern Ireland in relation to that area.

Equally, the code of ethics is important. I entirely echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Eames. Indeed, I know that that is the view that the Chief Constable also takes. I can assure the noble Lord that that will be taken forward with integrity. In his response to Patten, the Chief Constable said that the RUC wanted to secure the widest support for the code.

Having said all that, it is not appropriate, simply as a matter of practicality, to require police officers directly to comply with, or strictly abide by, the code of ethics. If one looks at the draft code of ethics annexed to the Patten report, one can see that it contains such aims as enjoining officers to,

"accept responsibility for self-development".

Therefore, in the event of non-compliance, it would be quite difficult to make that part of a code of ethics the subject of disciplinary procedure. We agree with the sentiments. We simply believe that, as a matter of practicality, it would not be right to make it a disciplinary matter.

I turn, finally, to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Fitt as regards whether the code will apply to serving officers. Yes, it will.

I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for having listened in relation to Amendment No. 186, and for the other comments that he made about the intention to inculcate the sense of human rights. As to Amendment No. 190, well, you cannot win them all!

moved Amendment No. 186:

Page 27, line 1, after ("Commission;") insert—

("( ) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland;").

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 187:

Page 27, line 11, after ("read") insert (", undertaken to abide by").

moved Amendments Nos. 188 and 189:

Page 27, line 15, leave out ("take such steps as he considers necessary to") and insert (", so far as practicable,").

Page 27, line 17, leave out ("(taken as a whole)") and insert ("relating to conduct or discipline").

moved Amendment No. 190A:

Page 27, line 21, at end insert—

("( ) On issuing any guidance the Secretary of State shall inform the Ombudsman.").

The Government feel that the ombudsman will have valuable experience to bring to the guidance from the role of the ombudsman in investigating complaints. However, we appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We will consider it further before Report, including in discussions with the ombudsman. Therefore, I shall not move Amendment No. 191. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, feels able to withdraw Amendment No. 190A.

I thank the noble Baroness. I am delighted to beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 190A.

moved Amendment No. 198A:

Page 28, line 2, at end insert (";and

( ) any other person or body appearing to him to have an interest in the matter.").

I shall speak to Amendment No. 199 tabled in my name. This concerns the emblem of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Aside from the proposal to change the name, it is difficult to think of anything in the Patten report that has caused so much hurt in the past to serving officers of the RUC and their families than the decision to scrap the cap badge of the force.

Patten states that there should be a new emblem for the force which is free of association with either the British or the Irish states. The purpose behind this was genuine: to try to depoliticise the police force. However, in our view the assumptions on which it was based are entirely false. The Belfast agreement settled the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. It made it clear that Northern Ireland would remain an integral part of the United Kingdom on the basis of the consent of a majority of the people who live there. I make no apology for repeating myself at this stage of the Bill. It did not create joint sovereignty, or, as the Patten proposals seem to imply, a kind of constitutional hybrid or halfway house between the British and Irish states.

Anyone who doubts that should ask the Northern Ireland Secretary why he is bringing forward an order in the Commons this evening and in this place a little later, to make clear that the only flag which will be flown from government buildings in the Province is the Union flag. It is not some newly-created emblem free of constitutional associations; it is the flag of the country of which Northern Ireland forms an integral part. The notion that the police service should be free of association with the symbols and emblems of the state in which it operates and whose laws it seeks to enforce is frankly not good sense.

Police officers serve the Crown. They uphold the Queen's peace. It is for that reason that every police force in the United Kingdom carries on its emblem the Crown, and so it should be in Northern Ireland. But in Northern Ireland the emblem of the force is not exclusive to one tradition. We already have a kind of compromise. Anybody charged with the task of drawing up an emblem that represented both traditions in Northern Ireland could hardly have come up with a better design than the current one. It embraces the Crown, representing the British tradition, and the Irish harp and shamrock, representing the Irish tradition. I simply fail to see how that can be deemed offensive to one section of the community or another. The emblem of the RUC could cause offence only to those who are opposed to what the Royal Ulster Constabulary represents; namely, the rule of law itself. They are the people who will see this measure as a victory. They have never supported the police who represent the thin green line between them and that which democracy denies them.

The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations over an emblem for the police service following consultation with the board, the Chief Constable and the Police Federation. We welcome the commitment to consult and not to take a precipitous decision. But in reality we see no need for a new emblem at all. The existing one should be retained. It is a source of tremendous pride not just to those who currently serve in the RUC, but to retired officers and the widows of those who have been murdered wearing the proud insignia of that great force.

Our amendment will enable the existing RUC to carry on wearing its proud emblem and cap badge. Even if the Government succeed in their intention of giving the force a new operational name, it is all the more important to keep the badge and reinforce the continuity between the RUC and the newly named force that the Secretary of State is so keen to maintain. There is no evidence that the badge is a deterrent to Catholic recruitment. Retention of the badge would be widely welcomed within the RUC family and much more widely in the community. Nothing could better signify the fact that the RUC is not being disbanded than the maintenance of its badge and emblem. I urge the Government to take this amendment seriously and accept it.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and his very useful remarks in support of this amendment. Over the past few days there has been discussion in your Lordships' House about the state of opinion in Northern Ireland. We have talked about the state of unionist opinion. I wish to reiterate one point on the political side. In political terms this Bill has had a number of amendments, but not sufficient, in the opinion of anyone back home, to be supportive of the unionist community.

I said on Monday, and I underline it again, that if one wants a peace agreement, that can only be achieved with the support of both communities. The peace agreement can only be attained with the support of David Trimble. If we do not have his support because he cannot take his community with him, one will not get a peace agreement. I cannot see why that logic has not got through to the Government.

I endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The RUC badge is a symbol, if anything is a symbol, of the cross-community nature of activities on the island of Ireland. The harp incorporated in the badge is a symbol of the state of the Irish Republic. It is the official seal of the president of that republic. Therefore, why are we told that it is offensive? The only people to whom it is offensive are the fascist thugs who wish to degrade and demoralise the RUC at all costs.

I draw a comparison with the work I am involved in with the cross-border language implementation body and the other major cultural activities with which we are concerned. Whereas we are engaged in reshaping the police force on the southern side of the border as part of the Belfast agreement of parity of esteem and total equality, it is not our view that sovereignty in the Irish republic remains anywhere else but in the sovereign government of that republic except that which it has conceded to us in the Belfast agreement. There is not joint soveignity on both sides of the border or Northern Ireland. When we require the name of the Garda Siochana to become the Garda Siochana Hainin-Polis, which is required under the Belfast agreement, we still recognise that it will be the police force of the Irish Republic. I support this amendment.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and my noble friend Lord Laird. It has been pointed out that the emblem is that of law and order and nothing else. Earlier this week, I stated that no criminal loves a policeman. Therefore, all criminals want rid of the police simply because it is a law enforcement agency. Whether the criminal is a republican or a so-called "loyalist" is neither here nor there; they equally loathe and hate the law enforcement body, which is the RUC.

My second point is that an additional community, the Mafia, is emerging. We have been told on good authority—it has not been rejected or denied—that three-quarters of the city of Belfast, the capital of Northern Ireland, is now controlled by the Mafia. It perhaps hates the RUC and any police force even more vehemently than either of the two paramilitary organisations.

I support this amendment. Before I come to its substance, when the Minister replies, I wonder whether he could address himself to the recommendation—once again I am beginning to sound like a cracked record—contained in the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation on Clause 52. The committee recommends at paragraph 8 that these matters are of such political importance as to require the endorsement of Parliament by application of the affirmative procedure.

The noble and learned Lord knows that both during my time as Leader of your Lordships' House before the last election, and I believe since that time, both Government Front Benches in your Lordships' House—

Amendments will be moved later which will give effect to that.

In that case I am extremely grateful and I can spare the Committee yet another boring disquisition on the subject. I shall proceed to the subject of this amendment and look forward very much to what the noble and learned Lord has to say in due course.

It has been said by other noble Lords that one has to emphasise how important emblems are in human affairs. After all, man is not an entirely rational beast, to put it mildly, except perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who I believe is entirely rational. The rest of us do not enjoy the noble Lord's rather unique attributes. We mind very much about emblems. I notice that when a nation throws off the colonial yoke, one of the first things it does is to invent a new flag. That is a matter of enormous moment to that nation as it is to institutions acquiring their own emblems: not only a flag, but badges and all the other paraphernalia of nationhood.

There is good reason for that. In that symbolism is embodied—or we hope will be embodied—all that we wish for our country and all that we believe that it should stand for. In the flag and the emblems there is contained the shorthand of why we want our country to flourish. It seems to me that that should be as true of the United Kingdom as it is of India, South Africa or France. I sometimes wonder whether nowadays we have reached a condition in which all of us are browbeaten into being ashamed of being British when we have perhaps rather more to be proud of in our history and traditions than most other countries. The Committee may consider that a chauvinistic view, but it is one that I hold.

So long as the Province of Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom it seems to me to be entirely right that the institutions of Northern Ireland should reflect that fact. We should not be ashamed of that, particularly when we are talking about the emblems of the RUC, or of the police force that may or may not succeed it. The emblems that have been so important to the RUC as it has nobly discharged its duties, particularly over the past 30 years, encapsulate not just the symbols of what has come to be thought of as the dominating tribe in the Province but also, as my noble friend Lord Glentoran has said, symbols of Irishness itself. Surely it is sensible for us to think carefully before throwing away our history.

It is interesting to note that since 1997 it has been clearly implied, particularly by certain Members of this Government—although, I am sure, not by the noble and learned Lord—that history began in May 1997 and that we should begin to be ashamed of, and forget, what happened before that. I believe that one of the more recent Members of this Chamber chaired a commission which rather clearly implied that, although he was careful to deny it under questioning. It is interesting to note that while this process has been going on, the public's interest in history seems rather paradoxically to have increased. People are perhaps beginning to understand that history and our past are at least as important as anything else to our understanding of the present and future. There again it seems to me that there is an additional reason for our being careful before we idly throw away emblems which encapsulate a great deal of which we should be proud and which make an enormous difference to our perception of ourselves, our esteem of ourselves and the polity in which we live.

That is perhaps rather a blindingly obvious analysis, but there is another point which I believe makes it particularly important in the Province. I was never a soldier but I am perhaps one of the few people of mine and a younger generation who has been shot at and bombed. I have noticed that that rather unpleasant experience tends to concentrate the mind and to produce rather different assumptions among those who experience such dreadful events than among those who merely watch them at the movies. I notice that for soldiers, or people who are in the front line even if they are not soldiers but who are effectively policing a difficult situation, emblems and the traditions of the forces in which they serve become increasingly important. In my limited experience of such things—many Members of this Chamber have far greater experience than I of this kind of thing—it seems that these matters loom large in maintaining the esprit de corps, the traditions and the good behaviour of the bodies concerned, whether it be a regiment, a band of guerrillas or a police force.

Therefore, it seems to me that we may be asking rather more than the Government perhaps think if we remove the emblem of the RUC and expect the new police force to start afresh with traditions which emphatically will be very much the same as those which are embodied in the cap badge and the aspirations of those who wear it at the moment. I hope, therefore, that for those reasons the Government will think carefully before refusing to accept my noble friend's amendment, or at least a version of it.

I also hope that they will take into consideration one further point of which my noble friend, with his great experience of the Province, quite rightly made great play in his remarks. We are aware how delicate the peace process is and how delicately poised it is at the moment. I sense among the majority side in the Province at the moment a growing feeling that the Government perhaps do not realise to what extent they will depend on their good will if we are to pursue this process to its conclusion. One of the things the Government could certainly do to show that they at least hold the Protestant/Unionist tradition—indeed, as we know, there are many Catholic Unionists in the Province, although that is something many of us are prone to forget—on a par with the nationalist tradition is to look sympathetically at my noble friend's amendment. I suspect that that would make more difference than perhaps the noble and learned Lord might think to the prospects of Mr David Trimble this coming Saturday.

I make two points in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. First, as he rightly said, the emblem reflects the community and the make-up of Northern Ireland. If someone had been asked to design it, they could not have done it better. It would be a serious matter to have a change of name and to throw out the emblem too. We are throwing out our past. We cannot have a future if we do not remember our past. We should not live in the past, but we must remember it.

Secondly, I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, said, in that the Patten report has certainly concentrated the minds of people in Northern Ireland. I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life, but until recently I could not have said what the cap badge of the RUC consisted of. Now everyone is looking at it. When I saw the uniform as a child I knew that a policeman was coming, end of story. I did not look at his badge or even his name.

On Monday we discussed whether it was a matter of the Protestant community or the Catholic community accepting a change. Here we have a badge that adequately reflects both communities. What are we going to do? Are we going to tell a group of people to create a new badge? Who will be involved in that? Are we going to wrangle over what the badge will consist of and get no further? We have to take decisions. One of the decisions that I hope the Minister will consider in the light of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is not to change the symbols because, apart from the fact that they are held dearly, we have to retain something; we cannot throw out everything.

I think that the noble Baroness, for whose views I normally have enormous respect, conceded the point by saying that until recently no one had noticed the detailed design of the badge. I was thinking the same thing as the debate progressed. During two and a half years I frequently met RUC officers in uniform, but I never noticed the badge until the Patten report was published and the badge became part of the political debate.

In one sense this debate is a repeat of Monday's debate on the name except that on this occasion the Secretary of State has reserved for himself the ability to make a decision on this issue at a later date. That seems a sensible way forward. It gives the Secretary of State more time to discuss and to consult before arriving at a decision. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, but will withdraw it and enable the Bill, and therefore the Secretary of State, to consider these issues more carefully.

In previous debates on this issue, I have referred to the fact that when I was a Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland I had meetings with RUC officers at various police stations in Northern Ireland. The object of those meetings was to discuss the Patten report. I am bound to say that although RUC officers were not happy with the suggestions in regard to the name and badge, they said that if those changes, and the others in the Patten report, achieved the aim of getting more Catholics into the police and giving the police the support of nationalist politicians, they would, reluctantly, go along with the changes. I believe that that view reflects common sense and logic.

Can the noble Lord say what would happen if we make those changes but do not achieve those targets?

The objective of the Patten report and of the Government's Bill is to achieve just that. Sometimes matters in Northern Ireland do not work out as quickly and logically as one would wish. But I believe that this is the right way forward. The Patten report came from the Good Friday agreement. It is right that the Government should proceed with legislation to give effect to the Patten report in the hope of gaining the support of both communities. It is very difficult: if the Government move further in one direction, they are opposed from the other side.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for again giving way, but will he answer the question? What happens if we make these changes but do not achieve the targets about gaining support in full measure from the Catholic Church, the SDLP, Sinn Fein and everyone else?

Given that resistance to some measures of the Bill come from the Catholic Church and the SDLP, I am not so näive to say that overnight that resistance will disappear. If the Government proceed with the Bill and send a signal to the people of Northern Ireland that there is to be a new beginning in terms of some of the Patten recommendations for policing in Northern Ireland, retaining—not disbanding—the police, I believe that increased support for the police from the nationalist population will be forthcoming. I believe that and I am hopeful that that will be the case.

I refer briefly to a point the noble Lord, Lord Laird, made earlier. I understand the difficulties that David Trimble is in. I understand that the Ulster Unionist Council is meeting on Saturday and there may well be problems for his freedom of action as regards his membership of the executive. I hope that that will not be the case, but it may be. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill in a sense does not weaken David Trimble's position on the matter under discussion. It gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to make the decision at a later date, having consulted further. For that reason, and for the others, I hope that the noble Lord will not proceed with his amendment.

I am amazed to find that we are still discussing this issue given the recommendations of the deregulation committee. I always greatly respect the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. However, in this case I think that his advice would send a distinct and terrible message to everyone concerned. No one has disputed that the present emblem embraces all traditions and must be pretty inoffensive since, first, the noble Baroness, Lady Blood—I greatly respect her for what she said—said that people do not notice it. Secondly, Catholics have not been prevented entering the RUC because of the emblem but because to do so has been dangerous and they would be killed if they tried. Those are the reasons; we keep trying to ignore them.

Since the nationalists are so very attached to the Belfast agreement, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that it states:

"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division".

I find it difficult to understand how the present emblem does anything but promote mutual respect. It covers every aspect of the Irish tradition. To throw it away is a negative act. It is not an issue which can simply be put off, to be thought about later. Shall we consult the Tate Modern or "Cool Britannia"? Who will think of a better symbol than already exists?

I strongly urge that we do not withdraw the amendment. I strongly support it.

I support the amendment and agree with those noble Lords who have said that it is all encompassing. The emblem contains the harp and the shamrock, both of which were around a long time before the IRA. Long before English people went there, the shamrock was growing for thousands of years in the boggy ground. It is a very appropriate emblem.

While someone may say that he knows the mind of the Secretary of State on whether he will change the emblem, Secretaries of State change and there are rumours that, come an election, this Secretary of State will change. Who will we have next? Will he wish to change the emblem? I believe that it should not be left to the Secretary of State at present. Although the position may be different in the future should the IRA cease all criminal activities and so on, I should still be reluctant to see the issue left to the Secretary of State.

We hear that RUC officers are reluctant but they might accept the change. The problem is that everything is discussed piecemeal. They are reluctant to see their uniform changed; they are reluctant to see the name changed; they are reluctant to see the emblem changed. As a whole, they are against all these changes together which fundamentally change the force. Therefore, I believe that at present it is a serious mistake to leave the matter to the Secretary of State. People should have the assurance that not everything is up for change now or later. If changes are to be made, let us get them over and done with—it is to be hoped not to the name or the badge—but do not let us have the matter dribbling on for years with one knock after another. I am much against that. I am sure that anyone who works in business or is a part of any group of people, social or otherwise, does not want to continue for ever to have changes.

I intervene with the intention of giving further employment to some of the cartoonists in the nationalist newspapers in Northern Ireland which I saw today. No doubt what I say here today will lead to further cartoons.

I listened with great attention to the noble Baroness, Lady Blood. She reflects my every sentiment at present in relation to the RUC and the badge.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and I are two of the oldest politicians in this Chamber who have had an interest in Northern Ireland for many years. On reading the Marshalled List today I see dotted throughout the words "flag" and "emblem". That brings back vivid recollections. In 1953 I sat in the distinguished Strangers' Gallery in Stormont when the Unionist government, as they then were, pushed through a flags and emblems measure which subsequently became an Act. While listening to the debate, I seethed with anger. The legislation was entirely directed at the Catholic minority community in Northern Ireland.

A few years later I began to fight elections. I had the honour to represent a small dock constituency for many years. I had to take a circuitous route because there were four Protestant houses at the top of Annadale Street. Those people did not like the flag I carried on my election platform. It was not the tricolour but the starry plough—the flag of the Irish workers which had been designed by James Connolly, the great Irish Labour leader. The four people living at the top of Annadale Street objected to that flag and I had to take it down as I passed those four houses. I was restricted from going where anyone objected to the flag. That flag and emblems measure created immense bitterness throughout the years I was in politics until it was taken out of the legislation by the Labour government under Harold Wilson.

I realise how one's blood can be affected by the emblems in Northern Ireland. The harp and crown is of such significance to the unionist community in Northern Ireland that if it is taken away it will be like taking away one of their limbs. If it is not taken away, the republican community—I would not say the nationalist community—will also feel that it has suffered. Again, in Northern Ireland there is no compromise; there are victories and defeats. If the badge is kept, the republicans will see it as a victory for unionism or Protestantism, or whatever other term is used. If it is not taken away, the unionists will be able to claim some sort of victory. I believe that they are entitled to that victory—here go the cartoonists—and to retain the cap badge, because it represents both communities in Northern Ireland. It represents the unionist community, which is currently the majority and it represents the Irish community with the shamrock and the harp.

No one could have designed an emblem that was more helpful in bringing together communities in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, may be interested to know that only in the past two or three years have I looked at the RUC badge. I had never seen it as divisive, but it looms large in the politics of Northern Ireland now.

The First Minister, David Trimble, has a difficult meeting to get through. On the badge and the name, the question is whether we want the peace process brought to an end. I am not threatening that the peace process will be brought to an end if the Government do not agree with me or with David Trimble. Some people would quite like that, but I am not one of them. I hope that David Trimble will remain in place after the meeting on Saturday.

The Government can help the peace process in Northern Ireland by recognising what I have recognised since my earliest days in politics: there are two communities in Northern Ireland and one of them must not be allowed to triumph over the other. There is a wave of republicanism overtaking every aspect of life in Northern Ireland. As I said on Monday, the unionist majority population now feels as I felt until 1968 when the civil rights movement began in Northern Ireland. Many concessions have been made to terrorists on both sides, but in this case I am referring to republican terrorists. The ordinary poor Protestant worker sees his whole culture being taken away from him. Part of that culture is the badge of the police force that he believes has protected him over 30 years of violence. It would be helpful if the Government took into consideration the tremendous impact on community relations in Northern Ireland of allowing the badge to remain.

I have deep respect for the strength of conviction with which many of your Lordships have spoken on Amendment No. 199, but I regret that I do not feel able to support it. It is too prescriptive and would go too far, upsetting the balance of the Bill. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who pointed out that Clause 52 as drafted is permissive and does not oblige the Secretary of State to do anything.

In a deeply divided society, as we all know Northern Ireland to be, the symbols of state should he as neutral and impartial as possible. I shall give one or two examples of how that has worked out in the recent past. The letterheads of government departments in Northern Ireland are in plain print, with no symbols representing any particular traditions. The oath or affirmation that a constable has to take on entering the police service has been redrafted and redesigned to tie in with upholding the law, respect for human rights, and so on. The same has been done with the oath or declaration expected of Queen's Counsel when they enter their new, grander status. We should follow such precedents.

I have heard a great deal of the debate on the Bill, but I have had the proper diffidence of an Englishman in not wishing to make too assertive a comment. The debate echoes the constant desire for constitutional and social fine-tuning to bring about a more settled future for the Province.

It seems to me that, far from bringing about a greater settlement, new recognitions and new loyalty, the current proposals on the emblems will bring about uncertainty and resentment. The Committee would be wise to accept Amendment No. 199.

As a member of the committee that has been referred to, I am grateful to the Government that they will at least provide for the affirmative resolution procedure. It is outside the jurisdiction of the committee to go much further than that. The issue is of such political and social importance that it is unwise to leave it at large for the Minister or Secretary of State to deal with in regulations at some future stage, if so minded, because the necessary order will be dealt with relatively briefly at a late stage in the proceedings of the House.

I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the clause is permissive and not obligatory. However, it is a time bomb. I reinforce what my noble friend Lord Cranborne said. As the debate has shown, immense importance is attached to the emblem, primarily by those who bear it, those who have borne it and those who are related to those who have borne it, but also more widely than that.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, picked up on the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, that many people had not noticed the badge. It is one thing not to notice something while it is there; it is very different when the proposal is to take it away.

When that proposal comes under consideration, one asks what the reasons are for taking away the symbol which so faithfully and felicitously represents the totality of the responsibilities of that police force. Surely it is entirely right, sensible and non-partisan that any police service should have on its badge a representation of the source from which the authority which it exercises flows. It is a matter of law that that source, in Northern Ireland, is the Crown.

Surely it is sensible that the badge should represent the place in which it exercises that authority. What could be more appropriate than the harp and the shamrock for the reasons mentioned already by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookebrough? It is that, which embraces so aptly all the principal factors which are germane to the jurisdiction of the police service in Northern Ireland—I use a neutral expression—which is to be taken away. People will ask themselves why that is to be taken away. I am afraid that many people will say that it is because the nationalist community, at whose behest the Government would be doing that, cannot tolerate a symbol which is so all-embracing. They cannot tolerate something which is a symbol of unity. That is extremely harmful and damaging.

I do not know whether or not my noble friend will seek to divide the Committee. But the opportunity of this debate has been extremely welcome because I am certain that it will, at the very least, serve to inform the Secretary of State of the strength of feeling on this and the reasons for that. I wonder how one could possibly fail to put enormous weight on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, with whom, I am proud to say I share in, I think it is, the Irish News today, the cartoon to which he referred. It was particularly accurate in this respect: that he comes out of it much better looking than I do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, asked why we are debating this in the light of the deregulation committee's report. In a sense that focuses on the nature of the provision which is a process provision. As I indicated to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, we accept the recommendations of the committee and later this afternoon, we shall bring forward an amendment which will mean that any regulations produced under this provision must be dealt with by affirmative order so there will be a debate in both Houses of Parliament on any regulations brought before them by the Secretary of State in relation to emblems.

We recognise the significance and sensitivity of the emblems and have sought to deal with this in a way that recognises the significance of the current emblems for one side of the community but which recognises also, as Patten did, that there are those who do not identify with them. We believe that the best way forward is the way which the Government have proposed; namely, to allow the Secretary of State to regulate the flags and emblems after consulting the various parties, including the new police board, which will be representative of both the wider community and political opinion. There would be real advantage in obtaining the views of the board on that sensitive matter.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would prejudice the conclusions of the board. It would be much better to proceed by way of consensus, if that were possible. In another place, the Government said, when debating this very amendment, that this amendment makes an assumption about the emblem that should be used by the new police service. Although the Government are not unsympathetic to the view that the new emblem of the police service may not necessarily be free of association with both traditions, and have said so, the proposal restricts the movement of the Secretary of State who wants to consult the board. This provision merely lays out a process which is a sensible process. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.

I remind the Committee that the amendment before the Committee is Amendment No. 198A, which has not yet been decided.

Before the Minister sits down, I wish to respond in relation to my Amendment No. 199. I thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate, which has been extremely demonstrative. The noble and learned Lord may not think that it has been useful, but it has been demonstrative.

The point has been made clearly that the hat badge and the emblem are now political subjects. It is the objective of Patten and, I think, the rest of us to set up an apolitical police force and an apolitical board. Therefore, in my view, it must be wrong that this major political problem should be one of the first matters with which the new board must deal.

The Minister says that the Government want more time to negotiate, discuss and consult. I tell the Government that they have until Report stage when we shall return to this matter. At that time, this decision and several others must be taken by the Government. Those decisions must be taken sooner or later. It is for the betterment of Northern Ireland, democracy and the future police force that those decisions are taken as soon as possible. Ideally, I should like to see them taken now. However, this afternoon, I notify the Government that we shall return to this in an equally strong, or stronger, manner on Report. Therefore, I shall not press my amendment.

I ask the Committee to agree to Amendment No. 198A.

moved Amendment No. 200:

Page 28, line 8, leave out after ("shall") to ("co-operation") in line 10 and insert ("promote, wherever practicable,").

The Patten report advocated increased co-operation. Co-operation has existed for some time. One of my friends who is a Garda officer said:

"and we could do better if the politicians kept out of our way".

I have omitted an expletive. It is important to build on good relations. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, relations have always been extremely good at inspector level. As my noble friend Lord Laird said earlier, there is an understanding between us on the modernisation and re-equipping of the Garda. The flourishing economy of the Republic of Ireland is very reassuring. We may have difficulty persuading Her Majesty's Treasury to meet some of the costs of the necessary upgrading of the Garda. But I am confident that the Irish Government will be convinced of the necessity to upgrade the Garda and, at the same time, reduce political interference in line with the observation of my favourite Garda officer. There will be an imperative if effective co-operation is the result. Co-operation would be damaged if there was any evidence of infringement of the operational independence of the Chief Constable of the RUC by any source whatever.

In a sense the clause, which the noble Lord quoted, smacks of political interference. The provision opens the way to unnecessary political interference. What else is one to make of the third line of Clause 54 which speaks of "co-operation on policing matters"? That is a definite invasion of the territory of the two Chief Constables, North and South. It is their job to organise and implement co-operation on policing matters; it is nothing to do with politicians, great or small. As to those aspects of the clause, the board and the Chief Constable are entitled to firm reassurance.

I support the amendment, in that by inserting "promote, wherever practicable" it puts the objective in writing. Although certain arrangements are written down and dealt with officially they do not have much effect on the ground. From my service experience, the only arrangement that worked on the ground was almost secretive. When we or the Garda crossed the border in effect it had to be covered up, because if it had gone high enough up the ladder it would have created a diplomatic incident. I give two examples. At least 10 years ago in Fermanagh, unbeknown to us, there was a bomb on our side of the border near Rosslea. Luckily, the Garda found the command wire and followed it across the border until it reached the bomb. Obviously, that was a great benefit to us because we were not very close to it. The IRA did not take on the Garda, so it was a good way to find out where it was. Nothing was done about it. That happened on the ground and it was discussed between the police forces at local level.

Rather late one evening we defused a bomb in Belleek but could not be extracted by helicopter. ATO and his protection could not be moved. I was or the ground and conditions were extremely wet. Because of local chat between the two forces we were able to cross the border and enter the village of Belleek. The present arrangements are ridiculous; they should be pushed much further by government and the police forces so that those operations can take place without everybody being up in arms about encroaching across the border. I am all in favour of anything that persuades people to make greater efforts to ignore tiny infringements in order to end cross-border terrorism in particular.

I am very confused by the existence of Clause 54 at all. At one level it could be read as anticipating that the two Governments might make arrangements to be imposed on the police force in Northern Ireland against the stated will of the board and the Chief Constable. I cannot conceive that any government should do that, particularly one that, from my reading of the Bill, appear to want to consult as widely as possible before bringing into operation any new arrangements. However, I sometimes wonder whether the Government will go their own sweet way whatever the results of the consultation. Perhaps that is what lies behind the clause.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord will provide me with a further explanation of this provision. I am entirely ignorant of the day-to-day circumstances, apart from once having had a modest interest in this matter as a junior Minister in the Ministry of Defence concerned with military rather than police matters. It is curious that we need the clause at all. It may be sensible for such matters to be taken out of legislative provision and for consultation on both sides of the border to continue on an operational level so that the objectives of the noble Viscount can be achieved in that way, rather than to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut and include a clause which creates more suspicions than it dispels.

I, too, strongly support the amendment because of my considerable concern about this matter. The Belfast agreement, very properly, speaks of co-operation and discussion, but this clause refers to,

"an agreement"—

not just any agreement—

"between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland".

That suggests either that there may already be an agreement or that there could be a series of formal agreements which would then have to be implemented. Frankly, if the object is to depoliticise the RUC this is not the right way to go about it.

The Irish Government have always had their own political agenda. At the moment that agenda points to pleasing Sinn Fein/IRA as far as they possibly, and decently, can. In the past they have discussed with Sinn Fein troop levels in Northern Ireland and a number of other issues which are the business of a sovereign country. I am deeply disturbed that we are about to enshrine in legislation the right of the Irish Government to impose any kind of decision or view on the RUC in what is part of the United Kingdom. I do not think that it has yet been made clear enough exactly what will be the powers.

Furthermore, as I have said, I am concerned about the fact that, in the past, the Dublin government have been only too ready to advance their own point of view—to say the least—in negotiating with the IRA, thus landing us with consequences which we could not resist.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. Does she agree that the Dublin government have held meetings with practically all the political parties in Belfast, including that headed by Mr David Trimble? To suggest that the Irish Government have an agenda simply to support terrorists in Northern Ireland is not a fair statement of their position.

Not for a moment do I suggest that the Irish Government support terrorism. However, I am saying that, no matter how much consultation has taken place, they have, on a reasonably large number of occasions, negotiated and talked to the IRA in Dublin—on our behalf, I hasten to add. Necessarily, however, their interests and ours will at some point diverge. Very frequently, their future interests—with Sinn Fein likely to enter the Dail and to become a political partner—will affect their point of view. I believe that it would be dangerous for that point of view in any way to impinge on the operational activity of the RUC.

I accept utterly that splendid co-operation exists between the RUC and the Garda. It seems to me that that is enough and that there should be no more.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, outlined, this amendment would remove the board's and the Chief Constable's obligation to implement arrangements arising from an agreement between the UK and the Irish Government on police co-operation and would substitute a requirement to promote co-operation where practicable.

Perhaps I may begin by making it absolutely explicit that the purpose of this clause is designed to meet the recommendations in chapter 18 of the Patten report. The only way in which that can be done is through this clause. It has absolutely nothing to do with interfering with the operational independence of the RUC and the Chief Constable. The agreement between the UK and the Republic will not direct the Chief Constable in any way.

The matters in the agreement will cover the areas outlined in the Patten report; namely, annual conferences, written protocols, personnel exchanges, secondments, liaisons and joint training. It does not cover the kind of issues mentioned by noble Lords, whose worries I hope to be able to assuage.

Patten made it perfectly clear that there should be written protocols on co-operation between the two police services, building on the good relationships. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, when speaking of his experience, would agree that it is preferable to establish a formal framework in which the kind of activities he described as taking place in a faintly clandestine way—I do not intend that to be a derogatory reference—could be better achieved by other means. Patten recommended strengthening co-operation between the police on both sides of the border. That is exactly what this clause provides for.

I can reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that the Government would not reach an agreement without the Chief Constable being fully involved in the process. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the areas likely to be covered by such an agreement are those set out by Patten. Perhaps I may refer to them in a moment.

I am a little confused by the concerns expressed by several noble Lords as regards any framework that would increase co-operation to cover areas such as tackling the dreadful problem of paedophile rings, in particular on how they operate cross-border. That is the kind of area that we envisage being addressed here, along with financial crime and co-operation on drugs issues. None of these areas is in any way a party political matter. Furthermore, such areas, which would inevitably benefit from co-operation, are not in any way areas where the integrity and responsibility of the Chief Constable and the RUC would be impugned by greater co-operation being achieved. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that this would be done through the protocol which sets out and establishes the framework under which such co-operation could take place.

We believe that this will be in the interests both of the police services and of good policing. I know from his contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, recognises that an enormous amount of good practice is already in place. Perhaps I may reassure noble Lords that this does not in any way concern political interference. It concerns the establishment of a framework to build on the good practice and exceptionally hard work that has already taken place—without the benefit of the backing of the protocol.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she confirm that, in order to encourage such desirable co-operation—an aim shared by every Member of the Committee—it is clear that legislation is needed?

This is being done in order to implement Patten and to establish clearly—beyond peradventure and beyond doubt—a framework in which co-operation can take place. I assure the noble Viscount that those are the principal objectives. Given that, this clause is not only necessary; it is also extremely desirable.

I am astonished at the response of the noble Baroness. Clearly there has been a failure of understanding here. We are all in favour of the kind of co-operation she has outlined. Indeed, I and several other noble Lords have mentioned similar areas of policing where co-operation should take place. However, a clause of this character is not in any way recommended in the Patten report.

The Patten report does recommend that the two police services should have written protocols, but that does not mean that the governments should negotiate what is to be done. The report draws on the model of the Kent police. In paragraph 18.6, it states:

"Kent police have signed several protocols with police services across the Channel".

Paragraph 18.7 goes on to say,

"We recommend that the two police services"—

the RUC and the Garda—should sign protocols between themselves. However, the clause does not acknowledge that. It concerns an agreement that is to be reached between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland rather than the police services.

Nothing is required in the Bill to permit the police services to make agreements; there are already quite a number of them. Furthermore, nothing is required from the Bill to permit co-operation on paedophiles or any of the other matters that we have discussed.

Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that the provisions under which the Kent police service operates are enshrined in law. Perhaps I may also reassure the noble Lord that, although the agreement sets out the scope, it most certainly does not instruct or empower anyone to interfere with the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the RUC. I believe that we are at cross purposes here. If it would be helpful to discuss this matter in more detail before Report, we would be only too happy so to do.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell us if the Irish Government have stated that they felt that they must legislate in exactly this way in order to keep their side of any bargain that may be in the offing?

I am afraid that I am unable to do that—just as I am unable to say whether the French had to change their legislation to enable the Kent police to co-operate with them. I cannot answer for the legislative procedure needed to operate such an agreement.

The agreement is the framework to allow and legitimise areas of co-operation—nothing more. Noble Lords' fears are unfounded.

Before the noble Lord, Lord Cope, replies, my understanding is that "arrangements" in Clause 54 means "protocols". If a protocol is agreed, surely the governments responsible for those making the protocols must also be engaged.

We are at cross purposes. Part of my doubt, which the noble Baroness has not resolved, is that we are frequently told by lawyers in the course of debating Bills that giving legal authority to one specific matter implies that there is not legal authority for matters which are adjacent to it but for which authority is not given. That worries me.

So far as concerns the Kent police, I am aware that there are various agreements—I was involved in them during another stage of my career—in regard to the Channel Tunnel and the operations of the two police forces in a foreign jurisdiction. Under agreements, there are small areas of Kent and small areas of the Pas-de-Calais which are regarded as the territory of the other country. Obviously, such agreements have to be negotiated between governments.

However, we are not discussing that here. We are discussing the kind of thing that Patten discussed—that is, an annual conference between the two police forces, liaison officers, co-operation in training and so on. These do not require a government agreement; they require an agreement between the two police forces primarily. That is the level at which it should be done.

I am, of course, aware that policing in the Republic of Ireland is subject to much closer day-by-day political control—down to quite a low level in the police force—than would be acceptable in our tradition. Both jurisdictions and both police forces will have to take that into account in dealing with one another.

The amendment seeks to widen the responsibility of the Chief Constable and the board in order to improve co-operation in regard to the matters discussed. As the noble Baroness said, there seems to be a disagreement about the purpose of this and the extent to which it is made necessary by Patten, which I think it is not. In the circumstances we shall gladly take up her offer to discuss the issue further between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendments Nos. 201 and 202:

Page 28, line 38, at end insert—

("( ) the level of public satisfaction with the performance of district policing partnerships;").

moved Amendment No. 205:

Page 29, line 40, leave out from ("it") to end of line 41 and insert ("concerns sensitive personal matters").

I rise to support Amendment No. 209 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and to which my name among others is added. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 211 and 217 which stand in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has eloquently expressed our concerns about the provision in Clause 58(5)(b) which would give the Secretary of State a veto over any inquiry called by the board. Clause 58(5)(b) is a catch-all clause, which would effectively allow the Secretary of State to object to an inquiry on any grounds whatever. It is not just belt and braces; it is double belt and braces. Have the Government so little confidence in the board, which the Bill sets up, that they think that the board would establish an inquiry which would serve no useful purpose whatever? How else can one read this provision? What credibility would the police board have in the community if it set up an inquiry every five minutes on anything under the sun? I simply cannot believe that would happen.

I may be able to shorten the debate. The Government have listened to concerns that the balance may have been too far in the direction of safeguards. They have made a number of changes as a result. In relation to Amendment No. 209, which was spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, we are persuaded to make a further change by accepting his amendment. The Government believe that the balance struck by the Bill once that amendment has been made will be right. It removes paragraph (b) from Clause 58(5).

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for accepting the amendment.

Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 211 and 217. Clause 58(9) suggests that the Government do not trust the board to appoint a suitably credible and independent figure to conduct an inquiry relating to an issue outside the remit of the ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor-General or Her Majesty's Inspectorate. That again is a poor show of confidence in the board.

Board members will need to be ready to compromise and achieve an apolitical approach, a subject about which we have heard a good deal this afternoon. That is what happens in England and Wales where we have both political and non-political members of police authorities. If the board cannot do that, it will achieve nothing.

On Monday we heard a good deal about the Patten report and the Government's keenness to implement the recommendations. A number of times it seemed to me that the Government's version of the Patten report differed from that published. On the point raised by Amendment No. 211, Patten stated that,

"the Board should have the power to request another agency to conduct an inquiry and should have the capacity to do so itself".

The Patten report said nothing about the board having to seek the approval of the Secretary of State on this matter.

I turn to Amendment No. 217. All that I have said before is completely irrelevant if the Board cannot initiate an inquiry because it does not have any money. As we all know, money talks. The financial provisions which we have already discussed mean that the board is wholly dependent for money on the grant made to it by the Secretary of State. The board can howl to the moon, but if it has no money to pay for an inquiry, it simply will not happen. This is really critical. Patten recommended that the board should be able to call for inquiries where appropriate, except where there was an issue of national security, personnel matters or matters which are sub judice. The Bill already excludes such circumstances by virtue of Clause 58(3) and (5). The Government have said that the Bill will implement the Patten report and that the board's functions will be effectively neutered if it cannot call for an inquiry. I ask the Committee to support the amendments.

Much as I enjoy the straight logic of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell—I enjoy the way he takes us so clearly through them—and much as I respect the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her expertise in this field, I am afraid that my rather cynical and, it may be argued, slightly less logical mind, tainted by years of living in Northern Ireland, understands very well why Amendment No. 209 should not be accepted, why paragraph (b) should remain in subsection (5), and why I should oppose Amendments Nos. 216 and 217.

As I understand the position, subsection (5)(b) was inserted into the Bill to give the Secretary of State the power to stop what might loosely be termed "politically motivated" board members raking over history by demanding inquiries into events such as— dare I say it?—Bloody Sunday and so on. If subsection (5)(b) is removed, there is no mechanism to stop a police board instigating inquiries into events long before its appointment and the setting up of the new police force. To allow that, and not to be in a position to stop it were that necessary, would be wrong.

The provision to which Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 refer is necessary to impose a financial discipline on the board and on the Chief Constable. When they prepare their budget for the year, they should allow a certain amount, which they probably will not get right in the first or second years, for the instigation of these inquiries. That will act as a discipline to stop a police board setting up inquiries into matters that are probably less than vital and necessary for the day-to-day well-being of policing in Northern Ireland. We do not support any of the amendments, including the amendment conceded by the noble and learned Lord the Minister. We shall consider the issues again before Report and will probably come back to both of them.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and to other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. Before I deal with the amendments, I should just mention that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List concerning Amendment No. 205, which is properly described by page and line but should in fact refer not to Clause 56 but to Clause 57.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. It has also just been pointed out to me—I must have an out-of-date copy of the Marshalled List—that there is a misprint in that too. Having elaborated entirely on the difference between "personnel" and "personal", it has appeared in the Marshalled List as "personal".

I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I was just coming on to the matter of "personnel" and "personal". The point is that "personnel" is what Patten included in his report. He wrote it referring to members of the police service. Therefore, it is a narrower expression than "personal", which could refer to any member of the public. In this context, it is desirable to be narrower rather than broader because the scope for inquiries initiated by the board should not be unnecessarily narrow.

Having said that, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on having his Amendment No. 209 accepted by the Government and I should like to support as strongly as I can Amendments Nos. 211, government Amendment No. 213 and Amendments Nos. 216 and 217, which are closely connected with each other. As to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I would just comment that precommencement matters are already dealt with in government Amendment No. 214. Before an inquiry can start, it will have to have the approval of a majority of the board. That will eliminate the possibility of frivolous inquiries being initiated.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to financial discipline. I would put it to him that the board as such has a small and limited budget and therefore there will be little room within it for possibly any inquiries—certainly not for inquiries of a long and costly nature. However, such costly inquiries may be necessary and very much in the public interest. Therefore, I hope that there will be no financial provisions which would eliminate and make impossible the holding of inquiries.

I rise to speak to Amendment No. 207. The amendment is intended to address a flaw in Clause 58. It has been tabled in the interests of maintaining consistency in investigatory powers with respect to time-barring. Although Clause 58(12) prevents inquiries into matters that occurred before the coming into force of "this section", it differs from the rules with regard to the ombudsman under Clause 64.

In the case of the ombudsman, there is a long stop period for which time runs from the point of the alleged conduct which forms the basis of the complaint. That is not the case with regard to Clause 58. In "X" number of years' time the board will be able to demand a report on and an inquiry into conduct that takes place the day after the clause comes into force. The amendment applies only to conduct. Therefore, it would still be possible to conduct inquiries into trends over a long period of time.

All the amendment seeks to do is to harmonise the time-bar rules for inquiries and investigations by the board and by the ombudsman into the conduct of police officers. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will reflect favourably on the amendment.

Perhaps I may deal, first, with the amendments spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, but which were in fact tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. We proceed on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, meant that "personnel" should replace "personal". The Patten report said that intrusion into sensitive "personnel" matters should provide grounds for questioning whether a report or inquiry should be held. 'The Bill says "personal" instead of "personnel". It does so simply in order to be consistent with Section 2 of the Data Protection Act 1998 which refers to "sensitive personal data". It might be right for sensitive data about an individual to be protected if necessary. In the light of that, I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, to withdraw the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.

Perhaps I may deal with government Amendments Nos. 206, 213, 218 and 236. Amendment No. 206 replaces a reference to "one month" with "30 days" in Clause 57(4), thus ensuring consistency with the reference in Clause 58(4). Amendment No. 236 applies to the Bill general rules governing the calculation of periods of time.

Amendment No. 213 to Clause 58(9) effects a presentational change in respect of the roles of the Secretary of State and the policing board in the appointment of a person other than the Comptroller and Auditor General, the inspector of constabulary or a police ombudsman to conduct an inquiry under the terms of the clause. Under the amendment the Secretary of State would "agree" rather than "approve" an appointment. The change reflects the Government's desire to meet, where possible, concerns about the balance between the Secretary of State and the new policing board.

Government Amendment No. 218 reflects a commitment made in Committee in another place for the ombudsman to receive a copy of an inquiry report from the board. It must be right that the ombudsman should receive such reports as they may be relevant to her work.

Turning to government Amendment No. 214, Clause 58(11) sets out clearly that,

"An inquiry … may not deal with acts or omissions which occurred, or are alleged to have occurred, before the corning into force of this section".

As Patten said, his report was about looking forward.

Recognising, however, that there may be facts that are relevant to a current inquiry, the Government accept that there are grounds for qualifying Clause 58(11) so that the inquirer may consider historical or pre-commencement material if it is necessary for him to do so in the course of an inquiry.

The inquirer would not have the same power as he would for post-commencement material. Were, for example, an inquirer to be given access to previous guidance on the use of plastic baton rounds, he would be able to consider that in an inquiry into the current use of plastic baton rounds. We should expect the inquirer to be provided with such statistical and general information but not necessarily information relating to specific cases.

This meets Patten's general principle that his recommendations are about a new beginning, not,

"a series of judgements about who was culpable for each of the tragedies and mistakes of the past".

As the Government have once again moved to meet concerns about the Bill on this subject, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, will feel about not to move Amendment No. 215 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which addresses the same point.

Amendment No. 207, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Laird, would prevent inquiries into police conduct if that conduct took place more than a certain period before the inquiry was initiated. We believe that there are sufficient safeguards and it would be difficult to prescribe a straightforward period. For example, a matter may not come to light for several years. Remembering, therefore, that the inquiry can only deal with post-commencement matters as its subject, I invite the noble Lord not to move the amendment.

Amendment No. 209, seeks to remove paragraph (b),

"would serve no useful purpose".

I indicated the Government's position in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We believe that the balance struck by the Bill is now right and I earnestly ask the noble Lord to consider carefully the whole balance of the Bill in relation to inquiries before making a decision about what to do at a later stage.

Amendment No. 210 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, Amendment No. 211 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and Amendment No. 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, seek to remove the Secretary of State's approval for the appointment of a person to hold an inquiry, other than bodies listed in Clause 58(7); namely, the ombudsman, the inspector of constabulary or the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Amendments Nos. 210 and 212 require consultation with the Secretary of State instead. The board's powers in this area are unique in terms of UK police authorities and it is right that the Secretary of State should be assured of the competence of any person appointed to wield the considerable powers at the inquirer's disposal. I should emphasise that if one of the professional bodies to which I have referred is decided upon, the Secretary of State's approval is not required.

I turn finally to the funding of inquiries. Amendments Nos. 216 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and Amendment No. 217 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, require the Secretary of State to pay for inquiries instead of the board, which is the present position under the Bill. The Government believe that resources should rest with those using them. The board will be expected to bid for its resources as the Police Authority of Northern Ireland currently does, but the Government cannot be expected to write blank cheques for the board to carry out inquiries. This is not a way to block the board's use of its power—it is government accounting. Naturally, the Government would consider carefully any bids by the board for additional resources but, as I have said, the Government cannot give the board a blank cheque. I invite noble Lords not to move their amendments.

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for providing a further listening ear in relation to Amendment No. 209. I seem to be having my teeth drawn, but it is proving a painless extraction.

Secondly, perhaps I may express gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for having referred to my Amendment No. 216 and the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 217, which I simply overlooked in opening the debate.

This is not the moment to re-open the issue. I have heard what my noble and learned friend has said. However, he says that government budgeting is not a way of preventing people exercising their powers. I should have thought that that is precisely what it is, and precisely what the intention is. Whether it ought to be in a particular situation is a matter which we may debate on Report.

Finally, as to the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Desai, I am not sure that my noble and learned friend got the point. It was almost certainly my fault because of the way in which I spoke to them. He does not seem to have noticed that there is a difference between "personnel" and "personal". It is not simply a matter of drafting, as other noble Lords have said. I should have thought that the intention is that the word should be "personnel". However, we shall try again between now and Report. I am in a dilemma in any event because the amendment is not mine but that of my noble friend. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.

moved Amendment No. 206:

Page 30, line 4, leave out ("one month") and insert ("30 days").

moved Amendment No. 209:

Page 31, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).

moved Amendment No. 213:

Page 31, line 10, leave out ("approval") and insert ("agreement").

moved Amendment No. 214:

Page 31, line 15, leave out from ("with") to end of line 17 and insert ("a pre-commencement matter.

( ) But subsection (11) does not prevent a person conducting an inquiry under this section from considering facts relating to a pre-commencement matter if, and only to the extent that, consideration of those facts is necessary for him to be able to discharge his functions in relation to the subject matter of the inquiry.

( ) "Pre-commencement matter" means any act or omission which occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before the coming into force of this section.").

Perhaps I may ask a question. I appreciate and thoroughly support the policy implemented in subsection (11) to fulfil Patten's desire that this procedure should look forward and not backwards. Therefore, subsection (11) states:

"An inquiry … may not deal with acts or omissions which occurred … before the coming into force of this section".

However, there is a proviso in Amendment No. 214, which states that that will not,

"prevent a person conducting an inquiry … from considering facts relating to a pre-commencement matter".

I appreciate that the facts must be relevant to the inquiry. However, I do not believe that it is quite enough to say "facts". How is it to be established what is a fact and what is not? That can be established only by a process of inquiry and, in the type of inquiry which we are considering, I do not doubt that there will be provision for legal representation. However, that provides a way back into pre-commencement episodes which goes against the policy of Clause 11.

I do not expect the Minister to deal with the matter conclusively straightaway. However, I believe that he will see that it is possible to envisage that certain circumstances may arise in which an episode which perhaps occurred several years prior to the matter being inquired into will be said to be germane to the inquiry. I believe that that would be harmful. I wish that more people understood how difficult it is to establish the facts of an episode which occurred even one year ago, let alone many years ago. Therefore, if the Minister sees force in my submission, perhaps he will undertake to consider it and I shall be greatly assured.

Of course I shall consider it. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has identified entirely accurately the intention that the inquiry should have as its subject matter only post-commencement issues. It is recognised that in looking at a post-commencement issue one may have to go back to look at facts because events do not fit into neat pre and post-commencement categories. However, the amendment states that the inquiry can consider the pre-commencement facts,

"only to the extent that, consideration of those facts is necessary for him to be able to discharge his functions in relation to the subject matter of the inquiry".

That sets a limit as far as it is sensible to do so, having regard to the post-commencement obligation in relation to the subject matter of the inquiry.

But not in point of time. There is no backstop beyond which the inquiry, even with that proviso, cannot go. That seems to me the danger.

However, it simply recognises the basic premise that certain facts before the starting date may be relevant.

had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 217:

Page 31, line 22, leave out subsection (13) and insert—

("(13) The costs incurred in respect of an inquiry under this section shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.").

moved Amendment No. 218:

Page 31, line 28, after ("Constable;") insert—

("( ) the Ombudsman;").

I simply want to point out that the matter of "a sensitive personal nature" arises not only in Clause 57 but also in Clause 58(3)(b). I hope that at the next stage of the Bill government amendments will be tabled which cover both occurrences.

moved Amendment No. 219:

Before Clause 60, insert the following new clause—