| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Howard : I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. He is, of course, right to pay tribute to the bravery of Special Constable Goodman and, indeed, of other special constables, who, together with the police, are prepared to risk their lives for the rest of the community, day in, day out.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution that local police consultative committees can make. I am sure that they will continue to make an effective contribution under the new arrangements that I have proposed.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : If the Home Secretary is to assume sole reponsibility for the appointment of the chairman and five members of the local police authority, for setting the key objectives of every police force and for capping their expenditure, is he not on the road to making the police answerable only to himself and not to the communities with which partnership is essential for effective policing?
Is it the Government's intention to follow the pattern that has been set in health, in which the Government have taken on doctors, dentists, nurses and even patients in attacking the problems? Are the Government prepared to pit themselves against the entire police service with the proposals?
Column 670
Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our proposals. We are not proposing to cap the expenditure of local police authorities, as he will find out when he looks at the proposals in detail. It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman and his party seriously on law and order. The only debate on the subject at the most recent party assembly was a motion to legalise brothels. When the hon. Gentleman's party takes law and order seriously at its party conference, we will take seriously what he says in the House.
Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South) : Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the reforms are designed to help the police concentrate on what the people of Portsmouth really care about--the prevention and detection of violence, burglary, vandalism and so on--rather than on those matters that are so beloved of the Labour party, and particularly their local councillors, which make police officers into virtual social workers?
Mr. Howard : I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. I hope that the people of Portsmouth will take full advantage of the opportunities that the proposals contained in the White Paper will make available to them. They will be able to have their say in setting the priorities of their local police force--and, indeed, will be able to play a full part in helping their local police force to do its job more effectively.
Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : Is the Home Secretary aware of the perception that the pendulum has been pushed too far against the police and the courts, and that there would be widespread support for any measures that restored the pendulum to at least mid-distance? May we look upon his announcement today as a modest beginning?
Mr. Howard : I am certainly aware of the perception to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The proposals are a first step on an important road and will, I hope, go a long way to removing that perception. We have a unique opportunity to tackle the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and I intend to do everything in my power to tackle it effectively.
Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement about strengthening the partnership between the police and the public will be warmly welcomed, as will his comments about eliminating unnecessary police paperwork--which was imposed by the House when it passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that the police service will have substantial reservations about his decision that he and his successors as Home Secretary will in future appoint half the membership of the new-style police authorities? How will their members be chosen, and who will vet them?
As to the increase in the number of specials, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making their work a form of voluntary national service--so that young men and women who become specials can take part in police work and help everyone to become more aware of their civic responsibilities?
On the question of the Commissioner's advisory body
Column 671
Madam Speaker : Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to ask questions. I ask hon. Members to put one question each, so that we may get through as many as possible. Mr. Secretary Howard.
Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on these matters, and I am grateful for his opening remarks. As to police authority membership, I shall appoint five of the 16 members--fewer than one third of the membership. I shall look for people who can bring their experience and expertise to bear effectively, to ensure that the new authorities give the relevant leadership required in their local areas. I note my hon. Friend's remarks about special constables, and I certainly view service as a special constable as service to the community in a very real sense.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) : The Home Secretary said that the Metropolitan police has unique responsibilities, but he could have considered the option of taking away those responsibilities. Some of us believe that they take up far too much of Metropolitan police resources. As for the Home Secretary's cheap crack about Lambeth as a reason for keeping local councillors out of London's police authority, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten that, under his own proposals, local authority representatives would not even be in the majority on the police authority?
Mr. Howard : The Metropolitan police's special responsibilities are indivisible from its other responsibilities, and it would not be at all sensible to hive them off in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For that reason, I reached the conclusion that I outlined in my statement. I well understand the Opposition's sensitivity towards the behaviour of Lambeth councillors, but they are elected as Labour councillors, and the Opposition cannot disown them.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a key objective of the White Paper is to ensure that police in Aylesbury and throughout the Thames valley area spend less time filling in forms and more time out of the office and on the beat, detecting and catching criminals?
Mr. Howard : I hope that we shall be able to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend identifies. As I said, a study is being made of the amount of police paperwork. I hope that we shall be able to reduce it as a result of that study, and that the consequence will be more policemen on the streets and on patrol, fighting crime--as my hon. Friend and I would like.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : The Secretary of State said that he thought of the special circumstances of London when he took office. Can he tell us how those special circumstances had changed when his right hon. and learned predecessor came to the Dispatch Box a few months ago and said that there would be a new police authority for London?
When the Secretary of State abuses councillors in London, will he remember that he is abusing not just Lambeth councillors but Tory, Labour and Liberal councillors? How will the advisory committee for London be appointed? Will the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities be able to make
Column 672
nominations? What does he intend to do about the City of London, which still has its own police authority in the middle of London?Mr. Howard : I think that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) identified the relevance of the special responsibilities of the Metropolitan police to the decision that I have made. As to the membership of the new authority, no one will be able to make nominations to it, but I shall be open to suggestions from any quarter. When the hon. Gentleman grows excited about these matters, it behoves us all to remember his words in 1986, when he described the police as
"all that is rotten in our society."
Mr. Tony Banks : At Wapping, as you know!
Mr. Howard : As long as I remain Home Secretary, the smaller the extent to which people who hold the views of the hon. Gentleman on the police have any influence on the police, the better.
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : Can the Home Secretary make it plain that, when amalgamations of police forces take place, they will take place after consultation with local people? Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, whatever happens, nothing will be done that affects the integrity of the police force of the county of Kent?
Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend will understand that I have a particular interest in the well-being of the police force of the county of Kent, so I shall bear his remarks in that context very much in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend that no amalgamations will take place without consultation, but the process of consultation will be very much more effective under our proposals than it is at the moment.
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Can the Secretary of State tell us who the consultants are and how much they are being paid? Can he guarantee that none of the principals, or the consultancy, has given money to the Tory party? Can he also guarantee that, when he appoints these people to the local police authorities they will not consist simply of Tory stooges?
Mr. Howard : I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. We shall have as members of the police authorities those people who can make the most effective contribution to the work of those authorities. If it is indeed the view of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the only people who can make such a contribution to the work of police authorities are councillors and magistrates, he ought to examine the position afresh.
Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East): Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge and appreciate that most people are fed up with the namby-pamby approach to law and order, and will welcome his move towards giving the police much more control over their own resources so that they can target them where they are needed? As part of my right hon. and learned Friend's campaign against paperwork, will he talk to the Lord Chancellor about the Crown Prosecution Service? An immense amount of police time is wasted on cases that never go to court, which is frustrating for the police and tormenting for the victim.
Column 673
Mr. Howard : My hon. Friend is right to identify that as a matter of concern. I share his concern. I hope that it will be possible, in the light of our response both to Sheehy and to the royal commission, which is expected to report next week, to address that concern in a very effective manner. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : In the interests of reducing the paperwork, what plans does the Home Secretary have for putting an end to a little racket that has been going on in more than half our police forces for many years, whereby police officers tour the nation's gaols to persuade convicted felons to own up to offences on the unsolved book, which they then count towards their clear-up record?
Is the Home Secretary aware that, in Liverpool, for example, this practice accounted, according to the last figures I have seen, for more than 40 per cent. of the clear-up rate? It discriminates, of course, against honest police forces that do not employ this practice.
Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman will discover when he reads the White Paper, as I know he will, that one of its proposals is to enable local people to make recommendations to their local police authority on the objectives of the force. That is the kind of factor that they can take into account in setting what they think the objectives should be, and the police authority will be in a position to set them.
Mr. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that not only the police but the country will welcome enormously the fact that we have a Home Secretary who is prepared to put some elbow and some muscle behind the police, to give them the equipment that they want and now to give them the reinforcements that they so badly need? What he said today about strengthening the special constabulary will be very welcome, especially in my constituency. What special measures does he propose to ensure that they are brought fully up to establishment at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Howard : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know that he has taken a close interest in the special constabulary, and in the important role that it plays. I am proposing a targeted campaign to maximise the recruitment of special constables. I think that there is a mood abroad in the country that people want to play a part in helping the police. They are fed up with feeling frustrated and helpless and they all want to play a part in the war against crime. Becoming a special constable is one of the most active ways in which they can help. The targeted recruitment campaign will evoke a much more successful response than previous campaigns, and I shall certainly do all I can to ensure that it succeeds.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Will the witchfinder-general please withdraw his odious and offensive remark against my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which he knew was highly misleading? Will he confirm that, in appointing members to police authorities, especially the London authority, he intends to pack them with what have become known as "TWEMs"--Tory white establishment males?
Mr. Howard : I was particularly careful to quote accurately from what the hon. Member for Newham,
Column 674
North-West (Mr. Banks) said in 1986, and I note that neither he nor the hon. Gentleman suggested that I got the quotation wrong.Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement, especially the fact that he has come down against the policing of London being the same as the rest of the country. He has responded to the view of many Conservative Members that a police authority would be quite wrong for London. Indeed, that view is shared by local authorities. Will he confirm that, in making a change in London, there will be no need for fresh legislation ?
Mr. Howard : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming my decision on London. I think it likely that we can achieve the new arrangements for London without legislation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Why does not this poor man's Jack Benny have the guts to admit that what this Tory Government are all about it taking away powers from democratically elected local authorities ? They have done it with education, in part ; they have done it with housing, in part ; and they are already privatising lots of services.
The idea of shifting police authorities to be run by Tory spivs is part and parcel of getting more power at the centre of Government and taking it away from elected local government. As for being more effective, if the police were not effective, how did they manage to arrest 9,000 miners in 1984 ? They trampled the streets of north Derbyshire
Madam Speaker : Order. Mr. Secretary Howard.
Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman does not seem too happy with the police under the present arrangements. I should have thought that he might be prepared to look rather more kindly on new and improved arrangements that will ensure that people other than councillors and magistrates can serve on police authorities and make use of their expertise and experience.
Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : When my right hon. and learned Friend comes to appoint members of the police authorities, especially in places such as Cleveland, will he make it his top priority to appoint people from the community who have a positive contribution to make and who will help to build a partnership against crime, not Labour county councillors who have been found fighting in the library or arrested or other offences ?
Mr. Howard : I shall not appoint members of police authorities on the basis of their political affiliation to whichever party they happen to belong, but I do not envisage appointing those who have been apprehended in the type of activity to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) : I welcome the important phrase that we need
"to revitalise community support for the police",
but may I warn the Home Secretary that it will not come about by wholesale amalgamation via the specious league table idea? Reference has been made to a cash limit which, if it is unreasonable, will merely perpetuate under- establishment. For example, my force in north Wales is grossly
Column 675
under-established, I think to the tune of 70 members. If the cash limit is unreasonable, there will be no co-operation and the whole thing will be a waste of time.Mr. Howard : Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of wholesale amalgamation. Let me also assure him that the result of the changes envisaged in the White Paper will give much more control to the chief constable and local commanders, which will enable them to make decisions about the appropriate number of officers to a much greater extent than at present. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman has had time to study the White Paper, he will find that his anxieties are allayed by its proposals.
Column 676
Points of Order
4.34 pm
Mr. David Sumberg (Bury, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that during last week's debate on party political funding, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), to whom I have given notice of this point of order, made a serious allegation to the effect that the President of the Board of Trade had been involved in trying to obtain foreign Governments' money to support the Conservative party. It has emerged over the weekend that the allegation was made at the behest of a newspaper simply for the purpose of ensuring that it was on the parliamentary record. Is not that a disgraceful abuse of our procedures and a clear breach of parliamentary privilege?
Madam Speaker : Very often, points of order are abuses of our procedures too, especially those that do not relate to the Chair and for which I have no responsibility.
I ended questions on the private notice question and on the statement reasonably early, because two minority parties have the right to be heard. I hope that hon. Members who wish to raise points of order will make absolutely certain that thehe Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he wishes to make a statement about something that he said in County Down last Saturday night? When questioned about bombings in Northern Ireland, he said that, thankfully, no one had been killed but in the opera they all were killed.
Madam Speaker : Had there been a statement, it would have been on the annunciator and we would all have known about it by this stage.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Madam Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
VAT (Supply of Services)
That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1507) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 7) Order 1993 (S.I.) 1993, No. 1606), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.
Column 677
Orders of the Day
OPPOSITION DAY
[15th Allotted Day]
Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
Madam Speaker : I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.38 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I beg to move, That this House believes that, as evidenced by the hardening of international opposition, there are increasingly strong economic, environmental and proliferation reasons why it would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom or the rest of the world for Her Majesty's Government to bring the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield (THORP) into operation ; notes that the last public inquiry into THORP took place more than fifteen years ago, since when all relevant circumstances have substantially changed ; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to investigate and make public all relevant aspects of THORP and alternative processes for dealing with spent fuel including dry storage, to ensure full disclosure of the terms of all contracts for the use of THORP and of the calculations supporting its economic justification, and to ensure that all information is available for public comment, independent appraisal and proper cross- examination before any decision is taken. In The Observer at the weekend, there was a three-line NIB--news in brief--entitled "Small Tremor". It stated :
"An earth tremor measuring 3.0 on the Richter scale hit south Cumbria and north Lancashire."
Perhaps it was the Almighty reacting to the fact that, for the first time in 15 years, there is to be a debate in the House on the future of THORP.
The thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is a very important project. It was commissioned, and approval for it was sought, by British Nuclear Fuels plc back in the late 1970s. BNFL saw THORP as a means of treating partially used nuclear fuel, from home or abroad, from advanced gas-cooled reactors or light-water reactors and, by that reprocessing operation, separate out uranium and plutonium and separately place the waste.
The inspector who held the inquiry in the late 1970s was the very eminent judge, Mr. Justice Parker. It was very clear to him that he was making a decision based on the evidence at the time. It was clear to him that the evidence and circumstances might change and the matter might have to be reconsidered. From the beginning, it was clear that everyone who participated in the debate regarded the decision as conditional.
There were two debates on the matter, one very shortly after the other. The first debate was on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and it was initiated by the Government. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) commended THORP to the House. During that debate, and in the debate in May 1978, many hon. Members on both sides of the House made the conditionality of the project clear. The second debate was initiated by the then Leader of the Liberal party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). He
Column 678
initiated the debate by praying against the order that provided planning permission for the Windscale proposal. He said : "In my view, the arguments on both sides are finely balanced and contain many uncertainties. It is because of that that I believe the burden of proof ought to lie quite firmly on the side of those who are pressing this order and who argue that we should now be taking this firm step into the plutonium economy."My right hon. Friend ended his speech by saying :
"This House has a straight choice between looking at the longer-term results of a decision that we take tonight against the undoubted economic value of the Japanese and other contracts which we could acquire. I believe that the onus must lie heavily on the Government, who have brought forward the order, to persuade us that we are wrong. If they do not persuade us beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be right to vote in favour of the order being withdrawn."--[ Official Report, 15 May 1978 ; Vol. 950, c. 111- 18.]
In the event, the order was approved by the House, though not without many hon. Members, including the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, making it very clear that it might not be, and should not be, the final decision on the matter.
Today's debate has produced great benefits. We have flushed out where other people stand. We have flushed out the Government's position which--there is general agreement on this--had been secret for several months. The Government received advice, as they were bound to under statute, several months ago. BNFL, the operators, and the opponents wanted to hear a decision about that. However, until the end of last week, not a peep was heard.
Not only have we forced the Government's hand today--and therefore I hope that today's debate is welcome, no matter what view people take on the issue--we have also flushed out two other things. We have flushed out an announcement, which has been made in the past hour, about how the Government intend to respond to the two reports that have been given to them. We have also flushed out the advice provided by the body that advises on radioactive material.
In addition, we have flushed out the Labour party's position. We have forced Labour's hand and it has made a decision. Labour is going to abstain, just as it did in respect of Maastricht--
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Not all of us.
Mr. Hughes : Well, perhaps not all Labour Members. However, the official Labour position is that it is not for THORP and it is not against it. It is not for a public inquiry and it is not against one.
I challenge Labour Members to tell us what words in the motion they disagree with and why. I challenge them to tell us how, after all this time for deliberation, they cannot either endorse the project which they started in the 1970s or oppose it because circumstances have changed. As with Maastricht and income tax rises or public expenditure cuts, the Labour party is neither for them or against them. Yet again, the Labour party is sitting on the fence.
Dr. Michael Clark (Rochford) : The hon. Gentleman is talking about flushing out the views and opinions of a variety of people, particularly hon. Members. Does he accept that the work force at Sellafield are one of the best-trained work forces in the country? Is he aware that he could have flushed out the view of that work force if he had been on College green at lunchtime when the work
Column 679
force made their views known? They want THORP to continue. They believe that it is safe. It is their work and they want it to be allowed to be commissioned.Mr. Hughes : Of course they do, and understandably so. My hon Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said last week that the workers at Rosyth wanted their work to continue, and, as the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) will be aware, many miners wanted their work to continue last October and this March. However, at the end of the day, the Government and the Conservative party could not endorse that.
Of course the work force argued their case, and the hon. Member for Rochford has raised very proper concerns about that work force and their future in Cumbria which has significant unemployment, if not the highest in the country. I respect the view of the work force. I have spoken to some of the shop stewards and I hope to meet them again when I visit Sellafield in about 10 days' time. I have undertaken to meet the shop stewards and the work force as well as the management.
The hon. Member for Rochford is well versed in these matters and his point alludes also to the fact that there is a quite reasonable debate about the issue and an understandable and honest entitlement to a difference of view. Complex issues such as the general debate about nuclear power and about nuclear weapons, do not necessarily drive to a unanimous conclusion along party lines. People in the Conservative party hold different views about the desirability of THORP and about a public inquiry, as they do in the Labour party and in my party.
Hon Members such as the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have proper constituency views and we would expect them to speak on the matter. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who represents Dounreay, has made no secret of his views over the years. There is an honest disagreement of views. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale spoke in the late 1970s, it has been my party's policy to oppose THORP, because we were not persuaded about it, and to argue that the only basis for supporting reprocessing is when it is necessary on safety grounds. That was the position on which we went into the last general election and to which we are committed as a party.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I do not only take a constituency view : I am a believer in nuclear power.
Mr. Hughes : I may have been unfair to the hon. Gentleman. I tried to make the point that there is a difference in respect of the fundamental issues and that hon. Members are quite properly entitled to take a constituency view. The hon. Member for Workington has argued his views. I hope that he welcomes the debate, as he and I were in a meeting recently when we were asked to try to facilitate such a debate and I have now provided that opportunity.
My colleagues and I do not intend--and it would be improper--for this to be a debate about the future of nuclear energy in Britain. That is a huge and wide subject. We may complain about the fact that we have not had such a debate. We do complain about the fact that the way in which we debate energy policy in this place is nothing
Column 680
short of mad and we complain that the logical sequence of events should not have been what we have seen, are seeing and are about to see : a debate on coal in the late autumn of 1992 and the spring of 1993 ; a debate about THORP today ; a debate about the national Audit Office view on the economics of the nuclear industry before the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday ; a possible announcement about the nuclear review originally heralded to be made by the Minister for Energy at a meeting tomorrow night, although he will no doubt tell us that whether that will be the case, but certainly with a timetable envisaged to be announced before we break for the summer recess--Mr. Campbell-Savours : It might come today.
Mr. Hughes : It might even come today.
The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar) indicated dissent.
Mr. Hughes : The Minister says no, so it will not. And there will be a debate about renewables some time later.
The only point that I want to make about the energy debate is that it is a mad system which does not look at Britain's strategic energy needs first and then decide what the implication is for each of the component parts-- for example, whether we should have a nuclear industry, how much coal we should have, whether we should have opencast coal, and so on. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland says, having previously spoken on the subject while holding this brief for our party, it does not help when we have a Government who do not believe in an energy strategy. Workers at Sellafield, like us and, indeed, the management at Sellafield, wish that the Government had had a clearer strategy on these matters for a long time. There is consensus that the way the Government are acting is no way to run a country, and, with or without the President of the Board of Trade present--we wish him a speedy recovery- -it is certainly no way to decide an energy policy. There is one obvious linked point. What happens at THORP and the contracts at THORP are relevant to the economic viability of nuclear power and nuclear energy. A very timely article in today's issue of The Guardian made that point very clear. I do no more than allude to part of that article, but it makes it very clear that there is a battle royal going on between BNFL on the one hand and Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear on the other about who underwrites the risk. Unless we make that clear, it could make all the difference to the viability of the nuclear energy industry. Indeed, there is a strong argument from the nuclear energy industry to take the THORP equation--the reprocessing issue--out altogether. Some believe that they would be better served if that were not part of the equation.
Mr. Dalyell : Some of us were the guests of Robin Jeffrey and James Hann of Scottish Nuclear. We asked them, and they were quite clear that there was no animosity of any kind whatever along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. [Interruption.]
| Next Section
| Home Page |