Commons Sitting of 10 July 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Tate Modern
    Maria Eagle: How many people have visited Tate Modern. [128195]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): At close of business on 7 July, Tate Modern had attracted 1,180,002 visitors.
    Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those numbers are a vindication of the Government's policy to encourage free entry to our great national collections? Does he also agree that that contrasts markedly with the policy of the Conservative party when in government? The previous Government encouraged museums and galleries to charge for entry amid plummeting visitor numbers.
    Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend and I am delighted that, as a result of our decision to increase the funds available to the Tate galleries by £5 million this year and £6 million next year, Tate Modern has been able to open with free entry to visitors. That has been a crucial part of the new gallery's success.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Without pre-empting Question 2, does the Secretary of State believe that the success of Tate Modern is due to the fact that the British people prefer modern art to the contents of the dome, or that it is due to free entry? Getting into the dome is very expensive.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should realise that well over 3 million people have already visited the dome and the majority of them have greatly enjoyed the experience. As to comparing the dome with Tate Modern, they are very different institutions.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of all of us who have pressed for free admission to museums and art galleries? Does he accept that his splendid work on ensuring that people realise the value of art, especially
    606
    modern art, has been vindicated and that people have reacted favourably to the free admission policy that he has conscientiously pursued?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend has also pursued the matter with great diligence and skill, and I am grateful for his support. We have guaranteed to all the museums that are currently free—that includes the Tate—that they can continue to be free to everyone. We have also ensured that, from April last year, all children have been able to visit for free the national museums that charge for entry, something which we inherited from the Conservative party. That has led to a 21 per cent. increase in the number of children visiting those museums. From April this year, those museums have been free to all pensioners.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement on visitor numbers to the millennium dome. [128196]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The dome is already the United Kingdom's most successful paying visitor attraction, achieving more than 3 million visitors in its first six months. On that basis, the New Millennium Experience Company is well on its way to achieving its revised target of 6 million paying visitors by the end of the year.
    Mr. Syms: Given that, in the face of all the evidence, Ministers are the only people who believe that the dome is a success, when will the £139 million that the Millennium Commission loaned to the project be repaid? Will it be repaid?
    Janet Anderson: Let me put on record the conditions that cover the grant. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows them only too well. The Millennium Commission met on 22 May and approved an additional grant of £29 million, subject to stringent conditions, to cover cash flow, and £3 million specifically for marketing purposes. The conditions are that NMEC's management governance should be strengthened and restructured; that there should be a revised business plan that shows substantial additional cost savings and enhanced marketing plans; and that an enhanced financial team at NMEC should be joined by a dedicated member of the Millennium Commission's financial staff.
    Mr. Clive Efford: Will my hon. Friend comment on the cost of clearing the site for the millennium dome? It is a site of substantial inner-city development, which had lain derelict because of contamination—a significant factor in the cost of the millennium experience from which Conservative Members try to make capital. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that unemployment in my constituency for the long-term unemployed is down by almost 50 per cent., and by more than 70 per cent. for the young unemployed. Much of that is attributable to the success of the millennium exhibition at Greenwich as a regeneration project.
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. The significant investment has done a great deal to regenerate areas in and around his constituency. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties welcome that.

    607
    I was concerned to read reports in the press at the weekend of comments by Mr. Pierre-Yves Gerbeau, who claims:
    On a private basis, politicians will come here with their families and say that we have really turned the Dome around since January…and that we have really made a difference. And, funnily enough, the next morning they will appear on television and say: "The dome is ridiculous. It is a disgrace."
    I am sure that none of those people are Labour Members; I hope that they are not Conservative Members.
    Mr. Norman Baker: The target for the number of visitors to the dome has not been achieved. What steps is the Minister taking in terms of the two short-listed companies to ensure that the dome's new incarnation is a success? Will she ensure that there is public consultation other than the token consultation that has taken place so far? It is important that the dome is more of a success than it has been so far. To achieve that, the public's views must be clearly established. We must also ensure that the dome's future use is not determined by some grubby attempt to get a cash flow for the last few months of the year to keep the dome limping on to 31 December.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that the revised business plan of the New Millennium Experience Company is based on the revised projection of 6 million visitors. The dome is well on the way to achieving that number and, in fact, is already the most successful tourist attraction in the country.
    On the second point, the hon. Gentleman knows that there are two preferred bidders. There has been consultation on the matter. It is important that a decision is made as quickly as possible so that the dome's future can be assured. However, there is, of course, a major difference between our proposals for the dome and those of the previous Conservative Government: they were going to pull it down; we shall ensure that there is a legacy for UK plc.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that I went with my four children—one of them in a school swing band—to the dome the other Saturday? For £57, we had eight hours of information and education, had a lot of fun and saw a great "Blackadder" film. It cost 57 quid to keep kids occupied for eight hours, which is a very good deal for a Saturday in London. Is she also aware that Rotherham and hundreds of other towns and cities have got a day in the dome—kids are really looking forward to it—but they are fed up with the whingeing, whiny, wallies, the anti-dome dumping drongos in the Conservative party who always want to destroy a good day out for the children of this country?
    Janet Anderson: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. May I take this opportunity to underline the dome's popularity as a visitor attraction? It has achieved an extraordinary 85 per cent. satisfaction rating, with an exceptional 90 per cent. satisfaction rating for host staff.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Minister confirm that, whoever wins the competition to rescue the dome from the Government, insufficient visitor numbers will ensure that a large amount of the money originally
    608
    earmarked for regeneration will be sunk into paying off the dome's debts? Is not that a pathetic waste of resources? Instead of resorting to the usual bombast about the dome being a great success, which no one believes, why does not she apologise for the whole miserable affair?
    Janet Anderson: There is no need to apologise for something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said, has done so much to regenerate a previously disused part of Greenwich and south-east London. The hon. Gentleman refers to reports in the press this morning, so I shall refer him to a press notice that the Millennium Commission issued in response, which puts the record straight. The only percentage of the proceeds that has been decided so far is the 7.5 per cent. that has to go to British Gas. The press notice states:
    The actual income from the sale of the Dome and the site is now estimated at around £100m. Three years ago when the original plans were being drawn up the £15m figure was used as a nominal estimate. Nobody had any idea of what would be the value of the Dome and the site. It would be wrong now if the Lottery and the good causes did not get a fair share of the cake—
    not least because in that way
    "the poor" and good causes will not lose out and, in fact, will be supported by funds from the sale of the Dome.
    Mr. Ainsworth: If the Minister will not apologise, I shall make a suggestion that may help to boost the visitor numbers. P—Y says that he has been misled by the Government and that Ministers are not doing enough to help, so why does not she get down there and set up a new competition? They could ask one question: "What do the following have in common: the debt-riddled dome, the closed Millennium bridge, the U-turn on universal free access to museums, the fiasco over Wembley and the failure to win the world cup bid?" The answer is that they all fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Visitors to the dome could then vote on who has had the more miserable year so far—the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State.
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman could do with a new scriptwriter. Given that he is talking about what unites people, the only thing that unites Conservative Members is Mr. Gerbeau's suggestion that, on a private basis, Conservative politicians visit the dome and say they have a wonderful day, but the next morning they appear on television and say that it is ridiculous and a disgrace. They should be ashamed of themselves.

    Internet (Public Libraries)
    Ms Ann Coffey: What plans he has to support increased internet access in public libraries.[128197]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): We have set a target that all UK public libraries, where practicable, will have public internet access and link to the national grid for learning by 2002. Through the national lottery new opportunities fund, £170 million is being provided to support the network infrastructure, train library staff and create content for delivery over this people's network.
    Ms Coffey: I am pleased that Stockport has already received £92,000 from the new opportunities fund to

    609
    increase internet access and that the National Library for the Blind has also received £62,000 in Government money to set up an interactive website. Does my hon. Friend agree that those extra resources open up the internet to people who otherwise might not have access, and continue the library service as a source of enjoyment, education and information to the community?
    Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend and share her pleasure at the increased funding to strengthen library services in Stockport. The award from the DCMS-Wolfson reader development programme to the National Library for the Blind's project, called "A Touch Of', represents support for an excellent initiative that involves specialist staff in Stockport and public library staff across the country. All the funding that she reports for Stockport shows how we are working to ensure that there is no digital divide and that everyone—including, importantly, disabled people—has access to a full range of information, lifelong learning and cultural opportunities.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Although increased internet access through public libraries would be welcomed in rural constituencies such as Vale of York, that will succeed only if a library is open for enough hours to make it possible and if sufficient qualified library staff are available to guide people through the internet. Can the Minister assure the House that that will be possible?
    Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Lady is probably aware, we have put out for consultation draft national library standards, with the thought very much in mind that it is important to ensure that people in rural areas have access to a proper public library service. The proposed standard is that no user should have to travel for more than 20 minutes to use a library. We have also suggested standards for opening hours and for book purchases to enable public libraries to make further progress towards recovering from the blighted years of the mid-1990s.

    Museums and Galleries (Pensioners)
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What steps he is taking to increase the number of visits by pensioners to museums and galleries. [128200]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): From 1 April, free entry for the over-60s was introduced to those museums funded by my Department that currently charge for admission, including the national museums and galleries on Merseyside; the national museum of science and industry, including the national railway museum at York; the natural history museum; the imperial war museum; the national maritime museum; the Victoria and Albert museum; the royal armouries at Fort Nelson, Portsmouth; and the Tate gallery at St. Ives.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he welcome the free access to the Grundy art gallery in Blackpool and the special concerts and exhibitions that it puts on to attract pensioners and does he recognise that physical barriers may deter older people from enjoying, for example, the excellent exhibitions at
    610
    the Fleetwood museum? Will he therefore consider the physical nature of buildings in order to attract more older and disabled people to exhibitions?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises a valid point about the importance of physical as well as financial access to museums and galleries, particularly local ones. I envisage that museum as a prime candidate for an application to the heritage lottery fund special access fund, which was created two years ago with our encouragement, and I certainly suggest that it discusses those possibilities with the HLF.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Gentleman's Department issued a press release on 24 July 1998 signalling that there would be free access—first for children, subsequently for pensioners and ultimately for everyone—to all our DCMS-sponsored national museums, does he have the good grace to admit that he has broken that pledge and to apologise to all the people whom he has disgracefully let down?
    Mr. Smith: No. Criticism on that subject comes rich from the Conservatives, who introduced charges for museum access. In the comprehensive spending review document "A New Cultural Framework", which we published at that time, we said that we would introduce free access for children. That we have done. We said that we would introduce free access for pensioners. That we have done. We said that we would seek to widen access further. That we have also done, with the commitment, which is on the table, for charging museums to make a £1 charge for adults from September next year.
    Ms Claire Ward: My right hon. Friend may remember that, at the last culture questions, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts mentioned the importance of free access for pensioners and said that it had been linked not to pension age, but to the age of 60. There is concern that some Departments are introducing schemes based on the ages of 60 and 65, contrary to the policy of other Departments. Has any progress been made in providing the House with the legal advice that the Department has received, and which I requested at the last Question Time?
    Mr. Smith: I apologise to my hon. Friend if she has not yet received that information. I shall ensure that she receives it as soon as is humanly possible.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Many pensioners go to museums and galleries because they are interested in a particular exhibition. Is the Minister aware that galleries and museums now find that they have to charge extra for those special exhibitions, but do not take pensioners into consideration?
    Mr. Smith: Ultimately, that is for individual museums or galleries, of which there are more than 2,000 around the country, to decide. I hope that they will bear pensioners' needs in mind when considering charging regimes for such exhibitions.

    611
    I was pleased that, in May, some 1,340 museums took part in museums and galleries month, with special events, special exhibitions and special access schemes. I was particularly pleased that a large number of hon. Members took that opportunity to visit local museums and to highlight the work that they do.

    Analogue Television
    Jane Griffiths: What is his latest assessment of the date for the switchover of the analogue TV signal. [128201]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We have estimated that switchover could take place between 2006 and 2010. The date, however, will depend on the two key tests of availability and affordability that we have put in place.
    Jane Griffiths: On the question of affordability, does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the high cost of digital radio sets, which cost several hundred pounds and are thus beyond the reach of most people? Does he anticipate that radio sets, in particular, will have become affordable by that date?
    Mr. Smith: The switchover date applies to television, not to radio. No date has yet been set for switchover from analogue to digital radio. I would certainly hope that, as both the technology and manufacturers' capacity develop, the cost of digital radio sets will fall.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Secretary of State agree that, until the board of governors and the board of management of the BBC learn what public sector broadcasting really means, he should consider switching off BBC 1?
    Mr. Smith: No. It is my strong view that the BBC, as our premier public sector broadcaster and our most important cultural institution, must retain its public service remit into the digital age. It must be the benchmark of quality.
    There has been speculation recently about our approach to the governance of the BBC. Let me put the position clearly. As part of our overall review of regulation in broadcasting and communications, we are indeed looking at the role of the board of governors, which currently acts as both judge and jury—managers and regulators. No decisions have been taken on this subject. We are listening to the wide range of views that we have received. Whatever happens, two principles must be paramount: first, the special protection of the BBC's remit; and secondly, the robust independence from Government of any regulatory mechanism that might emerge.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If he will make a statement on the total amount of national lottery and public money invested in the millennium dome. [128203]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): A total of £538 million of national lottery money has been granted to the project. No taxpayers' money has been invested in the construction or running of the dome or in its contents.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he assure the House and many people outside that no further national lottery money will go into the dome, and that it will have to survive on what it has had thus far? What is likely to happen to the building in the long run? Will the massive amount of lottery money that has gone into it be recouped and spent on other public projects or will the dome remain open and for public use for some other purpose in the future?
    Mr. Smith: As I told the House in Question Time a month ago, we have made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget now set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau has confirmed on a number of occasions that he will not be returning to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.
    A decision on the future legacy of the dome as a structure will be taken shortly by ministerial colleagues—I am not involved in that decision. There are two competing bids for the future maintenance of the dome, both of which involve substantial public access to the dome and its surroundings. I remind my hon. Friend that before we came into office the Conservative party's intention was to tear down the whole building and leave no legacy whatever.
    Mr. James Gray: The Secretary of State remains brazenly proud of what most of the nation realises is a disgraceful waste of public money. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 3 million. Does he agree with me that the difference between the dome and Tate Modern is that 5,000 fewer people a day go to the dome than visit the Tate Modern? The reason for that is because the dome contains classic new Labour tat, whereas the contents of the Tate Modern are first class. Is not the Secretary of State concerned that, when Mr. Gerbeau names and shames at the end of this year, his name will be in the headlights?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the wonderful success of Tate Modern. I am proud of the role that the Government have played in helping to ensure that success. However, he perhaps has not noticed the actual figures. For example, on 25 June the dome had its highest Sunday attendance ever at 27,234 people.

    Cultural Strategies
    Mr. Chris Pond: What progress is being made by local authorities in developing local cultural strategies. [128204]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published draft guidance on local cultural strategies for all local authorities in England in June last year. The guidance emphasises the importance of cultural services in improving the quality of life for all.

    613
    In February, we sent all local authorities a mid-term progress report on the experiences of 14 authorities that have been piloting the guidance, and good progress is being made.
    Mr. Pond: I thank the Minister for visiting my constituency last week to see how we are using our culture and heritage as a driving force for economic regeneration, and to see for herself why Gravesend is now such a tourist hot spot. Does she agree with me that good local cultural strategies are a powerful way of helping to regenerate local economies, and that cultural and multicultural strategies draw local communities together?
    Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. The local cultural strategies initiative stems from the Government's belief, as stated in our election manifesto, in the value of all local authorities producing cultural strategies to draw together all aspects of local cultural activity. I much enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. I place on record my congratulations to Gravesham council for the active pursuit of a local cultural strategy. I did not know until I went to Gravesend that Pocahontas is buried there under St. George's church, and I had a pleasant visit to the home of Charles Dickens, in which he wrote "Great Expectations". I urge those who have not been to Gravesend to do so very soon.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: We on the Conservative Benches have nothing particularly against local cultural strategies, although a growing number of local authorities are coming round to our view that regional cultural consortiums are a waste of space and money.
    While on the subject of cultural strategies, I wonder whether the hon. Lady ever gets a chance to read the Tatler magazine? [Interruption.] There we go—a typical knee-jerk reaction from old Labour. Labour Members might find that new Tatler is more closely in tune with contemporary arts than new Labour. The latest edition features a rare interview with V.S. Naipaul, who is in many people's view one of the—if not the—most distinguished living British writers. He accuses the Government of cultural vandalism. I quote from the interview:
    For the first time in 50 years of living here, I feel depressed by a government. I am depressed by their dreadful use of rhetoric, the misuse of language…I think they don't believe half the things they say and they are trying to find words to cover up their lack of belief.
    They think they are fighting for the common man, whereas they are demeaning the entire country.
    Next time the Government sit down to work out their cultural strategy, why do they not think of the only strategy that matters—the exit strategy? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Did the Minister hear a question? I did not. I probably missed it because of all the noise.
    Janet Anderson: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will try to identify the question. I suggested earlier that the hon. Gentleman try to find a new script writer. I suggest now that he tries to find a new researcher who reads something other than the Tatler.
    614
    Regional cultural consortiums are working very well and have been widely welcomed throughout the country. The move is an attempt by the Government to put cultural strategies and cultural services at the heart of regeneration, something that the hon. Gentleman's Government singularly failed to do. For the first time ever, where local authorities are bidding for beacon council status, the cultural services and strategies that they have put in place will be taken into account.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: It has not quite reached the pages of the Tatler yet, but is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities are desperately strapped for cash, particularly because some programmes have not benefited from the increase in Government funding for local authorities? In particular, my local authority, Dacorum, is faced with a 41 per cent. reduction in its funds next year because of the change to resource accounting. Will she ensure that local authorities are genuinely enabled to have the resources to spend on what is a worthwhile project?
    Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. May I remind him that the last local government settlement was the best that local authorities had received for 15 years? That is not to say that we do not understand the problems faced by many local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular meetings with local government associations to ensure that we are in tune with their needs. Leisure services and cultural services are, of course, discretionary. Nevertheless, local authorities have strongly welcomed our initiative on local cultural strategies and played a full part in developing our guidance.

    Sport
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on his targets to increase the number of hours each week spent by (a) adults and (b) young people on participating in sport. [128206]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Increasing participation in sport across all age groups and abilities is a key feature of the recently published Government sports strategy, "A Sporting Future For All".
    Mr. Hughes: That was a bit of an unspecific answer. Will the Minister use her enthusiasm to try to change the current statistics? Although more young people are participating in sport, the average length of time that they spend doing so is about seven and a half hours a week, whereas they watch television for about 11 and a half hours a week. The amount of time spent on physical education in schools across all age groups has dropped considerably over the past five years.
    Will the Minister have a word with her colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that school timetables do not drive out swimming, PE and participation in sport, so that there is a chance that the appetite for sport and the opportunity for excellence will

    615
    be encouraged? We might then win a few more things later, as well as give much greater satisfaction to many of our fellow citizens.
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right. The more participation, the more chance there is of spotting the talent, getting to the top and winning, which is what the country wants.
    On working more closely with the Department for Education and Employment, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have been spending a lot of time on precisely that. Part of the reason for having a very good strategy was to show how what was happening in education and outside schools mattered. That kind of working together is so crucial.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sports governing bodies and everyone involved in sport must recognise that these days there are many more attractions for young people. They must be more imaginative about how they sell their sport. That is why part of the implementation group for the sports strategy is looking at precisely those issues.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does not Labour's sports strategy owe a huge debt to the last Government? One billion pounds of lottery funding has gone into 3,000 grass-roots sports projects. Given that so many initiatives mentioned in the Minister's own White Paper depend on the continuation of lottery funding—for instance, the space for sports and the arts initiative in schools—and on destroying the arm's-length principle in regard to the lottery that Labour thought so important when in opposition, can the Minister tell us who has overall responsibility for investment in schools projects? Is it her Department, the Department for Education and Employment, or the lottery funding bodies?
    If the sports strategy does not go according to plan, can the Minister promise that neither she nor her successor will say, as she has said in respect of our failed world cup bid, that the policy was doomed to failure from the start?
    Kate Hoey: That is nonsense. As the hon. Gentleman will hear if he listens to the tape, what I said was that many people felt from the beginning that those who could not secure the support of their own region obviously started at a disadvantage. I said nothing that others have not said—nothing that the chairman of the Football Association, for instance, has not said in the past few days. I hope that we shall all learn the lessons of what has happened with the world cup bid.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's specific question, he should be aware that more lottery money than ever is being invested. It was originally forecast that only £1.8 billion would be invested over the lifetime of the current licence; the amount will now be more than £2 billion.
    This Government believe in partnership, which means taking all opportunities to make money available. Those involved in sport do not care where the money comes from, as long as it is there.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope my hon. Friend can tell me that the Labour Government are not carrying out Tory party policy, because Tory party policy was to close all those playing fields and sell them off. On top of
    616
    that, the Tories closed 600 pits—which meant that nearly half the miners' welfares, all with massive playing fields, were closed and sold off as well.
    The last thing that this new Labour Government ought to do is take any notice of that lot. Ought we not to stop selling off playing fields, and make sure that the miners' welfares that remain have plenty of lottery money so that we can provide sport for the many, not the few?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have been so determined to stop the compulsory sale of playing fields. The last Government sold many of our young people's opportunities down the river by selling so many. We are ensuring that that does not happen now.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister not recognise that many sales of school playing fields were carried out by Labour local authorities, and that, despite her much vaunted policy, few projected sales have been stopped by it? It is all very well to have the rhetoric; the practice is entirely contrary to it.
    Kate Hoey: If the hon. Gentleman looked at the figures, he would see that the rhetoric is the fact—and the fact is that now, rather than 40 playing fields being sold on a regular basis, three have been sold.
    What we did was stop compulsory sales. Some local authorities, and even the National Playing Fields Association, now happily accept that it is sometimes better to sell a playing field, and to use the money to provide another sporting facility that can be used by all. We could never have a policy stating that no playing field would ever be sold. The important question is how playing fields are being replaced. We must ensure that those with an interest—Sport England, the local community and local schools, for instance—all have a say before a decision is made.

    Concessionary Television Licences
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will review the regulations covering concessionary TV licences in sheltered residential accommodation for elderly people. [128207]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): This concessionary scheme was examined last year by the Davies panel which concluded that, despite its obvious drawbacks, it should be retained since no superior alternative, funded through the licence fee, could be found. We decided to accept the panel's recommendation that the scheme should be retained and have no plans for a further review.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. People in my constituency welcome the free television licence for over-75s. However, I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the situation in Samford Court, Worlingham, in my constituency, where all 40 flats lost their entitlement to the shared television licence scheme because the housing association moved in one resident who was 59. Although I think that the housing association should have known better, and that the case demonstrates

    617
    rather insensitive management, I also think that the case demonstrates the continuing unsatisfactory nature of the licence regime for sheltered accommodation.
    Given that the remit for the Gavyn Davies report was very broad, would my hon. Friend re-examine that one detailed issue in the television licence regime? I should add that the residents in Samford Court know that, if ever the Tories got back into office, even 75-year-olds would lose their free television licences.
    Janet Anderson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend on that last point. He also raises a very important issue that I know causes concern in many constituencies across the country. We have always said that we recognise that the £5 accommodation for residential care—the ARC—concessionary television licence scheme is unsatisfactory. We also know that that dissatisfaction and unsatisfactory way of operating continue. However, about 80 per cent. of ARC beneficiaries are 75 or over, and the over-75 concession will help the very elderly living alone, who represent some of the most glaring examples of the unfairness of the ARC scheme.
    Recently, we did make one change to the scheme, in recognition of some of those problems. On 1 April, we made the change to replace references in the regulations to "pensionable age" with the gender-neutral phrase "aged 60 years or more". When men over 60 are in those residential schemes, therefore, that will not jeopardise entitlement to the concessionary licence.
    We do recognise that it is an unjust and unfair scheme, but at least we have begun to do something about it—unlike Conservative Members, who in 18 years refused to face up to the problem.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: That was a remarkable answer. If the Minister admits that it is not fair for those who are 60 to 74 and outside a sheltered home not to get a concession whereas those who are inside such a home do get one, why is she not doing something about it?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening: the scheme that operated under the previous Government was patently unfair, and we have begun to do something about it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that he could begin to afford to strip that unfairness out of the system. Consequently, 3 million pensioners over 75 will benefit from a free television licence. Many of them did not benefit from such a concession before.

    Museums and Galleries
    Gillian Merron: What steps his Department has taken to support investment in new buildings for museums and galleries since May 1997. [128208]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Since May 1997, my Department has provided an additional £100 million for museums and galleries through grant-in-aid and other programmes. My Department directly supports the Designation Challenge fund and Resource, which provide funding to enable museums and galleries to undertake feasibility studies and
    618
    options appraisals for new buildings. The lottery, which is sponsored by my Department, has provided almost £35 million towards new buildings for museums and galleries. That is in addition to the very substantial sums awarded by the lottery towards the improvement of existing museum and gallery facilities.
    Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend will undoubtedly be aware not only of Lincoln's contemporary and historical significance, but of the fact that we currently do not have a museum in which to celebrate, to put on displays or to offer educational and leisure opportunities both to visitors and to local people—so that we can really show off the city's heritage and culture. How can the Department for Culture, Media and Sport support Lincoln in developing a much needed county and city museum that would certainly be very popular and well used?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has the privilege of representing a great, historic and extremely beautiful city. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of visiting Lincoln recently, and I know that he listened carefully to the views expressed by my hon. Friend and others about the importance of the project to which she has referred, and he has passed on those considerations to the heritage lottery fund. She is a doughty advocate on behalf of her city, and I wish her well in her quest.

    Heritage Initiatives
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps he is taking to support local heritage initiatives. [128210]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We welcome the heritage lottery fund's decision to make local heritage one of its four main priorities. It has committed £8 million to its local heritage initiative, which is designed to help local communities to investigate, explain and care for their landscape, landmarks, traditions and culture.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank and congratulate my right hon. Friend. What role does he envisage for the local pub in any local heritage initiative?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the role of the British pub as an integral part of the local heritage in many parts of the country. Not only buildings but the names of pubs often reflect local history or events. Many pubs have changed their names for various reasons over the years, but there appears to be a growing fashion of rebranding pubs with names such as "The Dog and Doughnut" or "The Goose and Granite"—names which appear to have little relevance to the history of any area.
    We are surely in danger of losing an important part of local history and folk memory. It is up to the owners of a business to choose its name, but I hope that breweries will bear in mind the unique historic role that many of our public houses have and think twice before destroying that

    619
    link with the past. Certainly, consulting a pub's regulars and the wider local community before renaming it would not seem too much to ask.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is so keen on pub names. Will he undertake some research and tell us how many pubs are called "The Spinner", as that might be of some benefit to the Labour party?
    Mr. Smith: I suspect that the number is similar to that of pubs named "The Silly Question".

    Tourism
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What steps his Department is taking to obtain the views of tourism organisations in British seaside resorts. [128211]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): My officials and I have regular contact with local authorities and business partnerships from seaside resorts, and with organisations such as the British Resorts Association, in which my hon. Friend plays a leading role. Let me say how pleased I was to attend the association's annual meeting both this year and last.
    Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend is zealous in defending within the Government the interests of seaside towns. I hope that she will have time to visit seaside towns and talk to local hoteliers this summer and that she will listen to the concerns that many of them have about assisted area status grants for tourism under tier 3, and relay those concerns to her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. Will she also raise the issue of lottery grants for seaside towns, given the recent reports that they have not been getting their fair share?
    Janet Anderson: I remind my hon. Friend that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published his report on lottery funding for former coalfield areas, Sheffield Hallam university, which undertook the research, said:
    Similar targets should be applied to other areas where the level of Lottery funding activity has been well below the national average. This might include resort and retirement towns, and mixed urban/rural areas outside the coalfields.
    We shall continue to look at that very closely. I reassure him that I will visit his constituency on the first day of the seaside town tour that my right hon. Friend and I will undertake at the beginning of the summer recess, and that I have fixed a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on the other matter that he raised.

    Television Licence Fee
    Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the future level of the television licence fee. [128212]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The licence fee rose by inflation plus 1.5 per cent. on 1 April this year and will rise by the same amount each year until 2006–07, when the current royal charter runs out. That additional funding will enable the
    620
    BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of benchmark quality programmes on all its services and should help to drive the take-up of new digital and online services.
    Mr. Benn: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply to an earlier question about the future governance of the BBC, what lessons has he drawn from the "News at Ten" affair about appropriate frameworks for governance, given that in that case we had a regulatory body that was separate from the companies producing the programmes?
    Mr. Smith: The lessons are, of course, the same as relate to any regulation of broadcasting, particularly television—that is, that it must have a robust independence from Government but must be based on firm and clear principles set out in the founding legislation passed by this Parliament.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people view their television licence fee as too high, especially in view of the amount of money given to the Prime Minister's friend in the form of salary and pension pay-off? The BBC might enjoy more public acceptance if it complied better with service requirements for subtitling for deaf people. What plans does he have, in the context of the licence fee, to improve subtitling on the BBC, which presently lags behind that provided by the ITV network?
    Mr. Smith: The BBC retains the strong affection and respect of the vast majority of people. It is watched or listened to by well over 90 per cent. of the country every week. On the specific question about subtitling, I have already, as part of the announcement that I made to the House following the Government's response to the Davies report, set in place new and more stringent targets for the BBC to meet, especially under digital terrestrial broadcasting.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Farming Industry
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps the commissioners are taking in relation to rural communities to assist their tenants in the farming industry; and if he will make a statement. [128225]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Cases of extreme hardship are considered individually and we try to be as helpful as possible. For example, although the circumstances of individual tenants vary widely, recent rent review settlements have typically seen rent reductions in the region of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that representatives of the Church's tenant farmers have

    621
    written to me? Why do not the Church Commissioners make it easy on themselves and give an across-the-board rent reduction to all their tenants?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for helpful suggestions and I consider that one of them. As I mentioned, the circumstances of individual tenants vary widely and it would not be an appropriate use of our funds if they benefited tenants whose financial situation did not warrant it.
    Mr. John Bercow: I am a little perturbed by that reply from the hon. Gentleman. Given that the Church Commissioners own 128,000 acres of agricultural land, with several hundred tenants and no fewer than 340 farms; and given that the Church Commissioners' annual report refers to understanding of and support for tenant farmers in difficulty, can the hon. Gentleman at least confirm that no tenant farmer has been forced off his or her land on account of being unable to pay the dues?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for the direct question as well as the helpful one. I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Church Commissioners own 128,000 acres, including about 350 farms. His question is pertinent, but we do offer assistance when farmers wish to give up or retire from the land. That may involve buying a home to let to them or sharing with them a proportion of the proceeds arising from the sale. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's direct question, I shall be glad to provide a written answer.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has my hon. Friend any idea of how many of the clergy in rural areas hunt? If he can establish the numbers, could he perhaps, through the Church Commissioners, remind those clergy who do hunt that their job is to save souls, not to slaughter wildlife?
    Mr. Bell: I am glad to see my hon. Friend back from his perambulations in relation to the world cup. He did an extraordinary job of putting the case for the United Kingdom, and he is doing a less good job for the fox. We are conscious of the issue that he has raised—
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Give him an answer then.
    Mr. Bell: I am giving the answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend wishes to answer the question himself. We have studied the Burns report and we have no policy changes in mind. Our long-standing policy on fox hunting is that we allow our tenants to follow their consciences in deciding whether to allow hunts on the land that we let to them.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more money would be available to help tenant farmers and the clergy at large if less were spent on bishops? Over the past 10 years, the proportion of Church Commissioners' money spent on bishops has risen from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. How can that possibly be justified?
    Mr. Bell: The bishops are much demeaned, and press reports in some of the Sunday newspapers were entirely
    622
    inaccurate. We are trying to put the record straight. The question of bishops' costs is subject to a review, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will be the first to know when I have the results.

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What investigations are being made into the ultimate use of redundant churches. [128226]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): We normally impose covenants on a new owner restricting the use of the property to that approved, and prohibiting unauthorised architectural changes, disturbance of any human remains or memorials, and demolition. These covenants have continuing effect even if the building subsequently changes hands, and irrespective of how often that happens. They cannot be set aside by the Lands Tribunal and, indeed, can be varied only with our agreement.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for that answer. I hope that my hon. Friend will convey it to the commissioners that we welcome the conditions that are placed on new owners with respect to church buildings; but will he ask them to consider introducing restrictive covenants on the future use of those buildings? There is disturbing evidence that some churches sold for community or social use, or to a registered landlord for conversion into low-rent accommodation, have been sold on subsequently and turned into showrooms, luxury flats, sales rooms of all sorts, bingo halls, and so on. Such functions bear no relationship to the often charitable donations that allowed a church to be built in the first place. Will he ask the commissioners to ensure that a church that is sold on retains for all time a socially useful purpose, and that it does not become a commercial benefit for those who were lucky enough to purchase it?
    Mr. Bell: Well over half the 883 redundant churches that have been appropriated to new uses continue to serve their communities by providing facilities for worship and community activities, social and educational opportunities, or low-cost housing.
    My hon. Friend enumerated a number of uses that have not been authorised. If he wishes me to investigate one or more specific cases, I shall be happy to do so.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If the Church authorities want to close a church against the wishes of a congregation, is it the commissioners' policy to try their best to give priority to that congregation, thus allowing people time to put funds together so that they can continue to worship in their church?
    Mr. Bell: Parishioners are always free to put their views direct to the diocese or the commissioners. Alternatively, they may seek to promote a debate in deanery synod or at diocesan level. It is hoped that parishes will be positive about new uses for former church buildings, which in many cases ensure that the buildings continue to play a role in their communities. It should be borne in mind that many church buildings are listed and cannot, realistically, be demolished.

    Clergy Pensions
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What account is taken of the projected level of state pensions in calculating the projected level of clergy pensions. [128227]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I nearly said that I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier.
    The projected level of state pensions is one of a number of factors taken into account by the Church in establishing the formula for determining the full basic rate of clergy pension and retirement lump sum. Those factors include receipt in retirement of a state pension and also the need to meet the cost of housing. For those in office, however, housing is provided in addition to a stipend.
    Mr. Hughes: I nearly said that I did not know my question was so difficult. However, although clergy are expected to have some vocation for their jobs, is it the Church's policy that the income and pensions of clergy should bear some relationship to average incomes and pensions in England? If not, why not?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, puts a friendly, kindly and complex question. We are cognisant of the need to be sure that pensions and lump sums on retirement are related to what is happening in the outside world. The pensioner retirement lump sum is related to the national minimum stipend—the full basic rate of pension is two thirds of the previous year's figure for the national minimum, and the lump sum is three times the pension. The answer might be on the subtle side, but I hope that it is clear.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Might not the Church Commissioners obviate the need for paying pensions so early and thereby be able to pay a better lump sum on termination of service, and a higher pension, if clergy were able to serve beyond the normal retirement age of 70? Is it not the case that many parishes have to go without a parish priest when a perfectly good, able-bodied clergyman has to retire, perhaps against his will, at the arbitrary age of 70? The Church should be beyond ageism.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes a valid point, which I shall be glad to take back to the Church Commissioners.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any requests from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department for International Development about their making a statement on the deteriorating position in Kosovo in relation to the attempt to establish any kind of multi-ethnic community?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on any issue today. No doubt those on the Front Bench will have noted the hon. Gentleman's interest.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware from the front page of The Guardian today that recorded crime over the past year has risen by 3 per cent, and that violent crime has risen by more than 10 per cent. Have you received any representations from the Home Office as to when it will make its statement on that report? Can you ensure that the statement is not made on 18 July, which is the likely date for the statement on the comprehensive spending review?
Madam Speaker: I cannot guarantee when statements are made. I have no control over such statements. Ministers let me know when they are ready to make such a statement, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the four motions.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  MEDICAL PROFESSION
  That the draft Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved

  DATA PROTECTION
  That the draft Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved
  That the draft Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Terrorism Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Terrorism Bill
    Clause 1

      TERRORISM: INTERPRETATION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
      ("(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—

      (a) the action falls within subsection (1A),

      (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

      (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

      (1A) Action falls within this subsection if it—

      (a) involves serious violence against a person,

      (b) involves serious damage to property,

      (c) endangers a person's life other than that of the person committing the action,

      (d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

      (e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

      (1B) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (1A) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendments (b), (c), (e), (f) and the amendment in lieu, and Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 17 and 107.
      3.33 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I give notice to you, Madam Speaker, and the Minister that I shall not be pressing amendment (c) because it is covered by an amendment in lieu which comes later in the group. Other colleagues clearly want to speak about other aspects of the definition clause.
      When we debated the Bill on Second Reading, Third Reading and in Committee, and when the Bill went to the other end of the building for debate, I think that it is fair to say that the most controversial area—that which has exercised more people for a longer time—has been the definition of terrorism. Therefore, it is not surprising that we are starting this afternoon's debates on the amendments made in the Lords by looking at the Bill as it has come back to us, with a changed definition.
      It is to the credit of the Minister of State and of the Government that they accepted that the Bill might not have been in a perfect form when it was presented. The new definition of terrorism shows that it has been amended. In some respects, that amendment is an improvement—as, in general, are the Lords amendments. Amendments Nos. 1 and 19, on reverse burdens of proof, are significant. They are a move in the right direction and we are grateful for that.
      Recent debates on the Bill have shown that we need to learn a lesson—it relates specifically to these amendments. When we deal with a controversial Bill on
      628
      a difficult aspect of law—especially one, such as this, that would make permanent legislation that has never formerly been so—we should follow the procedures already established in the House that allow us to take advice so that we get the measure right.
      There are several elements in that system. The first is the Select Committee procedure. The second is the use of draft Bills—if ever there was a case for a draft Bill, this was it. The third procedure is one that we tried to persuade the Government to use on several Home Office Bills this year: to submit a Bill to various forms of scrutiny upstairs—to a Special Standing Committee, where evidence can be taken, before clause by clause deliberation.
      I hope that the Government, and especially Home Office Ministers, will seriously consider holding discussions between the parties at an early stage so that we can get right such matters as definitions. Paradoxically, the Home Secretary is holding such discussions over the measure on football hooliganism that may be dealt with later this week. Had we done so on other Bills, we might have made a better success of the legislative process.
      It is accepted that the amendment is still not right. My reading of the debates in the other place confirms that although there was a widespread view that many efforts were made to improve the measure—including meetings with the Home Secretary and with people outside the House—no one pretends that the definition of terrorism is correct. The amendments try to improve that definition and to pick up some of the threads that ran through previous debates, without repeating those debates.
      Amendment (b) is relatively small. It deals with the central part of the definition of terrorism. That part of the measure is oddly drafted. Amendment No. 1 states that terrorism is
      the use or threat of action where—
      it then refers to proposed subsection (1A) and sets out two complementary criteria. The first is
      the use or threat…designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      The second is
      the use or threat…made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
      Amendment (b) would clarify the "designed to" concept by adding a "directed against" provision. I apologise to hon. Members for this relatively technical explanation, but that is inescapable in a discussion of definitions and drafting. The benefit of the amendment lies in the fact that, sometimes, terrorism has results that it was not designed or intended to achieve; it might have been directed to a purpose, but an objective assessment of that might be different from a subjective evaluation of it. That is difficult and important law because it relates to whether we always seek to prove intent.
      However, for reasons that we often reiterated in Committee, it is important to get the Bill right. It will not create new offences, but will take certain offences and, in certain conditions, will define them as "terrorist" offences with the set of consequences that such offences entail. When they are committed, the Bill will give the state greater and the citizen fewer powers, and the punishment involved will be heavier than for non-terrorist offences. The Bill does not say that a certain form of activity is a terrorist offence, but says that that activity—even though

      629
      it is already a crime—becomes terrorism in certain circumstances. Once the threshold is crossed, the police can take possession of documents, set up cordons and have greater powers to detain people. I ask the Government to consider whether the definition should cover both whether an action can objectively be assessed as being directed against the Government or intimidating the public or a section of the public and whether the action was designed with such aims in mind.
      Amendment (c) was tabled as a probing amendment to encourage a debate. The Minister will remember the big debate that we had in Committee on how or whether we should limit the definition of terrorism. We considered whether to limit it to activities directed against Government or extend it to include activities directed against other parties that are not in government, such as an Opposition party or a party that is not represented in government. We also considered whether the definition should go wider than that. Given the procedures of the House, I sought to find a peg on which we could hang such a debate and that is why I tabled the amendment. However, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has offered the House an alternative to the Lords amendment and that allows us to have the debate.
      I would like to consider the alternative proposal, which appears as an amendment in lieu on the second page of the amendment paper. It retains the widely drawn provisions relating to
      advancing a political, religious or ideological cause,
      but limits those provisions to action against the Government themselves. I recognise that there is a weakness in any definition that suggests that only the Government can be the target. Although it is no secret that we have had a difference of view on how to draft an amendment, my hon. Friends and I would prefer that the definition should take account of other political targets and not just the Government.
      Lords amendment No. 1 contains a provision that refers to a threat that is designed to
      intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      Unless the amendment in lieu tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is accepted, that provision is likely to become part of the Bill. If it does, we must be careful to ensure that we understand what we are doing. We are changing the definition of terrorism to one that may cover acts that have no political objective. It may cover activities based on ideological or religious grounds and—I have previously referred to a similar example—it might cover the actions of someone who is deluded or has religious convictions and who takes action against another member of the public. In normal lay parlance, we would not regard such an act as terrorism.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I am trying to get my mind around a particular matter of procedure. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he does not intend to press amendment (c)?
      Mr. Hughes: Yes, I confirm that.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that the new definition defines terrorism in such a way as to include activities that do not in any way threaten the
      630
      policy of the state. Doubtless, he will have noticed proposed subsection (1B), which appears to reinforce what he has just said—namely, that any act involving firearms or explosives, albeit without a more conventional terrorist intent, is none the less deemed to be a terrorist activity.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: To clarify the matter, I shall distinguish proposed subsection (1B) from proposed subsection (1)(b) of the Lords amendment, which both appear on the same page of the amendment paper. Ideally, my hon. Friends and I would rather not include proposed subsection (1B) at all, which takes away many preconditions if firearms or explosives are used. That applies to activities using firearms—perhaps only one firearm, such as a shotgun—so somebody using a shotgun does not have to have designed their threat to influence the Government or intimidate the public or sections of the public in order to be classified as a terrorist.
      I believe that, like me, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) thinks that that goes far too wide. My hon. Friends and I have therefore tabled amendment (e), which would improve proposed subsection (1B) by deleting the words
      involves the use of firearms and explosives.
      To be honest, that may be the most logical thing people associate with terrorism, but it is certainly not all of it. For example, Lords amendment No. 1 states that an action is terrorism if it
      is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
      Terrorism involving modern technology does not have to be carried out with firearms or explosives, but uses other technological means. Parliament—and certainly technology—has accepted that we need to provide for that. It is therefore undesirable to have a special, reduced threshold if firearms or explosives are used, when there are many other ways of proceeding.
      We tabled the amendment to focus hon. Members' minds on what would be better. It would add to the proposed subsection the alternative wording
      is intended to cause death.
      If the intention of the person carrying out the action is to cause death or destruction, our constituents, as well as people in the street and those who read papers, would normally think of that as suggestive of something that could be terrorism. So there must be an intention to cause death, although the provision could be drawn more widely and one could argue for an intention to cause injury or death. However, wording is needed that goes more widely than
      the use of firearms or explosives.
      Proposed subsection (1A) improves slightly the definitions of clause 1 by separating
      serious violence against a person
      from "serious damage to property." Those were rolled into one when the Bill left this place. It is clearly better to separate injury and violence against people from damage to property, and define them slightly differently. However, we are in danger of making a compromise on the legislation that tries to accommodate various ideas without any coherent and uniform view about what is right.

      631
      There is no prospect, I believe, of trying to secure today what I was determined to try to secure when the Bill was in Committee and on Report—namely, that the Bill should have a limited life. It should automatically expire and come back to the House for us to examine. As we all know, once a Bill is enacted, it is difficult to make amendments to it. Normally, they can be successfully piloted only by Governments themselves, so the ball remains in the Government's court. There will be an annual review of the legislation and experts may examine such matters, as may new bodies such as the human rights committee which Parliament is about to set up this year—indeed, I hope that that committee will do so. None the less, if Parliament does not make further alterations to the Bill, we are lumbered with what is possibly a better definition than when we started, but which certainly does not appear to be a definition which, on the one hand, catches what we intend to catch and, on the other, does not bring in all sorts of extraneous things.
      The purpose of amendments (b) and (e)—and, I believe, of the amendment in lieu—is to try to focus on activities that people clearly view as being intended to undermine government, democracy or the political process or which, in the pursuit of ideological and political aims, disrupt society as a whole. That paraphrases the definition for the lay person.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Amendment (e) would insert the words
      is intended to cause death
      Why did the hon. Gentleman not add "or serious injury to a person or persons"?
      Mr. Hughes: There was no particular reason for not adding those words, and they would have been a reasonable addition. Proposed subsection (1A) sets out the consequences, which include those that the hon. Gentleman seeks to include. Apart from the exception in proposed subsection (1B), action is covered if it involves serious violence against a person or serious damage to property, endangers life or—this is where the hon. Gentleman's inquiry is directed—
      creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
      In almost all cases, the consequences suggested by the hon. Gentleman will be covered.
      I do not want to be overly critical, but we have a definitional clause at the beginning of the Bill, which is a good idea, but unfortunately it is drafted in a way that is terribly confusing. Anyone seeking a straightforward understanding of the Bill has to do a double loop, which cannot be the best way of drafting legislation.
      We are trying to avoid the definitional clause including as terrorists members of, for example, a health service union who took action in pursuit of an industrial action objective. If a nurse or porter withdrew their services from a hospital, that might, as an unintended by-product, create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public. There is still a danger that the definition may be sweeping enough to cover action that nobody would ever logically define as terrorism.
      Today, we may be able only slightly to improve the Bill, and, whether or not we seek to do so, I would be grateful for a reassurance from the Minister, on the record,
      632
      that when the first report on the working of the Bill comes to be written, he will ask whoever undertakes the inquiry and writes the report to consider the definition. We should not lose control of the definition in a Bill that will become an Act and may never return to the House. The amendments seek to open up that subject.
      Mr. John McDonnell: Throughout this debate, the Government, to give them their due, have demonstrated a willingness to listen and have introduced various amendments, which we all welcome. The debate in the other House reflected some of the concerns that were first echoed in the Chamber and then addressed by the Government, and I welcome that.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke of the need for early discussions between parties. I am not completely sure where that leaves my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and I, but I welcome early debate on these matters.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: We remain available for a meeting.
      Mr. McDonnell: Running through the debate has been the definition of terrorism. In all our discussions here and in the other place we have rehearsed the examination of the original definition within the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which at that stage was contentious in itself. We suggested a definition that involved the use of violence for political ends including any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear. Some of us are concerned about the breadth of that definition, and the then Labour Opposition expressed their concern.
      In 1993, there was a closer definition in the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993. My amendment in lieu is to try to draw upon the discussion that took place under that Act and our debate on Second Reading, and goes some way towards the Government's concerns about the need for breadth of definition.
      The 1993 Act defined terrorism as acts by
      persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or other governments de jure or de facto.
      As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has said, my amendment in lieu tries to bring us back to that core definition, which is the act of overthrowing a particular Government or an attack upon the state. In the general view, that has been accepted as terrorist activity.
      I am concerned about some of the amendments in the Lords. My concern is highlighted by proposed subsection (1B), which broadens the definition of terrorism to include virtually any act of violence in the country. It breaks the link with threats to overthrow the state, and it is dangerous in its own right.
      Some amendments relate to the use of explosives. Virtually anyone cracking a safe, no matter what his motivation, could be defined as a terrorist and have the full weight of the proposed legislation thrown at him. My amendment in lieu is designed to try to bring us back to the core definition of terrorism as we have always known it. That is the threat against the state. Definition goes

      633
      primarily to determine exactly what we mean by terrorism. We may not be able to change the proposed legislation today, but it is important that in the first review of it we return to definition. Indeed, it is critical that we do so.
      Traditionally, we have always intended terrorism to mean the overthrow of the state or of a legitimately elected Government. My amendment says that clearly. However, the definition goes much further than that. It widens it so that terrorism is associated with the reason behind the action. It deals with motivation rather than a threat to the state, as set out in all our legislation to date and in the general debate about terrorism.
      In promoting the proposed legislation, I do not think that the Government will be able to maintain the definition within it for a long period. I think that reviews will narrow it. When the Bill is enacted, terrorism will no longer have a serious and deep underlying meaning. It will be defined as a new type of crime which involves violence to a person or one that involves "serious damage to property" or "endangers a person's life". All these acts, as has been demonstrated in debate after debate, are covered by existing criminal law. In the amendment that has come from the Lords, there is a new definition of terrorism that will enable a terrorist to be defined as someone who undertakes violence to electronic systems. That is a worrying widening of the definition, which goes beyond anything we thought possible previously, or anything that has been used in common parlance so far.
      The definition that I have tabled focuses on the view that terrorism is the use or threat of action that is designed to overthrow or influence elected Governments by force or violence. It includes Government recommendations in earlier debates, which include the purpose of the action—that is, "political, religious, or ideological". It makes it clear that these are not causes advanced by demonstration, direct action or other similar methods. Rather, they have to be serious enough to attempt to influence the Government by force or violence.
      4 pm
      My proposed definition addresses issues raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Under the Government's proposals, would, for example, the 1926 general strike be defined as terrorist action? I believe that it would, because it involved an element of serious violence and was directed towards a political or ideological motive. Under my definition, it would not be so categorised, because it was not directed toward the overthrow of the state. The general strike was about workers' rights and a decent living wage; the action, in part, aimed to influence the Government but not to overthrow the democratic system, which is what we all understand terrorist activity to be.
      In its simplicity, my definition provides genuine help to the Government. Much was said in Committee in the Commons and the other place of the need to include in the definition of terrorists those who would seek to undermine the state and cause terror by sabotaging various state resources. However, the use or attempted use of such methods would constitute terrorism only if it were designed to overthrow the state or undermine the democratic process—if such acts were an obvious means, by violence, to intimidate the Government or overthrow the Government by causing anarchy. My definition
      634
      attempts to differentiate between criminal activity that may well cause tenor, but is not terrorist because it is motivated by the desire for profit, and terrorist activity that is designed to undermine the democratic process.
      Our definition attempts to describe terrorism thoroughly. We have tried to formulate a definition that is broad enough to satisfy the Government's concerns about political or ideological motives, but stays close to the core of our traditional understanding of the definition of terrorism. If the Government are concerned about certain activities—for example, attacks on electronic systems—Parliament should deny criminals the ability to avoid justice by legislating specifically to ensure that there is a clear definition of criminal activity of that nature. However, let us not broaden the definition of terrorism in this Bill, and so weaken it, to achieve that end. In addition, if the Government are concerned about direct action by certain groups—previously, green campaigns and animal rights campaigns have been mentioned—let them be honest enough to introduce legislation in that respect, so that the House can debate the subject. That is better than broadening the definition of terrorism into a catch-all provision that could be used in the courts to undermine civil liberties.
      This difficult debate has continued for the past two decades, but I repeat what has been said by several Members of both Houses of Parliament during proceedings on the Bill: terrorism as a concept has been used for propaganda purposes—one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. If we broaden the definition as widely as the Government proposed in the draft legislation, and even more widely as the Lords amendments provide, a direct threat will be posed to many of the political campaigns that we in this country wage in support of others who are striking out for freedom. In addition, we will bring the legislative process into disrepute.
      Although our amendment in lieu will not be accepted today, I hope that it will form part of the agenda of the first review of the legislation, and that we shall return to the definition of terrorism in a way that is helpful to the courts in their interpretation of the term. Today, we are defining not a new crime but a set of actions that will give the authorities and the police greater powers. That was originally done when the Prevention of Terrorism Act was first introduced: under that Act, 3,000 people were arrested, 99.9 per cent. of whom were innocent. Some of those convicted under the PTA, such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, were later found to be innocent after serving long sentences. I am concerned that defining terrorism loosely, as the Government propose, will result not only in political activity in this country being impeded, but in miscarriages of justice, which we should all fear.
      Mr. Hogg: It would be churlish of me not to welcome the fact that there are amendments from the other place which, I accept, improve the definition of terrorism, but I hope that I will be forgiven if I none the less make some criticisms of the amendments before the House. I shall also speak to amendment (f), which is the change that I propose.
      I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the desirability of publishing a draft Bill. I have even greater sympathy with his point

      635
      about Special Standing Committees. I very much regret that the House has not done more to make use of the Special Standing Committee procedure. Bills such as the present one fall particularly into the category that would benefit from that procedure.
      The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) was right to try further to refine to what may be described as a core activity the definition of "terrorist"; but, if he will forgive me, I have two reservations about his amendment in lieu. First, it applies to elected Governments outside the United Kingdom. I have always had serious reservations about whether we should classify as "terrorist", or, more strictly speaking, an activity that is capable of falling within the definition of "terrorist", actions designed against external Governments. I am unhappy about that.
      There are a number of middle eastern regimes, for example, which, when I was a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, were anxious that we should take action here in the United Kingdom to stop individuals protesting against what was going on in some of those middle eastern states. It is well within our recollection that the African National Congress, for example, was certainly contemplating armed action against the Government of South Africa. It is highly questionable whether we should bring external activities within the scope of activity capable of being so defined. However, that is in the Bill and we must live with it.
      My second point to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is that his definition probably would catch direct action. The phrase
      influence by force or violence
      seems to me to be apt to include demonstrations that take place on the picket line, and I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman means that. I may be stretching the interpretation, although I think not. My point is that it is rather difficult so to define terrorist activity as not to catch activities that may be criminal but which should not be deemed to be terrorist.
      I shall say a word about my own amendment and proposed subsection (1B). As I understand it, the effect of the Lords amendment is that the use of firearms or explosives for any of the purposes set out in subsection (1A) is deemed to be terrorist. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, that means that any straightforward criminal activity in which a firearm, such as a shotgun, is used, or in which explosives are used—for example safe-cracking, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested—is capable of being construed as terrorist.
      I am doubtful about that. It seems to be stretching the point a little, and it rather reinforces the argument for a Special Standing Committee, where such questions could be more fully teased out, or the argument of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the Bill should be time limited, so that at the expiration of the term of the Bill, if it were enacted, we could review the consequences.
      That brings me to amendment (f). If it be right to bring within the deemed terrorist activity the use of firearms or explosives, what about biological, bacteriological, chemical and nerve agents? Those are not just an idle threat. During the Iraqi war—that is, the Gulf war against Iraq—
      636
      it is well known to the House that we were very troubled indeed about the possibility of biological or bacteriological agents being used in the United Kingdom by agents of the Iraqi Government.
      Let us consider the example of Japan. We all know about the attack on the underground system there. I believe that gas was used, but it may have been nerve agents. It does not matter for the purposes of our discussion. Such events are feared and have happened. If it is right to include in the scope of deemed terrorist activity—or activity capable of being included in that scope—the use of firearms and explosives, we should include, a fortiori, the other agents, which I have specified in amendment (f).
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Do I deduce from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that he, like me, would, on balance, prefer deleting proposed new subsection (1B) to limiting, extending or playing around with it?
      Mr. Hogg: On balance, I believe that I would. However, if I am to be left with proposed new subsection (1B)—I suspect that that will happen—I shall try to improve it by incorporating amendment (f) into it.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Madam Speaker: Is Mr. Corbyn seeking to catch my eye?
      Mr. Corbyn: Indeed, Madam Speaker. It is kind of you to remind me to rise. As one of only two non-lawyers to speak in the debate, I am grateful for being called. Perhaps other non-lawyers will join us soon.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does the Minister a disservice.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend the Minister not a lawyer?
      Mr. Charles Clarke: No.
      Mr. Corbyn: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. That makes three of us. We have a lot in common.
      We tabled the amendment in lieu after much consideration. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would consider the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and me when he replies. We were not members of the Committee that considered the Bill, and were thus unable to pursue the anxieties that we expressed on Second Reading. We were worried that the definition of terrorism in the Bill was so broadly drawn that there was a danger of its including people who were by no stretch of the imagination terrorists, but who could be defined as such in a British court. The right hon. and learned Member for North Hykeham and lots of other places—
      Mr. Hogg: Sleaford.
      Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who represents all places in Lincolnshire, also drew attention to the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and

      637
      Harlington pointed out, one person's terrorist can be another person' s freedom fighter. Former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa was denounced in this country as a terrorist, as were many others who were later elevated to the status of freedom fighter. It is the lot of many so-called terrorists around the world to become freedom fighters and then saints, often in the space of a short time.
      We are worried that the definition in the Bill could enable foreign Governments to put pressure on the British Government to arrest people in this country for peaceful activities that are pursued here in support of a change in their society. Those activities may be pursued peacefully here but not so peacefully in the relevant country. Such circumstances are potentially a minefield.
      I recall the time when various Conservative Members asked about Mohammed al Nasari's activities in opposing the Saudi Government. They claimed—I do not know whether the claim was justifiable—that British economic interests and arms exports were substantially affected by his campaign to oppose the Saudi Government and royal family, and that there was therefore an economic bearing on reasons to remove him from this country. I do not recall his being labelled a terrorist, but the comments were not far removed from calling him a terrorist.
      The native Amazonian people in Brazil campaigned honourably for a long time to protect the rain forest in a sustainable way and to preserve their way of life. At various times, their methods have been described as terrorism against the state of Brazil, because they prevent what some perceive as legitimate economic activity and others perceive as disastrous for the rain forest. Many people in this country have supported them. Would they be included in the catch-all definition if they undertook peaceful direct action against Brazilian economic interests here? That is the danger of the definition.
      4.15 pm
      On Saturday, I went to the north Yorkshire moors with many other people from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It was a beautiful day and the scenery was wonderful. We were protesting against the American national missile defence system and star wars experiment. Our demonstration was entirely peaceful; we marched up to the base and hung banners around its edge. The police were entirely co-operative and said that it was a very nice day out as well. It did not rain all the time we were there, and everyone went away.
      If there had been some form of direct action, such as people trying to climb over the fence or whatever as has happened with Operation Snowball, I would have described it as peaceful direction action in pursuit of a peaceful objective. Indeed, such a view has been upheld in the courts. However, it could be argued that such action was against the interests of the United States Government in trying to pursue their national missile defence policy. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would consider that matter in his reply. I also have in mind those who have been charged with damaging genetically modified crops—although I cannot pursue that case now because it is before the courts.
      The crux of the amendment in lieu tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is that it directly deals with
      force or violence against Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
      638
      rather than that against property, and it specifically refers to
      any other elected Government
      I realise that the word "elected" can cover a multitude of sins; it is difficult to define. I am slightly suspicious of Governments who are elected by 99.8 per cent. of the vote, and the Albanian electoral system in the past. We must define the word "elected" carefully, and perhaps we should further consider the definition, but my hon. Friend the Minister should consider the fact that our genuine desire is not to support violent terrorism in any form—that is not our purpose—but to protect the important right of people in this country to engage in legitimate, peaceful political activities that are intended to promote social and political change in their own society.
      We should not allow foreign, dictatorial Governments or oppressive regimes to use economic and political arguments in this country to ensure that their internal opponents are arrested under British law. That would be dangerous and a negation of many of the principles under which people have claimed asylum under the 1951 convention.
      Dr. Godman: I have considerable sympathy for the amendment in lieu tabled by hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). In criticising that amendment, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to middle eastern regimes and to his experience as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I remember debating with him whether the Lockerbie trial should be held in Scotland. I remind him that the amendment in lieu refers not to regimes, but to elected Governments, although it might have been better if it had referred to democratically elected Governments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to serious damage to property. An incident took place not so long ago at the nuclear submarine base on the Clyde involving three women demonstrators, or campaigners against the nuclear deterrent. Their campaign focuses on the removal of those submarines from the Firth of Clyde, and I have some sympathy for that view. They were charged at Greenock sheriff court under extant Scots law on criminal offences and criminal damage to property. Incidentally, the sheriff threw out the case, but that is another story. I am also concerned about damage to property or inadvertent injury to persons that can happen in industrial disputes.
      On the pursuit of ideological objectives, the International Whaling Commission, for example, might allow the Norwegians and the Japanese—the two foremost industrial whaling nations—greater access to the rapidly depleting whale stocks. That might prompt Greenpeace to send out a vessel, perhaps to our territorial waters, and, in its efforts to interfere with the whaler's activities, that vessel might damage the whaler in a collision. Would that constitute an act of terrorism under the Lords amendment? Too many people who act rashly, inadvertently causing damage, might be charged with terrorist activities. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington fits the reality of political protest and campaigning much better than do the Bill and the Lords amendment.
      Mr. David Lidington: The House of Lords has done a good job as a revising Chamber in

      639
      considering the definition of terrorism and my reading of the debates in the other place shows that the issue was discussed constructively and at length. On Report in the House of Lords, the Government introduced a redefinition that meets a number of concerns expressed by Members of both Houses about the original definition.
      In particular, I record my welcome for two features of the new definition. First, it describes terrorism as an activity that puts people in fear—that terrorises the public or others. As my noble Friend Lord Cope of Berkeley pointed out in the other place, that is surely an essential feature of any definition of terrorism. Secondly, the Government have agreed to extend the definition to include what might be termed cyber-crime—the deliberate act of wrecking computer and information systems to intimidate the public or to influence a Government. We drew attention to that matter early in the Bill's proceedings in this House—indeed, it was highlighted by Lord Lloyd of Berwick in his original report on the subject.
      The Bill must make it possible for the police and others to treat as terrorism the prospect of an attack by a group such as the IRA or continuing republican paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland on an air traffic control system or an information technology system governing the activities of a public utility, major finance houses in the City of London or the civil service in Whitehall. Indeed, I am told that there is evidence from overseas that some Tamil terrorist organisations have sought to damage the Indian Government's communications systems as part of their on-going political campaign. All Members who experienced the damage done recently by a computer bug to our ability to communicate will know that such methods of intimidation are almost certain to be attractive to terrorist groups.
      I reiterate the support of those on the Opposition Front Bench for the concept of the definition encompassing both domestic and international terrorism. We acknowledge that that raises difficult questions about balancing the need for effective counter-terrorist legislation with defence of human rights, but I believe that the threat posed by both domestic and international terrorism is such that the Government are right to propose a definition that is broader in scope than those included in current legislation.
      May I deal briefly with the amendments that we are debating alongside the Lords amendment? I was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that he did not intend to press amendment (c), because that would have narrowed the definition in an unacceptable fashion. In his discussion of amendment (b), he raised the interesting question whether we need an objective, as well as a subjective, test. However, when he dealt with proposed subsection (1B), he spoiled his argument by saying that there should be a test of intention—namely, an intention to cause death—rather than the objective test included in the Lords amendment as drafted.
      Amendment (e) is too narrow in scope. To say that an act involving
      the use of firearms and explosives
      would constitute terrorism only if "intended to cause death" would open the gates to those terrorists who attack targets such as Canary Wharf or the Arndale center in
      640
      Manchester, and then blame the casualties on the fact that the police did not act on the warning that the terrorists claim to have given the authorities. That amendment would create an imbalance in the Bill in favour of the terrorists, so the House should not accept it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman understands that proposed subsection (1B) qualifies the preconditions that must be met in the earlier parts of the definition. Whether or not my amendment or any form of words is accepted, we must retain proposed subsection (1B). All that it does is convict someone on the basis of
      the use of firearms or explosives,
      even if no one can prove that the action was
      designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      On reflection, therefore, the hon. Gentleman might agree that that does not have the objective that he attributes to it.
      Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the intention behind his amendment. I was going to deal with the point that he raised because, to an extent, it answers some of the concerns that were expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Some of the debate about proposed subsection (1B) seemed to assume that it was an unqualified exception to the principles established in proposed subsection (1A). Yet surely the use of firearms or explosives must be shown, under proposed subsection (1)(b) and (c), to be
      designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public
      and to have been motivated by a desire to advance
      a political, religious or ideological cause
      A certain amount of protection against abuse by the authorities is therefore built into the Lords amendment
      Mr. Hogg: Is my hon. Friend right about that? I agree that this matter is difficult to follow and we may both be mistaken, but my understanding is that nobody has to be satisfied that
      the use of firearms or explosives
      falls within proposed subsections (1)(b) or (c). It is sufficient if firearms or explosives are used.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Lidington: The Minister will no doubt clear things up for both of us. According to my reading of the Lords amendment, the motivation of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause would clearly have to be established, even if one accepted the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made.
      The other point that my right hon. and learned Friend made is worth consideration: whether we should extend the exemption in proposed new subsection (1B) to include not just firearms and explosives but other lethal forms of weaponry, such as chemical and biological weapons. I would be interested to know the Government's thinking on that point.
      Mr. Hughes: I am conscious of the danger of the debate turning into a seminar, but that is because of the drafting of the definition. I want to follow the same line of questioning

      641
      as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that, if we agreed to proposed new subsection (1B) as it stands, someone could be described as a terrorist if he used a firearm to raid a post office believing that the lottery was against God's will because it is gambling? He would be using a firearm for an ideological or religious cause, so it seems to me that it would fall within the definition. The phrase in new subsection (1B) is a dangerous phrase to include in the Bill.
      Mr. Lidington: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument but, to use that hypothetical case, if a gang of people were organised and believed that some God was impelling them to raid a sub-post office to stamp out gambling, it should be possible to treat them as a terrorist organisation. Similarly, it should be possible to treat an organisation that uses violent methods in pursuit of animal rights as terrorist, given the attempts to kill and maim people made by such extreme organisations.
      That brings me on to the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). He acknowledged that to use a phrase such as "any other elected government" raises many questions about the validity of elections in different parts of the world. In any case, we need a definition of terrorism that goes wider than action against Governments.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has been intellectually honest as we have gone through this process, and I just want to press him one more time. I may be prepared to accept his proposition that the actions of a group seeking to undermine people may justify a terrorist description. However, does he honestly believe that the act of one person with one firearm endangering one person's life from some ideological motive—albeit that that is a criminal, undesirable act that would deserve to be severely punished—should be classed not as an ordinary crime but as an act of terrorism, with all the implications that that has?
      Mr. Lidington: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, in the example of the hypothetical nutter who believes that he is hearing divine voices, the offences involved in addressing a public meeting or fundraising would not be relevant—they would be relevant only to an organised group. Similarly, I would have expected that in such a case the police would rely on the powers given to them to enforce the criminal law, and it is likely that they would establish the man's claimed motivation only after the event when they had detected and arrested him.
      I understand the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, but he is pushing a hypothesis to extreme lengths. I acknowledge—if I can repay the compliment—that he has been intellectually consistent throughout our deliberations on the Bill. In my view, however, it is important to have, if not the form of words that we now have in front of us, something very like it when the Bill finally gets to the statute book, in order to ensure that we are armed with sufficient safeguards against the real danger posed to our society by organised terrorism.
      Let me respond briefly to the points made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. The law's definition of terrorism needs to be broader in scope than "actions designed to influence or to have an impact on Government." We know extreme animal rights groups
      642
      have sought to threaten, intimidate and harm individual scientists or employees of companies lawfully engaged in carrying out experiments on live animals. We know, too, of cases where acknowledged terrorist groups such as the Provisional IRA have sought to attack commercial interests to deter investment in Northern Ireland, or economic targets on the mainland of Great Britain in the hope that that would indirectly influence the Government of the day by arousing a war-weariness among the British public about continued involvement in Northern Ireland. For those reasons, I advise my hon. Friends to resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment if he presses it to a Division.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: May I begin with a couple of generalities—with the specific exception of the vicious smear on me by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who claimed that I was a lawyer? I have spent a lot of time resisting those attacks and I have attacked other lawyers. I am surrounded in the Home Office by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is a lawyer, and by my fellow Ministers of State, who are lawyers. The Prime Minister is also a lawyer. I have taken great pride in not being a lawyer in our discussions, so I was deeply distressed—that is the only phrase I can use—by my hon. Friend's attack.
      More generally and more seriously, I welcome the various welcomes—and appreciate the spirit in which they were given—from hon. Members on both sides of the House for the changes that we have introduced in the Lords. It is true that we have sought to take account of what has been said by a number of people in the course of our debates.
      I want to emphasise, as I have throughout, that many of these judgments are difficult judgments of balance between the various rights involved. Of course, there is room for different emphases as one deals with the balance.
      Amendments were debated at earlier stages concerning the life of the Bill. I hope that, when the review is conducted of the operation of the Bill, reports on the central definition and its effectiveness or ineffectiveness will be considered. Obviously, it will be for the person conducting the review to decide exactly how to deal with the matter. I acknowledge that it has been a dominant theme of our debates in both Houses of Parliament. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate for the review to consider addressing those matters.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Corbyn rose—
      Mr. Clarke: I shall first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and then to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
      Mr. Corbyn: Can the Minister assure the House that the person undertaking the review will not only review any cases, actual or potential, that come up in the courts, but take evidence from exiled organisations and reputable human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International on the operation of the law? In the

      643
      event of it fulfilling some of the fears that a number of us have put forward, will the Minister be prepared to propose substantive amendments to the legislation?
      Mr. Clark: I cannot give my hon. Friend the first assurance that he sought. We have set out clearly the way in which the reports will be laid before the House, and will be capable of being considered by it. As for his second point, I can, perhaps, be more reassuring. If serious questions of definition arose in the reports, certainly this but, I think, any Government would take them extremely seriously, and consider what changes were needed.
      Mr. Hughes: I welcome the Minister's explanation of how the Government would proceed in making requests of the person carrying out the review, but may I push him one small step further? Would it be possible for the Government to consult on the brief for that person with Conservative Front Benchers, with my colleagues and me, and with others who are interested? If he could go that one step further, I might help the House by saying that I would be happy not to press our amendment.
      Mr. Clarke: I can at least assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would give the person concerned copies of all the Hansards containing the various representations made not only by the hon. Gentleman and his party here and in the other place, but by the official Opposition in both Houses and by my hon. Friends. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance, if it is a reassurance, that my right hon. Friend will take all possible steps to ensure that the review considers fully the views expressed in our debates.
      I will not discuss the merits or otherwise of Special Standing Committees, and so on. Those are serious points, but they are not points for this debate.
      Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 17 and 107 are designed to tighten the all-important definition of terrorism in clause 1. We always said that we had not closed our minds to possible improvements in the Bill's definition of terrorism, and we believe that the amendments are useful modifications.
      Lords amendment No. 1 introduces the concept of terror to the definition by requiring that for the most part actions, or threats, are caught only if, in addition to satisfying the other elements of subsection (1), they are designed either to influence the Government—that is defined in Lords amendment No. 3—or to intimidate the public, or a section of the public. The important exception, set out in proposed subsection (1B), is where firearms or explosives are involved. That is to cover, for instance, an assassination in which the terrorist's motive might be less to put the public in fear, or to influence the Government, than to "take out" the individual. Examples might include religious leaders, or scientists involved in controversial research. Although we accept that such circumstances are likely to occur rarely, we think it important for the Bill to be framed in such a way that the police are in no doubt that the special powers it provides are available to them in those circumstances.
      Proposed subsection (1A)(c) makes it clear that only action that endangers the life of a person other than the person committing that action is caught by the definition of terrorism. That is intended to cover hunger strikes and similar situations.
      644
      Proposed subsection (1A)(e) specifically provides that serious interference with, or disruption of, electronic systems may be caught by the definition—provided, of course, that the action is designed to influence the Government or intimidate the public, and provided that it is taken to advance a political, religious or ideological cause. That provision was inserted to meet concerns that to "future-proof' the definition as far as possible—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) referred to this—it was important to include computer- related terrorist action, without going for overly specific terminology that could quickly become out of date.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 107 are consequential on the main amendment, in that they add offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to those that are "scheduled" in Northern Ireland. Lords amendment No. 2 is consequential on Lords amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Clarke: I will give way later, but as I am going to raise a number of issues, some of which relate to the hon. Gentleman's speech, he may prefer to wait. I am not about to sit down.
      Let me now deal with the non-Government amendments in the group, which raise important points. First, let me emphasise a point that has already been made. The version of clause 1 proposed in Lords amendment No. 1 clearly states:
      In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—(a) the action falls within subsection (1A).
      That proposed subsection refers to actions involving serious violence, serious damage and so on. That test will have to be met.
      The second test is that
      the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
      That very important test also will have to be met. The third test is that
      the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
      Therefore, it is a case of "and, and, and" in which all three conditions would have to be fulfilled. It is an important consideration. I think that it also deals with the safe-blower example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), because the average safe-blower will not be seeking to fulfil, for example, proposed subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c). Various other examples also would not meet the various tests. Therefore, that definition dominates what we are proposing and the way in which we are operating. It is a very important point.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Hogg: The Minister has just assured the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that the safe-blower would not satisfy the tests in proposed subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c). However, my understanding is that the safe-blower would not have to satisfy subsection (1)(b), but only subsection (1)(c)? Is that correct?
      Mr. Clarke: No; I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. The point is that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) have to be fulfilled. The disapplication

      645
      that we have used in proposed subsection (1B) attempts to provide the type of qualification to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred. As there is a great deal of confusion in the matter, I shall explain it again.
      Proposed subsection (1B) disapplies only the point on influencing the Government and intimidating the public, not subsection (1)(c). If I was not clear in stating that earlier, I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and to the House. My point about safe-blowers is that, as far as I know, most safe-blowers are not seeking in their actions to advance a political, religious or ideological cause, and that they would therefore not be covered in that category. That is the key point. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
      In amendment (b), the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests specifying that the use or threat is "directed against" as well as "designed to" influence. However, I do not think that it is at all clear how "directing against" adds to the sub-issue of seeking to influence the Government. If one's action is directed against the Government, it is seeking to influence the Government. Therefore, I do not think that amendment (b) would in any sense assist in our overall debate.
      In amendment (e) to proposed subsection (1B), the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey proposes replacing
      involves the use of firearms or explosives
      with
      is intended to cause death.
      I honestly believe that that amendment would make the situation in the disapplication that we are talking about even more difficult and problematic to define, for the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) asked the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey a very pertinent question on the issue. I think that there are very many definition issues in the matter of intent to cause death, as opposed to intent to cause other things. Additionally, how are we to measure intent? I hope that those questions will persuade the House not to support amendment (e), should the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey decide to press it.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may be planning to deal with this point later, but now may be the right time to deal with it, as it is related to other points that he has just made. What is his answer to the question that I asked the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)? Why is it that if the Bill is amended only by the Lords amendments, one person with one firearm who is motivated by a religious cause and endangers a person's life in a sub-post office would not be caught by the provisions and, therefore, defined as a terrorist?
      Mr. Clarke: I am always slightly hesitant to go into such examples, because it is ultimately for the courts to judge, and difficult judgments arise all the time. There have recently been cases of individuals carrying out acts motivated by values and beliefs that most people would consider terrorist. If the individual has the desire to murder one person, for whatever reason, that is different from someone with a political, religious or ideological
      646
      cause, which would imply a focus on more than one person. The hon. Gentleman's example pushes the bounds of understanding too far in that regard.
      I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has participated in the debate, not only today but throughout our proceedings. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North have spoken with complete integrity and raised serious concerns felt by themselves and others throughout the country.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington raised a small point about computer hacking. We have legislation on that, as the Computer Misuse Act 1990 created offences of unauthorised access to computer materials, unauthorised access with intent to commit a further offence and unauthorised modification. It is right that, when such mischief occurs for terrorist purposes, the powers in the Bill should be available to the police, but the general issue is already directly dealt with.
      My hon. Friend also raised a more general point about a general strike or direct action. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to Greenpeace and submarines. I have to come back to the core definitions. We understand the general issues concerning
      the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause
      or seeking to influence the Government.
      Clearly, most direct action falls within those categories, but to fall within the scope of the Bill, such action must also fall within proposed subsection (1A), under which it must involve one of five things. The first is
      serious violence against a person.
      The second is "serious damage to property". That is far beyond the way in which one could categorise a Greenpeace vessel bumping something else on the high seas. The third is an action that
      endangers a person's life other than that of the person committing the action.
      That is another pretty serious hurdle. The fourth is
      a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.
      The fifth is the cyber-crime point to which I referred earlier.
      Those are all pretty serious hurdles. I have made it clear throughout that we do not have any intention of seeking to apply the legislation to any domestic, industrial or environmental action, precisely because we believe that Greenpeace, for example, is not seeking to do any of those five things. I understand the spirit behind the amendment in lieu, but I honestly believe that it is based on a wrong perception of where we stand.
      Mr. David Winnick: I know that my hon. Friend is not a lawyer, any more than I am, but is it not the case that judges can now refer to Hansard? What he has just said is a very important point should a prosecution ever be brought—in spite of all that he has said—in relation to an industrial dispute. Am I right to suppose that judges can refer to Hansard if requested by counsel to do so?
      Mr. Clarke: I am not a lawyer, but I think that it is open to counsel to make any reference to Hansard in

      647
      relation to the Government's intention in any legislation. However, I do not think that I have said anything different today from what I said on Third Reading or in Committee.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is an important point about which several of my hon. Friends and I are concerned. Can he assure us that if some rogue prosecution for terrorism should be mounted against an organisation such as Greenpeace—as my hon. F the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggested—the Government would not pursue that prosecution? If there was an attempt to pursue such a prosecution, can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the Government would be prepared to amend the Bill accordingly?
      Mr. Clarke: Although I am not a lawyer, I recognise the phrase "rogue prosecution" and I understand from my learned friends that there is no such thing as a rogue prosecution that involves lawyers. I am describing the activities of the organisations as they exist in current circumstances. If Greenpeace decided to breach the various causes in the Bill, that would be a different issue which would have to be addressed, so I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute guarantee. However, I can guarantee that if an organisation does not violate the provisions of clause 1, any prosecution could not succeed.
      My final point to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is that, while I acknowledge his creativity in tabling an amendment based on previous legislation, it contains a flaw. It is not the flaw of the use of the phrase
      or any other elected Government.
      That point has been addressed in previous discussion. However, to exclude from the definition of terrorism action that is designed to intimidate the public or a section of the public—as the amendment seeks to do—would be a mistake. I understand that the classic view of terrorism is that it is about influencing or overthrowing states, but in the current and, I suspect, future climate, it would be wrong to exclude from the definition of terrorism action designed to intimidate the public or a section of it. We all know of examples, which I shall not cite again, and for that reason alone, I urge my hon. Friends not to support the amendment if it is pressed to a vote.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: An additional point in reply to the point from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—and I hope that the Minister regards it as helpful—is that, subject to some limited exceptions, all prosecutions under the Bill would require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, to some extent, parliamentary accountability would exist through the Law Officers in the case of any aberrant prosecution.
      Dr. Godman: The procurator fiscal in Scotland.
      Mr. Clarke: That is true, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde says, the decision would go to the procurator fiscal in Scotland.
      Mr. Corbyn: What would be the Government's attitude to an attempt to use extradition law to obtain the removal of a foreign national legally resident in this country who was deemed to fall within the definitions for support for an organisation in their own country?
      Mr. Clarke: I regret to say that I have to duck that question. Extradition law is exceptionally complicated and we are reviewing it in the light of the experience of the attempted extradition of the former dictator of Chile. I am hesitant to touch on what would or would not be grounds for extradition in any particular case. However, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out my understanding when I have had a chance to take advice on that point.
      Mr. Corbyn: I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's letter, which I shall treasure as being from one non-lawyer to another. Can he also assure me that whoever reviews the legislation will also be asked to undertake a review of this aspect of the Bill, which has enormous implications in respect of our human rights legislation and the convention that will become British law in October?
      5 pm
      Mr. Clarke: The parliamentary reporting process established in the Bill will ensure that the review made available to the House every year takes account of all aspects of the operation of the legislation, including the aspect raised by my hon. Friend.
      My hon. Friend makes a serious point, and is right to raise it in this context. However, the approach that I intend to take is to ensure that, once the institution proposed in the Bill is established and fully operational, the full record of the debates on the matter is made available for consideration.
      I turn finally to the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I appreciate that his intention is to extend the scope of the application of the "influencing a Government" definition of terrorism to cover situations where chemical, biological or other agents rather than conventional explosives are used in a terrorist attack.
      As the Government explained when the amendments were tabled on Report in the House of Lords, the disapplication is intended to cover a set of circumstances that are rare, but which should not be ignored. Those circumstances would arise when an individual or place is attacked by a terrorist group whose intention is to "take out" that person or place for its own sake, rather than as a means of influencing a Government or intimidate the public.
      In introducing the disapplication, the Government felt that we needed to strike the right balance between ensuring that the most likely circumstances in which such cases might occur were covered, and broadening the disapplication so much that it undermined the usefulness

      649
      of the insertion of the important new limb into the definition. That is how we came up with the formula concerning
      the use of firearms of explosives.
      I acknowledge that the amendment does not cover all the ways in which assassinations could take place. For example, it does not cover drowning, poisoning or other ways in which people can be killed which do not involve guns or explosives. However, it would cover the types of incidents involving chemical and other agents set out in amendment (f), tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. That is because the most usual ways in which such agents are released involve the use of explosives. I hope that that offers some level of reassurance that the sort of circumstance envisaged in amendment (f)—and I think that it would be fair to call it a rare sub-set of what is already a rare category of terrorist attacks—is usually likely to be covered.
      I hope that I have dealt with the points raised in the debate. We made it clear from the outset that we recognised that the definition of terrorism was key to the whole Bill, and that we were committed to getting it right. We have tried to listen to concerns expressed at all stages of the debate in the House, and we have made a range of changes to try to address those concerns. We believe that the definition as amended in another place is an improvement, but we do not believe that the further modifications proposed add up to further improvements.
      We must have a workable definition that is broad enough to cover the range of circumstances that we can reasonably anticipate might confront us, without going too wide. The definition must be easy to apply, even under extreme time pressures. We believe that we have achieved those objectives in the definition as amended in the other place, and I hope that the House will support the Government amendments.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that the Government will seek to ensure that the report provided for by clause 125 will cover the concerns about the definition of terrorism raised in this debate by hon. Members of all parties. That is welcome, as is the procedure for getting the matter right. Some of us argued for an automatic review, but a mechanism that combines an annual report and the methodology that the Minister has set out will be very helpful.
      I posed a specific question, by way of example, to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and then to the Minister. It is possible to apply that example to one or more of the offences under the Bill. Most obviously, clause 16 makes it an offence to use money or other property for the purpose of terrorism. It takes no great stretch of the imagination to contemplate a person using money or other property to set up a raid on a post office, and that would bring that offence within the criteria set out by the Minister.
      That example illustrates the prospective, theoretical danger of an interpretation that makes the Bill wider than we might wish. The matter will, of course, be subject to the requirements and consideration of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the procurator fiscal, and the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland). That is a protection for all of us, and other provisions require orders to be laid before the House later.
      650
      I do not pretend, and never have pretended, that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, or the amendment in lieu tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), are the ideal solution. I think that we have all been honest enough to admit that. We have made attempts, collectively, to get a better Bill and, to be fair, the work has produced results and rewards. It would be wrong to suggest that the Bill would be perfect if our amendments were accepted or that it is perfect as it stands. The Bill would be imperfect in either case.
      Against that background, I am happy to accept the Minister's good faith, in terms of working with colleagues on both sides of the House to ensure that we keep the matter under review. We will want to do that—none of us will let the Bill disappear from sight once it becomes law. On that basis, I do not intend to press our amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 12

      SUPPORT
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 7, line 13, leave out from
      ("activities") to end of line 15.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendments No. 5 and amendment (a) thereto, amendments (b) and (c) in lieu thereof, and Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
      Mr. Hogg: I rise to speak to amendments (a), (b) and (c), in my name. I speak to them for reasons of general principle and also for particular reasons which I shall outline.
      I should like to touch briefly on the general point first. Clause 12 restricts free speech. I think that it is the business of the House always carefully to scrutinise whether it is right to impose restrictions on people's ability to speak their mind, even about pretty unworthy causes. Even more importantly, one should scrutinise the restrictions that we impose on the right of people to further the ability of other people to speak their mind.
      May I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the outcry in some quarters when the BBC and other organisations were prohibited from broadcasting the words of people such as Mr. Gerry Adams? I cannot, I am ashamed to say, remember his constituency, but as he does not appear in this place, perhaps I might be entitled to refer to him as Mr. Gerry Adams.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Belfast, West.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information.
      I was a very junior Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office at the time, and I had very real doubts, although they did not count for much, about the wisdom of prohibiting the broadcasting of the words of the

      651
      hon. Member for Belfast, West—as Mr. Adams may or may not then have been—not to say about our right to do so. That general principle informs my approach to clause 12.
      I am extremely unhappy about making it an offence for third parties, in effect, to organise public meetings that will be addressed by people who may be, or are, supporters of terrorism, in support of a terrorist organisation. That may not be a majority view—probably it is not. However, in general, I always lean in favour of rights and liberties.
      Of course, there is always a balance to be struck, and where it should be struck at any one time is a matter of nice judgment. However, the general principle is: when in doubt, preserve a freedom.
      Dr. Godman: I have much sympathy with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. Was he in office when the decision was taken to raid the BBC in Glasgow?
      Mr. Hogg: I have no recollection of the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers; I am sure that in none of the offices that I held did I play any direct role. Governments take many actions of which their individual members do not approve. If we all resigned on the slightest occasion, no Government would ever be formed.
      I have dealt with the general point. I turn to a particular and different point.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the general point and shall probably do so on the particular one. Does he agree that the reason for the general proposition is that, otherwise, we should have to accept the reverse—the "no platform rule"? At student unions and elsewhere, many people are not allowed to speak—whatever the desirability of their views—because it has been decided that they are beyond the pale. If debate does not take place, one can never win the argument.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Whenever there is any doubt, we should preserve the right.
      The particular point is set out in my amendments. They deal with the proposal in Lords amendment No. 5 to impose a burden on the defence. That is the effect of subsection (3A). I readily acknowledge that the provision is subject to the new clause that would be provided by Lords amendment No. 19, and that that new clause would undoubtedly improve it. However, that does not alter the fact that the combination of those two provisions would impose an evidential burden on the defence. The burden is only evidential and not substantive, but the defence would none the less have to raise the issue.
      The question that the House needs to consider—although few Members are in the Chamber to do so—is whether it is right to impose any burden on the defence or whether it is right to pursue the normal canons of criminal law by leaving the burden, throughout, on the Crown. I think that in this case we should leave the burden on the Crown throughout.
      Amendments (b) and (c) would require the Crown to prove that the defendant knew that the speaker was, or professed to be, a member of the proscribed organisation,
      652
      and that the purpose of addressing the organisation was to provide support to, or to further the aims of, the proscribed organisation. The Crown should be required to prove—at the ordinary standard of criminal proof—all the elements that I think should be incorporated in the offence: that the defendant knew of the status and the intent of the speaker. I am not in favour of proceeding by way of the reverse burden of proof, although I recognise that it is evidential and not substantial.
      If the House is against me on this matter—as I suspect that it will be—I hope that it will consider the argument that one should remove the limitation contained in the offence to private meetings. If we take the reverse burden defence route—although I do not like it—I do not see, in principle, why the provision should be limited to a private meeting. Why should it not apply to public meetings?
      I am in favour of liberty and free speech, so within the framework of the Lords amendments I want to give people as much free speech as we can—even though they may be supporting an unworthy and disagreeable organisation. I want to strike out the word "private" so that the provision applies to any meeting. I suspect that the Minister will not accept that, but I look forward to hearing his reasons.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) for his amendments, which raise a perfectly proper set of issues. As he rightly said, few of us are in the Chamber to consider them and if a vote were called now, we might win it. However, as has happened before, people who have not heard the debate might appear from somewhere.
      5.15 pm
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 have considerably improved the Bill in a small but important sense. I thank my noble Friends in another place—particularly Lord Goodhart, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Avebury—who worked assiduously in pursuing these issues for us and in helping to persuade Government to change their view.
      Lords amendment No. 4 would delete lines 13 to 15 of page 7 of the Bill as it was when it started its passage through the Lords—our procedure is rather bizarre—and would prevent an offence being committed if someone addresses a meeting and knows that the meeting will be addressed by someone belonging to or professing to belong to a proscribed organisation. Such mischief is not acceptable, but we do not think that it should be an offence. The original provision would have made a criminal of someone like the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), or me, who turned up on a platform to speak against a terrorist or someone who belonged to a proscribed organisation, such as an Irish proscribed organisation.
      Someone would commit an offence if he simply knew that he was about to share a platform with someone who belonged to a proscribed organisation or merely said that he belonged to such an organisation. That is clearly nonsense, because it means that the members of such organisations or those that claim to belong to them could never be engaged in debate—they would have the platform to themselves.

      653
      I understand the thinking behind the original provision. It was intended that if someone who claimed to be a member of a proscribed organisation or who was a member of such an organisation spoke at a meeting, no one else would turn up to speak on the same platform. However, that is not the way life works. One might not know in advance, or much in advance, who was going to speak and what his pedigree was. Therefore the Lords amendments have prevented the criminalisation of people who are free from any involvement in criminal or proscribed organisations. That is a good thing. It explains why the amendments in the other place were accepted, as a result of negotiations that took place both in the open and behind the scenes.
      Lords amendment No. 5 led to a debate on where the burden of proof lies. The Government accept half the loaf, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham seeks to persuade them to accept the whole loaf. The half loaf is represented by the defence that someone does not have reasonable cause to believe that he will share a platform at a private meeting with a member of a proscribed organisation. The burden of proof has shifted, because someone has to lay that defence on the table and it is up to the prosecution to carry out the remaining work.
      I would much prefer the burden of proof to remain fairly and squarely with the prosecution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to Lords amendment No. 19, which deals with the burden of proof. That issue exercised us much in Committee and it has been raised on this Bill and on other Bills currently before the House. However, I ask the Minister to recognise that the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is better than those that were accepted in the other place without a Division.
      Finally, I ask the House to accept amendment (a), tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would delete the criterion which means that the provision will apply only to private meetings; it would now apply to both private and public meetings. We shall avoid another problem if we avoid defining whether the meeting is public or private. In theory, one could define one or the other, and if I were advising the prosecution, I could work out how one would do that and what criteria would have to be fulfilled. None the less, it is better simply to require the prosecution to prove the case if there are to be any such offences.
      The best outcome would be to not convict people or not provide that people should be criminalised if they speak on such a platform. However, if we cannot have that, I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will be prepared to accept the amendments. If he did that, we could have another debate ending in happy amity, without a Division, and, in my view, improving the Bill.
      Mr. Lidington: We are happy to accept the Lords amendments. It is important to remind the House that this group of amendments does not deal with the generality of terrorist organisations or individual terrorists, but only those organisations that have been proscribed under procedures in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) addressed arguments about no platform and the need for democratic politicians to rebut publicly the arguments of unpleasant political groups.
      654
      However, we are talking about something different in this group of amendments, and are dealing with organisations whose record of activity in violence and murderous behaviour is such that the Government in office decide to make an order for proscription, which is endorsed by Parliament through approval of delegated legislation. In other words, the democratically elected representatives of the British people decide to put a certain organisation outwith the bounds of normal political discourse, at least until it has stopped resorting to terrorist activity.
      Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend consider that point a little further? I know that he will not accuse me of supporting terrorist organisations, particularly the IRA, as he has never done so in the past. However, I urge him to cast his mind back to the time when he was at university. Had I been president of the Oxford Union at that time—as I once was—I might well have been minded to organise an event at which a member of the IRA explained to the union what they were about. It is right that terrorist organisations should be exposed to criticism from the democratic community and have the ability to explain themselves. I should be very unhappy if the president of the Oxford Union could not do that.
      Mr. Lidington: I would certainly never dream of accusing my right hon. and learned Friend of supporting terrorism. However, I strongly disagree with him about supporting the notion that a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation should be given a platform that is available to other political groups in society.
      I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that there is a place for robust argument with extreme groups such as the National Front, the British National party and the Socialist Workers party. This group of amendments deals with organised criminal gangs, motivated by politics or ideology, whose record of violence is such that they have been proscribed by the Government and Parliament of the day. That point makes the difference. The Lords amendments tabled by the Government take us some way in the direction of concerns about civil liberties that have been expressed by Members of both Houses.
      The Bill should provide the statutory defence offered by Lords amendment No. 5 in respect of a private meeting. It is more difficult to argue that somebody engaged in organising a public meeting which is to be addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation is a complete innocent. It is right that we should deny publicity to organisations that Parliament has stated should be proscribed altogether.
      I hope, too, that Lords amendment No. 5 will deal with the matter that was raised in the Lords by my noble Friend Lord Glentoran. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point when he replies. My noble Friend asked what would happen in respect of meetings that had been convened to assist terrorist organisations to make the transition to democratic politics. He cited an example from Indonesia, where a terrorist group and the Indonesian Government had met at a conference arranged by a charitable organisation. Such meetings may be important in enabling a breakthrough to be made and in encouraging a terrorist organisation to commit itself to democratic and peaceful means of advancing its political objectives.

      655
      I hope that the definition of a private meeting in that amendment will take account of such circumstances, because those meetings are an important bridge in bringing proscribed organisations back into the democratic main stream.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I thank hon. Members for welcoming the changes that the other place has wrought to the Bill. Lords amendment No. 4 deals with concerns that were raised, and we accepted the weight of opinion on that subject. Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 add a new statutory defence where a person is charged with an offence under clause 12(2)(c). That will apply where a person is charged with the offence in respect of a private meeting, and makes it a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address would support a proscribed organisation or further activities.
      I emphasise that it is to remain an offence to arrange, manage or assist in the arranging or managing of a meeting that one knows is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. However, in certain cases there should be a statutory defence. That point was made by Lord Glentoran in the other place, and the statutory defence in Lords amendment No. 5 seeks to address that.
      I turn now to the amendments in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Amendment (a) would remove the word "private" from the statutory defence so that it would apply also to public meetings, which is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's principal intention. We accept that there could be a genuinely benign private meeting to be addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation—one could think of various examples—and it could therefore be legitimate to arrange such a meeting under the circumstances set out in our statutory defence. However, we cannot accept the arranging of public meetings to be addressed by members of proscribed organisations, even when the person arranging the meeting does not think that the address will support the organisation.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of his experience as president of the Oxford Union and his desire to subject terrorists to the pressure of debate with Oxford undergraduates. There is no way to reconcile the difference of approach between us. The point of the offence in clause 12(2)(c) is to help to deprive proscribed organisations of what is commonly described as the oxygen of publicity. To excuse the arranging of any public meetings would be thoroughly detrimental to that objective. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear that he does not agree, citing examples from his experience in the Oxford Union and as a Home Office Minister dealing with issues arising from the Irish situation.
      5.30 pm
      I do not see any way across that division of opinion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will decide whether he wishes to push the matter to a vote. I acknowledge that it is a difficult issue. However, he has made his position clear this afternoon and on other occasions.
      I move on to amendments (b) and (c), in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and his motion to disagree with Lords
      656
      amendment No. 5. He proposes an entirely different approach. The proposal is that, rather than providing a statutory defence, it should be part of the offence itself that the person arranging a meeting should know that the address by the member of the proscribed organisation was to be
      with the purpose of providing support for that organisation or of furthering its aims.
      On amendment (b), I should first say that to commit the offence in clause 12(2)(c) a person does have to know that the meeting is to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. The word "know" appears at the end of subsection (2). So he does have to know that that person belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation. There is no need for an additional "he knows", as proposed by amendment (b).
      Amendment (c) raises a more substantive point. We considered an approach along the lines of that proposed by the amendment, and I do not dismiss the amendment out of hand, for that very reason. We decided against it because we did not wish to create an offence which depended not on one mens rea but on two. In other words, to commit the offence, the arranger would have to know, first, that the member of the organisation was to address the meeting, and secondly, that the addresser would have the purpose of, for example, encouraging support for the organisation or furthering its aims. An offence depending on the accused's knowledge of the state of mind of a third party would be extremely difficult to operate in practice.
      For that reason we decided to opt for the statutory defence approach. It focuses not on what the accused knew about the state of mind of the addresser, but on what he had reasonable cause to believe about the address itself. There has only to be evidence in favour of the accused that is sufficient to raise an issue. The burden then falls on the prosecution. That seems fair to both sides. We believe that this is the right way to go about these matters and that it will produce the right result.
      With that explanation, I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham will consider withdrawing his amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

    Clause 27

      DETAINED CASH
      Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 13, line 38, leave out ("of the following persons") and insert ("person").
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12, 117, 118 and 124.
      Mr. Clarke: Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are purely drafting amendments. Amendments Nos. 10

      657
      and 12 provide opportunities for third parties to be heard in forfeiture proceedings. Amendments Nos. 117, 118 and 124 correct references to Terrorism Bill forfeiture in the definitions of "realisable property" in other financial crime legislation.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 9 and 10 agreed to.

    Clause 44

      AUTHORISATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 20, line 24, after ("in") insert ("or on").
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 15, 20 to 24, 26, 27, 29, 37 to 63, 108 to 111, 119 and 125 to 131.
      Mr. Clarke: These are all minor, technical drafting and consequential amendments.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 15 agreed to.

    Clause 100

      VIDEO RECORDING: CODE OF PRACTICE
      Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 48, line 31, at end insert
      ("if they take place in a police station (within the meaning of Schedule 8)")
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 73, 74, 76 and 77.
      Mr. Clarke: Amendments Nos. 16 and 77 make it clear that interviews need only be audio or video recorded if they take place at a police station. During the Commons Committee stage, the Government undertook to re-examine the drafting of the beginning of schedule 8, which we have done. Amendment No. 73 is designed to make the intention clearer; amendment No. 74 provides that references to a police station include references to places that the Secretary of State has designated; and amendment No. 76 provides that, where a requirement is in place for video recording with sound, the Secretary of State need not also require audio recording.
      Mr. Hogg: I have a question. I am not at all sure why the requirement is limited to police stations; after all, interviews can take place elsewhere—for example, on the alleged offender's property, or in a car, or in many other circumstances. Given that, as I understand it, video recording is designed to ensure that there can be no suggestion of improper treatment by the police of the alleged offender, and audio recording to ensure that there is a proper record of that which is said, I should have thought that, in respect of serious offences, it would be best to ensure that all interviews, wherever conducted,
      658
      were subject to the requirement. That was, I understand, the effect of clause 100 as originally drafted, and I am not sure why we should want to limit its effect.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, have a question. Do the amendments provide that the clause will relate only to police stations, or will its provisions apply to the three—prospectively one—detention centres in Northern Ireland. In Committee, we debated the Government's welcome plans to reduce the number of such centres, but such centres are currently in use. I cannot remember whether we are down to one yet—[Interruption.] I thank the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, for indicating that there are currently two detention centres.
      Will the Minister of State, Home Office, tell us whether it is intended that, as well as police stations, the rules should apply to detention centres and to every other premises which the police in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom might use. It is possible that, in addition to the private premises mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), more public premises might be used—for example, military police conducting an investigation might use Ministry of Defence property. I do not necessarily have a problem, but I want to ensure that places that would normally be used for those purposes will be covered by the provisions relating to audio and video recording.
      Finally, I do not know whether the Minister of State is in a position to provide an answer, but the Committee agreed that we should extend the availability of audio and video recording facilities as broadly as possible. The police want such facilities, as do the authorities, defendants and lawyers—no one does not want them; the issue is one of time and resources. Therefore, I should be grateful for any information regarding the time scale envisaged for the implementation of common good practice.
      Mr. Lidington: My understanding is that one of the amendments' effects is to require the Secretary of State to designate specific places that could serve as alternatives to police stations for the purposes of questioning suspects and that the Bill would not, as we had thought, give the Secretary of State a broad power to say that people could be interrogated wherever he deemed appropriate. If that interpretation is correct and the Secretary of State will be under a duty to draw up a specific list of places that are not police stations where people can be questioned once detained under clause 41 powers, I, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), simply ask why the locations thus listed should not have the same audio and video recording facilities as would normally be required in police stations.
      Mr. Clarke: To answer the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the reason for the change is purely practical. The vast majority will, as now, be detained at police stations, the main exception being those who will be examined for a relatively short time under the ports powers in schedule 7. It is sensible for those people to be detained at the port, rather than having to be taken to a police station, but it is

      659
      not sensible to propose that silent video recording be required for all such interviews. For a more serious interview, the person would be moved to a police station.
      On the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the silent video recording provision covers interviews at holding centres in Northern Ireland. A holding centre is not a police station, but the Bill enables the Secretary of State to direct places where terrorist suspects may be detained. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that holding centres will be designated under the power, and so will
      police stations within the meaning of Schedule 8
      by virtue of Lords amendment No. 74.
      The code of practice under the EPA makes it clear that the current provision applies to interviews at holding centres. That is where those detained under the PTA or EPA are currently held in Northern Ireland. The equivalent under the Bill is the silent videoing of interviews at police stations. It is envisaged that the holding centres will be designated, as I said. That should cover the situation entirely.
      The rules will apply to all places designated as places of detention under the Act. In answer to the timetable point, we expect audio recording to be in place when the Act is brought into force early next year.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister remind the House what provisions of law there are that would prevent the police from carrying out substantive interviews, for example at the defendant's home or in a car?
      Mr. Clarke: The short answer is that I cannot do so off the cuff, but I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As he may know, we debated that extensively in Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, addressed the matter at length. There are substantive safeguards in place, which would meet the reasonable concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Interruption.] It may help him to know that I am advised that the code of practice to be approved by Parliament will set out the procedures that provide the necessary protections. I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, nevertheless.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 17 agreed to.

    Clause 117

      CONSENT TO PROSECUTION
      Lords amendment: No. 18, to leave out clause 117 and insert the following new clause—Consent to prosecution—
      (" .—(1) This section applies to an offence under any provision of this Act other than an offence under—

      (a) section 36,

      (b) section 51,

      (c) paragraph 18 of Schedule 7,

      (d) paragraph 12 of Schedule 12, or

      (e) Schedule 13.

      660
      (2) Proceedings for an offence to which this section applies—

      (a) shall not be instituted in England and Wales without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and

      (b) shall not be instituted in Northern Ireland without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

      (3) Where it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland that an offence to which this section applies is committed for a purpose connected with the affairs of a country other than the United Kingdom—

      (a) subsection (2) shall not apply, and

      (b) proceedings for the offence shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General or the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.")

      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 34.
      Mr. Clarke: We have always recognised the particular sensitivities that apply in dealing with some types of international terrorism. That is why we have decided that it is desirable for decisions in such matters to be made by the Attorney-General, rather than by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I believe that we have taken account of many of the concerns raised in Committee and in the other place.
      Mr. Lidington: Although, as I said earlier, we support the extension of counter-terrorist law to cover international terrorism, we also acknowledge that in the debates on the Bill, serious concerns have been expressed in all parts of the House about how powers in relation to activities directed at foreign Governments should be exercised. The amendments are a sensible and constructive response to those concerns.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: It would be ungenerous of me not to say, on behalf of my colleagues in the other place, that I am grateful to the Government for taking on board the representations made and amendments moved, particularly those by my noble Friend Lord Goodhart, on the matter.
      As the Minister said, in an international case, which for obvious reasons raises wholly different issues, the best method of triggering the prosecution, in our view, was by a decision of the Attorney-General, who could answer directly for those matters in the House, instead of the indirect authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions and his opposite numbers in Northern Ireland and Scotland. That seems to provide the most satisfactory accountability for the wider and potentially more controversial extension of the legislation. We welcome the amendment and the Lords' acceptance of our proposition.
      Lords amendment agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 19, after clause 117, to insert the following new clause—Defences—
    " .—(1) Subsection (2) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove a particular matter.

    661
    (2) If the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
    (3) Subsection (4) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) a court—

    (a) may make an assumption in relation to a person charged with an offence unless a particular matter is proved, or

    (b) may accept a fact as sufficient evidence unless a particular matter is proved.

    (4) If evidence is adduced which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) the court shall treat it as proved unless the prosecution disproves it beyond reasonable doubt.
    (5) The provisions in respect of which subsections (2) and (4) apply are—

    (a) sections 12(3A), 39(5)(a), 54, 57, 58, 77 and 103 of this Act, and

    (b) sections 13, 32 and 33 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (possession and information offences) as they have effect by virtue of Schedule 1 to this Act."

    5.45 pm
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment deals with anxieties that have been raised in this House and in another place about several of the Bill's statutory defences. The Government's view is that the Bill was already compatible with the European convention on human rights when it left this House. However, in order to provide reassurance whenever possible, we have tabled the amendment, which is not intended to alter the effect of the relevant provisions, but simply to set out in the Bill what we believe would be the effect of the provisions as originally drafted.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a small point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not mortally offended, but the Annunciator shows that a Mr. K. Hughes of Doncaster, North spoke between 17.43 and 17.45. I do not believe that he did. [Interruption.] The Labour Deputy Chief Whip indicates to me that he would be troubled to hear that he had spoken. Colleagues on the Labour Benches appear surprised that he has spoken. As it was one of my briefest contributions, I would not want it attributed to someone else.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Annunciator is now correct. That shows the power of the Chair to effect such changes very rapidly.
    Mr. Hughes: There are many places that I might want to represent, but Doncaster would be one of the more controversial options, which I am glad that I do not have to consider.
    The Minister introduced amendment No. 19 briefly, but I am sure that he acknowledges that it is an extremely important change—the other most important change that was made to the Bill in another place. We held much debate on burden of proof on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. The amendment was tabled in another place after great anxiety had been expressed inside and outside the House about the original proposal on burden of proof. At last, the amendment changes the original proposition of reverse
    662
    burden of proof. It will now be sufficient for a defendant to raise an issue; after that, the prosecution will again have to prove matters beyond reasonable doubt.
    The amendment is highly significant in criminal law terms. It is important because it returns to grave offences the consideration that it is for the prosecution to prove, not for the defence to disprove. I understand the argument that it may be appropriate to ask the defence at least to put something on the table to return the burden of proof to the prosecution. That is not inappropriate in the context of terrorist legislation.
    The amendment is also important because there was controversy about whether the original proposals were compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Government claimed that they were, but strong legal advice from outside the House suggested that they might not have been. We will, thankfully, not have to test that because the Government have made a concession.
    I want to make another point, which is more question than observation. In the context of burden of proof, we asked about all the clauses under which specific arrangements for Northern Ireland would continue. I should be grateful if the Minister of State, Home Office, or the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—to give him a walk-on part—through his colleague in the Home Office would tell us the latest timetable for the Government's plans to phase out the Northern Ireland provisions.
    The Minister was courteous and helpful in Committee, and he outlined the Government's plan. Clauses 65 to 113 remain controversial. Under them, extra powers are still granted for Northern Ireland. Those powers are given an extended life, but the Government did not intend them to exist indefinitely. I ask about that because in some clauses the evidential burden will not revert to the normal position under English law. Amendment No. 19 will do that for other provisions.
    Controversial clauses remain on the so-called Omagh provisions, although I understand that they have never been used. They were introduced almost two years ago when the House was recalled after the Omagh bombings. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether I am right in thinking that they have not been used. Although those controversial provisions remain, the burden of proof matter has been dealt with and a less controversial form of words has been used.
    We welcome that change; it represents a significant improvement, and many people have been encouraged by the fact that the Government have been willing to listen and have agreed to make a similar change in other Bills, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill. We hope that the Northern Ireland provisions will be phased out speedily, as has been suggested, and that the Bill will become more clearly compatible with the European convention on human rights so that the rights of the individual are defended while the interests of the state are safeguarded.
    Mr. Lidington: I confess that I am somewhat puzzled about the importance of the amendment. I thought that I heard the Minister say that it was designed to clarify the Bill, yet the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) says that it represents an important shift in the evidential requirements of the legislation. Perhaps that matter could have been sorted

    663
    out at the appropriate Cabinet Sub-Committee before this debate. I hope that the Minister will spell out exactly the Government's view.
    As a fully paid-up member of the non-lawyer tendency of the House, I am always grateful for the occasional interpolation of plain English into legislation. The amendment is helpful in making plain the assurance that the Minister repeatedly gave in Committee about the importance of the statutory defences included in the Bill. I hope that he will be able to tell us whether the amendment marks a shift in the evidential balance, or whether it is no more than an important clarification.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I have enjoyed these exchanges. The whole House, the whole country and, possibly, the whole world will know that this is a listening Government who listen to all proposals, and I am grateful to hon. Members for acknowledging that.
    The powers under the Omagh provisions have not been used to date, but it is important that they remain as powers that can counter the terrorist threat. The Irish Government recently renewed their equivalent powers for 12 months. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the timetable. The situation is reviewed annually. The Government intend that the power should end as soon as the security situation allows, but such matters are security dependent and we must see how the situation develops. There is a time limit of five years, after which the powers will return to the House. I hope that that clarifies the specific points.
    On the claims and counterclaims, which I always appreciate, about the importance and constitutional significance of the amendment, I shall repeat what I said earlier. It is the Government's view that the Bill was already compatible with the European convention on human rights when it left the House, although we saw the expensive and powerful legal opinions that were circulated that stated that the Bill was not. We are always interested in counsels' opinions, but we had our own views and certified that the Bill was, in our view, compatible with the ECHR.
    In the light of the Kebeline case, we accepted that it would be helpful to make express provision for the burden placed on the defendant under the Kebeline provision to be evidential rather than persuasive. The new provision will apply not only to the Kebeline offence itself under clause 57, but to similar provisions in clauses 12(2)(a), 39(5)(a), 54, 58, 77 and 103, together with their equivalents in the transitional Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, which is retained under schedule 1.
    I emphasise that the amendment is not intended to alter the effect of the provisions; it merely states what we believe would have been their effect as originally drafted. We want to clarify how we think the courts will interpret the provisions. That is reasonable, given that the aim is to produce as wide a consensus as possible for important legislation of this kind, and we were delighted to do so. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 24 agreed to.

    Clause 122

      ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 58, line 8, leave out ("1(2)(b)") and insert ("2(2)")
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 28, 30 to 33, 35 and 36.
      Mr. Clarke: These amendments relate to transitional provisions in schedule 1.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 26 to 63 agreed to.

    Schedule 7

      PORT AND BORDER CONTROLS
      Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 104, line 41, at end insert
      ("and
      "vehicle" includes a train.")
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 65 to 72.
      Mr. Clarke: These amendments deal with provisions on ports and border controls. They are primarily technical.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will these amendments have any knock-on effects on the way in which immigration and nationality directorate officers' powers can be applied at ports? I ask that question in ignorance, and if the Minister cannot answer it now, but will let me know later, that will be perfectly satisfactory.
      Mr. Clarke: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 65 to 74 agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      DETENTION
      Lords amendment: No. 75, in page 111, line 25, at end insert—
      ("( ) This paragraph does not confer the power to take—

      (a) fingerprints, non-intimate samples or intimate samples (within the meaning given by paragraph 9F below), or

      (b) relevant physical data or samples as mentioned in section 18 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 as applied by paragraph 22 below.")

      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 106, 112 to 116 and 120 to 123.
      Mr. Clarke: These primarily technical amendments deal with rights in detention and the withholding of information.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments No. 76 to 131 agreed to.
      5.58 pm
      Sitting suspended until Seven o'clock, there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business).

  Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  First, I pay tribute to the two people who have done most of the work in creating and drafting the Bill: Mike Harris, the director of West Berkshire council, who has special responsibility for recreation, and Monica Peto, who has acted as our parliamentary agent.
  There can be few people in the country who have never heard of Greenham common, made famous internationally by the protests of the 1980s against the stationing of nuclear cruise missiles. Some hon. Members are rather envious of my constituency as it seems to attract protesters—Aldermaston, Greenham common and, more recently, the Newbury bypass. However, that period was but one chapter in the chequered history of a unique piece of land just south of Newbury in west Berkshire.
  Before the second world war, both Greenham common and Crookham common, which adjoins it, were areas of heathland common, open to the public at large and over which rights of common were exercisable. Since that time, the people of Newbury and the surrounding area have had to put up with a lot. Most of the land was requisitioned in 1941 from the then Newbury borough council and other landowners for use as an air base. Although de-requisitioned in 1947, it was re-requisitioned in 1951 for defence purposes and the land was subsequently purchased by the Secretary of State and used as an air base, mainly for the United States air force.
  The people of Newbury lived with the base and the aircraft disturbance until a new use for the land emerged, as a nuclear cruise missile site. The transformation of the site into a storage facility for nuclear weapons meant that local residents saw their area become the focus of sustained protest on a scale seldom seen in this country.
  Nuclear district council—[Laughter.] Newbury district council—sometimes known as Nuclear district council—which has now become West Berkshire district council, owned most of the land surrounding the air base when it was deactivated in 1991. It saw the opportunity to regain the land for the people of Newbury and wider afield and to transform it back into an area of open countryside, to be used for recreational purposes.
  At the time, I was a member of Newbury district council. On 16 July 1991, I had the privilege of moving a motion that said:
  Following the deactivation of RAF Greenham Common, this council:

  1. reaffirms its desire that, on termination of any military requirement for the continued occupation of parts of Greenham and Crookham Commons, this land, as far as possible, should revert to public open space;

  2. deplores the purported extinguishment of rights of common; and

  3. seeks to discover whether the status of the land as common land and the rights of common may be preserved for posterity in order to preclude any further development of the common.

  In the years that followed, members and officers, a group of local campaigners including many commoners—known as Commons Again—and many others worked tirelessly

  667
  towards that vision of restoring the land for public use, spurred on by the commitment of the local ward members, Councillors Tony Ferguson and Audrey Appleby. Negotiations with the Defence land agent took many years, until eventually the open area of the air base was purchased by the council in 1997.
  A charitable trust known as the Greenham Common Community Trust Ltd. was established, in partnership with local business men, led by Sir Peter Michael, to acquire the developed area of the air base in order to develop a business park. Under that imaginative public-private partnership, profits from the business park are to be paid to the council to reimburse its costs incurred in restoring the open area and removing the remnants of the military occupation, including runways, buildings, oil tanks and pipework, as well as the substantial fuel contamination.
  The council is spending approximately £2.5 million to restore the land that it has acquired to fitness for public access. Help towards those costs is coming not only from the trust but from various other organisations, such as English Partnerships and English Nature. A small, and more or less symbolic, section of the surrounding fence was removed in September 1997, opening about 20 hectares to the public.
  Much more importantly, on 8 April 2000 I was present when the council's dream started to become a reality and the whole of the rest of the fence began to come down. It was an emotional day, as local people who had been excluded from the land for 60 years could at last walk freely over the whole area. It was a time for reconciliation, as former protesters walked side by side with wardens and others who had opposed their presence: a time when it could truly be said that swords were being turned into ploughshares.
  A new chapter in the life of the commons is unfolding, and I am proud not only to have been associated with the council's progress to date but to be supporting the Bill today. The Bill completes the picture by providing several main elements. It restores commoners' rights extinguished by the Ministry of Defence under the Defence Lands Acts. It extends commoners' rights across the whole area so that it can be managed as a single entity. It sets up a new register of commoners' rights that can be kept up to date. It grants a right of public access in perpetuity, on foot, horseback and bicycle, over defined paths.
  The Bill creates a new, locally accountable body, the Greenham and Crookham Common Commission, to assist in the management of the common. That body will have an equal number of commissioners appointed by public and other bodies and elected by the commoners themselves. The Bill places new general duties on the council and the commission in respect of the management of the common, including a specific duty to prepare and keep under review a management plan for the common.
  Finally, the Bill contains measures to regulate public access and the exercise of commoners' rights, to avoid conflict and ensure the conservation of this important area of ecological, cultural and historic significance.
  The council conducted extensive consultation before promoting the Bill, with other local authorities in both west Berkshire and Hampshire, with conservation bodies and amenity groups, with the Crookham and Greenham
  668
  Commoners Association and all known commoners, and, indeed, with the public at large. The initial drafting of the Bill was amended in response to comments received, and its principles have received support from all who have expressed views to the council.
  Let me give the House two examples. The head teacher of Whitelands primary school, Thatcham, Mrs. J Salmon, said:
  As the Headteacher of a local primary school, I welcome the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill, as it will increase the amount of land available for recreational and educational activities.
  Garry Poulson, manager of Newbury Volunteer Bureau, said:
  Volunteering plays and will become an increasingly important feature of the life of the commons and we feel that anything that can be done to create a stable and well defined open space that is accessible to all should be encouraged and welcomed.
  There remain three outstanding petitions against the Bill, but the points raised are concerned with detailed provisions of the Bill and the petitioners have all made it clear that they support it in principle. The Open Spaces Society said that it
  wishes to assure Members that they fully support its purpose and contents in principle and have no wish to delay its progress.
  English Nature said that it
  sees this Bill as a positive way forward and congratulate West Berkshire on their visionary approach… It is our duty to ensure the nature conservation of Greenham and Crookham Commons SSSI, both now and in the future, and because of this we have to make sure that the Bill advances the nature conservation aims for the site.
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:
  We believe that our concerns could be easily remedied in a manner which is wholly consistent with the overall purpose of the Bill.
  It is my intention and that of the district council that we shall do everything that we can to meet any remaining reservations that the petitioners may have about the Bill by introducing appropriate amendments in Committee.
  Mr. John Redwood: I join the hon. Gentleman in his tribute to the council for the work that it has put in to try to find the right answer, but I am worried that there remain detailed objections from the prestigious bodies to which he referred, which are trying to do their best for the local flora and fauna. Can he give us a better idea of when the new drafting may be completed and whether it will meet all those worries or whether there will be a compromise?
  Mr. Rendel: I cannot answer for the bodies as to whether they will feel that all their objections have been met. The drafting of the original form of the Bill is complete, in the sense that it will—I hope—get its Second Reading tonight. The Bill could be amended in Committee. My understanding is that negotiations are continuing with various bodies which have set out objections to the Bill and it is believed that all their requirements will be able to be met. However, in such situations, with so many different potential users of the site—some on foot, some on bicycles, some wanting to do one thing and some another—there is the potential for some conflict. The potential also exists for conflict between wildlife on the common and human uses of the common. I cannot guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman that all the objections will be met: all I can say is that the

  669
  district council and I will work as hard as we can to meet the objections. Much work has already been done and it is fair to say that all those who have objected now feel that their objections will be met sufficiently. It may be that some form of agreement will have to be reached between the various objectors, with each getting some of what they want, but I hope that such compromises will be avoided as far as possible.
  The promotion of the Bill in Parliament received unanimous cross-party support at the council meeting which agreed its promotion. I hope and understand that during this debate support will also be shown by the other two hon. Members whose constituencies include parts of the west Berkshire district. We were also very pleased to receive a letter from the Minister, who in February of this year wrote:
  I am pleased to say that the objectives of this Bill appear entirely consistent with Government policy in this area—particularly the proposal to secure public access to the common in perpetuity.
  This is a proud moment for me as we near the fulfilment of what is, for me and many people in west Berkshire, a long-standing dream. I hope that hon. Members will make it a happy moment for me by giving their total commitment to the Bill in its Second Reading tonight.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I also welcome the Bill and congratulate the local authority, the local campaigners, the local councillors and the hon. Members who have worked so hard to bring it to fruition. We all have a long-standing affection for Greenham common in our different ways. I remember being threatened with surcharge in the 1980s, as the chair of finance for the Greater London council, for seeking to send sleeping bags to the Greenham common women at ratepayers' expense. [Interruption.] Well, it was an enjoyable period in which we were able to support those campaigning to bring about a pacific world.
  Several hon. Members objected to the promotion of the Bill at an earlier stage to encourage debate today. That objection was not to the content of the Bill but to the failure of the Government to address the issue of private Bills and their compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. I am happy to withdraw that objection. We have received assurances from the promoters of the Bill that it complies with the Act, but I have again to draw the House's attention to the fact that all other legislation under section 19 of the Act requires a statement from the promoters or the Minister in charge that the Bill complies with the human rights legislation and that statement should be on the face of the Bill. I urge the Government to consider that matter again, otherwise we will have the debate time and again on private Bills. There is no rationale for private Bills to be excluded from the human rights procedures on which the House has legislated so recently. Having said that, I wish the Bill a fair wind and hope that I will be able to accompany other hon. Members when the commons are reopened.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: Following my intervention on the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and his reply, I am grateful to him for the information that he and those behind the Bill are seeking a way forward with the three bodies that have made
  670
  representations that its detail could be improved. I urge those promoting the Bill to try to come to an accommodation and to be flexible towards any amendments tabled in Committee.
  Some of the drafting of the Bill could be improved. Clause 23, for example, which is the guts of the Bill because it would give commoners their rights, contains a set of propositions that would impose restrictions on the use of commoners' rights as well as a provision that commoners' rights must take precedence over the restrictions in various areas. It is plain from that long and complex clause that the Bill is still somewhat muddled. We are told that people cannot graze
  stallions, rams, bulls or other male entire commonable animals.
  However, further on we are told that people cannot be prevented from grazing two or fewer animals and that that overrides the exclusion on stallions, rams and bulls. However, I presume that the idea behind the prohibition on stallions, rams and bulls was the fear of what they might do to some of the other animals seeking to enjoy the advantage of the commons. That is one example of many I could cite, but it would repay a little study in Committee to try to sort out some of the loose drafting.
  I hope that it will be possible for the council and those actively furthering the Bill to reach agreement so that the legitimate concerns of English Nature and the RSPB, in particular, can be met. I am sure that the people of the west Berkshire district want to feel when the commons are opened up and returned that they will be a good sanctuary for birds and other wildlife. That will be one of the reasons why public money will be committed in the future to the maintenance of the area as a green and open space in what is otherwise becoming a congested and overbuilt county.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: While I do not stand to benefit financially from the Bill, I should declare the fact that I am a member of the Open Spaces Society. However, it did not consult me when it lodged its petition, and I might have withdrawn my £15 a year had it done so.
  In December, it was my privilege to write to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and formally record my support for the provisions of this important and historic—locally, at least—proposed legislation. I enjoy an interesting relationship with West Berkshire district council and add my congratulations to Mike Harris, who has a senior position in the council, and to Councillor Tony Ferguson who, despite being a slippery Liberal, is sound on some of the nuclear-related issues.
  For 60 years, local people from across Berkshire and elsewhere were denied access to that once beautiful piece of our county. We do not need to get into the whys and wherefores of the siting of cruise missiles on British—never mind Berkshire—soil, because anyone who saw Greenham common in its previous incarnation could not fail to conclude that the presence there of a military base represented a blot on the landscape of an outstandingly beautiful part of the upper Kennet valley.
  It is important that hon. Members on both sides support the restoration of commoners' rights. I am looking forward to taking my recreation time on Greenham common. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), I attended certain political events in the 1970s and 1980s outside Greenham common

  671
  and I will consider it a political event to be able to walk freely across that countryside that will, once again, become part of Berkshire and of England.
  I would welcome the opinion of my hon. Friend the Minister on whether the Bill represents the first nationalisation under new Labour. If it is, many of us will rejoice.
  I shall conclude by saying that I understand the objections raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He and other Labour Members are engaged in a campaign to draw attention to some of the anomalies in the private Bill process. I pay tribute to them for withdrawing their objections and for wishing the Bill a fair wind in its passage through the House. They have not conceded the very important principle that motivates them, and I share much of their concern, but this Bill is a boon for the people of Berkshire and of this country as a whole.
  Our country is extremely overcrowded, and Berkshire suffers from the same problem. A Bill that gives us a little more beautiful open space is to be whole-heartedly supported, and I am proud to do so.
  7.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I have no intention of being drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on the broader political implications of the Bill. Before we conclude this brief debate, it might be helpful if I gave the House the Government's view on the Bill.
  The Government are adopting the traditional neutral stance on private Bills, although the parliamentary agents for the promoters are aware that we have concerns about some of the Bill's provisions. However, the Standing Committee to which the Bill will be referred will be in a far better position to consider points of detail and hear expert evidence on them.
  I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and that it will be allowed—
  Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: I must allow myself to be tempted.
  Mr. Redwood: Is the Minister reluctant to express a view on the Bill because he thinks that he will need a lot of the green space on the commons for the massive house-building project that he wishes to force on Berkshire? Will he take advantage of this opportunity to apologise to the people of Berkshire, and lift the spectre of more homes?
  Mr. Hill: That intervention reminds us all why the right hon. Gentleman remains on the Back Benches.
  The Government hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

  Alcohol and Young People (Wirral)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Ben Chapman: I am delighted to have secured an Adjournment debate on this important subject. The issues surrounding high-proof alcohol and its effects on our young people are matters of serious concern. In my many discussions with the police in my constituency, the severe problems surrounding high-proof drinks are a regular topic.
  I take this opportunity to thank the local police, especially Sergeant Seeborn and the community police team based at Bromborough for their work on the problem, and for providing a great deal of background information. I know that they are pleased that the matter is being brought before the House today.
  The police tell me that most of the time in the community forums that they hold locally in the Wirral is taken up with discussing complaints related to young people engaged in anti-social behaviour. I do not believe that Wirral, South is any different in that respect from other constituencies, which I am sure are experiencing similar problems. The problems are often exacerbated by the fact that the youths involved have consumed alcohol.
  Gangs of youths can be perceived as intimidating even when sober and behaving well. When they are drunk, the perceived threat is much more substantial, especially to elderly citizens. That problem is much evident in Wirral, South, where a high proportion of the population is over pensionable age.
  The problems are made significantly worse because the drinks involved are often high-proof drinks—8, 9, 10 or even 12 per cent. by volume in some cases. In effect, young people of 13 or 14 years of age are drinking the equivalent, in each bottle or can, of three or four pints of ordinary beer. The consequences are predictable—anti-social behaviour, damage, theft, graffiti, assault, and so on.
  Vandalism and damage to churches and churchyards is becoming increasing common in my constituency, and I am sure that it is a direct result of the actions of youths who have been drinking. That is especially distressing to many people.
  Research reported last year showed that youngsters between 11 and 15 are drinking more than twice as much alcohol as in the early 1990s. The charity Alcohol Concern believes that as many as 2.75 million pints of beer are consumed every week by under-age young people. Last year, Liverpool's Alder Hey children's hospital revealed that doctors were treating 200 intoxicated youngsters a year—some of them as young as 9 years of age. If anyone doubted the scale of the problem, those facts show it clearly.
  Wirral magistrates tell me that more cases involving young people are connected to alcohol than to drugs. As Alcohol Concern has stated:
  More young people drink alcohol than take drugs, and more get into trouble from it.
  I shall give a brief outline of how the problem came to light in the Wirral. The Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 gave police power to confiscate alcohol

  673
  from young people in public areas, and it has proved highly successful. Merseyside police mounted Operation Cask in June 1998 in the central Wirral area, which includes my constituency. That highlighted the extent of the problem as, between 6 pm and 9 pm on a Friday evening, alcohol worth £700 was seized.
  The significant result was not that such an amount was seized, shocking as that might be, but that the received wisdom of the time—that alcopops were the main contributor to under-age drinking—was discovered to be untrue. The House will recall the public outcry when those drinks were introduced to the market but, although I have strong reservations about them, they do not seem to be the major cause of the problems.
  During the operation, no alcopops were seized, and, in any case, their alcohol by volume is only about 5 per cent. The alcohol seized was all either lager or cider, and all of it had a high alcohol content. The drinks were much stronger than alcopops, and much cheaper. For example, cider, which costs as little as £1 per litre in an off-licence is, on average, twice the strength of most beers, so the stark reality is that £1 allows kids to consume major amounts of alcohol. It can be no surprise that the young people involved are frequently drunk and abusive. Many are not in control of themselves: they are, indeed, out of their minds.
  In most other respects, the youngsters are well behaved. They may have no income other than pocket money, and their parents often have no idea about what is going on. For example, parents might give a child £5 for the cinema, little knowing that it could be spent on alcohol. A considerable amount of alcohol can be consumed for £2 or £3, and the evidence is building that many youngsters' first experience of alcohol is with these high-volume products.
  Why are the kids on the street in the first place? They will tell people that there is nothing else to do and, sadly, in some cases, that is true. In my constituency, for example, there is a lack of facilities for teenagers. Most importantly, there are too few facilities that they want to use-as opposed to what we older people think that they should want to use.
  Moreover, facilities are often in inner-city and urban areas. Little thought seems to be given to suburban areas such as those in my constituency. I continue to press the lottery boards to take account of suburban issues and to put right the consequential lack of lottery funds for projects such as the West Wirral Trust for Sport. The facilities that it could offer could greatly help in attracting youngsters away from the streets and parks and into productive fun. That would be an alternative to the "bit of fun" that drinking represents in an area where the youngsters say that they have nothing to do.
  Any alcoholic drink is strong to people in their early teens, but the high-proof drinks multiply that problem considerably. We often forget that alcohol is a drug, and must represent a potential cause of harm when it is taken in such strong doses.
  All police operations since Operation Cask have resulted in the confiscation of high-volume lager and cider. The police tell me that they are now having difficulty in finding the stashes of drink that youngsters go to increasingly greater lengths to conceal. The police believe—and I believe them—that youngsters sneak these drinks through their back doors at home, unnoticed and
  674
  attracting no comment. To some extent, that happens on the back of, or under cover of, alcopops. The drinks involved may be bootleg imports.
  Who buys these drinks, and why are they produced? My hon. Friend the Minister will recall from his visit to Wirral, South earlier this year that a call on an off-licence, particularly a discount off-licence, can provide evidence of the hard sell that surrounds such products. He will recall that they formed a major part of the display in an off-licence that he visited, and that the sales staff confirmed that they were a good seller.
  This is surely a time when the social responsibilities of the brewing industry, off-licences and perhaps supermarkets need to be examined closely, not least by the industry and the outlets themselves. These beers and ciders are packaged to be attractive to young people. The cider comes in blue or green bottles. It is consumed—as is the fashion these days—from the neck of the bottle. All these drinks have a high alcohol content. They are seen as "wicked" in both senses of the word—in the sense that they are fashionable for young people, and in the sense that they are harmful and undesirable because they have a bad effect on youngsters and because anti-social behaviour surrounds their sale and consumption.
  Is there any need to sell such beers? They may provide a good profit margin, but surely the damage that they do to our young people outweighs that commercial consideration. I enjoy a drink or two of beer, but neither I—nor anyone else I have spoken to—drink beers with such a high alcohol volume. That is simply an observation, not a scientific fact, but it bears out the police's view that the consumption of high-alcohol content products is, in the main, by under-age drinkers and alcoholics. They are not enjoyed, bought or consumed by social drinkers.
  Why does the industry produce such products? Why are they sold in such a high-profile way? A cynic might assume that they are targeted at young people. I understand that in some supermarkets, sales of these products can make up to 1 per cent. of total sales.
  The social cost of these products is far too high. It is time for action, and if the industry is not prepared to look at this problem voluntarily, I ask the Government to ensure that it does.
  Before concluding, it is important to say something about the outlets for these products. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) is seeking to tighten the laws against those who sell alcohol to under-age drinkers, and I support his proposals wholeheartedly. However, such measures would not solve the problem in its entirety. The majority of licensed premises in Wirral, South do not sell alcohol to young people. However, that does not mean that there does not need to be even more supervision of off-licences and other outlets. They may not be the direct cause of the problem, but disturbance, violence and criminal activity often occur nearby. If they are not the cause, they are certainly often the focus.
  Research shows that disorder around licensed premises has increased dramatically—by about 30 per cent. from the mid-1990s. We need to ensure that youngsters under 18 are not being sold alcohol of any type. We need to monitor displays in off-licences and supermarkets. The police have to ensure that frequent visits are made to outlets and, as far as possible, measures need to be taken to discourage and stop adults from buying drink for teenagers.

  675
  That brings me to a more sinister aspect of the problem. A large number of people over 18 are more than willing to purchase alcohol for under-age youngsters. Legitimate customers can be harangued, but are often bribed, into buying alcohol for teenagers. Sadly, in some cases, parents buy the drinks. More disturbingly, the police often find groups of teenagers—mainly girls—in the presence of males over 18. One can draw one's own conclusions as to the motives behind that, but assault and sexual assault on youngsters too drunk to know what is happening cannot be ruled out, and does occur.
  Will the Government be taking action to criminalise purchasing alcohol and supplying it to under-age drinkers? The anti-social behaviour of such youngsters is a huge problem, but of equal concern is the danger that they put themselves into, and the risk of assault, or even accidents, when drunk.
  The only purpose of these products seems to be to ensure that the consumer gets drunk quickly and cheaply. To me, high-volume ciders and beers with a high alcohol content often taste appalling. To my lights, they are not social drinks in any shape or form.
  To impose a punitive tax on high percentage products is one suggestion for drinks with, for example, a percentage volume greater than 6 or 6.5 per cent. That would place these products further out of the price range of the pocket-money drinkers, and might be the best solution, short of their withdrawal from sale.
  High-profile advertising and health campaigns against their use, educating not only young people but their parents of the dangers of such products, would also be a welcome measure. Indeed, following Operation Cask, Merseyside police wrote directly to parents about the problem, and are continuing to do so. There is a role for schools and for the youth service. I ask the Minister to comment on what could be done in these areas.
  The fact remains, however, that all these measures still leave these products on the shelves, available and obtainable in one way or another. I hope that I have outlined my serious concerns about the problem, which certainly needs addressing.
  I call on the industry and retail outlets to address the issue voluntarily by looking at the way in which the products are marketed and produced, and at the need for them in the first place. I call for Government action if the industry is not prepared to do this. I call for the introduction of a punitive tax on beers and ciders with a percentage volume greater than, say, 6.5 per cent. I call for increased supervision of licensed premises and the displays within them. I call for a high-profile campaign, aimed particularly at adults, to highlight the dangers of these products. Finally, I call for measures to criminalise the purchase of alcohol for consumption by under-age youths.
  7.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on securing the debate and by saying how grateful I am that he has done so. I visited my hon. Friend's constituency earlier this year, and talked at length to a number of organisations,
  676
  particularly the police, about the issues that he has described so graphically this evening. The situation that was described to me demonstrated that the issue was of such importance and significance that we must address it actively. I intend to set out this evening our approach to the matter.
  I regret that the issues described by my hon. Friend are not restricted to the Wirral, but also apply to other parts of the country. In too many parts of the country, there is too much drinking of strong alcohol by young people in parks, as my hon. Friend described. That leads to a range of crimes and disorders that cause problems for society as well as, more significantly, causing serious problems for the individuals as they go about a process of personal decline, which is tragic in its own way.
  It may be of interest to the House if I describe the general situation in this country, so that some of the figures are on the record. Our starting point must be a recognition that nearly 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom population take alcoholic drinks and spend something like £25 billion a year on them. The vast majority enjoy alcohol sensibly—my hon. Friend indicated that he occasionally takes a glass, and I confess that I do, too. However, the industry, with its wide variety of representative organisations, is encouraging sensible drinking and positively discouraging the kind of drinking that my hon. Friend describes as taking place in some parts of his constituency and elsewhere.
  The fact is that alcohol-related crime, disorder and nuisance, particularly at weekends outside some pubs and clubs, is an increasing problem in many areas. The Government are determined to give the police and local authorities the support and powers that they need to deal with those who abuse alcohol and behave in the kind of unacceptable ways that my hon. Friend has described. For example, it seems that more than 80 per cent. of criminal damage cases are committed by offenders under the influence of alcohol. That figure demonstrates that it is a real issue which impacts on the quality of life in our communities, affecting in particular those who happen to live in the vicinity of certain pubs and clubs.
  I have seen figures suggesting that up to 75 or 80 per cent. of those who go to hospital accident and emergency departments have alcohol in their bloodstream. In itself, I suppose that that should not be a particularly surprising statistic; nevertheless, the scale indicates the impact of alcohol consumption on society as a whole.
  Research indicates that under-age consumption of alcohol increases substantially the risks of young people becoming involved in criminal or disorderly activity, as well as leading to under-achievement at school, poor health and poor employment prospects. That is an important contributory factor to the cycle of decline that has affected too many of our young people.
  The evidence suggests that young people have substantial access to alcohol. The youth life styles survey conducted between 1998 and 1999 suggested that 84 per cent. of 12 to 17-year-olds had drunk alcohol at some time in their lives—with their drinking increasing as they grew older. The survey found that 63 per cent. of those aged between 16 and 17 and 10 per cent. of those aged between 12 and 15 who had drunk during the past year said that they usually bought alcohol for themselves—most often in pubs, bars and nightclubs.

  677
  As I travel around the country—not only in the Wirral, but elsewhere—police and local authorities report to me that the problem of alcohol consumption at, say, 2 am on a Friday or Saturday night is not only serious in itself, but requires a considerable diversion of police resources to keep control of difficult and problematic situations.
  The problem is real and substantial. There are important implications for the health service, for crime, for social services and for other aspects. Furthermore, although it may seem a lesser problem, too many parks are made unattractive for people to use, because certain areas are dominated by groups of young people consuming high-strength alcohol, as my hon. Friend described.
  The problem addressed by my hon. Friend is important and profound for our society. Unfortunately, too many of our opinion formers in various walks of life have tended to undervalue the seriousness of the issue. Because we all have a drink from time to time, we tend to think that the problem of alcoholism is not too serious. In fact, alcohol abuse is increasing—especially among young people—and it should be reduced.
  Earlier this year, in response to the problem, as the responsible Home Office Minister, I convened two seminars for the large range of individuals and organisations involved in the matter. There was wide participation—including the police, magistrates, representatives from local government and from victuallers and licensees associations, members of pressure groups such as Alcohol Concern, the Portman Group and pub watch schemes, and representatives from companies involved in beer production and in the leisure industry.
  I convened the seminars—a further one will be held in September—to find out what common ground existed between all those organisations, so that we could make progress in addressing the issues. I am glad to report to the House that much common ground exists. For example, breweries are not interested only in maximising the consumption of alcohol. They accept that it is in their interest that alcohol consumption be regarded as a civilised and reasonable leisure activity in our society. It should not be seen to lead to excess, and to the problems and difficulties described by my hon. Friend.
  All the organisations acknowledge the obligation to try to work more effectively to address the issues. We have begun a serious dialogue about what we should try to do. A range of initiatives are under way. In some localities, there are arrangements between club doorkeepers and the police. I visited York a few months ago, where there is a good relationship between the police and licensees—with a requirement for licensees to meet the police for discussions every year.
  In some parts of the country, photographs are circulated of certain offenders who drink to excess in particular places. In some areas, licensees play an active role in carrying out their responsibilities effectively. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out and as I saw in the Wirral, the role of off-licences in selling—or not selling—alcohol to young people is a matter of concern. In my hon. Friend's constituency, I saw an off-licence near a railway station, where there were serious problems. People obtained alcohol and caused the type of disorder that my hon. Friend so eloquently described. There are too many similar examples.
  The main message from the discussions that have taken place is that there is a real commitment to a series of measures based on partnership, which will powerfully and
  678
  efficiently address the issues. As a result, I am glad to tell the House that, later this year, the Government will publish toolkits setting out ways in which organisations can work together, so that the dialogue between licensees, local authorities, the police and the companies can be put into effect. They will include various measures, for example, on pub design and strengthened glass, as well as more effective byelaws to prevent drinking in public places. That will enable us to move forward.
  There is wide consensus that an effective proof of age card is needed to ensure that alcohol is sold only to those who are legally entitled to buy it. There are still serious issues to deal with in order to address that problem effectively. The optimistic note that I offer my hon. Friend is the real willingness on the part of the whole industry to co-ordinate effective measures. That is a serious and most important point.
  Our statutory crime and disorder partnerships address these issues. It is significant that more than 60 per cent.—three in five—of local crime reduction partnerships identified tackling alcohol and crime as a priority. That work has shown that, as with drugs, the consumption of alcohol is a major accelerator of crime.
  In addition, we have taken some general measures. The White Paper "Time for Reform", published earlier this year, recognised the need for a real balance between people's rights and freedoms and tough measures to punish those who abuse those rights and freedoms. For example, the White Paper proposed that, in certain circumstances, the police should be able to close down clubs where there had been particular problems. New powers are proposed for the police to shut disorderly premises and to combat under-age drinking—especially in public.
  We propose new measures to back up the age of 18 as the legal age for buying and drinking alcohol on licensed premises, including off-licences. That will include a new offence of buying alcohol on behalf of an under-18-year-old. That deals with one of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. I urge him to continue to press the matter. As the measure is recommended in the White Paper, I am confident that it will be introduced, but it is important to change public perceptions on that matter. There will be a new offence of knowingly permitting the sale of alcohol to an under-18-year-old and a new duty on those selling alcohol to satisfy themselves as to the age of their customers. A proof of age card would have special relevance in that context.
  As my hon. Friend said, some of these issues have been covered by the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell)—the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill. It has had cross-party support and has made good progress in the House. If it is given a fair wind in another place—I hope that it will be—it will become new law in this parliamentary Session. It will improve the effectiveness of our licensing laws by protecting youngsters in advance of the changes proposed in the White Paper. We therefore have proposals to deal with under-age drinking.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South raised a difficult matter on which the police in his constituency have been particularly active. He referred to the means of

  679
  banning the unacceptably and extraordinarily high-strength beers, ciders and lagers that are sold in many off-licences and which are welcomed by young people who want to get blotto for reasons that pass my understanding and, I suspect, that of my hon. Friend. This is an issue for the Department of Trade and Industry, but the Government take it seriously and we are actively considering what we can do. I cannot say anything positive tonight, but, as with what I said about sales to those aged under 18, I hope that he will continue his campaign and press it strongly.
  There are technical and difficult problems about distinguishing between the obvious high-alcohol drinks, such as vodka, and the drinks that are marketed in a
  680
  particular fashion. Those difficulties present problems in setting about addressing the issue effectively, but it is important that my hon. Friend continues to press his fcampaign in the powerful way that he has done today.
  My congratulations to my hon. Friend are genuine. It is an important campaign whose time has come. Many people have already suggested that they want to work together and the Government are determined to make progress on these issues. I wish him well and urge him to continue the pressure that he has started with this debate. I hope that the House will agree that this has been a worthwhile debate and that it is a worthwhile subject for the Government to focus on in their actions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eight o'clock.