asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the adjudicators appointed under the Education Act 1998 are conducting their duties satisfactorily.

My Lords, the latest annual report from the Chief Schools Adjudicator, published in October 2001, provides a review of the performance of adjudicators. Adjudicators are independent of government as they operate in a quasi-judicial capacity. Any concern about their decisions would be pursued by judicial review. There were no applications for judicial review of adjudicator decisions in the past academic year.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, is she happy, even in the absence of judicial reviews, that adjudicators follow similar rules of procedure which should require consultation with schools and local communities before they make a decision? For example, they consulted immaculately in relation to the closure of a school at Gravesend in Kent, but there was no consultation with interested parties concerning preferences given to parents of potential grammar school pupils. That seems to me odd—even unjust—particularly as the adjudicators are appointed officials and are not responsible to the electorate as were their predecessors. I confess an interest as president of the National Grammar Schools Association.

My Lords, I am familiar with the three adjudication decisions made in Kent on 27th July, 12th October and 14th December. The adjudicators are able to consider only those matters put before them. It is up to school admission authorities to have regard to the effect on parents and children of any changes that they want to make after they have published their admission arrangements, particularly if they seek to vary them late in the admissions process. As I said previously, the adjudicators are independent of government and, of course, it is open to those who wish to do so to seek judicial review.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the time of the passing of the 1998 Act many of us were unhappy about the position of the adjudicators because we believed that local decisions were involved which ultimately should be taken by local politicians? Can the Minister tell us to what extent she is happy with the experiment involving independent adjudicators?

My Lords, the adjudicators' purpose is to deal with decisions on local school organisation matters which it has not been possible to resolve locally and to deal with objections and variations to school admission arrangements. We are happy with the process in that it behoves an adjudicator to become involved only when local difficulties arise which cannot be resolved in a local context. We hope that it will be possible for them to resolve matters in the vast majority of cases—if not all cases. The adjudicators are independent people who are brought in only at that point. We believe that the process is working satisfactorily.

My Lords, is there any machinery under which one can apply to the adjudicator to reconsider his decision in the light of evidence that was not before him; in other words, in the light of new evidence that at that time was not available?

My Lords, as I said, those who are unhappy with an adjudicator's decision may seek judicial review. However, adjudicators keep abreast of the situation. In relation to the three adjudicator decisions in Kent, as I understand it, the chief adjudicator visited Kent last week in order to discuss the issues involved.

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but perhaps I may remind the Minister that judicial review is an enormously expensive process. Traditionally the Secretary of State was the final arbiter. He is an elected Member in an elected House and is, we are told, the best guardian of all our destinies. Why has the Secretary of State been deprived of participation in this exercise?

My Lords, there has long been a debate about where such decisions best lie. It is considered that the independent nature of the adjudication system is of benefit to all. The noble Lord is correct that judicial review can be an expensive process. However, it is worth noting that, in the course of the year 2000–01, the adjudicator process cost £442,000 and that, in that year, 107 cases were considered.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us who appoints the independent adjudicators?

My Lords, the noble Baroness has rather caught me with that question. My understanding is that appointments are put forward to the Secretary of State. If I am incorrect on that point, I shall of course write to the noble Baroness.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What studies they have undertaken of the additional resources which British universities will need if the Government's target of getting 50 per cent of young people into higher education by 2010 is to be achieved; and what proportion of those additional resources they contemplate providing from public funds.

My Lords, the Government are considering these issues as part of the spending review, the outcome of which will be made public in the summer. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is consulting the sector on supply and demand for higher education over the coming years.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer and declare an interest as Pro-chancellor of the University of Birmingham. However, perhaps I may observe that her reply was a little light on substance. Does she not believe that it was somewhat feckless of the Government to set a very ambitious target, such as 50 per cent participation, and then to set off towards it on a wing and a prayer? Does she agree with the calculation made by the universities that the achievement of that target requires the creation of 30,000 additional places in our universities every year from now to 2010 and the allocation of £420 million of additional funds to provide the necessary resources?

My Lords, I do not consider the decision to be feckless. Noble Lords will be aware of the higher education working group formed in 1999 to advise on expansion, achievement of participation rates and related funding issues. The forecast of the National Skills Task Force is that by 2010 there will be a growth of 1.73 million jobs in occupations that typically recruit graduates. That constitutes over 80 per cent of overall employment growth. It would be feckless not to take into account the needs of our graduates. As I have said, the Government are well aware and mindful of the issues relating to universities in terms of achieving this target and they form part of the spending review.

My Lords, bearing in mind the already high vacancy rate among senior teachers in higher education, is the Minister confident that we have adequate numbers of such teachers available to meet this new target?

My Lords, I recognise the challenge for universities in relation to the target. The purpose of the target is to set a challenge for Government and universities which they should meet in partnership. I argue that that is also true for schools. Therefore, it is important to see the target as worth pursuing in the context of where we want to go and what we want to achieve. That must be done in collaboration with the universities, taking on board issues such as the ability to provide the teaching and the research that is needed.

My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. I remind the Minister how hard the universities are working in support of the Government's target to widen participation through summer schools, mentoring schemes and so on. Last week's NAO report indicated the lack of resources for such work. Does the Minister agree, at least as an initial measure, that the 5 per cent access premium currently available to universities should be increased to 20 per cent in line with the recommendation of the Education and Skills Select Committee so as to enable universities to maximise their efforts to meet the 50 per cent target?

Yes, my Lords, I am aware that the universities are working hard. We are delighted with the progress that they are making, as is highlighted in the NAO report. As regards the postcode premium, I understand that it is the reimbursement to institutions for the additional resources that they have invested in recruiting and retaining students from lower socio-economic groups. It is not intended as an incentive payment. I understand that HEFC is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the postcode premium. I argue that it is sensible to await those findings before committing more funds through that route.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that already nine out of 10 of those in the lowest two social classes who qualify for entry to universities go on to higher education? If the Government persist with the 50 per cent target they are likely to achieve it only by increasing the proportion of middle class students entering higher education, which will increase the gap between the higher social classes and the lower social classes in universities?

My Lords, it depends how it is done. As I said earlier, it is important that we recognise the need for graduates if we are to fulfil our expectations in terms of jobs. Therefore, I would expect an increase across all socio-economic groups. However, in this House we have long discussed working with those who do not aspire to a university education so that we can persuade them that it is a route that they can follow to their and our greater benefit.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the Government define "higher education"?

My Lords, higher education includes academic learning beyond A-levels. It also includes foundation degrees. We are looking carefully at the role of the e-learning university, if I may describe it as such, and at different routes by which people can go on to higher education.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the £420 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is a tidy sum, it is dwarfed by the £6 billion that universities say will be needed over the forthcoming three years? In view of the experience of the railways and the Tube, it may be as well to take note of that.

My Lords, I am sure that everyone in government takes note of experience from everywhere, and rightly so. I have heard many figures in relation to the needs of universities. I fully recognise, as does my honourable friend Margaret Hodge, who has responsibility for this area, that we have to develop the correct basis upon which we can work in partnership. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who asked the Question, was seeking that kind of assurance. We must all await the outcome in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether she accepts that extending the catchment of universities and other institutions of academic higher education by something like a quarter of a million will have an effect on the academic standards of entry? What does she believe will be the effect? Does she also accept that norm referencing of examination results will mean that the average pass rate will remain the same regardless of the quality of the input? What will that say about overall national standards?

My Lords, I am quite certain that there is no need for any lowering of standards. In relation to A-level results, there is nothing to suggest that standards are being lowered. We have many hard-working young and older people who do extremely well and make their way into our university sector. However, I accept—I believe this is behind the question raised by the noble Lord—that one has to ensure that the experience of young or older people who go to universities is a positive one, and that they can learn because the resources are available. That is the crux of the matter. There must be a partnership between government and universities to ensure that we are able to achieve that.

My Lords, whatever the merits of aiming to secure a particular overall admissions percentage, does the Minister agree that a so-called voucher system, whereby the Government vest their contribution directly to every student who qualifies, could have the advantage of making it possible to top up the voucher's basic value for students from less advantaged backgrounds; further, that it would give the universities more flexibility to recruit both students and academics at realistic market prices?

My Lords, I hope that I have understood the noble Baroness correctly. Does she mean a voucher system for those who are going to universities?

That is correct.

My Lords, all these ideas—and there are many—about how best to organise student financing are being considered by the review. It is important that your Lordships have a chance to impact on this important review. That is why I am delighted to be standing here again discussing higher education today. I hope that those directly involved in the review—I am sure that they will—rule "nothing in and nothing out" until they have made their decisions about what will work best. The words of the noble Baroness will be in Hansard. I am sure that they will be fed into the review.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has tried to speak at least three or four times.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not every young person is well suited to a university education? Will she therefore ensure that the funding for these matters is not wholly confined to universities but remains adequately available for vocational training where appropriate?

Yes, indeed, my Lords. I agree that it is very important that we do not lose sight in our discussions of the need for our young people to be able to pursue the career and the route into employment that suits them best. We ara trying to make sure that those who would benefit from a university education are given the opportunity of one and do not lose out simply because of lack of aspiration, lack of knowledge or lack of opportunity.

My Lords—

My Lords, we must move on now.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they have made to the Flemish regional government to prevent the destruction of the Pilckem Ridge Commonwealth war graves site by the construction of a new section of the A 19 road between Ypres and Furnes.

My Lords, the Government have made no such representations, but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is in discussion with the Belgian authorities. The route of the proposed road will not encroach on any Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries, but the Government recognise the sensitivity of this issue and would resist any proposal which would affect these important sites.

We expect that the Belgian authorities will continue to honour our war dead, both in existing cemeteries and where remains are newly discovered.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He is aware that twice in recent weeks I have visited this unique and extraordinarily unspoilt site at Ypres, which is much the same as it was before the First World War. Does my noble friend appreciate that the principal objection to the proposed road lies in the fact that it would cut the Pilckem Ridge battlefield site in half? It would destroy its attraction as a place of pilgrimage for up to a quarter of a million visitors a year, particularly those visiting the 12 or so Commonwealth war graves cemeteries, seven of which would be only just a few metres from the motorway traffic and thus have their tranquillity destroyed. Is my noble friend prepared to lend his support to the campaign that is now under way to persuade UNESCO to designate the entire battlefield as a world heritage site and so leave in peace the tens of thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers who lie in unmarked graves across the Pilckem Ridge?

My Lords, the proposed extension to the road is a matter for the Belgian authorities. It has been opposed by local interest groups for many years. My noble friend's recent visits have added extra force to that opposition. If the extension were to go ahead and the remains of war dead were unearthed, as occurs as often as 60 times a year from ordinary farming activity and other development in the area, we would expect the Belgian authorities to show the same sensitivity as they have always shown, and that includes treating the remains with due respect.

The Flemish Minister for the Interior, who is responsible for heritage affairs, has informed the Belgian Minister for the Interior of his intention to start procedures for the recognition of war relics as world heritage matters. That, too, is a matter for the Belgian authorities. I cannot comment further at the moment.

The Flemish authorities have confirmed that a final decision on the road extension would be taken only after an environmental impact study had been carried out. That is a significant assurance against concern that the tranquillity of the site as a place of pilgrimage could be destroyed. That is a rather long answer, but I hope that it goes some way to satisfy the House.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is right that, in the first instance, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission should make such representations as it feels necessary? So far as concerns the designation of the UNESCO world heritage site, is the Minister further aware that it would be absolutely right for Ministers in his Government to give support to that?

My Lords, I am aware of that. But first things first. As I told the House a moment ago, the Belgian Minister of the Interior has been told by the Flemish Minister, the regional Minister, that he is to start procedures for the recognition of war relics as world heritage matters. I do not think that that is a bad beginning.

My Lords, what representations are Her Majesty's Government making with regard to the British cemetery at Rosiéres and two other smaller cemeteries which are on the site of the proposed third Paris airport? This also is the site of a much larger French cemetery.

My Lords, it is too early for us to make representations. The French Government have not released any approved plans for a new international airport which might affect historic battlefields to the north of Paris. But, as my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie said in another place last week, if these matters went ahead we would certainly have strong representations to make.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people in Belgium have written to me saying that they also are very concerned about the scale of the roadworks envisaged and, further, that they might turn up all kinds of graves of people who are lying along the ridge in the battlefield where they fell in 1917?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Yes, Her Majesty's Government are very aware of the strong feelings about this matter, not just in Belgium but also in this country and in this House.

My Lords, perhaps I may return briefly to the related and deeply sensitive issue of the French Government's widely reported decision to build a third Paris airport on a Somme battlefield where British war graves are sited, which I raised in a recent Parliamentary Question helpfully answered by my noble friend. Can he now say what response there has been to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's representations to the French Ministry of the Interior about the strong feeling in this country, not least in the ex-service community, on this issue?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He gave me advance notice of his question. Therefore, I was able to check this morning through my department with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission whether it had had any response. It has not yet had any response. When it has, my noble friend will be the first to know.

My Lords, I strongly support the original Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. While taking considerable comfort from the answers given by the Minister, will he take the opportunity of drawing the British Ambassador's attention to these exchanges in this place this afternoon so that he in turn can make the due approaches to the relevant Minister in order to emphasise the very strong feelings held in all parts of this House and in this country, that this vitally important and significant memorial to the dead—to those who sacrificed their lives for the preservation of freedom—should be preserved?

My Lords, I very much take on board what the noble Lord has said. I shall personally make sure that Her Majesty's Ambassador hears about these exchanges.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will continue to support the Arts Council's proposals for a single organisation for arts funding if the proposals do not meet the criteria for a new organisation articulated by the Minister for the Arts in the House of Lords on 2nd July 2001.

My Lords, the Government are closely monitoring the progress of the Arts Council as it implements its plans for a single organisation for arts funding. We remain confident that that will deliver, first, administrative savings throughout the system, allowing increased funding for arts organisations, and, secondly, greater scope in the regions to award that funding in the light of regional priorities. We will continue to monitor progress to make sure that those goals are achieved.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It seems to me, however, that the changes are a fait accompli. It is not just restructuring; it is substantial reorganisation. Is the Minister aware that the Arts Council kindly sent me a copy of the written evidence that it submitted to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on these matters? The council listed 14 areas of improvement that would result from the transfer of regional responsibility to a single, national body with responsibility for arts funding.

Does the Minister agree that the conclusions are interesting? In its conclusions, the council says that it accepts that the current regional structure already delivers some of those benefits but that it is necessary, in order to make the benefits more complete, to have a single organisation to deliver them. Without exception, all the benefits could be delivered more fully and more quickly within a single organisation than through the current 11 organisations in tile regional structure. Where has the Government's commitment to regionalism gone?

My Lords, I should explain that the Arts Council is trying to reduce the level of bureaucracy that has been involved in the funding of the arts for some time. There are 11 organisations and there is quite a lot of second-guessing between the centre and the regional arts boards. We want a more streamlined and less bureaucratic system, but one that is decentralised. It is important to get that point across. What lies behind the proposals is not greater centralisation, but the reverse. We support the Arts Council in bringing its proposals into line with regional government and the Government's commitment to regionalisation by moving from 10 to nine regions. Within those regions it will be possible for decisions to be made that are relevant to a particular region's needs as far as concerns the arts.

My Lords, I declare an interest. I have had a long involvement with the Southern Arts Board, and, at present, I am chairman of the Playhouse in Oxford and of Music at Oxford.

In my years as president of Southern Arts, I learnt that the arts depend ultimately on local involvement. May I ask the Minister three questions?

No!

My Lords, perhaps I may ask two questions. I shall make the three into two. Long statistical experience enables me to do that.

The Arts Council today announced that the regions would become ever more important. How does that square with devolution, which is the present situation? It is being replaced with minor delegation.

My second question is about the proposed staff cuts. How many of those cuts will fall on the central—now monolithic—organisation, as opposed to the regions?

My Lords, I am happy for the noble Lord, Lord Moser, to ask three questions, but I shall answer only two.

Improving regional representation and making sure that the regions have a voice will happen through a completely restructured Arts Council. What is proposed is a new system under which all the chairmen of the regional advisory councils that are being set up under the reorganisation will be members of the Arts Council and will be able to reflect regional interests, needs and arguments at the centre. That is a substantial step forward.

The Government have asked the Arts Council to make sure that its commitment to making savings is fulfilled. The council is expected to save between £8 million and £10 million. The great majority of those savings will fall on the centre.

My Lords, I shall declare an interest as executive director of the National Theatre, which is in receipt of funds from the Arts Council of England. Is the Minister aware that the current funding system in this country does not serve the arts well? There is widespread support among arts organisations for this much needed reinvention of the funding system. The current system is extremely bureaucratic and diffuse.

Does the Minister agree that proper accountability to Parliament for the dispensation of public funds to the arts is likely to be better achieved through one organisation than through 11?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall that too much money is spent on bureaucracy and not enough goes directly to the arts organisations that we want to see benefiting, and that is the purpose behind the change, as I said. There are too many separate funding schemes—currently over 100. That is what I meant when I said that there was a need for greater streamlining.

I am also very aware of the fact that many arts organisations themselves favour the change. An independent survey was undertaken as part of the consultation exercise, and it showed that, of the 74 arts organisations that responded, around two thirds were either positive or neutral about the change and only about a third were negative. That is a reflection of what my noble friend has just said.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.

My Lords, I want to say a brief word, first, to congratulate the noble Lord on this report. I am sure that Members of the House are only too happy, if they are aware of it, to vote him a modest increase in his salary for the work that he does.

The structure of the Offices Committee, as the Chairman of Committees and everyone else will be aware, is somewhat complex, and it takes a long time for its reports to come before your Lordships. A steering group was set up nearly a year ago, and we still have not had an opportunity to debate its work. I understand that a further consideration is now being put in place. When can we expect to see that report and will the House have an opportunity to decide on it, rather than the usual channels, who normally dominate such matters?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for confirming my salary. Actually, it is not technically a matter for the House; the House is merely informed of it, I am pleased to say.

Noble Lords will remember that, just before the Summer Recess, I announced that a further working party had been set up to take on the work that had been done by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and others. That group has completed its investigation, and the report is in final draft form. I hope that it will be completed by tomorrow. It will then be sent to the Offices Committee for discussion at a special meeting on 13th February. I intend to put a copy of the report in the Library at that stage.

On the basis of what the Offices Committee decides to do, the matter will, presumably, come before the House as a report from the Offices Committee and will then be debated.

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

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

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 2, leave out "In"

The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will recall that at Second Reading I explained at length why the Government believe there to be a compelling good cause for maintaining Sections 14B, 21 A and 21 B on the statute book.

The measures contained in the Bill are, l believe, a tailored, proportionate and effective response to English football disorder abroad. They strike the right balance between national and international interests and individual civil liberties. They have undergone a thorough practical and legal examination in the past 18 months. In that regard, I argue that they have not been found wanting.

To lose the measures in August next year would, in our view, send out a negative message to our European partners, undermine English and Welsh anti-hooligan strategy and weaken the powers of the police and courts to act against the thugs. It would also be seen as an encouragement to hooligans to resume the pattern of repeat offending overseas at precisely the time when England is preparing to embark on its Euro 2004 campaign.

In recent weeks, we have all received a timely reminder that the menace of domestic hooliganism has not been eradicated. Of course we must be careful not to draw too many conclusions from events in Cardiff and the copy-cat behaviour elsewhere. There is no evidence of the return of the virulent strain of mass hooliganism which marred our national game in the 1970s and 1980s and tarnished our reputation. However, the shameful scenes in Cardiff reinforced why government, the police and the football authorities must avoid any hint of complacency.

It is equally important that Members of this Chamber and the other place remain ever vigilant. We must ensure that the police and the courts have the powers they need to nip in the bud any resurgence of the hooligan phenomena.

However, the Government recognise that the measures in question are radical and that their impact warrants careful scrutiny. The Government also understand why many Members of the Committee are of the view that the provisions need to be tested for a longer period of time before being firmly enshrined, without time limit, on the statute book.

That is why during Second Reading I announced that the Government were prepared to initiate a further trial period. Amendment No. 2 is the outcome. I am delighted to be able to say today that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have felt able to add their names to it. We therefore have all-party agreement to the approach being adopted.

The amendment seeks to extend the lifespan of the measures in Sections 14B, 21A and 21B for a further five years, whereupon they will either lapse or be renewed by statute. The Government have opted for a five-year period following careful consideration and study of the international football calendar. A five-year period will enable the powers to be in place for the 2006 World Cup in Germany and, importantly, for the 2008 European Championship qualifying matches which will take place while these measures undergo further parliamentary scrutiny.

I want to repeat the commitment I gave at Second Reading regarding the submission to Parliament of further impact reports on how the measures are progressing. Detailed reports will be submitted before the question of renewal is resurrected and at ad hoc periods during the next five years should the need arise.

I am most grateful to both parties for their careful consideration of the proposition I put to them between Second Reading and Committee stage and I am delighted that they have joined the Government today in supporting the amendments. Amendment No. 1 is of course a paving amendment for Amendment No. 2. I hope that all Members of the Committee will support the amendment and I beg to move.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of Amendment No. 1. When I looked at the Marshalled List I realised that although I had been invited to put my name to Amendment No. 2 I had not been invited to put my name to Amendment No. 1 and I began to try to find some squalid back-stage deal between the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. However, the Minister's explanation has put my mind at ease. I want to make clear the fact that we on these Benches support both the paving and substantive amendments.

Perhaps I may take up a couple of minutes of the Committee's time in putting the matter in context. As the Government and Minister know, we on these Benches have been concerned about the civil liberties aspect of the matter. My noble friend Lord Phillips has been firm on it and his absence today does not reflect the fact that he has weakened his concern but that, like me, he accepts that a five-year trial period is sensible and covers crucial periods.

I hope that the football authorities at all levels use that five-year period to try to get to the root of the problem in both domestic and international games. When we previously debated the matter before Christmas it was a particularly emotive time in the wake of the trial of the Leeds players and the focus on football that that produced.

However, the sad fact is that in only a few weeks since Second Reading the situation has become worse rather than better. There have been examples in the domestic game on and off the field of disorder created by players; of disorder at grounds; and a deterioration in the public esteem of football. If the football authorities do not realise that the cycle of violence on the field and the terraces and the misconduct of players away from the game is in grave danger of causing permanent damage to the game, they are even more short-sighted than they appear. Violence, foul language and racism is still too endemic in our football.

As was said at Second Reading, and it bears repetition, leadership from the top is required; that is, from the FA and from the chairmen and their boards. Many board chairmen invest heavily in corporate social responsibility in companies outside football. It is time for football to do likewise. Under Gordon Taylor, the players' union has in many ways done some admirable work at all levels, but I should like to see much more leadership from the union, instilling a sense of responsibility into what is now the extremely privileged group playing football at the highest level.

I turn to the role of the national media. It is no use football correspondents tut-tutting about behaviour when they are gathered around a table in a Sky television studio, but then, when they write for their newspapers, whipping up all kinds of animosity and xenophobia for games both domestic and international. En passant, I wonder what Ladbrokes.com was thinking when it placed the following advert in the London Evening Standard:

"Bet tax free on the dirtiest game since naked mud wrestling"?

The advert referred to the forthcoming Leeds versus Arsenal game. I watched it yesterday and, with no thanks to Ladbrokes, it was not a particularly dirty game. However, the advert underlines the point that many people working in the media and in betting and gaming make a good living from football, but they themselves need to begin to demonstrate a sense of responsibility if we are to succeed in stamping out the extremely damaging phenomena that have grown up in our national game.

I am glad that the Minister has promised to produce regular reports on the effectiveness of the Act. I hope that the Bassam committee set up to look at these matters is kept in being and continues to report and to stimulate action not only in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but also in the Home Office, thus ensuring that we get proper, joined-up government.

I welcome the belated appointment of Professor Derek Fraser as the new independent football commissioner, although it appears that he will head up the sporting equivalent of the Press Complaints Commission. Professor Fraser will need to establish very early on the fact that he has not been appointed simply as a stable-door slammer or as an apologist for what is wrong in football; rather he should ensure that the Independent Football Commission is a regulatory body with teeth. However, early reports are not very promising.

At some stage I should like either the Select Committee in the Commons or even perhaps a Select Committee of this House to look at this matter. Such a committee could bring some of the various bodies into the public gaze and thus make them justify their behaviour. Ultimately, of course, all this boils down to the behaviour of the individual football fan, but so many influences could be brought to bear by those who bear real responsibility. Furthermore, there are opportunities to improve the image of soccer.

It is worth reminding the Committee that the game itself is played with immensely more skill and that the performances of the players are beyond the dreams of only about a decade ago. One of the good things for which we can take credit is that, after the tragedies of Hillsborough and Heysel, we have learnt the lessons and today our stadia are among the best in the world. As I have said, many opportunities are available. In my remarks on Second Reading I said that many good things are being done by individual football teams. Yesterday I found it heart-warming to read that Niall Quinn, the Sunderland player, is giving away to charity the entire proceeds of his testimonial, estimated in the region of £1 million. Perhaps one of our television companies could make that donation even larger by broadcasting the game.

So it is not all bad news, but a strong message needs to be sent out if we are going to make the Act work; that is, the Act cannot be considered as a stand-alone measure, it will need a great deal of thoughtful action taken by many different bodies as well as by individuals with real responsibility in this area. In that respect, we wish the amendment well.

In rising to support the amendment, noble Lords will recall that there was considerable disquiet in another place at the absence of a sunset clause in this Bill. For that reason, we were particularly pleased when on Second Reading the Minister announced his intention to introduce one. Originally we looked for a four-year period, but the live-year period will at least save the run-up to the World Cup from being involved in the passage of legislation through Parliament. That is welcome and we very much support the approach.

I should like to associate my remarks with those made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in particular as regards the upsurge of violence in the domestic game which we have seen since our debate on Second Reading. We are also particularly grateful for the Minister's assurance that regular reports will be produced to chart how the legislation is working and what progress is being made. We have had two excellent reports which provide excellent examples to follow. The amendments have the support of these Benches.

I am disappointed not to be following the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has managed to precede me with libertarian speeches attacking the legislation from the very first time the temporary measure was introduced two years ago.

Like other noble Lords I, too, welcome the Bill and the amendment which has been moved in such a spirit of amity and cross-party unity. I should like in particular to associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The events over recent days in football remind us of just how many undercurrents are at work in the game which could easily break out into something a great deal more serious. Legislation of this kind is necessary, as is a continuing review of the difficulties. It was interesting to note that Mark Steele, the spokesman for the National Criminal Intelligence Service, has gone on the record as saying that football violence is once again on the increase.

In the debate on Second Reading, a number of noble Lords, including myself, referred to the trial and subsequent partial acquittal of the Leeds players. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, received a considerable volume of correspondence for his comments relating to the behaviour of those players. I received only one letter to which I was able to reply in a fairly measured way. I recall commenting in the debate that I hoped that the Football Association would feel that those players were not appropriate representatives of their country and that they would not be chosen to play for England. In that context, I very much welcome the robust attitude demonstrated by Adam Crozier, chief executive of the Football Association, not specifically on these cases—I hope that he will come to that conclusion in due course—but in considering the role of players as models and examples for young people. I applaud also his clear unwillingness to allow players who set a bad example to be given the great privilege of representing their country.

Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I welcome the appointment of Professor Fraser. I think that the body has been set up around 15 months late. The report of the Football Task Force, which noble Lords with longer memories than I will recall reported in December 1999 with the proposal to establish an independent football commission, had something rather more robust in mind than the body which has emerged from that process. However, I wish Professor Fraser well and I look forward to meeting him in a few weeks' time. I hope very much that the commission will be as forthright in its work as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has indicated.

I hope that it will focus on one particular area; that is, implementation of one of the first of the recommendations made by the Football Task Force relating to racism. The situation has improved slightly but still has an awfully long way to go. I recall that during Question Time recently the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, drew attention to the fact that little work seemed to have been done on implementing the recommendation. I hope that the new commission will take it as its main task and seek to stamp out the problem of racism, which lies at the heart of so much of the violence to be found in football. I endorse also the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Bassam should continue with its work. I wish the Bill well and hope that it passes through all its stages.

I did not speak at Second Reading but, before the orgy of all-party agreement on the Bill goes too far, I should say that I did not like the Bill when it was presented. In general, I do not like Bills which mark out certain sections of the population and laws which restrict their civil liberties. This is not too bad, but I would have welcomed the withdrawal and expiry of the Bill rather than its continuing existence.

The fact that there is violence in football is neither here nor there. We have laws on the statute book to deal with that. To single out football fans as we do is not justified. That remains my view, but I have no wish to oppose the amendment.

It seems that we are almost universally agreed. Standing at the Dispatch Box today, I rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is not in his place because I believe, quite firmly, that the case he makes should be well put. He is, quite rightly, a clear advocate of maximising the protection of long fought for and hard won civil liberties, even when they may be the civil liberties of football hooligans who, some may think, should not enjoy such liberties. However, it is important that that argument is heard and is well put. To give the noble Lord, Lord Phillips his due, it is because he and others have put that case that we in government have thought long and hard and concluded that these measures— which are, in their way, draconian—should be reviewed regularly. There should be regular reports to your Lordships' House and another place, and these should be placed in the public domain and become the subject of public debate. The issues deserve to be debated publicly.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made his usual valuable contribution. My only disagreement with the noble Lord is probably that which occurs regularly between Blackpool and Brighton. Blackpool scored a last-minute equaliser in the most recent game, which I greatly regret. The noble Lord did not raise that issue today and therefore I shall not go on at length about it.

As ever, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made some important points. I am particularly drawn to the key question of leadership within the game. It is important that managers, players, commentators and supporters exert leadership and take responsibility. Without that, fans will react in the way they do. We must remind them that that is not only wrong, but that it is counter-productive to the game and destroys its image. It is a beautiful game, and what they do mars and denigrates it and draws it down. We do not want that. After all, the game is one of our most profitable exports and does a great deal for international relations when played in good spirit and good heart. For those reasons, if not many more, it is important that we assert the value and importance of leadership at every level of the game—particularly at club level, where what people say and do obviously matters.

I am pleased that we have support for the Bill from all sides of the Committee. I am also pleased that I have been able to reiterate our commitment to bring forward regular reports. I do not know about the fate and continued existence of the so-called Bassam committee, but the working party is still there. More importantly, its recommendations are being carefully worked through. In saying that, I pay great tribute to David Bohannan, who heads the Home Office unit on football disorder, for the work he has done. I know that that work is being valuably taken forward. Work is being carried out with the clubs, the footballers, the PFA, the Football Association, the Premiership and the Nationwide League and is proceeding at a pace.

I hope that the report's findings will feed into the work of the Independent Football Commission. Although some noble Lords have drawn attention to the delay in appointing a chair for the commission, now that that appointment has been made I expect careful thought to be given to the relationship between football hooliganism and raising standards in the game, and ensuring that we have good, fair, sound and effective regulation. Clearly that is what the game needs.

I was also attracted to the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that a Select Committee should be set up. That is an interesting contribution to the debate and powerfully makes the point that these matters need to be kept in the public gaze to ensure that the debate does not fade away. The game deserves more than that.

I am grateful for all contributions. We have agreement on the amendments and there will be a five-year sunset clause. This is a small but important Bill. Putting this kind of legislation on the statute book for another five years will do much to bring people to consider carefully which way we go in dealing with football hooligans. It is important that we should proceed with the legislation and ensure its continued effectiveness during an extremely busy period—not only in the domestic game but in the international game through three very important international competitions, Euro 2004, the World Cup 2006 and Euro 2008.

I am grateful for all contributions and support. I hope that this legislation, after further consideration here, will speed its way back to another place and receive widespread support and acclaim.

moved Amendment No. 2:

My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I should inform the House that there will be a second Statement today on the detention of British nationals in Guantanamo Bay.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

"Last Thursday at about 10 o'clock in the morning the Nyiragongo volcano near Goma in the DRC erupted. That evening the quantity and rate of lava flow from the volcano increased and further fissures opened up in Goma itself. Much of the town was engulfed and destroyed.

"Early reports suggest that about 100 people have lost their lives, but the death toll may rise further. Hundreds of thousands of people have had to flee their homes. Many crossed to Rwanda in the east to seek shelter in and around the town of Gisenyi. Others fled west in the direction of Sake inside the DRC. Some who were trapped in the town and under threat from the heat and from noxious gases have been helped to safety.

"The volcano continues to erupt and the whole area, including Gisenyi, is subject to continuing earth tremors. There also concerns that gases given off, especially deep in Lake Kivu, may be disturbed and could threaten the lives of civilians who remain in or return to the area.

"In spite of these dangers, many of those displaced are now moving back into Goma itself. Those affected naturally want to find out the extent of the destruction of their homes and property and to see what the chances of returning may be. It also appears that many would rather be in the DRC than seek refuge in Rwanda. Irrespective of where people choose to locate themselves, there is an urgent need for water and sanitation, healthcare, shelter and food. Cholera is a particularly serious threat.

"The response of the international community and of the Rwandan Government has been as follows. The Rwandan Government have already provided assistance to civilians trapped by the lava flows. The UN has redeployed resources from the DRC, and staff from Geneva, to lead the relief operation. MONUC, the UN peacekeeping operation in DRC, has made its logistical capacity available. The International Committee of the Red Cross and major international NGOs based in the area are already working to help those affected. The relief agencies have a presence and capacity on both sides of the Rwanda/DRC border and will be able to offer support where it is most needed—although the challenge will be considerable.

"Appeals have been made to donors to help finance the relief operations. DfID has set aside £2 million to help fund the relief operation through Oxfam, Merlin, a UK emergency medical response agency, and the British Red Cross. We will also respond to the UN appeal. Oxfam has been asked by the UN to take on the role of providing water and sanitation, and a flight with equipment and supplies left RAF Manston on Saturday evening. That was paid for by DfID funding. Merlin will be providing healthcare to those affected. The organisation has considerable experience in the DRC and has a large and experienced team of Congolese professionals already present on the ground. The Red Cross will continue to deliver emergency help in Goma and Gisenyi.

"As the situation changes, DfID will continue to provide support to agencies already engaged on the ground and we stand ready to consider further help if necessary. Earlier this year, the ICRC received £5.5 million from DfID for its programme in DRC, including a significant element for humanitarian assistance.

"These two countries have already suffered a great deal from the conflict that has affected the region. This human catastrophe is another burden for the people of Goma to bear. I am sure the whole House will wish to express its sympathies to all of those who have been affected and who have lost loved ones".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I apologise to her for missing the first minute of her speech. I was informed that the Statement would follow the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the Northern Ireland debate.

Anyone who saw on television the weekend's harrowing scenes cannot fail to have been deeply moved. On behalf of these Benches, l should like to express our condolences to the many families who have lost loved ones. The region around Goma has suffered so many man-made problems that this natural disaster must be particularly hard to bear.

We welcome the £2 million announced in immediate aid to the victims of the volcano. Is that amount for short-term humanitarian aid only? Are the Government planning, in addition, long-term recovery assistance? Can the Minister also confirm the report in the Financial Times that the EU has announced £3.1 million of immediate emergency aid?

If refugees are now returning to Goma, as reports suggest, will the aid be in the right place at the right time? What is being done to provide aid to those who have returned home, given the lack of water and electricity within Goma?

This disaster has taken place in an area controlled by rebels. Past experience shows that where there are competing factions, competing donors and Competing aid agencies, strong co-ordination is needed. Is the Minister satisfied with the present arrangements? What role do the Government of the DRC and the Rwandan Government have in the humanitarian effort?

The volcanic eruption was, to a certain extent, predictable. Can the Minister say whether the new technology for measuring long episodes of seismic activity will be feasible in the long term to improve our response to such disasters? Finally, the Minister mentioned that gasses deep in Lake Kivu could threaten civilians in the area. Has any real measurement of this risk taken place?

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should like to express our concerns, from a distance, at the appalling loss of life and devastation.

It occurs to me that there are three specific responses. There is the immediate response—referred to in the Statement—and the work of aid organisations such as Oxfam. Secondly, there is the long-term response. I should like an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can in terms of the immediate and the long-term response to bring other nations, the European Union and the United Nations on board, so that the matter is taken extremely seriously and it is seen that the developed world has a real part to play.

Thirdly, I wonder whether out of tragedy may come opportunity. We have heard reference to the Government's "Africa concerns". Is this now an opportunity for the Government, having become involved in this specific issue, to see whether something can be done in terms of the politics of the area? Not only is there devastation; there is also the continuing dreadful dispute in the region. Is not this an opportunity to take hold of the politics as well as to respond to the devastation?

My Lords, the £2 million that has been announced is for short-term humanitarian assistance. Noble Lords will wish to know that we do not have a bilateral development programme with the Democratic Republic of the Congo because of the serious conflict in the country. However, we have contributed substantially to the humanitarian situation. The £2 million is part of that.

In terms of long-term recovery, we have a development programme with Rwanda to the tune of some £76 million over three years, 2000–2003. In December last year, the European Union considered approving a national indicative programme for the DRC which in the longer term would lead to bilateral assistance between the European Union and the DRC; but it is clearly dependent on progress being made in the inter-Congolese dialogue and the peace process in the DRC. So in terms of the long term within the DRC, we shall have to sit down and think about the implications of what has happened in Goma and how we might support long-term recovery in the DRC. As I said, currently we do not have a bilateral programme with the DRC.

On co-ordination, noble Lords will be aware that because of the conflict in the DRC different groups control different parts of the country. Therefore, the eastern DRC—the part of the DRC which borders Rwanda where Goma is situated—is controlled by the RCD Goma. We have to work with them and with the international agencies such as the ICRC and the UN. We are keeping a close eye on the situation. The Rwandan Government have been involved with regard to the move of the population from Goma into Rwanda. However, the bulk of the population has moved back to Goma and co-ordination becomes even more important. Goma has been a base for the UN peacekeeping operation. Humanitarian agencies have been based in Goma. That makes our job somewhat simpler.

As to aid being in the right place, we have aid agencies working in Rwanda and Goma so we are able to provide assistance

With regard to gases on Lake Kivu, noble Lords will understand that I am not remotely technical. However, although it is a possibility, the noxious gases about which we are worried have not so far been released. A technical team is keeping an eye on the situation. Noble Lords may also have seen press reports indicating that some of the equipment for monitoring volcanic activity was looted. We have had no confirmation of that.

Finally, on the Government's priority with regard to the new partnership for African development and working towards the G8 action plan for Africa, noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is currently in the DRC—the visit has been long planned—with his colleague, Foreign Minister Vedrine from France. Part of the purpose of that visit is to ensure that French and British policy in the Great Lakes region is properly co-ordinated. Both countries consider the peace process extremely important. What is happening in the DRC has an impact on countries across the region. I am sure that peace and security will be a key element of any plan which is agreed on development issues for the African continent.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two brief questions. First, did we have any early warning about the eruption? Some time ago I worked on early warning systems for famines. Are there any early warning systems for such eruptions? If not, would not they be a good idea?

Secondly, I often hear of ourselves and the EU giving aid to Afghanistan or the DRC. Do other individual members of the EU also give aid? If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps she will write to me.

My Lords, I asked the question on early warning systems. I understand that there has been some monitoring of the volcano in Goma. I am unable to say more about early warning systems but I shall write to my noble friend.

I regret that I did not answer the question on EU aid. The sum of 5 million euros—that may translate to £3.1 million; I have been unable to do the maths in the time—has been made available by the EU. In addition, individual member states can contribute. The Government of Belgium have pledged 1.25 million euros; the Government of France, 300,000 euros; the Government of Germany, 1.3 million euros; and Sweden 467,000 US dollars.

My Lords, first, I declare an interest. One of my nieces is the head of the operations for relief and development in the Congo for the Irish charity, Concern, and may be in Goma today.

Pursuant to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when the Minister provides further information about the seismological resourcing and forecasting can the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government believe that those resources are adequately funded? Can she also clarify whether the volcanic monitoring equipment was looted before or after the eruption?

My Lords, as I said in answer to another question, I understand that the equipment was looted after the eruption but that has not been confirmed. It is an unconfirmed press report.

On the seismological issue, perhaps I may place in the Library of the House a letter answering questions raised by noble Lords.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the aid provided directly from the United Kingdom, which we all applaud, is separate from, and additional to, this country's share of the European Union aid which has also been provided?

My Lords, I can confirm that. We have pledged £2 million. That is in addition to the money which has been pledged by the European Union.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the urgent, immediate and necessary support which is very much welcomed and also referred to recovery. Are we likely to make some contribution towards recovery, and on what basis? I have read reports that the volcano is continuously active and potentially exceedingly damaging. One has to ask the difficult question: is recovery or rebuilding a large town in an area so exposed to that risk the best way to recovery?

My Lords, when we have discussed humanitarian crises in the past, noble Lords have always been concerned about the recovery element. It is very early for us to know what any reconstruction effort may look like. The situation is complicated by the fact that we do not at present have a development assistance programme with the DRC because of the conflict which currently exists within the DRC, with different parts of the country being controlled by different groups. It is, therefore, too soon to say what might happen in Goma and what contribution, if any, the British Government might make.

I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the issue. As soon as we have any further information, I shall share it with your Lordships.

My Lords, the Minister has answered in part my question. However, I should still like to ask it. It is fairly well known, alas, that this is an extremely divided country. How far does the writ of Kinshasa run in Goma? Will it be difficult for the Government to provide support without the risk that it will go straight into the pockets of Ministers in Kinshasa? I hope very much that all aid that we are giving is through international organisations. How will it be possible to discuss with the government at the head of the country the real problems which exist? I should like to know more about how we are dealing with that.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We are channelling our humanitarian effort through NGOs. Of the £1 million that has so far been allocated from the £2 million total, some has gone to the Red Cross, some to Merlin and some to other organisations. The area of the DRC in question is controlled by RCD Goma and not by the Government of the DRC. That makes any discussion of long-term reconstruction difficult.

The Government are making efforts to look at peace and security in the area. We very much want implementation of the Lusaka agreement, which has a number of complementary elements within it, including the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the active involvement of the different groups within the inter-Congolese dialogue process. The next stage of that dialogue process will take place probably at the end of February in South Africa. In addition to that, we use every opportunity to engage in discussions not only with President Kabila and with leaders of the rebel movements, but also with the presidents of Uganda and Rwanda, for instance. Burundi has some interest because of the activities of the Interahamwe. Your Lordships will know that the conflict has also touched Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia.

The situation is extremely complicated. We think that the implementation of the Lusaka agreement is the best way forward and we shall do all we can to promote that.

My Lords, on the question asked by my noble friend Lady Park, is it not important that the Government, when rightly dealing with locally established NGOs in Goma, should also establish good relationships with whoever is in charge in Goma? Is it not the case that two or three years ago, when the latest civil war swept through Bukavu, further south at the southern end of Lake Kivu, a great deal of property was lost by NGOs which failed to take into account the views of their representatives on the ground who had made deals with the general in charge? Is it not important to deal with those who are effectively in charge and not allow ourselves to be deflected by amour propre in Kinshasa?

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right. It is important in terms of co-ordination that we deal with the authorities that exist on the ground. RCD Goma plays that role in Goma at the moment. In addition to talking to its representatives locally about the current situation, we are engaged with them at a broader level on the wider process of inter-Congolese dialogue. We are well aware of the difficulties that exist and the importance of keeping a dialogue process going with all the different groups represented in the DRC. The dialogue process has been difficult at times. At the last phase the dialogue broke down, but we are confident that we shall make progress at the next stage.

It is important to point out that we see some of the tensions currently emerging through the dialogue process as positive signs, because at least the groups are talking. The difficulties are being discussed rather than the groups constantly going back to using violence and arms.

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

If passed, the Bill will extend the maximum length of the period during which legal immunity may be provided in a decommissioning scheme. It does so by amending Section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, under which the power to provide legal immunity would otherwise expire on 27th February this year.

Clause 1(2) initially extends the maximum period during which legal immunity may be provided to end at midnight on 26th February 2003. Under the 1997 Act, the Secretary of State has the power, by order, to extend the relevant period further. Such an extension may not run for more than 12 months after the order is made, or five years after the 1997 Act was passed.

Subsection 1(3)—your Lordships may regard this as important—does not affect the former condition. Each order would still therefore be subject to a maximum duration of 12 months. However, 27th February 2007 is substituted for the original five-year period. The effect of that is to extend the order-making power for a further five years beyond the expiry of the current period.

Clause 1(4) provides for retrospective effect, if necessary. That means that anything done in accordance with a decommissioning scheme, even if this Bill is not enacted by 26th February, would, after enactment, fall within the legal immunity provided. In short, the Bill extends the existing arrangements for one further year, with the possibility of further extensions, subject, of course, to parliamentary approval.

An integral part of the peace process has been to try to convince those who were previously committed to violence, including those brought up in the traditions of physical force republicanism, that there is another, better, way. Almost five years ago, when she introduced the original Bill, Lady Denton, whom we all remember with a good deal of personal respect as well as affection, said that the process of decommissioning would not take place overnight. Of course, she was right.

More recently, the political landscape has changed significantly in Northern Ireland. We now have the democratic institutions; the North-South bodies; stronger British-Irish relations; the principle of consent enshrined in the agreement; the removal of the Republic's historic territorial claim to Northern Ireland, formerly in Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution; the incorporation of human rights in all aspects of life by the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the establishment of the commission in Northern Ireland; the advancement of equal opportunities; and a new start in policing and criminal justice, on which we are about to embark.

In the past six months, we have seen formal cross-community support for policing; successful recruitment to the new police service from both traditions; further progress towards the normalisation of security arrangements; the publication of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and draft implementation plan; and the act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. As we have all agreed on numerous previous occasions, there is a long way to go, but substantial progress has been made.

We have been reminded again in the past fortnight that the conflict is plainly not yet over. We see this amendment to the law as a continuing opportunity to further that progress. We need the legislation to go beyond February, when legislative cover expires. It is not realistic to expect all arms from all organisations to be handed in by the end of next month. We must not allow the potential that we now have to make further progress to be thrown away because we have arrived at a deadline that, in the nature of things, was arbitrary.

We need to be realistic. We have seen the act of decommissioning. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in paying tribute to General de Chastelain and his colleagues in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. We are entitled to look to them as persons of integrity, diligence, skill and perseverance.

We look to the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. The pursuit of that objective must continue. We are providing a legal framework. That will remove an obstacle—not every obstacle—to decommissioning. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for describing the Bill so clearly. Before continuing, however, I should like to express our alarm that Jane Kennedy was very nearly seriously hurt last week. Our thoughts are with her good fortune.

Let us consider for a moment where I think we are in the Northern Ireland peace process as a whole. Clearly, as the noble and learned Lord has said, compared with a few years ago, there is a great deal in Northern Ireland about which we can be positive and from which we can take heart. After the protracted crisis of last summer and early autumn—precipitated by Mr Trimble's totally understandable decision to resign—there has been significant progress in the implementation of the Belfast agreement.

Furthermore, the executive and the Assembly, although not perfect in every respect, are by common consent bedding down well and delivering sound local administration for the people of Northern Ireland. What we have now is certainly an improvement on direct rule and is far more accountable to local needs.

Moreover, the police service is making the transition, however painful, from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Although there remain some serious difficulties over morale and operational effectiveness—as I made my views on this subject heard in your Lordships' House last week, I shall leave it there—the new policing board has made a positive start, albeit without Sinn Fein, especially in its unanimous approval of a new cap badge which includes, I am pleased to say, the Crown. Other aspects of the agreement are also being taken forward.

I have no doubt that life is immeasurably better for a great many people in Northern Ireland as a result of the agreement. Yet for all that has been achieved in recent years, two scars in particular continue to blot the Northern Ireland landscape. The first is the level of paramilitary violence and gangsterism, most notably in North Belfast, which last week saw the obscene murder of a young Roman Catholic postman. The second is the failure of the main paramilitary organisations to make more—in most cases, any—progress on decommissioning their illegally held arms and explosives.

The blunt truth is that while literally every other aspect of the agreement has been—or is well on the way to being—implemented, decommissioning lags way behind the rest. That in itself is one of the principal reasons for the dangerous loss of confidence in the agreement across the wider Unionist community. There have been years of concessions by Unionists, some very painful, but there is still no sign of the end to the armed struggle.

Of course we welcome the first act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA last October. We also accept the judgment of General de Chastelain that it was, in the words of his report, "significant", and that, again as his report says,

"The material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives".

I do not underestimate the importance of that act either for the process as a whole or for the republican movement in particular. Anyone who knows the first thing about republicans will understand that it represented a huge psychological hurdle for them. We all hope that it marks the beginning of a clear transition to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.

We should not blind ourselves to the reality of what brought about that act at this particular juncture. There was the undoubted pressure caused by Mr Trimble's resignation. There was also the revelation about suspected IRA links with Cuba and FARC terrorists in Colombia. There was also, of course, the renewed pressure placed on republicans by the United States administration following not only those events but the tragic events of 11th September.

The crucial point now, however, is that whatever brought it about, it must continue. As the US envoy, Richard Haas, put it in an admirable speech in New York, on 9th January,

"decommissioning must he a process, not a single event".

On the day when Sinn Fein Members take up residence in this Palace, with their special status granted by the Government, they should be reminded again of their obligations, and they should get on and fulfil them. That means a process that leads to what is clearly stated in the Belfast agreement as

"the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".

In other words, there must be a cut-off point at which General de Chastelain—whose independence and integrity in these matters we fully respect—can say that to his satisfaction decommissioning has been completed.

I also stress that all paramilitary organisations must disarm, as our focus—not least because Sinn Fein Ministers are in the Executive—is often concentrated on the IRA. We should never forget that so-called loyalists also have an obligation to get rid of their illegal weapons. The threat from loyalist organisations, especially the UDA and its sub-contractors the UFF, remains very high. In the past three years, three quarters of all paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland have been committed by loyalists. Like their republican counterparts, they continue to engage in the most savage beatings, mutilations and shootings. They are involved in all kinds of Mafia-style gangsterism. In this context, it is right to remind loyalist political leaders that they too have a particular responsibility to use their influence to defuse some of the tensions that currently exist and to help bring about loyalist decommissioning.

Decommissioning should of course have been completed, under the terms of the agreement, within two years of the referendum, by 23rd May 2000. Had that happened, this Bill would not have been necessary. We are where we are because of the Government's total ineptitude in dealing with Sinn Fein/IRA over this matter so far; their continuing policy of appeasement; and, more recently, their double standards in relation to world terrorism. If a terrorist shoots a British or an American soldier in Afghanistan, he is likely to forfeit his life, but those who have done the same in Northern Ireland receive an amnesty or have been released from gaol. In return for what? It has certainly not been in return for decommissioning.

Furthermore, as I said, the Prime Minister's double standards for Westminster are being demonstrated today. He has played the world stage in good company, but his Government have totally failed to take on the challenges of terrorism at home. The regrettable truth is that the May 2000 deadline came and went without the decommissioning of a single bullet or ounce of Semtex; as I pointed out, decommissioning began only three months ago. The Government have therefore been forced to introduce this Bill to extend for a further five years the decommissioning regime, including the amnesty period, in the 1997 Act. It is here that we have a problem.

Surely the message that should be coming from the Government now is that decommissioning must take place as a matter of urgency. But that is not what the Bill as drafted does. It allows the paramilitaries the luxury of another five years in which to consider decommissioning their illegal weapons. In the opinion of the Opposition and, I know, of very many people in Northern Ireland, that is just too long. Surely in these circumstances it would have been more sensible, and would have at least conveyed a sense of urgency and importance on the part of the Government, to extend the legislation for a period that falls within the life of this Government.

My Lords, when the IRA announced a "cessation of military operations"—that was the phrase it used—I chanced to be in Downing Street, and I publicly welcomed the statement. I expressed the hope that those who had influence with terrorists of all shades would use that influence to persuade all of them to take the subsequent steps to the creation of an unconditional and permanent peace.

Before that decision was announced, Mr John Major and Mr Albert Reynolds were already engaged in negotiations. They subsequently intensified those discussions, to which I was not exactly an outsider, and they set out very clearly the path for any and all terrorists to follow.

The IRA leadership sought and obtained clarification from Her Majesty's Government on the proposals set out in the Major-Reynolds statement. That clarification phase was handled with great skill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In due course, they had talks with the IRA and the civil servants, later with Northern Ireland Ministers and eventually with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.

The key to understanding the process appeared in a report of Senator Mitchell's commission in these words:

"Everyone with whom we spoke"—

that is, the commission—

"agreed in principle, with the need for decommissioning".

The report added,

"The main principle of total disarmament [was agreed by]… all paramilitary organisations".

I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that all terrorists of all shades have not moved to any significant extent in that direction of disarmament.

The language used in all such documents insisted upon a "progression" of decommissioning, in line with the Belfast agreement. It must be said that most of us believed that that foundation would be preserved. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, and as was reflected by the Leader of the House, it was not a question of a one-off stunt; it was to be a progression step by step, and step by step as between various paramilitary bodies.

When it became clear that that was a false assumption on our part, it was naturally expected that the sensible reaction of both governments would be a stoppage of the conveyor belt of concessions. In such circumstances a step-by-step process was, and would be, expected and understood. Now, two years on, the conveyor belt continues to deliver to one side only. The other side—the greater number of decent citizens, Protestant and Roman Catholic—now know that they have been conned. Their representatives have been hung out to dry, helplessly awaiting their inevitable fate when the assembly elections occur next year. That is something which should give us all food for thought.

Support for the representatives of the greater number of people of all shades plunges with every government concession to terrorists and fellow travellers of all shades. Apart from one derisory gesture, real decommissioning is no nearer than on the day the Belfast agreement was signed. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland fears that Ulster will become a cold house for those who longed for peace and harmony within a law-abiding community?

It is true that the Secretary of State has not publicly supported the recently declared aim of the Irish Foreign Minister of,

"removing all traces of Britishness from Northern Ireland"—

a very large cat to be let out of the bag! But of course Mr Cowan, the Irish Foreign Minister who used those words, is, with our Secretary of State, a form of joint governor. So we can hardly expect one of Her Majesty's Ministers to contradict his Irish partner. Is it any wonder that the "cold house" objective is now becoming a reality for many people? I refer to the greater number who have been let down and feel betrayed. That betrayal is made the more real by the interpretation of this sordid little Bill indicating that the Government are prepared to put off decommissioning—not for yet another 12 months, but for five whole years.

Lest my earlier references to the Irish Government should appear somewhat harsh, perhaps in fairness I may quote a statement made by Mr Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, at the weekend. He had been asked to comment on the possibility of co-operation with Sinn Fein candidates should they be elected later this year. He said,

"Sinn Fein has to resolve its relationship with the IRA before becoming part of a sovereign Irish government, exercising collective responsibility for justice and defence".

Mr Ahern continued,

"Even if the IRA were disbanded, all weapons put beyond use and there was a complete end to vigilantism and punishment attacks, North and South, and full support given to the police service of Northern Ireland, there would he insufficient time to establish confidence for government participation to be realistic".

It is passing strange that the Irish Government should be so forthright when Her Majesty's Government have already installed Sinn Fein in Cabinet in another part of the United Kingdom and have today installed Sinn Fein in the Palace of Westminster itself.

My Lords, the report of the International Committee on Arms Decommissioning of 1996 said unequivocally that the decommissioning process should result in the complete destruction of the armaments, whether by handing them in for destruction or by destruction sur place in the presence of the commission. It was to have legal and technical advice available to receive and audit armaments and to observe and verify the decommissioning process, and to be able to call on the resources and relevant technical expertise of the British and Irish armies.

In its report of July 1999 the commission published an annex setting out its mandate which stated that in both the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997 (UK) and the Decommissioning Act 1997 (Ireland) it was specified that.

"Methods and manners (schemes) to be used for decommissioning require the destruction of the arms being decommissioned",

adding that,

"at the request of the two governments the Canadian Armed Forces and the US Army have made available to the Commission on an as-required basis two officers who are experts on arms, ammunition and explosive ordnance disposal. These two officers have taken part in refresher training with the Defence Forces in both jurisdictions and they are called upon to join the Commission when needed".

The commission also reported that it had consulted with all the parties to the Belfast agreement, which included Sinn Fein/IRA, to see which of the two methods of decommissioning would be acceptable to the paramilitary groups, and each group was asked to nominate a representative or point of contact. In September Martin McGuinness was nominated to be the point of contact with the IRA.

The commission had already set up operations centres in Belfast and Dublin, consulted experts in forensic and destruction techniques, the disposal of residues etc., and explored the acquisition of commercial sources for vehicles and equipment. Its scheme was in place by June 1998. It actually hoped, at that stage, to carry out decommissioning by 22nd May 2000 (already an extension from February 1999 when the amnesty period had ended). Its report, both then and in the next two years, reflected however a process of effortless political manipulation of the commission by the IRA.

The February 2000 report quoted the IRA as "engaging frankly and helpfully", and described as "valuable progress" and "particularly significant" the assertion made to them by Mr McGuinness that,

"the IRA will consider how to put arms and explosives beyond use in the context of the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict"—

IRA-speak for the destruction of the RUC and the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from a part of the UK.

The commission welcomed the IRA's commitment to sustain and enhance its contribution to a durable peace—and much more of the same, and it reports that,

"The representatives indicated to us today the context in which the IRA will initiate a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use in a manner to ensure maximum public confidence".

Already the IRA had moved the whole process to their agenda.

In May 2000 three things happened. First, the British and Irish Governments asked the commission to consider with the paramilitary groups,

"further proposals for decommissioning schemes beyond the two approved by them".

Those two, in both Acts, required the complete destruction of arms and explosives. The commission was anxious to explore the IRA's proposals to put arms beyond use—a rather different thing. Secondly, the IRA, as the then Secretary of State reported on 8th May, committed itself to

"a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use",

and to resume contact with the commission, which had been broken.

Thirdly, the IRA agreed to a confidence-building measure to confirm that its arms remained secure. Independent inspectors were to scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the commission and that would be an ongoing process with regular inspections. There have been three such inspections, the last in May last year, when the inspectors said, as they had done in previous reports, that

"the arms dumps held a substantial amount of military material including explosives and related equipment as well as weapons and other material. We confirm that the arms dumps have not been tampered with and that they have remained secure".

I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord first, whether the Government's request to the commission to consider further decommissioning schemes not requiring total destruction of the arms, as the legislation did, had any connection with the IRA's brilliant new idea for putting arms beyond use rather than destroying them in that same month. I should like also to know whether when the two distinguished inspectors went to inspect the dump they were accompanied by the trained military Canadian and US advisers who were provided for in the Act, and if not, why not? It was clearly originally considered to be a necessary part of any effective operation.

Moving to the IRA's next manipulation of the decommissioning process, we come to its offer of August 2001. This was around the time when, at an awkward moment for it, the PIRA connection with FARC in Colombia, and Sinn Fein/IRA's quasi-diplomatic link with Cuba (denied by Sinn Fein, but unfortunately confirmed by the Cuban Government) had both become public. The commission reported that the IRA had proposed a method—yet another one—for putting IRA arms completely and verifiably beyond use. The commission believed it would do so, and that it met the commission's remit in accordance with the Government's scheme and regulation. By the time this allegedly historic event, announced as such on 24th October last year by a euphoric Secretary of State, who believed it

"took the peace process onto a new political level"

took place, the events of 11th September had made the IRA, because of its recently revealed active collaboration with terrorists near home, unpopular even with Irish Americans, most of whom are Americans first. We were told that the commission had "witnessed" an event which it regarded as significant, in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms beyond use. The material in question had included arms, ammunition and explosives. It added that it was

"satisfied that it would not further the process of putting arms beyond use were we to provide further details of this event".

When the Secretary of State announced this "historic move"—I do not deny its relative significance for the IRA—he also promised without delay to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, barely a year old, to

"reflect more fully the Patten recommendations"

(that is, to diminish if not destroy the Special Branch and weaken the police yet further) and

"in response to yesterday's developments undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalization—reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland as the security situation improves".

All this while Sinn Fein/IRA has continued to refuse to recognise the new police service, has tightened through the paramilitaries its brutal grip of its own communities, and has openly threatened recruits to the new police force. Work on the demolition of observation towers was, according to the Secretary of State, to begin on that very day in October, and while the Government have promised further amnesties for men on the run by March this year, families have continued to be exiled from their own country.

Although I have the greatest respect for the commission and I recognise that the Government have had little choice but to continue with this long and deplorable process, the IRA has taken the two governments for a ride over decommissioning since the beginning. It has used each report of the commission to press further its own agenda of forcing ever more concessions on troop levels, policing and security—the IRA context. It has moved the whole process from the destruction of arms to putting them beyond use, but most of all it has gained both time and massive further concessions (and by its failure to act has, incidentally, given the loyalists an excuse not to act either).

In the hope of getting some movement the governments have steadily weakened and diluted the whole process to a so-called "inspection of arms" which, unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, was conducted with none of the safeguards of military expertise which the Act specially provided. The process is hailed as confidence building, yet no one outside the commission is allowed to know how many arms or what explosives have been not destroyed but put beyond use.

The Government never stop talking about transparency. What could be more opaque than an event known only to the IRA and the commission, despite the fact that it is a matter of deep and proper public concern, and has been hailed as confidence building? Why does the commission think that it would not further the process of putting arms beyond use

"to provide details of this event"?

If it was a significant quantity, that could really have encouraged the unfortunate people of Northern Ireland and could have given the IRA some credibility in the peace process. If it was not, then why should the IRA be getting yet more concessions with such indecent and craven haste to placate it? The IRA was for the first time on the run—partly because of outside events—and still it was allowed to dictate the agenda, and I strongly suspect that after all this the mountain has brought forth another mouse.

The IRA has managed throughout the whole decommissioning saga to manipulate it to its own advantage and it seems clear that nothing will stop the Government from giving it more concessions whenever it asks for them in return for meaningless inspections or processes conducted in the dark. Both governments ought at least to admit to the people of Northern Ireland that the whole process of decommissioning has proved to be largely a series of victories for the IRA. It matters, not just because of the arms—we all know the IRA can go out and buy more when it needs them (and has done so in the last four years)—but because the people who believed things were really going to change see that, just as before, the IRA calls the tune.

It will be pointless to resist the Government's intention to extend the amnesty, if necessary up to 2007, and clear that the IRA will continue to use the process to secure even more of its objectives. Time is on its side and it is now playing the political card—including the ballot—with the guns behind its back. Can the noble and learned Lord at least assure us that there will be no more concessions on security, the police, the military presence or anything else on the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda and that now we have, for the first time, a US Government who perceive the threat we should require Sinn Fein/IRA to end the violence against its own community, a point which I am glad to say the Secretary of State recognised in his statement in October, but I want to see some action? Of course the loyalists are just as bad, but that does not alter the Government's duty to refuse to promote the IRA's agenda. Incidentally, an invitation to Downing Street today to celebrate Sinn Fein/IRA's victory in winning the undeserved right to enter this House does not send a message of principle but rather of appeasement.

My Lords, of course we all wish that decommissioning had been completed by now. That was the fervent hope of everyone in this House and, indeed, of people in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the speeches today, with the exception of that of my noble friend on the Front Bench, have been extremely negative and have not given a balanced picture of what has happened in Northern Ireland.

We all know that progress in Northern Ireland is slow and has tended to be two steps forward and one and a half steps back. But we have made progress. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, portrayed such a negative impression of events, as did the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux. I do not think that it is fair or proper to say that the Government have appeased Sinn Fein or the IRA. The peace process demanded give and take on all sides. Of course, some concessions were made to one side, but some were also made to the other side. In the end I believe that we achieved a balanced package.

I accept that decommissioning has been far too slow and should have finished by now. However, we are where we are and it is not right to say that the Government's approach has been flawed or that the Government have helped only one side.

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said that the Government installed Sinn Fein in government. That would suggest that there had been no elections in Northern Ireland and no agreed process whereby parties were given positions in the Executive based on the number of seats they had obtained in the Assembly. This debate has not had the balance that I would have wished.

There are, of course, strong negatives in Northern Ireland: the situation in north Belfast is—and has been—horrendous. There are unacceptable levels of paramilitary violence. People are being forced out of their homes, and there was the tragic murder of the postman. Those are all serious blots on Northern Ireland. However, there is a more positive side. Overall, the level of violence is lower. The number of murders, particularly of the security forces and of civilians through the troubles, is down. There is a ceasefire.

My Lords, I saw the statistics last week. The number of murders for the 11 months ending 25th November last year was the second highest ever recorded since the statistics that I read were started.

My Lords, I shall have to go back to the figures; I do not have them to hand. However, I was looking at them earlier and I do not think that we can dispute the fact that, taking the run of years since the Good Friday agreement, the level of murders and violence has gone down. However, that level is still too high. Any single murder and any act of grotesque violence is unacceptable; we all agree on that. I very much sympathise with the Government's efforts to get the level down. However, people in Northern Ireland also have to do things themselves. I refer to the unacceptable levels of violence in north Belfast in particular.

I return to decommissioning. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, seems not to accept the concept of arms being put beyond use. She suggested that there was no substance—I hope that I state her argument accurately—in that claim and she wanted arms handed over publicly to the decommissioning body, the Government or the police. I am satisfied that when General de Chastelain says that arms have been put beyond use, he means just that. He means that those arms can no longer be used by anyone. Surely that is good enough. If the arms cannot be used, that is just as good as if they had been handed over in a ceremony in front of the television cameras.

My Lords, when the issue was considered by the two governments, it was made absolutely clear that total destruction was required. My point was simply that we have moved from that position to a far more nebulous concept and that proof is far more difficult.

My Lords, obviously none of us was present to see the arms being put beyond use. However, I have confidence in the integrity of General de Chastelain. I have met him—I do not know whether the noble Baroness has—and I know that he is a man of integrity and trustworthiness. If he vouches for the fact that the arms have been put beyond use, I am satisfied that those arms could not be used by anyone, no matter how hard they tried. If they have been concreted in in such a way that they cannot be got out again, that, frankly, is good enough for me. If there is a difference between that process and what appears in earlier legislation, I suggest that that is a technical distinction and that the substantial point is that arms have been put beyond use. I should like all arms to he put beyond use in the same way.

The IRA made an important step, although it was not the final step. Before that, there was a limited amount of decommissioning by the LVF, which seems to have stopped the process. We want all arms to be put beyond use so that they can never be used again. That is the reason for the Bill. It would demonstrate a total commitment to democratic politics and the peace process. That is what we want—it is surely the desired aim. How to get it is, I agree, very difficult.

I wish that some positive loyalist decommissioning was currently taking place. That can come only with clear political leadership from local people on the spot. The Government can encourage, advise and provide the context, but in the end alternative political leadership is required. I fear that on the loyalist side, with the exception of the PUP—I believe that it is making efforts—there is no such political leadership and no effort to stem the level of violence in north Belfast in an attempt to achieve decommissioning. That is what matters. The loyalists need to reciprocate the step that has been taken by the IRA. That does not mean that the IRA should stop; it must go on decommissioning until all arms are decommissioned.

My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay.

"A team of British officials visited Guantanamo from 17th January to 20th January and saw the three British detainees. We received a full report this morning.

"The team asked the detainees questions about their identity, nationality and welfare.

"Our officials' report confirms that the three are British and that they are all in good physical health. During lengthy discussions they spoke without inhibitions. None complained of any ill treatment. None said they had any medical condition requiring treatment. Medical facilities are available in the compound.

"All three asked for messages to be passed back to their next of kin, which we have undertaken to do. The identity of one of the men, Feroz Abbasi, is already in the public domain. It is not our intention to reveal the identities of the other men, pending contact with their families.

"The International Committee of the Red Cross now has a permanent presence at Guantanamo Bay and ICRC officials have access to detainees at any time. The detainees are free to conduct religious observances. They have prayer mats and calls to prayers are broadcast over the Camp X-Ray PA system. They are given as much drinking water as they want, three meals a day and food that complies with their religious practice if they wish it. During the visit, our officials received full co-operation from the camp's commander, who said that the more lurid allegations about torture and sensory deprivation are completely false. The recent pictures of detainees featured in the media were taken on arrival at the base where security needs are paramount.

"Our officials report that as the numbers grow at the base there will be a need for more scope for exercise and every effort is made to provide all inmates who want one with a copy of the Koran.

"The conditions at Guantanamo Bay have attracted a great deal of parliamentary and media criticism. On the basis of the detailed report I have seen today, I am satisfied that these accusations were premature and that the detainees are being treated in line with international humanitarian norms in conditions where security is paramount.

"We are fully satisfied with the co-operation we have had from the United States authorities on this issue. Both we and the Americans are well aware that we will be judged by a higher standard than the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. On the basis of the report I have seen today, I can confirm that these standards are being met".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement from the Minister in the other place. It is her second Statement this afternoon—heavy duties for her. We very much appreciate her efforts.

The Statement was reassuring in a number of senses. The report from the British officials makes it clear that, as the Statement pointed out, the detainees are in good physical health. That is reassuring when one has previously seen those undeniably disturbing pictures in the Sunday press, which at first glance seemed to portray a rather hideous regime. If those pictures were not really a true depiction of the way in which those people are being held, I am slightly left wondering why a US Navy photographer took them and why they were circulated world-wide. I do not understand the motive for doing that. They certainly gave the situation a very ugly appearance.

It is reassuring that there is satisfaction that those people are being treated humanely. They are undoubtedly extremely dangerous people. Although they have not been properly tried, it is probable that charges of committing the most unspeakable atrocities will be laid against them. I am quite sure that the treatment that they are now receiving is infinitely better than anything they ever meted out to the people whom they may well have slaughtered. However, that remains to be seen.

When making the Statement in another place, the Minister said that he was satisfied that the accusations that have been circulating were "premature". I believe that "premature" is a slightly odd word to use in that context. It implies—and would do so grammatically—that, later on, the accusations might be justified. That leads one to express the hope that that is not what is meant in the Statement; and also to express the hope that there will be a continuing, open communication with our officials through the Red Cross, or perhaps directly with our officials, about what is unfolding and happening at the base, and the nature of the plans for putting these individuals on trial or bringing them to justice in one way or another.

I remain puzzled, as, I suspect, do many noble Lords, as to the exact status of these people. As is clearly recognised, they are extremely dangerous people. They would attack their warders and their keepers in a most dangerous way. But are they prisoners of war, or not? If they are, can the Minister say whether they are receiving the required treatment under the Geneva Convention? Alternatively, if they are just potential criminals and murderers—perhaps, for all we know, mass murderers—when will charges be brought forward? When will we know about the nature of those charges?

In our dialogue with the American authorities, which I hope will be both constructive and supportive, it is important for us to indicate to them that it would help their case, the world case, and the case of the grand coalition of which we are members, if they would make clear how matters will be handled and what the status of these people will be. Finally, will the three individuals who have been identified as UK nationals be returned—as it has been suggested that some will be returned—to the countries of their nationality—for any charges to be brought? Can the Minister say whether any indication has been forthcoming from the American authorities on the matter?

However, overall, one is ready to invest hope that the statement from the commander at the camp is right; namely, that the allegations were "lurid", and that the cries about torture were false. Let us hope that that is absolutely right. I assume that it is; indeed, I do not question it. But we shall need to keep a very close watching arrangement on what is going on at the base so that the world can continue to be reassured, and we can continue to be a good and friendly supporter of our American allies by whose side we have stood so clearly and so strongly thus far.

My Lords, I, too, should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement. While the team were in Guantanamo Bay last week, I should tell the Minister that I was in Washington attending a seminar of the American Bar Association on these topics. I also had discussions with senior officials of the Administration. When considering the status of these detainees, I hope that the Government will not grant to them the status of "prisoners of war". A terrorist is a criminal; he is a criminal who has no legitimate target, whether civil or military. To allow such a person to be labelled as a "prisoner of war" suggests, for example, that an attack on the Pentagon would be a legitimate military target. That cannot possibly be allowed.

This country has entered into many anti-terrorist conventions. We have made it clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with many nations around the world against terrorism. The IRA terrorists and the loyalists in Northern Ireland were always anxious to be treated as prisoners of war: they wanted to be named in that way. They took steps to act as though they were prisoners of war. They would give no more than their names; and they would refuse to be interrogated; they would not give evidence at trial. They would accept their punishment, go to prison and set up blocks within the Maze Prison with a chain of command as though they were prisoners of war. Finally, they would wait for hostilities to cease whereupon they would be released, as, I regret to say, has now happened. We should not allow the label, or the privileges, of a "prisoner of war" to Al'Qaeda and Taliban detainees.

I have one question for the Government. Following my discussions last week, it is an issue that I shall continue to pursue. Can the Minister say whether the Government will request the extradition of British nationals suspected of terrorism from wherever they may be in the world—whether in Afghanistan or in Guantanamo Bay—to this country for open trial by the procedures that we have built over 30 years to deal with terrorism, and under the Terrorism Act 2000 passed by this Parliament, so that we play our part by standing next to our American allies and shouldering the burden of dealing with terrorism in the world?

My Lords, the main issue raised by both noble Lords related to the status of the detainees, and whether or not they are considered to be prisoners of war. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said very clearly that he thought that they should not be. Whether or not an individual is classed as a prisoner of war depends on the facts of each case. It is for the detaining power—in this instance, the United States—to take a view. We do not know all the facts and, therefore, cannot form a view about individual cases. We have stressed that the detainees are to be treated humanely, and in accordance with international law. The Americans have reassured us that that will be the case. Against that background, I am unable to say anything further to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as regards his specific question on the issue of extradition. As I have said, we are not yet in a position to form a view about individual cases.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked particularly about the current situation. I believe he said that he found the Statement reassuring in that respect. I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. As I said when repeating the Statement, the British detainees had no complaints. Our officials saw no signs of physical maltreatment or unnecessary force. I understand that certain security and health measures were taken during the transfer of the detainees to Guantanamo Bay, such as the wearing of ear-muffs and masks. However, these were removed once the detainees were processed on arrival at the base. They are high security prisoners who, in some cases, have vowed to kill their captors. Therefore, it is understandable that security measures are clearly necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also asked when charges would be brought and what their nature would be. Again, we are waiting to receive clarification of the status, and I am unable to tell the noble Lord when we will have this information. However, as soon as the information is to hand, we shall share it with Parliament.

My Lords, I am obviously in a minority on the issue. I believe that the treatment of these people by the Americans is deeply wrong. Either they are prisoners of war and should be treated under the Geneva Convention, or they have committed a crime and should be treated as criminals through the due process of law. As far as I can gather, they have just been locked up and taken to a place that is deliberately held to be outside American criminal jurisdiction. They have no access to lawyers, to the Red Cross, or to the rules of law and justice.

I know and accept that an awful lot of them are disgusting toads of the worst order who would slit my throat and the throat of anyone else in this House. That is not the point. The Americans and, I hope, ourselves stand for a higher order. Therefore, we must do things by the book as we did in Northern Ireland. We hope always to act in that way. The Americans are letting themselves down by the way in which it appears they are treating these people neither as criminals nor as prisoners of war. Therefore, to mix metaphors, they are neither fish nor fowl nor fair red herring. That makes me, as a liberal constitutionalist with a Whig background, very unhappy.

My Lords, in the Statement I made it absolutely clear that we shall be judged by a higher standard than the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. We are absolutely clear that the detainees must be treated humanely and in accordance with international law. We have been given assurances by the Americans on the issue of humane treatment. I believe that, when I answered questions previously, I explained that we do not know all the facts. At this point we cannot form a view about individual cases. We are in constant contact with the Americans over the next steps, and decisions on those steps will depend on each individual case.

However, I believe that the important point is that the detainees are treated in a humane way and in accordance with international law. We have received assurances to that effect. The ICRC is currently in Guantanamo Bay and has access to the detainees day and night.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the transcript of the Statement was not available in the Printed Paper Office after she sat down? That meant that those of us who were wrong-footed by the unexpected brevity of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, cannot fully take part in this discussion. Therefore, I simply ask the Minister to clarify what she said in reply to my noble friend Lord Onslow.

There are only two possibilities: either the detainees are prisoners of war, as some of them may be because they were captured in battle; or they are criminals who are terrorists, as some of them may be because they have committed terrorist crimes all over the world. Therefore, they must be treated as one or the other. However, at present it appears that those who are terrorists will be given the legal recourse appropriate for prisoners of war if, as we read in the press, it is correct that they will be tried by a military tribunal and not by a court. I believe that that is what worries my noble friend and it worries me, too.

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord about the transcript of the Statement. In fact, I received my own copy rather late.

With regard to clarifying what is happening, I believe that I have now said twice that we do not know all the facts and, therefore, cannot form a view on individual cases. The process is ongoing and we shall keep in constant contact with the Americans in relation to what happens next.

Earlier I was asked about legal representation. Clearly if any of the detainees face prosecution, then, under international norms, they should be entitled to legal representation. We know that. But at present decisions have not been made about the charges that the detainees might face. Therefore, it is our view that we must have all the facts at our disposal before making decisions about the next steps. That is why we are keeping in constant contact with the Americans. A decision on whether or not there will be military tribunals is for the Americans as the detaining power. Again, we have asked for full information on the way that such tribunals might work.

My Lords, virtually all of us will have been very pleased to hear the noble Baroness's reassurances. However, she confined her report to the British detainees. Since Britain has given more support to the United States action in Afghanistan than almost any other country, is it not likely that we shall be held responsible by the world at large, and in particular by the Islamic world, for anything that happens to the detainees? Therefore, we should be concerned about the well-being of all the detainees.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, claims that the detainees are all terrorists. How can he possibly know? Distasteful though the Taliban regime undoubtedly was, that does not mean that every single Taliban solider is a terrorist. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, there is a mixture of simple soldiers, who are prisoners of war, and undoubted terrorists. But, pending the trial and finding of guilt of the terrorists, in the initial stages they should all be treated as prisoners of war. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees with that.

My Lords, the reason that I focused my remarks on the British detainees is because the UK team saw only the three British detainees. The ICRC team is in Guantanamo Bay and will see all the other detainees. It will make its report to the US authorities. I understand that, as is the tradition, the ICRC will make its report in confidence to the US authorities. It will then be for the US authorities to act on any information contained in that report. But I believe that it is important for me to repeat that we have sought assurances that the detainees will be treated in a humane way and in accordance with international law. We have been given those assurances.

My Lords, temperamentally I am very much inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. However, with regard to the British detainees—be they prisoners or whatever else—I wonder whether we know the circumstances under which they were captured. Were they captured under what one might call "orthodox military" circumstances, in which case, they may well be prisoners of war; or were they captured in another context in which they might be regarded as terrorists? I dare say that at present we do not know which is the case. But are we trying to find out?

My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that the detainees were captured during the conflict in Afghanistan. I am unable to say more than that. Noble Lords will appreciate that further information is required on this issue. That is why we must keep in constant contact with the US authorities, and that is what we are doing.

My Lords, if the Bill had provided for the extension of the amnesty for paramilitary decommissioning for one year, I could have understood it. To provide it for five years is, in the paramilitary world, almost light years away. So why should the paramilitaries bother to decommission this year or the next? They are getting on very well—in particular the IRA, which, figuratively speaking, has kept its arms under the negotiating table and is sticking it out. Therefore, I believe that we can now forget about decommissioning by any paramilitary organisation—loyalist or republican—for the reasonable future.

I accept that decommissioning by the IRA in October last year was significant and important. But it is now clear that that was done for many special reasons—largely to get the IRA out of trouble. Therefore, I do not consider that it is likely to recur.

It is today that members of Sinn Fein/IRA get into their offices in the other place and receive substantial allowances. Let us consider the access that that will allow to Westminster for their fellow travellers. All that is very disturbing for the pro-union people in Northern Ireland. We were led to believe that we had a peace process in which Sinn Fein/IRA would decommission and become democrats. It is now clear that it will not decommission, and massive electoral fraud has made it plain that its members are not democrats.

What on earth have the Government been thinking about? Do the Government believe that they are dealing with a child and that if they give him or her a sweet every week Sinn Fein/IRA will grow up and do what the Government want? The sweet every week to Sinn Fein/IRA has made the pro-union people in Northern Ireland feel distressed and threatened. Living and moving about there as I do, the feeling of what is an almost physical hurt is universal. People do not know what we are heading for when all the Government appear to do is give more to the IRA.

Nothing is being done to review the work of the Assembly and sectarian feeling is worse than it has ever been, promoted by paramilitaries on both sides. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that many brave people, including the leaders, in the community have been working very hard to try to make sense of what is going on. But it is clear that the paramilitaries are up to a game of their own and that politics is not their concern.

Nothing can excuse the paramilitary murders, shootings, bombings, organised rioting and much else in the areas that they control. It is all too obvious that a determined, concentrated police effort is urgently needed to regain control in those areas. But the police reserve is being disbanded, again to please the IRA. The Northern Ireland police service no longer has the numbers required to undertake this very difficult task. The Government must remember that they are responsible for security in Northern Ireland and at the moment we do not have security. Therefore, it is not surprising that the pro-union majority is very disenchanted with the peace process and this Bill is not helpful.

President Bush's special adviser on Northern Ireland, Mr Richard Haas, has been visiting the Province. He has said that he believes that the peace process will be unable to go forward unless a majority in both communities is supportive. He said,

"quite simply, what is needed is a warm house for all who live there".

I can tell the House that it has become very chilly for pro-union people. I commend this advice to the Government and urge them to drop the Bill as a start to a revision of policy that will enable the peace process to go forward.

My Lords, as is so often the case in relation to our debates on Northern Ireland, this debate has caused me anguish. Comfortably seated as we are 400, 500 or 600 miles away from the seat of the Troubles, such debates tend to bring before us so much frustration, so much pain and so much wickedness. However, I do not believe that this Bill is wholly without some positive signs. In a brief contribution, I want to try to re-establish, or a t least to remind myself of, a principle that we should bear in mind when considering this Bill: almost everyone agrees that in our democracy illegal armaments must be removed from any position in which they can influence the political process. Agreeing on that is the easy bit. It gets much harder when it is recognised that illegal though it is to hold armaments, the yielding up of them will be done only voluntarily. If it is not done voluntarily, it will not be done at all. Therefore, to secure the best prospect of the armaments being dealt with so that they are for ever out of harm's way, it is necessary to put in place a rather more sophisticated scheme than many would like. I believe that proposition to be sound.

In the circumstances, that is fortunate because I ventured to express that proposition on 9th December 1996 in another place when I moved the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill in exactly those words. Out of interest, this afternoon I looked up those words. That Bill was enacted with all-party support, notwithstanding that at that time the IRA's ceasefire had not been restored after the incident at Canary Wharf; and in accordance with the earlier Mitchell report, an independent commission under General John de Chastelain was put in place. Mr Trimble has said, as we have been rightly reminded today, that the expectation was, and the requirement of the Mitchell report was, that decommissioning should be progressive and should not end before it was total.

There was also put in place a tightly defined and narrow amnesty which was, and is, available only to those who adhere to the strict terms of a decommissioning scheme, and only for offences that are committed technically in respect of anything done in accordance with such a scheme. They are mainly possessory offences in nature. So it is a tight, narrowly drawn and technical amnesty indeed.

That Bill was not so much an act of faith—that would have been too much—but it was an act of hope. Above all, I consider it an act of reason. It is perfectly true that it was introduced at a time when Mitchell had reported that all paramilitary organisations had committed themselves to the rightness of total decommissioning. Now we are within weeks of the time running out in which such an amnesty can be provided. I am in no doubt that it must be extended, although, together with my noble friend on the Front Bench and with others, I believe that it would be right that there should be an extension for 12 months, with no provision written into the Bill for further extension because of the points that have been made about the signal that a further extension power by order up to a total of five years harmfully sends.

The reason is that although we have had far too little decommissioning by the IRA, and by the loyalists, we have had some. That has taken place in the context of the positive developments that have already been listed and which need not be repeated. We want and demand much more. More importantly, the people of Northern Ireland demand much more. We know of no better method of gathering it in.

To close off this method and this route by removing the amnesty necessary—that is, as it were, to give safe conduct to people who deliver up arms—would achieve no good and very much harm. It would be the end of any prospect of the further decommissioning that is owed by the IRA and by the loyalists and it would be a self-inflicted end.

In my view, the Government are entitled to the Bill, or at least to the principle of the Bill. I shall return to the matter of duration. If the IRA's October tranche of decommissioning had been but a silly or a cynical token or a sham, it would be different. But having seen it himself, General de Chastelain, whom I have known well for many years now, and whom I trust implicitly both as to integrity and judgment, described it as significant. When this Bill was before another place, Mr Trimble said:

"I have no doubt that it was significant".

Indeed, he believed that it was more than significant. He said:

"I think it was substantial".—[Official Report. Commons, 17/12/01, col. 74.]

There is much in this progression, which we have had brought before us again this afternoon, that is maddening. There is no question about that. However, it is very important that we should not allow it to madden us. There is much about this progression—snail-like and erratic as it has been—that is sickening. I listened with mounting depression—but I could not fault it—to the list, to the progression of concessions and the cynical disregard of them from the republican side, that my noble friend Lady Park rehearsed in her powerful speech. There is much that is sickening.

It is so easy to appear soft and wimpish when one rejects an impulse inspired by fury rather than by reason. Yet to yield to such an impulse would bring only short-lived satisfaction and at a cost that others would have to pay over a long time.

Maintenance of object should be the first principle of any campaign. Our object must be to secure the removal from our democracy of all illegally held munitions and, with them, the influence that they continuously exert, even from their hiding places.

Appeasement will not achieve it. I agree with what has been said about the step taken today at the other end of this building in relation to offices for Sinn Fein notwithstanding those Members' refusal to take the oath that all other Members have taken. I am afraid that the Government missed a serious and valuable trick in continuing with the release of prisoners notwithstanding that violence continued, because that was the one lever that they had—and they threw it away. But there is plenty of pressure that can be brought to bear on the IRA. It must be sustained pressure and must come from as wide an area of the world as possible. We should call on every country engaged in the war against terrorism to exert that pressure. There is no justification for any armaments to be retained.

There is no justification for maintaining, uncorrected, the imbalance—it is a huge imbalance—between the concessions and the moves that have been made towards conciliation by unionists since the Good Friday agreement, and any movement since then on the part of Sinn Fein/IRA.

I listened with anguish to what my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead said about the consequences electorally for those in the Ulster Unionist Party who supported the Good Friday agreement as they face the elections for the Assembly in May.

That imbalance is well recognised world-wide. So we must steel ourselves, yet again saying, "We are where we are", against very sincerely held views that we are being soft and wimpish. We have to grant this extension of this technical amnesty.

I very much regret the five-year duration. I have no doubt that we shall come back to this matter, but I am very clear that we must not make impossible what we should be exhorting countries all over the world to press for—that is, the total decommissioning of all illegally held arms.

My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. There is not an alternative.

Let us consider the alternative. The alternative of not having the Bill and not extending the time period for decommissioning would mean that people will believe that it is no longer required. Just think of what may happen—whether it be Republican or Loyalist—if the thinking is that decommissioning need no longer be pursued.

There has been a depth and diversity of comment in the debate about what is a short eight or nine-line Bill. Many of your Lordships have used the temptation to talk about the many and several ills in Northern Ireland at the present time. Indeed, the Leader of the House in opening the debate gave a list of forward-moving measures. But we still have the conflict of—it came from several of the speakers—the present unionist problem about unionist confidence. I suspect that we shall have to return to this matter.

However, as is the nature of matters in this House, the bulk of today's speakers have had a unionist handle to them. Indeed, if one takes the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Parks, the entire speech was stating clearly the ills of Sinn Fein and the IRA, but there were seven words:

"The Loyalists are just as bad but".

The rest of it was about another group of people.

I am gratified that in the end, and particularly from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, speakers are not saying, "Please do not pass the Bill". Yes, an opportunity has been used to make many of the comments that have been made on many occasions, but there is an understanding that the way forward is to have the Bill.

I was thinking that if, during the passage of the Bill, a messenger appeared and a piece of paper was handed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, with two choices on it—that General de Chastelain has announced that there is a little more decommissioning on the one hand, or, on the other hand, that peace has broken out in North Belfast—which would your Lordships sooner have? We need to put these matters into context. I must say that if a piece of paper were to come saying that peace had been found in North Belfast and that people had stopped knocking hell out of one another, many of us in this House would give that an incredible welcome and it would be a wonderful present for the day.

Reference has been made to the Bill having a long life. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that he would prefer just a short extension. I am far from certain that this constant business of having a buffer a few months away and then a crisis when we get up to it, is the best way to get progress in Northern Ireland. Although I understand the argument about giving a lot of rope, I believe that if we have a Bill which gives that greater opportunity for us not to be under this constant pressure on the subject area, that would he better.

Of course decommissioning must happen. It is part of the Good Friday agreement that was negotiated in Belfast. There should be decommissioning. People have signed up and agreed to it. We all want it to happen. It would be useful if the Minister in his reply could indicate whether there has been any further progress—people would like to know—since the measures in October. Three months have now passed.

With those few remarks, I should like to say that from these Benches we support the Bill. Nevertheless, we hope for speedy decommissioning.

My Lords, I have never been present when we have debated the continuing problems of Northern Ireland without benefiting from the speeches made. That has been the case today. Just before he sat down, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, asked me whether there had been any further progress. My answer to him is: yes, the Assembly still continues; yes, the Police Service for Northern Ireland has now been set up. Surprisingly—we shall discuss this in a little while—all parties with a legitimate interest agreed on a badge.

Much more importantly in the Northern Ireland context, if the noble Lord were to chide me by sending yet another messenger with another piece of paper saying, "Can you tell us about further progress on decommissioning?", I would have to say that I could not. However, I agree with the theme and implications of his earlier remarks: to focus unnaturally and solely on decommissioning is to do Northern Ireland's interests significant harm. Decommissioning is very important, but it is not the only aspect of importance.

In many ways the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was brave and thoughtful. He, at least, could not be accused of not focusing on the paramilitaries—the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. His criticism of the loyalist paramilitaries was ringing and robust. He pulled no punches, as he never does. If I may say so, he was most even-handed—indeed, he was highly critical of the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. He was generous—I was grateful to hear this—in his commendation of the Assembly, which is now on the way to becoming a sound administration.

Of course it is right to say, as did my noble friend Lord Dubs, that it was not the British Government who installed the Assembly; it was not the British Government who installed elected members; it was voters, by the choice that they exercise at elections. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, referred to the cold house and the chill house in the speech of my right honourable friend Dr Reid. I read that speech several times. It was an extremely thoughtful speech of considerable depth. The Secretary of State seemed to me to be reminding himself and all of us that we must bear in mind the susceptibilities of the Unionist community, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred, as a most important part of Northern Ireland society.

That was exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. There is a significant amount of loyalist violence. It is not simply armed violence but the sort of violence to which we are becoming far too accustomed—it is hardly an exaggeration to say that it has occurred every night during recent weeks.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, were both good enough to say that they accepted the integrity—and, perhaps more to the point, the judgment—of General de Chastelaine. I agree with what was said: decommissioning must continue. We must carefully consider the scheme of the Act. The initial Act was introduced by the noble and learned Lord when he was Secretary of State. I responded to it when the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, was taking it through this place. It is not a case of extending decommissioning for five years. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, pointed out, the provision is for up to five years and must be attended to annually. That is important and distinct.

I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. She described the act of decommissioning on 22nd October—I think—as an act of relative significance. That puts it far too low in the history of Ireland as I have read and come to know it. In fact, it was an act of dramatic significance—not sufficient, not entire, but extremely important. She said that the Government talk about transparency and yet some things are opaque. I agree—as did she in her former incarnation.

My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would agree that there is not really a comparison between the conduct of secret and public affairs. My point was that the Act was announced as something to create public confidence. It failed to do so. Incidentally, I should like to take this opportunity to say that I have never challenged—and never would challenge—the integrity, honour and competence of General de Chastelaine; I greatly admire all three. I was talking about what the IRA managed to do, despite his integrity and professionalism.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has mistaken me. I did not suggest for a second that she had challenged General de Chastelaine's qualities of integrity.

As I think that we both enjoy these occasions, I return to her challenge to me. Her former work—and the work on which the Government are presently engaged—are both to the public advantage. In that context of working to public advantage, not every aspect of every activity can conceivably be made known at the time in the public interest. So there is no real difference between us, and I hope to have rounded that circle—if not squared it.

The noble Baroness asked me some specific questions. I can answer one, which falls into the non-opaque category. The inspectors were not accompanied by technical advisers. They had been thoroughly briefed by arms experts before the inspections took place, so that they would be able to verify the viability of the material that they were shown.

The noble Baroness also asked me whether the Government had asked the commission to consider any proposals for decommissioning that would not involve the weapons concerned being put permanently and verifiably beyond use. I must remind her and your Lordships that destruction is described in the Act which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, introduced. In Section 10 of that Act, destruction is described as follows:

"'destruction' includes making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable".

So that is not a modern gloss or a contemporary fiction, it has always been in the Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is right. He speaks with the authority of recent engagement with and continuing experience of Northern Ireland. He pointed out—as, more brutally, did the noble Lord. Lord Shutt—that we must continue to engage. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, may well be expelled from his party, because he used the words that I have not heard since the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was with us: there is no alternative.

The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, wanted the Bill to be dropped. There is no prospect in this world of our doing so. That would be an act of gross irresponsibility. I take up and agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew: it is easy for us to have views when the consequences do not immediately impinge upon our lives so many hundreds of miles away.

There was no invitation to No. 10 to celebrate the Sinn Fein members being allowed to use parliamentary facilities. I understand—and I am pretty sure that I am right about this—that the appointment had been agreed weeks before. We can argue about whether Sinn Fein representatives, who have been voted in by their constituencies, ought or ought not to have been given parliamentary privileges. But that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said much more plainly than I could, has nothing to do with the Bill. So I shall not engage in that controversy, which was a matter for the other House. We are asking for a continuation of the opportunity to continue the possessory amnesty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was absolutely right about that. The amnesty is limited in legal terms but is of great significance in political and party terms. Let us assume—this may never come about—that some degree of human grace entered those who cruelly murdered the postal worker, Mr McColgan, on his way to work at 4.45 a.m. Do we not want a continuing possessory amnesty available for people who may actually think that they were wrong?

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th January be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee.]

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before I go into any detail, I shall reiterate the tribute that we rightly, full-heartedly pay to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland. On Friday, I had the great privilege of having a lengthy conversation with the incumbent Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.

We must bear in mind, not least in the context of this debate and the Second Reading debate that we had a few moments ago, that 302 of the men and women of the RUC' were murdered simply because they were police officers. Of course, an infinitely larger number mourn them, and a very large number were injured while simply carrying out their work.

The regulations that I commend to your Lordships regulate the symbols and flags of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The independent commission on policing in Northern Ireland said that the,

"new beginning to policing cannot be achieved unless the reality that part of the community feels unable to identify with the present name and symbols associated with the police is addressed".

The regulations are intended to come into operation on 5th April, the date on which the first batch of new recruits will graduate. We hope to have the new emblems ready for the new recruits to wear as they complete their training.

The Northern Ireland Policing Board has achieved something remarkable. The noble Lords, Lord Brookeborough and Lord Kilclooney, are members of that body. It reached unanimous agreement on a design for the new emblem. That would have been a surprise to most of us. The emblem is in Schedule l to the regulations. Regulation 3 enshrines it as the new emblem for the PSNI. The Chief Constable and other police representatives have also agreed to the new design. Regulation 4 makes it clear that it is the only emblem or badge that may be used in connection with the police—on uniforms, stationery, forms, police stations and police vehicles.

Regulation 6 is important. The Government honour the contribution that the RUC has made. The award of the George Cross was a public and considered mark of that recognition. The RUC George Gross Foundation honours the achievements and sacrifices over the years. The Northern Ireland Police Fund has been set up to provide support for police officers and their families. Regulation 6 makes it clear, in line with Patten's recommendations, that memorials will stay as they are and where they are.

Regulation 7 prescribes the form of emblems of rank, which are illustrated in Schedule 3. We want to give the Chief Constable maximum operational flexibility, both for the present and in the future. Regulations 8 to 11 deal with the question of flags. The new police service flag is the PSNI emblem on a dark green background. The service flag is the only flag that can be used in connection with the police. Regulation 10 provides for the royal standard to be flown on the occasion of a visit by Her Majesty the Queen to a police building.

I repeat that the measures contained in the regulations are intended to look ahead. They are not intended to discredit or dishonour those who served in the RUC under different symbols. The change is necessary in order to secure for Northern Ireland a police service that has the support of all members of the community—and can, therefore, be more effective. I hope that the badge will not be seen as a neutral badge or a badge of controversy but as a badge that esteems a number of different traditions.

It is remarkable—I repeat myself deliberately—that the board was able to agree unanimously on the badge. I commend the regulations to the House.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th January be approved [15th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for bringing the Motion before the House. I say outright that I support it.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the policing board has done a seriously excellent job in approving the new badge for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including the three key symbols that were already in place—the crown, the harp and the shamrock. The colours, as far as one call tell from the photocopies, are very reasonable.

I have spoken once or twice recently about the problems with morale in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is important for morale that a service of that type should have an emblem to wear of which it can be proud. I sincerely hope that the politics of the new badge is now over and that the police will be wearing it proudly very soon.

I am, of course, sad that one significant part of the population is not represented in the result. Sinn Fein has been conspicuous by its absence. The Roman Catholic Church came on hoard. The SDLP took courage and came on hoard, as did everyone else—but not Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein has its own reasons for that, and most of us will be able to guess at them in one shape or another.

There is no occasion on which the national flag may ever again be flown from police stations in Northern Ireland. That is another aspect of the regulations that is sad and will be seen by part of the population as bad. The Union Jack is the national flag of Northern Ireland, and it is wrong that it cannot be flown ever again. It sends out a sad message. I would have understood if there had been provision to identify certain days of the year on which the national flag could and should be flown on police stations. However, that is not to be, and I hope that, as the years go by, it will be seen to have been a detail, and the least important at that.

My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for introducing the regulations. I also associate those of us on these Benches with his words regarding the work of the RUC during the past years.

I shall make it clear that there can be many alternatives to these plans. Already, I have heard a suggestion that within the service emblem there should, perhaps, be a hand. I have looked at the torch and wondered whether it had anything to do with the Conservative Party. Where is the bird of liberty? Should there be a rose? I wonder whether the clover—is it a clover, with three leaves?—should not have four leaves, for good fortune. That would be wonderful. I am certain that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is delighted that we are not discussing the Emblems (Drawing up the plans thereof) Bill.

It is wonderful that we can rejoice that there is unity on the emblems for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I am grateful. I commend the regulations to the House.