To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the failure of National Air Traffic Services computer systems on Saturday 17 June and the ensuing chaos for air travellers.

As has been widely reported, the flight data processing system—FDPS—at the London air traffic control centre at West Drayton suffered a software failure last Saturday, 17 June. That resulted in extensive disruption to air traffic and consequent delays to air passengers over the weekend. I naturally very much regret the serious inconvenience that that failure caused to passengers and to airlines, and I understand that the chief executive of NATS is issuing an apology to his customers today.

The main concern of NATS is to maintain and enhance safety in air traffic control. When faced with problems with the FDPS software on 17 June, NATS therefore acted immediately to maintain safety standards by imposing tight limits on the flow of aircraft in UK airspace. It maintained service to aircraft and safety standards, in the first instance, by using stand-by procedures. Those procedures involve the manual transcription of flight details, which creates additional work for controllers who can therefore handle safely fewer flights than normal. The delays experienced by airlines and passengers were a direct consequence of these measures.

NATS staff have been working hard to identify and correct the problem with the FDPS software, which had malfunctioned on one previous occasion on 9 June. The software in question was upgraded some three months ago to meet changes in the way that NATS manages UK airspace. Upgrading the software is a common occurrence. The FDPS is a relatively modern computer system, but it has to be upgraded regularly to match growing levels of traffic and changes in NATS operating procedures to cope with that growth.

My understanding is that NATS has yet finally to resolve the underlying problem with the new software. NATS continues to work on that, but in the meantime has reverted to the fallback system, which involves using the previous well-tried version of the software. This takes some hours to set up and therefore could not be immediately deployed when the software problem came to light. However, this back-up system, which was the main system until three months ago, is now functioning well and air traffic should substantially be back to normal today. It is the intention of NATS to continue to operate this well-tried system until the problem with the new software has been identified and remedied.

This incident demonstrates the importance of the air traffic control system to the well-being and smooth operation of the United Kingdom. It also demonstrates the commitment of NATS and its staff, at all levels, to maintain safety in our skies. It shows the importance of building on NATS operational excellence with investment in new technology and world-class project management skills, so as to meet the demands of the growing market in air transport.

I thank the Minister for the regrets and the apology from NATS management that he has conveyed. However, I reflect on the irony of the fact that the answer to this vital question was given by the Minister for Housing and Planning, which is not an entirely satisfactory situation for the House.

This weekend, thousands and thousands of air passengers' journeys were disrupted. Their flights were cancelled and they found themselves stranded at airports around the United Kingdom. Will the Minister join me in congratulating and thanking all those who made Herculean efforts to manage the crisis and to recover from it? That includes not just airline and airport staff, but the air traffic controllers who had to resort to the manual information system that he described.

For all its efforts, the House must surely agree that NATS completely failed its customers on Saturday morning, causing not just massive inconvenience, but damaging the reputation of Britain as a place to do business. In this country, we pride ourselves on having the most advanced, best managed and safest air traffic system in the world. Air passengers from Britain and abroad are entitled to be reassured that this totally unprecedented breakdown is an isolated incident and not a fundamental deterioration in the service provided by NATS.

First, for the record, will the Minister confirm absolutely that safety was not compromised in that breakdown? Secondly, will he say more about the causes of the computer breakdown and confirm that it was caused by the failure of completely standard software which has been used in various forms around the world for many years? Will he confirm that the volume of air traffic on Saturday, while heavy, was not exceptional at the time that the failure occurred? Is there any truth in the rumour that the software that failed was reinstated after a failure in the upgrade?

Thirdly, is it not a matter of concern that this is the second breakdown in a few days and that the two incidents appear to be unconnected? Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that he is not yet in a position to advise the House on the underlying causes of the failures and therefore cannot reassure the House and air passengers that this will not happen again? Related to that, when the West Drayton system transfers to the new Swanwick centre near Southampton, will controllers still be able to fall back on manual systems in the event of a similar failure?

Has the Minister made an assessment of the outlook for the viability of the public-private partnership in the light of this major failure? Do the Government intend to press ahead regardless with their unnecessarily complex proposal to dispose of 51 per cent. of the shares in NATS. I remind the House that the Transport Sub-Committee described that as

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not become used to my presence at the Dispatch Box. After all, we sparred with each other for five months over the Transport Bill. I should have thought that, by now, he would be used to me speaking on these matters. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would join him in congratulating NATS staff and all concerned on dealing with the problems created by the software malfunction. Of course I do. I made it clear in my response to his original question that the fallback system works effectively in the interests of safety, although it inherently involves delay as it is not possible to process as many flights manually as it is when the computer is operational. I find that slightly difficult to reconcile with the hon. Gentleman's request that I confirm that NATS failed its customers. As he acknowledged, I made it clear that I very much regretted the failure and said that NATS would be writing to apologise to its customers. As he acknowledged, NATS responded well to the crisis and put in place stand-by arrangements to ensure that safety was paramount at all times, which must be the main consideration.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that this was an isolated incident, not a fundamental breakdown. I think that I have made it clear that the problem, which has not yet been fully identified, is associated with the new software package introduced three months ago. Until the problems with it have been identified, the previous well-tried software will be operated by NATS. For that reason, I must reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I am not able to give any reassurance. He will understand that, until the faults with the new software are identified, the system now operating is that which was operating successfully until just three months ago.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that safety was not compromised. I think that it is clear from what I have said that safety is paramount at all times. He made the point, which I reiterate, that the problem was not to do with exceptionally heavy traffic. Newspaper reports that there is therefore the prospect of further difficulties over the summer when traffic volumes rise are not a correct analysis of the problem—which was to do with a software malfunction, not the volume of air traffic.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the software involved was reinstated software. I made it clear in my original response that it is a new software package, which was introduced some three months ago. He asked whether the two incidents were unconnected. Until the cause of the failure has been fully explored, understood and corrected, we will not know for sure whether the latest incident was a repeat of the malfunction that occurred on the previous occasion, but it is likely that there is a connection. Apart from those two incidents, the software has worked successfully since its introduction.

The hon. Gentleman asked what will happen when the transfer to Swanwick takes place. It was always envisaged that the existing system would continue to operate from West Drayton until 2005, so it is not affected in any way by the move to Swanwick or the delay in that move. However, under the two-centre strategy there will be an added safeguard because Prestwick and Swanwick will both be operating on comparable systems, so in the event of a failure of either of those systems, the other system will be able to provide assistance.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about the implications for the public-private partnership. It should be clear to him that although the way in which air traffic control deals with its primary responsibility, which is ensuring safety, has been proved to work well on this occasion, once again we have seen the difficulties associated with the introduction of new software or systems. That reinforces the Government's belief that it is essential to get increased private investment through the public-private partnership and to bring in world-class project management skills to ensure that those new investment proposals and programmes are introduced efficiently and effectively.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the excellence and experience of the air traffic controllers in dealing with their little bits of paper kept people safe in the skies over the weekend? It is noticeable that the system, which should have been replaced some 15 years ago, is in need of constant upgrade. Moreover, because its private manufacturing suppliers have not been able to fulfil the conditions that they offered air traffic control, there will be continuing difficulties; indeed, that is the problem for NATS at Swanwick.

Will my hon. Friend point out to the general public that most of us would prefer to rely on the responsibility of air traffic controllers, in looking after our safety in the skies, moving bits of paper around, rather than on the private suppliers of software which may be very expensive and extraordinarily unreliable?

I say at once to my hon. Friend that she and I entirely agree about the excellence of NATS staff in responding to the problems created by the software failure. However, I do not agree with her about the excellence of NATS in relation to new software and investment in the necessary equipment to enable those controllers to do their job properly. This incident, sadly, is a further instance of a failure of a new system. The Government believe that the right way forward is, as I have already said, to combine the possibility of attracting substantial additional private investment for the considerable new investment needs in the years ahead with world-class project management skills—which, sadly, have not been too much in evidence in new investment in NATS in the past.

I, too, congratulate the air traffic controllers and others on working so tirelessly to minimise the difficulties created by the breakdown. Does the Minister agree that part of the problem may well have stemmed from the failure to invest in air traffic services in the 1980s, which was characterised not least by the failure to bring Swanwick on stream quickly enough? Does he therefore agree that the introduction of the part-privatisation of NATS may well prove a distraction from the urgent work of getting Swanwick on line and resolving the problems? Given that the busiest time of the year is now upon us, what assurances has he been given that similar occurrences are unlikely?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of congratulation for the staff at NATS who, as hon. Members have said, did a first-rate job in responding to difficult circumstances when the software failed. He asked whether the problem may be to do with past failures in investment. I believe that, in this case, the problem is associated with a software package that was introduced recently as part of a continuous process of upgrading. That will be confirmed only as and when the various checks have been carried out that are necessary to identify the fault and remedy it.

On the hon. Gentleman's final point, he will understand that I cannot give an absolute assurance. However, the problem was to do with software failure rather than with the volume of air traffic using the system, so there is no reason to believe that further failures will occur this summer because of growing volumes of air traffic in the area. We have coped well. In fact, Britain has coped better with rising volumes of air traffic than Europe as a whole. The average delays to flights into and out of the United Kingdom are less than the European average, and it is certainly our intention that NATS should continue to maintain that good record.

Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting was one of those who managed to get away this weekend? In a few hours, she is due to make a 20-minute keynote speech to an international conference on tourism in Las Vegas. Having been carried there at vast expense, will she be able to reassure the United Kingdom and the international tourism industry, during those 20 minutes, that such an incident will not happen again this summer? Or will there be a persistent repetition of such incidents at Heathrow, greatly damaging the United Kingdom tourism and travel industry?

The best possible assurance that can be given is to compare the record of air traffic control in Britain with other European countries. Throughout the first four months of this year, we have achieved an average delay of about one third of the average across Europe. That is a proud record, and it is certainly our intention that it should continue. As I have made clear in response to earlier questions, the failure was not due to the volume of traffic; it was to do with a computer system that has recently been introduced. The software system was introduced just three months ago, but by reverting to the well-tried and proven software system that was previously in operation, and which worked without such a failure, we should be able to ensure that there will be a fully adequate service for people coming to this country during the months ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is able to convey that message to anyone who expresses any doubt about coming to Britain by air.

May I, too, salute the professionalism of our air traffic controllers, who have done a magnificent job in very difficult circumstances? Is the Minister aware that the airlines, too, regard their efforts as having been Herculean and that there is no criticism of NATS for what it has done in that respect? May I ask him two specific questions? First, is the software that failed the same as that which is proposed to be installed in Swanwick? Clearly, if it is there are severe implications for Swanwick. Secondly, given that British Airways alone lost about 200 flights this weekend and that other airlines also suffered losses, can the Minister tell us whether there will be any compensation?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's congratulations on the performance of the air traffic controllers. We all recognise that they have done a very good job in difficult circumstances. I remind him of my earlier comment that the current flight data processing system at West Drayton was not intended to be replaced until 2005—long after the move to Swanwick and the introduction of the new systems there. The two systems would have operated in parallel and, therefore, there would have been no reason to be concerned as a result of this incident about the proposed arrangements being made at Swanwick. The delay in introducing Swanwick did not cause this particular problem.

There is no provision for compensation either in the existing legislative framework or in the one proposed under the Transport Bill. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the matter, he will immediately realise that there could be perverse incentives, which could work against the interests of safety, should air traffic controllers face a serious financial risk if delays were caused by introducing procedures that guaranteed safety. As he will be aware, the delays that occurred during the weekend, although regrettable, were necessary to ensure that safety was given primacy in all circumstances. It would be perhaps more difficult to do that if there were a potential liability because of compensation claims. That is the background to the absence of such provision.

How long did it take to go from the computer system that crashed to the manual system? During that period, how many aircraft were circling? The Minister stated that the manual system cannot run at the same speed or handle the same number of aircraft as the computerised system. How was that dealt with? For how long was the upgrade piloted?

Order. One or two questions at a time. We have two statements to come.

The introduction of the manual fallback system was immediate. The introduction of the alternative—the old tried and tested computer software system to which I referred—took a matter of hours. As I have explained to the House, it is not possible for the two systems to run in parallel. There is a start-up time on the alternative software system and, therefore, during the gap before it could be brought into use the manual fallback system operated. That is why NATS—to avoid any repeat of the two previous incidents—has decided to run the old tried and tested software system until the faults with the new system have been identified and put right.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of flights affected. The answer is a substantial number—virtually all flights into the United Kingdom were affected in one way or another. However, I am pleased to say that as a result of the excellent work of NATS, the position has been restored to virtual normality.

Will the Minister please give a straight answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)? What will the delays be later this summer?

The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to my earlier responses. The two failures that occurred some 10 days ago and last Saturday were both the result of a malfunction of a new computer software system, which was introduced three months ago. As a result of the experience of those two failures, NATS has reverted to the former well-tried and tested software system that worked successfully up to its replacement three months ago. There is no reason, therefore, to fear any recurrence of the incidents that occurred 10 days ago and last Saturday. People abroad can have every confidence that they can come to Britain in the usual way, depending on an excellent air traffic control system operated efficiently and effectively.

May I press the Minister further on the particular model that he has chosen for the Transport Bill—the privatisation of NATS? Is he persuaded that that model will release enough funds from the private sector to allow for the type of investment to which he referred?

Yes.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the discovery at Dover at 11 o'clock last night of 58 people found dead in a lorry, which had arrived from Zeebrugge in Belgium. Of these, 54 were men and four women. In addition, two men were found alive and have been taken to hospital. This is a most terrible human tragedy. The whole House will be appalled by that loss of life and our thoughts are with the relatives of those who have died. The vehicle concerned was a refrigerated lorry, which had been hermetically sealed, and the 58 who perished must have died a most terrible death. I pay tribute to customs officers, to officers and civilian staff of the Kent police and to staff of the immigration service for the very great dedication and professionalism that they have shown.

The incident is now the subject of a major criminal investigation being conducted by the Kent police. A man is being held in connection with the incident and will be interviewed. Indications are that these people are from the far east, but the police are not, at this stage, able to determine the nationality of those who have died or of the two survivors. Hon. Members will understand that, while there is such an investigation into potential criminal offences, I am unable to give the House further details.

As the House knows, the Government and law enforcement agencies have long been concerned about the involvement of serious organised criminals who make huge illegal profits from the smuggling of illegal immigrants into this country. No one should be in any doubt that that is a profoundly evil trade, whose perpetrators have no regard whatever for human life. We should all be determined to crack down on that dreadful trade. Co-operation between the police, Customs, the immigration service, overseas agencies and authorities and carriers has been intensified in recent months, and the vehicle involved in this incident was intercepted as a result of an operation by Customs.

Further to deter such trafficking, powers were taken in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to impose civil penalties on hauliers and drivers found with clandestine entrants in their vehicles. Drivers must be on the alert to discourage that dangerous activity. There is already evidence that the civil penalty is working. A comparison of the two months before the imposition of the civil penalty with the two months after has shown a reduction of 26 per cent. in clandestines seeking entry at the port of Dover. In addition, under the 1999 Act, the criminal penalties for facilitation have been increased and new controls on unscrupulous immigration advisers are being imposed.

I am afraid to say that this terrible tragedy must serve as a stark warning to others who might be tempted to place their fate in the hands of organised traffickers. Those who tragically died last night are, without question, the victims of those traffickers. Those organised groups do not care about human safety; they care only for profit and this appalling tragedy is a grim reminder of that. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in deploring the trafficking of humans and in extending our sympathies to the relatives of those who died.

I think the Home secretary for that statement and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. I associate Conservative Members with his extension of sympathy to the relatives of those who died, and with his congratulations to the various statutory authorities on the way in which they and the individuals who uncovered this appalling tragedy reacted with great professionalism.

I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give many details at this stage, but he will know that one of the major points of concern must be the degree of international co-operation that does or does not prevail in trying to prevent this trade, and the rigour of checks carried out outside this country. If he is not yet able to state the point of origin of the vehicle's journey, will he at least tell the House either where the last check was carried out before Dover and the results of that check, or whether any such check took place?

Does the Home Secretary agree that the rigour of checking outside Britain is not what it might be? To assist lorry drivers in their duty to check their vehicles, will he put pressure on other Governments to provide secure and well-lit areas in which drivers can carry out those checks? Is he aware that, during ferry crossings, drivers are compulsorily separated from their vehicles? Has he any plans to institute checks by immigration officials during ferry crossings when, it is claimed, many transfers of human beings from one vehicle to another take place?

Bearing in mind that many will think that the tragedy has been waiting to happen, will the Home Secretary state how many instances there have been in the past 12 months of 20 or more clandestines in a single vehicle being detected at our ports? Is that an increasing, a decreasing, or a stable trend? Will he also provide some indication of when, subject to the limits that I understand entirely, he will be able to release to the House further details of the vehicle's journey, its origins and its consequences?

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her association with my expression of great sympathy for the relatives of those who died. I know that the whole House will join in the congratulations on and appreciation of the work of the Kent police—many civilian scenes of crime officers were involved, as well as police officers—the immigration service and Customs. It must have been deeply traumatic for the staff who found the people and subsequently had to deal with the matter.

The right hon. Lady asked about the degree of international co-operation. We are all the time seeking to improve international co-operation against the traffic in illegal immigrants. As the House may know, I was in Lisbon on Friday last, discussing with colleagues who are Ministers of the Interior how we improve co-ordination of our immigration and asylum policies across Europe, to try to bring an end what has correctly been described as asylum shopping between one member state and another.

Early on in this Administration, carriers' liability was imposed by me on Eurostar trains from Brussels, with the full agreement of the then Minister of the Interior in Belgium, Mr. Van de Lanotte. As the right hon. Lady may also know, we recently signed a protocol to the Sangatte treaty in respect of Eurostar traffic from France to ensure that we can impose what are called juxtaposed controls and to have British immigration officers checking those who board Eurostar trains at Gare du Nord, Calais and Lille, in return for French immigration officials doing the same on this side of the channel. Until that comes into force—it is a matter of procedure in the French Parliament—there will be enhanced controls for Eurostar by the French police and other authorities on the French side.

We are always taking other measures. With regard to Zeebrugge, security there has generally been significantly better than that at Calais. We are involved in continuing discussions with the port authorities at Calais, and with the hauliers and ferry operators. The right hon. Lady and the House may wish to know that I had a meeting this morning—he has agreed that I should say this—with Lord Sterling, the chairman of P&O Ferries, about the measures that we could take to improve security at Dover.

The right hon. Lady asked when the last check was made before Dover. I cannot give her an answer on that, but I shall do my best to provide her with an answer as soon as I have the information.

As to the rigours of checking outside the United Kingdom, in some cases checks are, by definition, rigorous and they work. For example, with the co-operation of the Italian authorities, we have improved the checking on freight trains which are assembled in freight yards in Milan and then come straight through the tunnel. That has helped to detect and deter quite a large number of east European illegals seeking to gain access to the trains there. I accept entirely that there is a great need for other countries to improve the checking of vehicles coming into the United Kingdom.

The right hon. Lady said that she understands that drivers are not allowed on the freight decks of ferries. That is true, because it is a matter of health and safety. However, from time to time we provide immigration officials as part of operations better to detect illegals.

The right hon. Lady also asked whether I can give the numbers of those who have been detected in the back of vehicles, where the groups were 20 or more. I need notice of that question, but I shall be happy to provide her with the information as soon as possible.

As soon as I can, consistent with the integrity of the criminal investigation, I shall provide the right hon. Lady and the House with further information.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his tribute to the authorities in Dover—the police, Customs and immigration officers. May I add to that list the ambulance workers of Kent, who were faced with horrific scenes this morning—scenes and stories that have yet to be told, but which are the stuff of nightmares?

I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to further co-operation overseas, not just in Europe but worldwide, because the problem is a global one.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to distinguish between the victims—innocent parties who sometimes find themselves washed up on the coasts of Dover, scrambling out of the backs of lorries, having fled oppression, fear of death and torture; we will always support and give asylum to them—and the racketeers and professional crooks, who simply exploit the situation for their own benefit?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I should have paid tribute to the ambulance personnel in Kent earlier. I want to do that now, and correct the omission. My hon. Friend is right about the increasing co-operation, which we need. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is raising the terrible incident, its consequences and the need for heightened European and international co-operation with fellow Heads of Government today at the Feira Council.

My hon. Friend spoke of the distinction that we must make between—I paraphrase—those who are genuine asylum seekers, although they have had to use illegal means to gain entry into the United Kingdom, and the racketeers and professional crooks who stand behind them. I agree. However, one of the problems that the United Kingdom—and almost every other European country—faces is that although between 20 and 30 per cent. of people who seek entry into the United Kingdom have a genuine, well-founded claim to refugee status, the claims of many of the rest, who come here for what they regard as a better life, have no basis in the 1951 convention. They are better classified as economic migrants. A further tragedy, which has been illustrated only too well today, is that those people are given all sorts of promises about the life they will find in this country. Even if they get through alive, they are often sorely disappointed when they arrive.

I share the horror and sympathy that the Home Secretary has expressed at the unnecessary loss of life. Those who died were, in all likelihood, the victims of other people's misdeeds. I share with the Home Secretary and colleagues from all parties the view that the international policing systems should track the traffickers in human life to the ends of the earth, if necessary, to ensure that they are caught, and punished as severely as possible. If the Home Secretary believes that the penalty system should be reviewed at home and across Europe, we would be happy to participate in that.

We have never received an answer from the Government about the way in which people can seek asylum lawfully in western European countries. Unless there is a lawful way for people to make an application and come to a country that might accept them, they must use illegal means and put themselves in the hands of those who will exploit them. That was shown yesterday.

There was a report two months ago about a system for scanning all vehicles to detect whether there are human beings in them. Is the system sufficiently advanced at ports of departure and entry in Britain and all other European countries for ships and trains? With such a system, we could check all vehicles for people as well as for Customs and Excise contraband, just as our luggage is checked when we travel by air.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his association with the remarks that I made early in my statement. He mentioned the need for better international policing. We are improving co-operation within Europe gradually, although not fast enough. We have some way to go before we have properly sensitised several other Governments, especially some of those in Asia, about the need for their full co-operation in practice as well as in principle, and about the steps that they must help to initiate to prevent this terrible traffic. The hon. Gentleman asked how those with a genuine and well-founded claim for asylum could make that claim without effectively breaking the immigration rules, and often the criminal law, of the receiving state. The answer to that at the moment is, "With very great difficulty", unless they have previously gained lawful entry to the United Kingdom, and subsequent to that entry there has been a change in the circumstances of the home country. I sought to make exactly that point in a speech to fellow Interior Ministers in Lisbon last week, and I urge Members to consider it.

I said in that speech that a contradiction lay at the heart not of the obligation under the 1951 convention, but of the way in which it operates. We need to discuss the issue rationally, because the current system is irrational. I say that having also said that I regard our obligation to give refuge to those in well-founded fear of persecution as absolute. We must look at better ways of achieving that, so that we do not end up—and I am afraid that the operation of the 1951 convention leads to such a result—inadvertently pushing people, whether they have a genuine and well-founded fear or are simply economic migrants, into the hands of these terrible facilitators.

The hon. Gentleman asked about systems for scanning vehicles. The immigration service currently uses dogs, which have proved remarkably effective, and carbon dioxide detectors. It has been proposed that the service should also have access to major X-ray facilities. It is open to experiment, and I know that the proposal is also currently the subject of an inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee.

Were not the appalling events at Dover murder in all but name by those who traffic illegally in human beings, and bring them across continents knowingly to break our immigration laws? May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue his efforts to secure agreement throughout the European Union that applications for asylum in this country can be made in the first safe country in which those seeking it arrive, rather than their having—knowingly, and sometimes as victims of those who engage in this vile people traffic—to put themselves in the hands of the traffickers in order to get here and make their applications?

Yes. The central principle of the Dublin convention, which came into force in October 1997, is supposed to be that applicants are required to make their applications in the first safe country in which they arrive within the European Union. Except in the case of those who arrive here by air, and the handful who go on from here to the Republic of Ireland, that country can never be the United Kingdom. Another major challenge that we face is to ensure that the practice of the Dublin convention matches the theory.

It appears that the introduction of fines has had some real impact on what might be called the more casual form of illegal immigration racketeering, but is there not a lesson to be learned from this awful tragedy? It appears to have had no impact whatsoever on the organised gangster system that has led to substantial numbers of people seeking to become illegal immigrants. The Home Secretary recently went to Dover—as did the Intelligence and Security Committee—and saw for himself just what a daunting task is involved, given the volume of lorries, the other ports that exist and the containers. He must have realised the simple impossibility of making effective checks. The only way in which the position can be challenged is by means of determined international collaboration, bringing together the law enforcement agencies and, in particular, the intelligence and security resources of all the countries concerned. That is the only way in which traffic can be identified, and the only way in which we shall have some real chance of apprehending those involved.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point that the civil penalty is more likely to have had a significant effect on hauliers when proper checks have failed to be made, but I think it far too early to say that it has had no effect on criminal facilitators. As we are now seeing, the fact that those penalties are being imposed has put pressure on the hauliers and on ports abroad significantly to improve their checking and security. That can only help us in ensuring that there is better detection of these people.

On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I agree: the scale of traffic in and out of Dover is such that it is not possible—nor is it necessary—to check every vehicle. As with other criminal activities, we increasingly rely on good intelligence. As I have told the House, the vehicle was intercepted not by accident, but as a result of good intelligence and of a Customs operation. We continue to ensure that the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the Security Service and the other agencies make available to the immigration service and to Customs their great expertise in both detecting and disrupting the criminal gangs.

I join the Home Secretary in expressing deepest sympathy over the deaths of all those people at Dover and in condemning the racketeers who have brought people to that terrible pass, but will he consider the fact that it is not the first such tragedy? Not so many years ago, a ship capsized off Italy. A very large number of supposedly illegal immigrants drowned as a result. Many are washed up on the shores of Europe all the time—people come into Europe by all sorts of means.

Following that terrible tragedy, in which more than 50 lives were lost, is it not time that the world learned that people who are seeking to escape from political, social or economic tragedies and repression adopt desperate measures to get out? Perhaps we should start to look at human rights abuses, in both their widest and narrowest forms, in the countries from which people seek to escape before we start to take even more draconian measures, which I suspect will end up victimising very many more innocent people. Another such tragedy might well happen again.

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not the first tragedy. Nor, I fear, will it be the last. Of course we understand the motives of those who seek asylum in countries of western Europe, whether because of a well-founded fear of persecution or because they are economic migrants, but we must also get it across to them that there will be severe dangers—in some cases, of death—if they get involved with the criminal facilitators. The last people in the world who have any regard for human rights are those criminal facilitators. They do not care about the human rights of those whom they are trafficking; they care only about their profits.

On the wider issue, I agree with my hon. Friend that western European countries in particular, along with other countries in the west, should do much more to try to reduce the push factors of civil and political disruption, and other problems, in a number of states. Indeed, that was part of the purpose of my speech in Lisbon last week.

Will the Home Secretary consider widening the British Government's involvement in the Normandy ports of Le Havre, Cherbourg and Caen—which bring many heavy vehicles to the south coast of Great Britain—and, in particular, look at the issue raised at Le Havre, where many vehicles are left unattended for long periods outside secure areas? Is he satisfied that the fines being levied against drivers and others for that trade are sufficiently severe to deter them? The going rate is now $1,000 or DM2,000 per person, so there is a lot of money to be made. Will he address the issue in Belgium and France in particular, and in Italy? The authorities there know well where the organisers of the rackets are and where the trafficking goes on, yet persist in doing little or nothing to bring to justice the people who are behind it.

As I said in my answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), we are working hard with the Belgian, French, Dutch and Italian authorities to improve the security of vehicles—whether they be road or railway vehicles—leaving their ports; some freight trains leave the so-called port of a freight yard outside Milan. We are working very hard with them to improve their security. As I said, one thing that the civil penalty has done is greatly to improve the incentive for those ports and hauliers to improve security. The previous criticism of the civil penalty was that the fine of £2,000 per head was too large, not too small. However, we are always open to review fines.

I am aware of the stories about the Belgian, French and Italian authorities. We have, however, been able to achieve considerable co-operation and understanding from the Belgian, French, Italian and other authorities. Every country in western Europe, with the almost single and singular exception of Portugal, has a major problem both of asylum seekers—some genuine, but many unfounded—and wholly undocumented illegal immigrants.

My right hon. Friend said that we could not be told very much until the criminal investigation had been conducted. However, could we not be told some very elementary things, such as what the tachograph and the freight manifest show? Is it not true that one could not get many more than 60 people inside a refrigerated box van? Does not that fact suggest that there was no freight in the van? Could we not have answers now to some fairly simple questions?

As the House would expect, I have spoken to the chief constable of Kent in anticipation of this statement. As everyone would expect, he is very concerned that information that is sensitive and that could, if released, be prejudicial to the investigation is not released. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that. As I said, when it is safe to release the information and Kent police are satisfied that no prejudice to the investigation will arise, I shall be the first to release it.

It is an appalling tragedy. If any good could possibly come out of it, it would be that action followed from it and that such a tragedy never happened again. If any of the Governments with whom the Home Secretary has been in touch believe that there is no sense of urgency, perhaps this tragedy will persuade them that we must urgently clamp down on this appalling and vile trade. Will the Home Secretary also look into new technology, even military technology, that Governments across the whole of Europe could use to detect whether human beings are inside vehicles? Checking only at ports is simply not enough, particularly if people are able to board vehicles before they reach ports. I understand that, to date, we do not even know where those individuals boarded, or where they died in transit.

I hope very much that this dreadful tragedy will have the beneficial outcome of getting some countries in Asia better to understand that they have to be really serious about helping the countries of western Europe to deal with this traffic. Every country in the world that I am aware of signs up to statements saying that they will co-operate effectively; now, we have to ensure that action follows. As I told the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), we are ready to consider any new technology that can secure the better detection of clandestines before they enter the United Kingdom.

While we all condemn the criminal gangs who trade in human misery, should we not also—as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said—recognise the sheer desperation of those who are willing to venture upon such a journey and recognise, at least to some extent, the risks that they face? Should we not also work on the reasonable basis that they did not undertake that journey to come to Britain to live on benefits? They were desperate people. Although we recognise that immigration control is absolutely necessary, we should not forget for one moment that those people wanted a better life, and that they died for that reason.

It is, of course, a matter for common humanity. We must all recognise the desperation of those people—there is no question about that—and the circumstances in which they died, sealed in that vehicle.

I have already explained the Government's approach, and I hope that this event will send a message to those who may be enticed into involvement with these criminal facilitators that any promises that are held out to them of an easy journey and an easy life when they get here will turn out to be empty.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall now make a statement on the violence involving so-called England supporters at the Euro 2000 football championships in Brussels and Charleroi in Belgium. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, Her Majesty's Government profoundly regret what has happened, and I would like to express our deep apologies to the people of Belgium.

As the House knows, events on the field this weekend were wholly overshadowed by events off the pitch. I am sure that the whole House will have felt my feelings of outrage and shame as we witnessed our fellow citizens engage in appalling drunken violence on the streets of Belgium. Those people have disgraced the nation and our national game.

We, of course, fully share UEFA's anger at the disgraceful scenes, and the whole nation has taken full account of the warnings issued by UEFA regarding our future participation in the competition. Up-to-date information is as follows. There were serious disturbances in Brussels on Friday last, 16 June, and then on Saturday 17 June, in Charleroi and Brussels. So far, we have received information on the identity of 584 United Kingdom citizens who have been arrested in the disturbances.

In a few cases, the individuals have been charged with specific criminal offences, including possession of offensive weapons and assault. However, in the overwhelming proportion of cases the detention was by what is known in Belgium as an administrative arrest, typically for failure to carry a passport or other means of identification, and no charges have followed. Instead, the individuals have been made subject to immediate deportation. So far, about 400 have been returned to the United Kingdom. As they have arrived, police and immigration officials have required them to provide full details of their identity.

The House has been kept informed about the arrangements made over many months to intensify co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Belgian, Dutch and French authorities to ensure as far as possible that anyone previously involved in football hooliganism should not be able to gain entry to those countries.

It is widely accepted across Europe that the British police, led by the National Criminal Intelligence Service and by Assistant Chief Constable Tim Hollis, are among the most professional and thorough in identifying known hooligans and in policing arrangements in co-operation with overseas police forces. The Dutch Minister of the Interior, Klaus de Vries, to whom I spoke this morning, has issued a further statement expressing his satisfaction with the co-operation provided by the British authorities.

Well in advance of the competition, lists were provided to the Dutch and Belgians of 500 British individuals subject to banning orders and a further 500 against whom there were football-related convictions but no banning orders in force. All 500 who were subject to any kind of banning order were sent letters advising them not to travel, and 101 individuals subject to international banning orders are directly prohibited from travelling abroad. There have been no reports of any of those 101 leaving the United Kingdom during the period of the competition. In addition, the National Criminal Intelligence Service has provided information to the Netherlands and Belgium on another 200 individuals on whom there was good intelligence but who had no football-related convictions.

All this has been part of an extensive international operation in which British police and immigration officials and the football authorities have been actively involved. Further details were set out in the report of the Euro 2000 Co-ordinating Group placed in the Library of the House on 7 June.

The House will, I believe, understand that it is, by definition, far more difficult to identify in advance those who might cause trouble if they have not been previously convicted of a football-related offence or if there is no police intelligence about them. The overwhelming majority of those arrested and expelled from Belgium come into that category.

Of the nearly 400 now being deported, just 15 have been identified as previously known hooligans and of those, one has had a domestic exclusion order against him. One of those is too many, but that does demonstrate that our controls against known hooligans have largely been effective. It also demonstrates that legislative changes of the kind that the House has had before it recently, and which have been urged, could not have had the effect of reducing by a significant degree the numbers of people, without previous football convictions or intelligence against them, involved in the trouble in the past three days.

We have always made it clear that we would keep under review the arrangements that we have made in the light of events, including the fact of large-scale arrests that have led in the main to deportation directly, rather to than prosecution and conviction in the Netherlands and Belgium. Further to the measures announced on 7 June, therefore, we are putting in place the following further measures to take account of the current situation.

The scrutiny by law enforcement agencies at ports has been intensified to prevent any of those deported from Belgium in the last few days from returning either to Belgium or the Netherlands. Immigration and police checks have been stepped up and the main carriers and the Belgian and Dutch authorities are being given full access to the information available to the law enforcement agencies so that they may refuse to take as passengers people whom they know will be refused entry at the other end.

British police services are being asked to make contact with all those deported to warn them not to return to Belgium and the Netherlands, and the likely serious consequences of returning. We have offered further assistance from British police forces, in addition to the significant presence already in Brussels and Charleroi and on Eurostar, led by Assistant Chief Constable Tim Hollis, to spot known troublemakers and to help to identify those arrested.

We have proposed that the Belgian and Dutch authorities mark the passports of those they deport to make subsequent identification easier should they try to return. We have urged upon the Belgian and Dutch authorities the importance, in our view, of restrictions on the sale of alcohol in the areas affected, as was successfully achieved by the Dutch at Eindhoven.

Following discussions today involving the Government, the Football Association and the premier league clubs, any supporter convicted of hooliganism, or against whom there is good evidence of hooliganism, will be banned by the clubs for life from attending football matches in England.

Let me now come back to the issue of legislation. The powers of the courts were strengthened last September by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, which was piloted through the House by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on the basis of drafting provided by the Home Office. The Act imposed a duty on the courts to make a banning order whenever someone is convicted of a football-related offence if a ban would help prevent violence or disorder connected with football matches. The Act also provided for the imposition of passport conditions on anyone subject to an international football banning order. We had hoped that the Act would also include a power for courts to make banning orders preventing unconvicted hooligans from attending international matches—if there was good evidence against them that was insufficient to achieve a conviction—but, as the House knows, that proposal encountered vociferous opposition from certain hon. Members.

The courts have extensive powers to impose passport conditions on anyone subject to an international ban and to impose an international ban whenever a domestic ban is imposed, but few international bans have been made. We will be taking steps to encourage courts to impose such orders in all cases in which they could help to prevent hooliganism by England supporters overseas. We will also consider whether to make a single banning order for domestic and international matches with mandatory passport conditions, as well as powers for the courts in respect of unconvicted hooligans against whom there is other good evidence.

Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has done a huge amount to stamp out football violence at home, and we have done much work with the police, the Football Association and the authorities abroad to prevent violence overseas. However, the incidents remind us once again of the shame that hooliganism has brought on our country down the years and they must reinforce our determination to help to stamp it out overseas as we have done at home.

I thank the Home Secretary for that statement, but he must be aware that many will regard it as woefully complacent and inadequate.

The situation that faces the Home Secretary is that UEFA has said that if there is any more trouble, England could be banned from the rest of the contest. That is the extremely serious situation that faces us. It would have very much strengthened his hand in dealing with UEFA and other Governments if he had been able to say that he had taken all measures that other countries have taken. Is he aware that one of the most pathetic exhibitions over the past few days has been that of a Home Secretary who has been in office for three years trying to blame the Opposition for his own inaction?

Perhaps it would help to put on the record exactly what happened and to ask the Home Secretary whether he agrees. Does he agree that, in 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—who then held the post that I hold now—tabled an amendment not to a private Member's Bill, but to a Government Bill, which would have allowed unconvicted persons to be restrained from travelling? Does the Home Secretary agree that he himself rejected that very sensible amendment?

Does the Home Secretary agree that, having rejected it, he then wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and said that, although he had rejected it, he agreed that it was an important issue, that such a measure was necessary and that, therefore, perhaps it could be tagged on to a private Member's Bill—namely that being produced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)?

Lo and behold, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford proposed his Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) tabled an amendment to it to prevent unconvicted persons, in certain circumstances, from travelling during international matches. Is the Home Secretary aware that, far from it being my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who stopped that, it was actually Labour Members as well?

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was the Minister responsible for the Bill, said—[Interruption.] I am afraid that Labour Members are going to hear what actually happened. The Home Secretary is going to have to admit what happened because he has been trying to shelter behind the flimsiest of excuses for the last three days. The House is now going to hear the truth.

Does the Home Secretary agree that, in Committee, the Minister for Sport said:

We need to find a way of dealing with those people. We accept that the issue is complex and that the Bill is not the right place to deal with it … we may be able to deal with this issue later in a Government Bill.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 May 1999; c. 5.]

That was in May 1999; it is now June 2000. Does the Home Secretary admit that he has done absolutely nothing in between to fulfil that promise? Even as Euro 2000 was starting, once again—following in the footsteps of my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield and for Penrith and The Border—the Opposition offered the Government support for any emergency legislation that they wanted to propose. The Government proposed no such legislation.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the mayor of Brussels has said that there was an agreement between the British Government and the Belgian Ministry of the Interior to stop as many people as possible who might commit offences, but that it had not been implemented? What was that agreement and why was it not implemented? UEFA has criticised Government inaction; the Football Association has criticised Government inaction; the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs has criticised Government inaction. Will the Government now admit that they have indeed been inactive?

Will the Home Secretary, even now, use the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill in the House of Lords to introduce the measures that the Minister for Sport was foreshadowing over a year ago—or is he instead going to leave it to the next Conservative Government, who are now not very far off?

Yet again, we have seen a display from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that fails to meet the requirements of the occasion. A huge amount of work has been undertaken, by the Government, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and by—[Interruption.]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Home Secretary, but I must tell the House that this extremely serious matter is better conducted without chorus and counter-chorus.

A huge amount of work has been undertaken by Ministers, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the territorial police and by many people overseas to ensure that the arrangements that have been put in place work effectively. I remind the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that, as I mentioned in my statement, the Dutch Minister of the Interior telephoned me today to tell me that he was very grateful for the extent of the co-operation. He certainly understands the problems that we have faced.

The right hon. Lady does no service at all to herself, and still less to this country. The simple truth is that we would have liked to have in place the powers to which she referred, but they would not have helped us to deal with this situation. The right hon. Lady wants to make party political points and to ensure that people outside the House are misinformed about the reality.

The reality is that virtually all the people against whom such a civil order could have been made were on the list of 1,000 names provided by NCIS to the overseas authorities in Belgium and the Netherlands. We are pretty certain that, in all but 15 cases, our work has been effective in ensuring that those people did not travel abroad.

The right hon. Lady referred to an offer concerning emergency legislation that she made earlier last month. The Football Association raised the matter with the Government, and I would have brought emergency legislation to the House if I had thought that that would have been worth while and would have amounted to anything more than a gesture. However, the simple fact is that emergency legislation at that stage would not have achieved anything. Indeed, it could have raised expectations that we had some process by which we could identify all the people who had not been identified by then, and taken action against them. That would not have been the case.

As I said, we have done a huge amount of work, through NCIS and the police, to pass to the Belgian and Dutch authorities details about every one of the 500 people subject to banning orders, and about those with convictions for football-related offences. Other information has also been provided and it has been acted on.

I regret that the right hon. Lady now seeks to make rather obscure party points about this matter. Although earlier this month she did indeed make the offer to which she referred, I note what an official Conservative party spokesman told The Times on 30 May. He said:

What the Government must now do is show that they are prepared to invest in the resources necessary to ensure that everything can be done to track down and convict those who commit football violence.

I do not agree with that sentiment, but the spokesman went on:

Only once these measures are fully used can we start to assess whether there is a need for further legislation.

That was the opinion of the right hon. Lady and her party one week; she changed her opinion the following week.

Over the years, the Government have strengthened the legislation and the powers available, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for his support of the Football (Offences and Disorders) Act 1999. However, no one in the House or the country should try to avoid the problem that exists. Although our police and intelligence activity has been very effective generally against those who we know are likely to cause trouble, the huge proportion of the people who have caused trouble were not previously known to the police or the authorities as being likely to cause football hooliganism. The right hon. Lady should apply her mind better to making constructive suggestions for dealing with that problem.

Will my right hon. Friend impress on those fans who are still in Europe what a very serious situation this is? Is he aware that UEFA will not hesitate to ban England, like it banned Liverpool and every other English club after the Heysel disaster, and that there will be provocation tomorrow from German fans who, having lost, will try to get British fans to riot so that they will be thrown out.

There is no doubt that there are people at the top of UEFA, such as Lennart Johansson, who think that Germany should host the World cup. The decision will be made in less than three weeks. Many in UEFA think that Germany was promised the World cup and should still hold it. However, Lennart Johansson lost the election to Sepp Blatter, whom we support. Some deep political chess will be played in the next 24 hours. If a handful of drunk yobboes respond to any provocation tomorrow, this country could lose the opportunity to host the World cup. Millions have been poured into the new Wembley stadium, but Britain could lose the prestige that hosting the World cup would bring, and all because of half a dozen yobboes throwing pint glasses.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what has been done regarding those who have been sent back. Can he impress on the Dutch and Belgian police that it is not enough to turn hosepipes and water cannons on these people, whack a few heads and chase them off the streets? They have to be prosecuted, imprisoned if necessary, and fined, so that some who have quite good jobs are exposed and lose their jobs.

Order. While I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has considerable experience in these matters, I must ask him to put a question, because many others also wish to contribute.

We have no protest or complaint about what the Government are doing, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the seriousness of the situation has gone far beyond a football issue?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but he will appreciate that it is not for me to comment on what he describes as the internal politics of UEFA or FIFA. On convictions, it is plainly better, where possible, for the Belgian and Dutch police not only to arrest people but to charge them with specific offences. Our law does not know, as far as I am aware, of the notion of an administrative arrest. We know of arrest for alleged criminal offences. Our provisions have been designed to ensure that when people are convicted abroad of a football-related offence, they can be subject here to a banning order. My opposite numbers in Belgium and the Netherlands—Antoine Duquesne and Klaus de Vries—are well aware of that and, wherever possible, they will seek convictions in their own courts.

As this is a statement about Euro 2000, may we first ask the Home Secretary to pass on, through the Minister for Sport, our congratulations to an England team that won on a day when the cricket and rugby teams lost? We hope that the team will go on winning without being distracted by people, whom we all condemn, who are doing nothing to advance the cause of English football.

I hope that the Home Secretary accepts that the best way to deal not just with this game and this trouble but with the future of England's participation in football is to concentrate not on what might have been and on changes to the law that would probably have made no difference in practice, but on what we can do now. In that context, does he accept that there are two things that might usefully be on the agenda? First, I refer to an affirmation of the law, which is that the British, Dutch and Belgian authorities have the power to arrest anybody whom they reasonably believe is likely to commit an offence, and they should use that power, either this side of the channel or the other. Secondly, if the Home Secretary were minded to ensure that all future orders were simultaneously national and international, and if he considered, as a matter of urgency, converting the national domestic banning orders into international orders, he would have support from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

On the basis of the practical experience of the weekend, will the right hon. Gentleman look urgently to his colleagues in Belgium and ask them to follow the Dutch experience, which was good, in banning alcohol in the area of the match and possibly in some areas in Brussels, and to increase the number of spotters? I am informed by law-abiding travellers that, during train journeys in Belgium, people are phoning one another and arranging plans for meeting to cause trouble after the match.

Lastly, let us ensure that the Belgian and Dutch authorities work together to impose cordons, which they are lawfully entitled to do, to exclude people without tickets and without lawful reason to go into certain places where matches are being played.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach to what is unquestionably a difficult situation. He asked me four questions. As for affirmation of the law, wherever possible, whether here, in the Netherlands or in Belgium, the police should arrest people and then charge them and have them prosecuted in the relevant courts. That is our approach, too.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we should make future national domestic banning orders apply internationally as well, along with, I might add, a passport condition. Yes, we should give urgent consideration to that. He asks whether we will invite the Belgians to follow the Dutch experience and to ban alcohol. As I said in my statement, we are already asking the Belgian authorities whether they will follow the lead of the Dutch authorities. Alcohol was not banned in the Netherlands, but regulations were laid down requiring the sale only of very low-strength alcohol. That seems to have worked satisfactorily.

As for increasing the number of spotters, I held a meeting this morning with John Abbott and Brian Drew from the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The British police service stands ready to provide additional resources where they can be used effectively.

The hon. Gentleman suggested the imposition of cordons round the main squares—for example, in Brussels and Charleroi. I shall relay that suggestion to the Belgian authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we should not try to rewrite history about a private Member's Bill last year, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill? As one of its sponsors, I urged the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to be wary of amending it in the way suggested. To introduce a major amendment, which had not been seen by me as a sponsor, was probably not the best way to proceed.

The lesson is that we must examine what has happened over the weekend and say that the Government and football authorities together, recognising that football clubs have tremendous information throughout the country, should take action to ensure that such behaviour cannot be repeated. A Government Bill should be introduced to deal with the matter.

I certainly accept that. That was the point of my statement, among other things. We need to examine the lessons of what happened over the weekend. We must take stock and introduce further measures in the light of those events.

First, I welcome the Home Secretary's comments about international banning orders. When passing legislation, it was Parliament's intention that they would be used against anyone committing a football-related offence. Anything that tightens up that procedure to ensure that the courts use such powers is to be welcomed. It is to be hoped that that need not be made mandatory, but if need be, so be it.

I say more in sorrow than in anger that I am disappointed by the spin that the right hon. Gentleman has been putting during recent days on the question of unconvicted football hooligans and the withdrawal of passports. I, more than anyone else, should know why I withdrew the amendment to the Bill to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) referred. It was my proposal, and it was my decision to withdraw it. May I tell the right hon. Gentleman, with all due respect, that he is wrong with the spin that he is putting on this matter?

I did not remove the proposal because some of my hon. Friends made certain speeches on Second Reading. Three Labour Members also spoke about it. Equally importantly, the civil liberties industry was mounting campaigns against the proposal. I feared that certain sections of the media were opposed to it and that there could be serious trouble in the House of Lords. I did not want to lose all the valuable weapons in that legislation just because of that. It would be fair to say that I had the Minister's agreement that it was more important for the Government to deal with that controversial issue. I understood that the Government intended to introduce their own legislation, using their substantial majority, to take away passports from unconvicted hooligans provided that certain conditions were satisfied before a court of this country. I urge the Home Secretary to take that action. The seven months since the state opening has been too long for no action to be taken.

There are apparently 300 convicted football hooligans who can travel to Belgium and Holland because my Act is not retrospective. Had we had that legislation on unconvicted football hooligans, we could have used it on them, because they have a track record of causing trouble. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, had that legislation been on the statute book, all the people who were deported from Copenhagen earlier this year could have been prevented from travelling to Holland and Belgium now?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and the House is grateful to him for having promoted the legislation that came into force in September last year. I also note what he said about the problems being not only on his side of the House. I shall not detain the House, but I could if invited to do so. He will be aware that vociferous opposition about the proposal to be included in that legislation was the most intense from his side of the House. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) compared the proposal with systems in the Soviet Union. That was the measure of the Tory opposition.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that it is quite common for Governments of both parties to use what are described as hand-out Bills, as we did in that case, as a vehicle for legislation. None of us anticipated that these proposals would run into such problems. I understand the problems that he mentioned with the civil liberties industry. The House will know that there is a modest proposal to bring our law on the mode of trial into line with that of other European countries and other common law Commonwealth countries. That ran into the most intense difficulties in the other place, such that we had to start again in this place.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the 300 hooligans who had convictions against them but were not subject to retrospective banning orders. Those were, in the main, people against whom there were football-related convictions. I repeat that, for reasons that the House understands, those people would not be the subject of the civil orders that it was intended to include in the hon. Gentleman's Bill. However, the names of 500 people, including those 300, against whom there are football-related convictions but not banning orders have been communicated on lists by NCIS to the Belgian, Dutch, French and German authorities. As I have already made clear, the provision of that information has worked almost completely to prevent those people from travelling abroad, so we have achieved the same end by a different method. I must repeat the point to the House, because it is extremely important to our understanding of the problem, that the British Government have done a huge amount with the police and other authorities to crack down on those whom we know are football hooligans either because there is an order against them or because they have football-related convictions. However, the huge difficulty has been in spotting people against whom there are no convictions or who have convictions that are nothing to do with football.

May I join my right hon. Friend in expressing dismay at the activities of a minority of so-called fans over the weekend that has brought shame on this nation, and has overshadowed our success on the field. Does he agree that this growing culture of thuggery by a minority of people who attend matches—often without tickets—intent on vandalism and acts of racism starts with the chanting of racist slogans at many matches and in pubs and clubs? I noticed that at the weekend when watching the match in a pub in my constituency. If matters are left unchecked, the situation develops into the violence and completely out-of-hand behaviour that we saw from some people at the weekend. What encouragement will my right hon. Friend give players, clubs, the Football Association and all decent-minded fans to ensure that any form of racism, xenophobia and brutality that starts in the stands is not allowed to go unchecked, for the great majority of good football fans?

I entirely share my hon. Friend's abhorrence of such racism and xenophobia. It is the most perverted form of patriotism that any of us has witnessed.

My hon. Friend asked about encouragement. As she will be aware, a major campaign—"kick racism out of football"—is under way in football. I am pleased to be associated with that. Much work is being done by many clubs to ensure that they clamp down on such racism and on the xenophobia exhibited by their supporters and those who attend their grounds. In addition, she will be aware that, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we took powers greatly to increase the strength of racially aggravated offences and to raise the penalties for them.

The Home Secretary disclaims all responsibility, but he knows that, on 22 June 1998, as shadow Home Secretary, I proposed a new clause to the Crime and Disorder Bill that would have given the police extra powers to go to the courts to prevent football hooligans from travelling overseas, even if they had not been convicted of an offence. At the same time, we promised the Government every co-operation on such measures. Those are the facts.

That was two years ago, however. Surely, the failure of the Government is that, during the intervening period, they have done nothing about that; they have not introduced a Government measure. Everyone in the House understands that it must be Government legislation—not a private Member's Bill.

Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman's comments on intelligence beg the question of whether sufficient resources are being given to the police, who are generally starved of resources—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] There is no controversy about that. Do the police have enough good intelligence on which everyone can act?

The right hon. Gentleman was indeed shadow Home Secretary in 1998. If he reads the record, he will be aware that, although he made those proposals, they were not in a form that could be accepted. I do not criticise him for that; he knows that was the situation. He also knows that it is by no means always the case that the only vehicle for Government-supported legislation is a Government Bill. That happened under his Government as well as under the Labour Government. Such hand-out Bills are often offered to Members for introduction as private Members' Bills and we are glad to have the co-operation of Members on both sides of the House in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman wants to make those unimpressive party points, but he was a long-standing member of the previous Government who were in power for 18 years and there are big questions about what they did to strengthen the law on such matters.

I shall deal with two further points. The first is on those people with football-related convictions. As I have said to the House on several occasions, we should have preferred the powers that we proposed to have been included in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. However, we sought to achieve the same end by a different route. I repeat the point—Opposition Members really do have to understand it, because it is important in comprehending what has been going on in Charleroi and Brussels—that not only were the overwhelming majority of those arrested and detained in Brussels and Charleroi at the weekend people against whom there was no banning order, but they had no football-related conviction at all. Indeed, in most cases the police held no information about them.

As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about resources, if he wants to bat across the Chamber what happened under the 1992–97 Government when there was a real-terms cut in the resources available to the police, I am happy to do that, too. I should also tell him that at no stage has NCIS or the Association of Chief Police Officers raised with me questions about the lack of resources.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that the people involved in the violence are not, in any sense, genuine football fans, in that they have no real interest in the welfare of the game. Does he also agree that those who are most at threat as a result of such hooliganism are genuine football fans? Those who watch the game on television will not be assaulted and attacked in the street; it will be the genuine travelling fans themselves. Will he encourage those fans to play a full part in ensuring that the minority of hooligans who cause such chaos are arrested, sentenced and barred for ever from the game?

I share my hon. Friend's sentiments entirely. In 1988, I and my then seven-year-old son were caught up in the most terrible violence that took place between England and Scotland supporters on the way to the home international at Wembley. I therefore fully understand that genuine fans—and often their families—are most at threat directly from such violence. They also pay the penalty when sanctions are taken against English football.

My hon. Friend asked what genuine fans can do. The most important and immediate action that they can take is to provide information to the telephone hotline that NCIS operates. Its number is 0800 515 495.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office Minister in the other place yesterday told the media that the Government had done everything that they could—including everything that they could have done legislatively—before the outbreak of violence at the weekend? Will the Home Secretary assure at least me that his colleague was not speaking for him, not least because of the information that the Home Secretary provided in his statement? Hitherto, I have held the Home Secretary in high regard in this respect.

I am grateful for the compliment. The Government have done, I think, a huge amount and virtually everything that we could do. I have already set out the measures that we have taken and I repeat, in case the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the point, that information on those against whom there are no banning orders but against whom there are convictions for football-related offences has been provided to the Belgian authorities. I personally discussed the matter in advance of the game with the Belgian and Dutch Interior Ministers and asked that they use that information to exclude such individuals from their countries. They have done that. We have achieved the same end by a different route.

Again, I repeat the point that—this is the huge difficulty that everyone has had in anticipating the trouble—overwhelmingly, those who have been caught up in the trouble are people against whom there was no previous evidence either of a banning order or of their involvement in football-related violence.

While I entirely condemn the thuggery and violence that we saw at the weekend, is it not unjust that the English football team and football authorities should be threatened because of public disorder for which they have no responsibility and over which they have no influence?

We must, I am afraid, accept the realities. When such disorder takes place—whether we like it or not—sanctions are sometimes imposed either on an individual club or on a nation participating in an event. We are all doing our very best to get across to UEFA the extent of the arrangements that we have put in place; I have spelt them out to the House. Those arrangements have worked effectively to deal with the hooligans who have been convicted and against whom there are banning orders or against whom we have intelligence. However, with the best will in the world, it is extremely difficult to work out what other measures could have been taken that could have identified in advance those without football-related convictions and on whom there was no intelligence to suggest that, when they got to Belgium, they were going to get very drunk and involved in mindless violence.

Order. We must now move on. I understand that the House will return to this subject tomorrow.

Before I call the Leader of the House, I remind Back Benchers that there will be a 15-minute limit on their speeches.

This debate provides the House with an opportunity to comment on the royal commission report on reform of the House of Lords, entitled "A House for the Future", Cm 4534. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the work of the royal commission and its chairman Lord Wakeham. It completed a challenging task on time, although many people said that that could not be done, and produced a comprehensive and unanimous report which addressed coherently the issues that it had been asked to examine. That report means that debate on the next stage of the reform of the House of Lords, which was first mooted by a Liberal Government in 1911, has advanced significantly.

Of course, that is the second significant advance, the first being the House of Lords Act 1999. I remind the House that the Government made it clear at the outset that we saw this as a two-stage process and were convinced that the issues would never be addressed at all unless they were addressed in two stages. Three things confirm me in that view. First, it took most of the century to get to stage 1, which rather puts the whingeing about the so-called delay on stage 2 into perspective. Secondly, the debate in the House of Lords on the royal commission report provided a clear indication that many there still regret and oppose the demise of the hereditary principle, which sits rather oddly with the Opposition's claimed espousal of democracy. Thirdly, we must consider the sheer scale of the imbalance of the previous House.

After all the carping about Tony's cronies and all the allegations about packing the House of Lords, even after the departure of most of the 750 Members who were there on the basis of heredity, the Conservative party still has 32 more peers than the Labour party in the House of Lords. However, the Wakeham report may help us to move on to stage 2.

Will the Leader of the House confirm that there has never been a majority of hereditary peers in the other place?

I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means. If he means that there has never ever been a majority of Conservatives in the upper House, I am afraid that I cannot cast my mind back across all the centuries of its existence and be confident that that is the case. No one with any understanding of how that House operates would dispute that the Conservative party has always and overwhelmingly held control there.

I want to make it clear at the outset that Ministers are here to listen to the views of the House rather than to announce the Government's settled conclusions. As my distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord St John of Fawsley, said in another place on 7 March during the debate on reform of the House of Lords:

No one in their right senses would expect a government to come forward with firm decisions on a Royal Commission before there had been a debate in both Houses of Parliament. That would be quite contrary to the spirit of our constitution.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 971.]

I agree with him.

On this occasion.

Yes, on this occasion: I accept that I do not always do so.

I want to make it clear, however, that the Government are minded to accept the broad outlines of the royal commission report; that is, we agree that the second Chamber should be largely nominated, with a minority elected element with a particular remit to represent the regions, and that there should be a statutory appointments commission. On the more specific proposals, such as the size and method of selection of the elected element, or the precise powers and functions of the House and the appointments commission, we have made no firm decisions and will want to hear alternative views.

We have said, too, that we want to proceed, if at all possible, by consensus, and the unanimity of the report encourages us to hope that it may be found. I hope that today's debate will strengthen that view.

Will the right hon. Lady indicate whether, in seeking consensus, she will be seeking the opinions of the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Why?

Because of the regional dimension of the report and the need to ensure that we are getting a balanced picture before we come to final conclusions.

I am not sure that anyone has reached a view about asking for any formal response, but of course the Government are interested in hearing views from all quarters and from all who take an interest in the way in which these matters will be decided.

The first and founding principle that the Government made clear is in the royal commission's terms of reference, and it says that its recommendations must have regard

to the need to maintain the position of the House of Commons as the pre-eminent chamber of Parliament.

Our reason for that requirement was simple. The position of this House is the cornerstone of our democracy. Through elections to it, the people choose who will represent them in Parliament, and through elections to it in aggregate, they choose who will govern them.

One logical conclusion of that is that there is no need for a second Chamber at all. We do not draw that conclusion. The Government believe that there is a role for a clearly subordinate second Chamber, primarily in the legislative process. There has, of course, been criticism of our insistence that the second Chamber should be subordinate. It has been suggested that the primary purpose of the second Chamber should be not to scrutinise legislation and to ask the Government and this House to think again about individual proposals, but rather to hold the Government to account. That is the function of this House. It must be done by the Chamber that has the power to dismiss the Government. To have two Chambers, each with an identical role in that respect, would be bound to lead to conflict and confusion.

I completely agree with the right hon. Lady about the proper roles of both Houses, but does she not think that a second Chamber that is subordinate to the House of Commons is wholly incompatible with its being completely elected? If it is completely elected, it will seek parity.

I entirely share that view, as I will make clear in a few moments. It is for precisely that reason that Lord Wakeham and his colleagues came to the conclusions that they did.

The main purpose, as we see it, of the second Chamber in our parliamentary system should be to make a distinctive contribution to the legislative process. Indeed, the fact that it is distinct and different from that of this House has always been one of the principal claims made on behalf of the House of Lords by those who defended it even in its unreformed state. That, therefore, is the role of the second Chamber from which its functions flow, and we asked the royal commission to look first at the role, then at the functions and only finally at the membership required to carry out that role and those functions.

To make a distinctive contribution, we argue, the second Chamber needs to be distinctively constituted. While understanding the political considerations, it should not be dominated by them. Although it would not be representative in the direct sense that Members of Parliament are representative, it should broadly reflect the economic, social, gender, religious and ethnic make-up of society. It must contain enough expertise to make an informed and non-partisan contribution to debate on any subject. We believe that an elected, or largely elected, second Chamber would not deliver that combination of requirements.

I am left wondering whether the new second Chamber should reflect the social class composition and perhaps the wealth distribution and educational qualifications of the British public.

That is an interesting point, on which my hon. Friend will no doubt want to enlarge during his own contribution to the debate.

The Labour party, in gathering its evidence for the royal commission, and the royal commission itself found that a constant theme ran through the representations that they received: people do not want a second Chamber that is a clone of the House of the Commons or that loses the contribution of a non-party political element.

The Government agree with the royal commission's analysis that the most efficient way to ensure the right mix of political, non-political and diverse Members will be to select the appointed majority individually. That will equip the second Chamber for the job that it should do, but it will not undermine the position of this House as the cornerstone of our political system. We accept the proposition that a high proportion of the appointed membership of the second Chamber should be broadly representative of political parties and that the balance of that membership should be determined according to the votes cast in the preceding general election.

We believe, and strongly endorse, the royal commission's view that no political party should ever have a majority over all the other elements in the second Chamber. Indeed, I hope to hear a strong and clear endorsement and acceptance of that from the official Opposition today. I have repeatedly pressed for such a declaration; I hope that it will come in uncompromising terms. Not only do we reject the notion that any party should have a majority, but, like the royal commission, we reject the proposal for a wholly elected second Chamber in the same united Parliament. That would be bound to lead to conflict and division.

Cannot my right hon. Friend conceive of designing a remit for the second Chamber that makes it complementary to this Chamber, not in conflict with it? If she cannot, does she understand that she is saying that democracy has no role to play in the second Chamber? Where does that leave the people of this country? Surely they have a right to elect people who sit in half of our Parliament and it is not for whoever does the selecting—whether the Government, or we in the Chamber—to determine who should sit; it is for the people of this country to decide who sits in the legislature over them.

I know my hon. Friend's strong views on the matter, but I simply tell him that, no, I cannot imagine a remit that would not be a recipe for conflict if there were two elected Chambers in a single Parliament. Indeed, I cannot imagine a remit that would not lead to a conflict between Members themselves about who had the right and the authority and who was elected most recently. All that would be a recipe for division and conflict. Of course I accept the case that my hon. Friend makes; I simply tell him that it is my view—I speak for myself now—that, yes, it is true that democracy is given expression by the election of representatives to serve the people, but democracy is not strengthened by adding another body to which people are elected to carry out exactly the same job. That would produce a different combination of democratically elected Chambers and would lead to conflict. I get the impression that there are some who would welcome that and who, in consequence, support it. I do not put my hon. Friend in that category.

Is it not a fact that, under the recipe proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and other hon. Members who believe in a wholly elected Chamber of whatever sort, they would find that there was an alternative Member of Parliament for their constituencies who would claim to represent them as much as they did and take up the same cases and claim to be able to deal with them better? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?] The Members of the two Houses of Parliament would simply strive for greater authenticity, without the outcome of a properly representative two-Chamber democracy.

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. Following the sedentary interjection by Conservative Members, I would add that the point is that there would be not a Chamber with a different role and remit, but a second elected Chamber in this Parliament—not in another Parliament—and a challenge to the supremacy of the House.

Why is the United States able to have two directly elected Houses in the same Congress without constitutional deadlock?

My understanding is that the United States suffers constitutional deadlock repeatedly. However, putting that aside, and although I yield to nobody in my pride in that country and its place in our history, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the United States is an entire continent and has what can only be described as a federal system. We are a united kingdom; we do not have a federal system.

Not yet.

That is a legitimate debating point, but I simply say to him that that is a different matter from having two elected Chambers in this Westminster Parliament.

rose

I shall give way to the hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), but shall not give way again on this point.

It will bring the right hon. Lady no comfort to know that I have rather more sympathy with her analysis than she might suspect. However, surely the problem is that the elected Members of a largely appointed House, even if few in number, would assert their authority. Inevitably, there would be a two-tier House, only one of which would have elective authority, with all the problems to which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred. If she wants an appointed Chamber, why does she not seek friends in unexpected quarters and state the case for the logic of making that Chamber wholly appointed and unelected?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. If he has read the Lords debate, he will know that a substantial number of Members, including many Conservatives, made precisely that case. However, the royal commission had to consider a range of issues and proposed a mix of Members. Although I accept that there will be unease about that, the proposal was made unanimously and the Government are not inimical to it.

The case that the Leader of the House is making against a largely democratic second Chamber appears to rest on the view that there will be gridlock between this place and the other place, but are there not the Parliament Acts? Do not they lay down the limits to that gridlock and state very clearly what a second Chamber may and may not do to challenge this place? Why does she think that those restraints would be swept away if we had an elected or largely elected second Chamber?

The hon. Gentleman might have observed that, even without a wholly elected second Chamber, there are those in the Lords itself, as it is today, who question whether we should have quite the same balance in the Parliament Acts and wonder whether the Lords should be able to reject and not merely delay legislation. My case rather than his is being made.

When I said that I would take interventions only from the hon. Members for Teignbridge and for Chichester, I meant that I would take interventions on that point from those who were on their feet and would then continue. However, I did not observe the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). I apologise and give way to him.

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with the right hon. Lady. As a believer in democracy, I find it acceptable for the House of Lords to be unelected while its powers are extremely limited. Surely that is the point.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, although I do not wish to go into it at length. There is also the issue of the powers of the Lords and whether we are discussing those that they currently have and do not exercise or those that they should have and should exercise. That, too, represents a delicate balance that has to be properly considered.

I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely, but is not there a problem? If we are to have some elected and a large number of non-elected Members, there could be divisions between them. The elected Members could feel that they had greater authority than the others. Will she comment on how that might change the atmosphere in the second Chamber?

I am deeply grateful to learn that my right hon. Friend is in agreement with me, bearing in mind his historic role in wrecking previous attempts to reform the House of Lords. He makes a legitimate point, which was closely examined during the debate in the Lords and will, I expect, be discussed in our debate. The arguments are difficult: I believe that those who say that the cohesion of the second Chamber will not deteriorate into two-tier membership have the balance of the argument, but I accept that there is room for wholly legitimate differences of opinion on that point.

On the issue of whether election and the supremacy of the House of Commons are compatible, I am aware of at least one right hon. Opposition Member who not only supports a wholly elected Chamber, but, in consequence, rejects the supremacy of the House of Commons, believing one to be incompatible with the other. The Government share the view that the two are incompatible. On this interesting issue, one finds agreement in surprising and unprecedented places. For the first time ever, I find myself at one with the noble Lord Waddington, who said:

Of course, an elected Chamber composed of the representatives of the people has a special authority. That is why one does not want two of them.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 March 2000; Vol. 610, c. 961.]

Both the royal commission's recommendations of a mixed part-elected Chamber and the Government's response have attracted criticism and disagreement, not least from the media. The main burden of the criticism is that the proposals are undemocratic. As has become evident in today's debate, there are Members of the House of Commons who have a long and honourable commitment to the idea that all Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, whether it is comprised of one Chamber or divided into two, should be elected. They recognise that such a change would have a profound impact on the whole nature of Parliament, including the House of Commons and its relationship with the other place, and I presume that they either welcome those changes as desirable in their own right, or accept them as a price worth paying. I repeat that the Government accept the basic judgment of the royal commission that a largely appointed House, with an elected element within it, provides the range of expertise and experience that a reformed second Chamber would need to add value to the legislative process.

My right hon. Friend will accept that whether or not the mixed system works will depend wholly on who picks the non-elected Members. It would be helpful to be given some clear information in that respect. Those Members whom I would pick, using my long experience and great knowledge, might not necessarily be the same as those who would be picked by other right hon. and hon. Members.

My hon. Friend's timing is, as ever, impeccable: I was coming to that precise point.

Even with the retention of an appointed element, we accept the royal commission's proposals to reform the process by which such appointments are made, which is known as the process of patronage. We have already begun to do so voluntarily. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister to have reduced his powers of patronage over the House of Lords—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I know that the Conservatives hate to be reminded of that, so I shall repeat it: he is the first Prime Minister ever to reduce his powers of patronage over the House of Lords, with the appointment of the interim appointments commission, which, in the words of its chairman, will be "scrupulously independent and rigorous". We accept that, in stage 2, there should a statutory appointments commission.

The royal commission made many detailed recommendations, both on the nature of the statutory appointments commission and on the precise powers and functions of the second Chamber; it also made more detailed recommendations on composition. The Government are continuing to consider those recommendations—all 132 of them—to determine our detailed proposals. Some of the recommendations relate almost entirely to the internal workings of the second Chamber; some would have a profound impact on the House of Commons and on the relationship between the two Chambers; some can be implemented by administrative decisions, whereas others would require possibly complex legislation to effect.

Because of the implications that reform of the House of Lords will have for this House, we suggested in the 1999 White Paper that a Joint Committee of both Houses would be a suitable means of considering the parliamentary aspects of the reform proposals. That is still our view.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House an idea of when the Joint Committee will be established? I expect that she may be about to tell us in her next sentence.

My hon. Friend is right. His timing, too, is impeccable. The Government intend that such a Committee should be established, and it will be established in due course.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

If I continue, I may answer the hon. Gentleman's question even before he has got it out. We hope that today's debate will give us a clear idea of how, following publication of the royal commission's report, views have begun to crystallise. It should give us some indication of whether there is any common ground on the basis of that unanimous and thus consensual report on which the Government can build. Does the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) still wish to intervene?

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Is she committing the Government to establishing the Joint Committee before the general election?

I would anticipate that, but after all, it could still be a considerable time away. It is the Government's intention to appoint the Joint Committee, as I said, to examine the parliamentary aspects of the proposals. All hon. Members will recognise that the proposals are bound to have enormous—I would almost say technical—implications, and we believe that it would be valuable to have the views of parliamentarians on those proposals.

The degree to which common ground can be identified during this debate and beyond it is bound to shape the scope and timing of the Government's own response.