I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 24, at end insert

`(and, for the avoidance of doubt, such assistance may include support for communications systems)'.

We tabled this probing amendment to determine the parameters of the Government's attitude toward the overseas territories. When I asked the Minister about that earlier with reference to the Secretary of State's answer about preventing drugs from flowing across the world and large amounts of money being outwith development budget funding, he tried to set my mind at rest. However, I have a number of other concerns, some of which were raised on Second Reading.

I am worried that some overseas territories remain unsure about the Department's spending priorities in respect of their countries; Montserrat springs to mind. In the House on 10 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) put the following question to the Minister's predecessor:

``Given that Montserrat was listed as a tax haven by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, what representations on that point has the hon. Gentleman made, or alternatively what assistance does his Department envisage providing for the territory, bearing in mind that if its financial services sector is damaged or destroyed, the country is much more likely to be prey to the commission of serious crime, including drug trafficking?''

The reply was:

``We are of course aware that were any overseas territory to lose any resources as a result of the pressure that the hon. Gentleman describes, our Department would need to make available additional resources.''—[Official Report, 10 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 1062.]

I seek an assurance from the Minister that those additional resources would be forthcoming for any overseas territories. I also seek assurances about the infrastructure project on St Helena, the landmine clearance programme in the Falklands and communications projects on the Pitcairn Islands.

Opposition Members have rightly asked questions about overseas territories, but the Minister will have anticipated them because they were flagged up. Therefore, rather than making a meal out of the amendment, which was tabled to probe the Government's policy towards the overseas territories, I shall keep my remarks brief and allow him to respond.

Clause 2 provides a modified form of the power taken in clause 1 to allow the United Kingdom to continue to provide support to the overseas territories, which reflects our continuing responsibilities in relation to them. It allows the Secretary of State to offer development assistance without needing to be satisfied that the provision is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty, which is the overriding requirement of clause 1. However, assistance provided must meet the purposes set out in clause 2, which are furthering sustainable development or promoting the welfare of the people. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that the Secretary of State could help overseas territories to establish communications systems. However, it would not place her under a duty to do so, although its mention might raise an inference that such a use of her powers would be reasonable and would therefore make doing so harder to resist.

The Government must resist the amendment. There is no question that the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to support the establishment of communications systems where such support would either further sustainable development or improve the welfare of the people of an overseas territory. The Department for International Development has funded many communications projects in overseas territories in recent years, so there is no doubt to alleviate and the amendment is unnecessary. To single out such support for specific mention serves only to call into question what other developments could be assisted.

The forthcoming departmental report will show that resources will be made available to the Pitcairn Islands for essential infrastructure. The Falkland Islands have not been in receipt of UK development assistance since 1997 as a result of the exceptional progress that the area has made in achieving self-sufficiency.

The Bill will not adversely affect the Government's existing support to overseas territories because clause 2 will ensure that that is allowed. I must therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

I am unsure whether the probing amendment has achieved the effect that I wanted, but I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister has responded. Perhaps there will be another opportunity to raise the interests of the overseas territories. However, the Minister has assured me that they will continue to be a priority for Government aid. I included the Falkland Islands as an example in case they should need aid from us in future—God forbid. As the Minister knows, the islands have a fragile economy. The point I made was a belt and braces measure.

Amendment No. 5 is probing and I am not so curmudgeonly as to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert—

`(4) No order shall be made under subsection (3) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 15, in clause 18, page 8, line 17, after `section', insert `2(3),'.

I seem to be hogging the Committee—[Hon. Members: ``No!'']—so I rise to my feet again with great trepidation. The amendments have been linked to probe the Minister's intentions. They are designed to ensure that Parliament is fully consulted on changes to the UK overseas territories list and that the Secretary of State would be required to seek Parliament's approval for any additions or deletions to the list. We do not want that list to be subject to an executive order because if a country such as Montserrat were removed, it would cease to be covered by its preferential position and move into a category covered by the focus on poverty. Removing countries from the list subjects them exclusively to the focus on poverty and removes them from the latitude of expenditure that can be given to overseas territories.

I should like the Minister to state the conditions under which an overseas territory could be removed from the list, tell the Committee whether an annual statement of the assistance that has been given to territories will be published, and make sure that they have a voice if and when they face removal from the list. They are a prime example of domains that are subject to our legislation without representation. The amendments seek assurances that the House and the overseas territories will be consulted about removals from the list.

The Government's policy on overseas territories is clearly set out in our White Paper ``Eliminating World Poverty—A Challenge for the 21st Century'' and in the White Paper on overseas territories ``Partnership for Progress and Prosperity'', both of which confirm that the reasonable assistance needs of the overseas territories are the first call on our development programme. The amendment would impose the affirmative procedure on orders updating the list of UK overseas territories in schedule 1.

The Government must resist the amendment. We do not believe that Parliament would want to concern itself with that issue. Schedule 1 provides a complete list of the UK overseas territories, and clause 2(3) provides the power to update the list to reflect changes in name or status: for example, if a territory became independent, the appropriate changes would be made. Such changes would be technical and uncontroversial, so the affirmative procedure is not necessary. The hon. Lady asked about removal from list. The only condition that would give rise to that possibility is independence, and a country in such a position would be closely involved in such discussions.

The order to update schedule 1 is not an executive order that receives parliamentary scrutiny. It must be laid before the Parliament and is subject to annulment. That should answer the hon. Lady's point.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which shows how good the process of scrutiny of a Bill can be. He has given me information that I did not have before. He has assured me that the overseas territories list will remain intact and that no country will be removed from it unless it becomes thoroughly independent, after which time it would receive aid from the United Kingdom subject to the poverty focus, which is presumably covered under clause 1. Having been enlightened by the Minister for a change, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.