Lords Sitting of 10 June 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Carers: Number and Remuneration
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of registered carers at present, how this figure contrasts with the position on 22nd May 1995 (HL Deb., cols. 795–6), and what remuneration is now payable to those registered.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there is no formal register of carers. The general household survey estimates that there are about 6.8 million people in the United Kingdom who give some informal care on a regular basis. We do not know how many carers receive money from public funds, although a wide range of benefits is available, depending on individual circumstances.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that the Benefits Agency, with its complicated procedures, might discourage carers who expect some form of remuneration in return for the services that they give?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend has a point. Sometimes people are put off from claiming benefit because of the complications involved. The Government have tried very hard to streamline all those benefits and they certainly put out a lot of information now through libraries, the citizens advice bureaux and various other places.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to see that the noble Baroness is back in her usual place. Is she aware that what is really needed now is a thoroughgoing review of the status, work and income of carers? Can she initiate that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at the moment we have a review taking place. We shall be putting out a consultation paper in the near future as regards the social services which will cover carers. I am aware that the noble Lord has this issue very much at heart. I shall keep him informed as the work progresses.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is possible for information about carers to be available not only in libraries, but also for some general information to appear in the daily press?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps that is a matter at which the department would like to look. At the moment there are national initiatives. Indeed, the Department of Social Security has a budget of £12.6 million in order to publicise its benefits. At local level there are customer service phone lines and district offices supplying information as well as hospitals and social services advice centres which are all involved in this work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we in the Royal British Legion are most grateful for the concern that she and her department always show? Is she further aware that the situation as regards carers can be somewhat complicated? For example, a man who was wounded might not have needed a carer immediately after the war, but as he gets older the need for such a carer increases. Can that point be taken into consideration and can the Royal British Legion, if it so wishes, come to speak to the noble Baroness about it?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall he delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, at any time.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that most people are very appreciative of the greatly increased financial support that has been given to disabled people over the past 17 years? Will she take on board that the training and provision of carers is a very different matter indeed? Will my noble friend take back to her colleagues in the department the fact that the training of carers is in a deplorable state? It is no good referring me to the NVQ qualification, which seems to me to be more about telling carers that they should tell their clients about their rights not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex, ethnic origin or religion, than about telling them how to clean someone else's teeth. Is the Minister further aware that very few disabled people have the financial resources, despite all that has been done, to pay between £500 and £800 as a placement fee to private agencies who produce carers who on many occasions are poorly trained, untrained or unsuitable for the task? In other words, does she not agree that something should be done to ensure that carers, whether as professionals or as members of a family caring for another member of a family, should be given some reasonable opportunity to get adequate, but simple and sensible training?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those comments. I appreciate what he said about NVQs—it is pointless if the whole attitude is one of political correctness and not of practical application, which the courses should be. Perhaps we can look at the contents of those courses. There are some social services departments now which are training carers and which recognise the importance of this area of work. I am sure that there is more that can be done. Perhaps I may come back to my noble friend on that matter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find myself in somewhat surprising agreement with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said—it must be the first time that that has happened—and that his comments underline the very strong case for having a register of people who are approved to work in other people's homes? That suggestion has been made previously in a Private Member's Bill and I believe that it has been revived. Will the Government think again about exercising some control (through a register or by some other means) so that people who are quite unsuitable do not enter other people's homes in that way?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware, we have considered the question of a national register for carers. I believe that Susan Brooks is trying to get a voluntary scheme going. However, a number of difficult issues are involved, such as precisely who would be covered by a register, what standards would be required and how we should enforce those standards. A consultation paper is to be put out shortly which will explore some of those issues. We shall want to see the results of that consultation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may echo my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke in saying how pleased we are that the noble Baroness is back in the House this week. Is she aware that during her absence last week we had some somewhat unilluminating exchanges on the subject of support for carers with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and that she invited the department to look carefully at some of the questions that were put? On that occasion, I asked a question, which I should like to repeat now to the Minister, about the status of the Bill on respite care for carers which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix? That Bill has now left this House, so I wonder whether it is to be given a fair wind in another place by the Government or are the Government to introduce similar legislation to meet that important need of carers?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome back that I have received from your Lordships' House. The rumour that I stayed at home just to watch the Test Match is erroneous. I must say that the National Health Service was excellent, as always.
I have read last week's Hansard report of the Question on carers and I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness to know the Government's attitude to the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which has now left this House and gone to the Commons. I understand that a date has been put down for Second Reading and that that will take place this month. The noble Baroness will have to be patient and see what happens then.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for the past 10 years I have been the chairman of an organisation which has developed a package for the training of carers in the community? Initially, we had tremendous trouble with one organisation over political correctness and now rely on City and Guilds and BTEC for our qualifications which are now used throughout Herefordshire and Worcestershire and are also purchased by other local authorities. It is an employer-led organisation, so the requirements are thoroughly understood.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for that information. I shall see how we in the department can follow that through to try to meet the needs outlined by my noble friend Lord Tebbit.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, on the question of—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, but I observe that we are nearly half-way through our time and that we have finished only one Question. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is now time to move on.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Progress
2.46 p.m.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
What contribution they are making towards the completion of a comprehensive test ban treaty in 1996.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are working actively for a universal, effective and verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) by the end of June. We continue to play a leading role in the efforts to design an effective verification regime for the treaty.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the prospects for the treaty are rather more encouraging now? Does she share my view that credit is due to the chairman of the talks, Ambassador Ramaker of the Netherlands? As the treaty would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for non-nuclear signatories to acquire a nuclear capability, do the Government take the view that it is reasonable to expect that a reciprocal obligation to lessen their nuclear capability should also be imposed on the nuclear powers?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I very much agree with the noble Lord about the efforts being made by Ambassador Ramaker to steer the negotiations towards consensus. That is, indeed, what he is doing. In particular, we welcome his recent initiative to table a clean draft treaty text which should concentrate minds in the closing stages of the negotiations. I agree with the noble Lord that there is

1485
now a very good chance of getting agreement by the end of June. But that still requires an active and positive approach by all countries concerned. As we well know, all negotiations require give and take. We shall continue to negotiate actively and responsibly.
As for what the noble Lord said about turning the comprehensive test ban treaty towards a disarmament treaty, I do not think that that would get us to the very necessary goal that we have set ourselves for this year. We want an indefinite end to all testing. That is what the CTBT does: it bans all nuclear weapons test explosions, however small, and all other nuclear explosions. However, I do not think that we can extend that into an exemption for other things. I believe that we should keep our goal and achieve it this autumn.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the procedures for ratification of the treaty? Does she agree that it would be wrong to allow any one country effectively to veto its entry into force because of a failure to ratify it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, obviously we want to have the treaty negotiated and ratified by all. I do not believe there is any danger that any one of the five nuclear powers or indeed the threshold states will seek to veto the treaty or not ratify it in that sense. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness is unduly anxious about the matter. I shall study what she said but it is not my understanding that ratification will be stopped once we have gained agreement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Government intend to protest to China about its nuclear test last week and its threat to hold another one later this year?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as we well know, on this issue we can protest a good deal. One notes that China has announced a moratorium which is to take effect after its final test in September. I hope this means that the Chinese will keep to that commitment. The Chinese have to demonstrate the commitment by being prepared to conclude negotiations by the end of this month and sign up with all other countries in the autumn. That is what we have been negotiating and aiming for. China has said that it is committed to the negotiations. We may protest, but I very much doubt whether it has any useful effect on the Chinese Government.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that any representations we may make to China are less effective because of our failure to condemn nuclear weapons tests by the French?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is clear that the Chinese work on exactly the same basis as the French. The Chinese will do so much testing and then stop. It is clear that neither the French nor the Chinese intend to go on testing at the end of this programme.

Vehicle Crime Statistics
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been an increase or decrease in the last three years in the United Kingdom in the crime of stealing motor cars or breaking into cars in order to steal their contents.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in 1995, 225,700 fewer offences of vehicle crime were recorded by police forces in England and Wales than in 1992. This represents a fall of 15 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, although her reply appears to apply only to England and Wales and my Question related to the United Kingdom.
While better anti-theft designs and devices no doubt have some effect, does my noble friend agree that they are not proof against car windows being smashed usually in order to steal radios and cassettes? Can more be done to deter young offenders, especially those who regard this kind of stealing as a pastime rather than a crime?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise for not including Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland there has been a fall of 21 per cent. in car thefts and a fall of 26 per cent. in thefts from cars. In Northern Ireland there has been a rise of 6 per cent. in car thefts but theft from cars has fallen by 9 per cent. Overall, in the United Kingdom there has been a reduction.
My noble friend makes an important point. A great deal of car crime is opportunist. There is much we can do for ourselves. For example, not leaving goods in cars and not leaving our cars unlocked would be a start. So far as concerns young people a great deal is being done. A great deal of promotional awareness is taking place. We have to toughen up in dealing with car criminals of whatever age. When they come on probation service programmes a good deal of work is done to rehabilitate them from stealing and messing about with cars.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is any work going on in the Minister's department to show whether there is any correlation between the fall in crime and the fall in unemployment? One would expect to find some relationship. It would be interesting to know whether or not that work had been undertaken.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give a scientific answer because I am not aware of the specific research. But I belong to that group of people who do not believe that being unemployed is an excuse for committing any kind of crime, even car crime. We must emphasise to young people in particular that committing crime of any kind is wrong and will not be tolerated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness has just given a most extraordinary reply. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, did not say that to be unemployed was an excuse for committing crime. She just pointed out the fact that in particular in relation to opportunistic crimes—which it is agreed car thefts and theft from cars frequently are—there is likely to be a larger number of offenders who are available because they are unemployed. Does the Minister agree that that is not a slur on the unemployed but simply a recognition of sociological fact?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question I was asked was whether or not there was a correlation between the two. I said at the outset that I did not have a scientific answer. I also said—I make no apology for saying it and will go on saying it—I did not believe that to be unemployed should ever be regarded as an excuse for committing crime.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there may be a correlation between the fall in offences and the work of her right honourable friend the Home Secretary in persuading courts to impose tougher penalties on criminals?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend. I do not believe that we should let this moment go without recording our thanks to the police in this respect. They are doing a great deal to increase awareness of the risks of crime and the steps that can be taken by the police themselves, motorists, vehicle manufacturers and the insurance industry.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the way in which the figures are collected does not prove anything? There are more crimes committed that are not recorded.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know of many people who have their cars stolen and do not report it. All the evidence indicates that there is a very high recording of the crime of car theft. The noble Lord has a point in regard to theft from vehicles. Not everybody reports a theft from a vehicle, and more work can be done in that regard.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her additional information about Scotland and Northern Ireland, to complete the picture. Is the estimate which appeared in a newspaper yesterday that about 10,000 cars are stolen each week in the United Kingdom correct? Would not the purchasers of used cars be less likely to be swindled if their recirculation were reduced because of the improvement reported by my noble friend?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a very large number of cars are stolen every week. About 60 per cent. of those thefts result from opportunist crime and the remainder, rather depressingly, result from rather more organised and sophisticated crime. One must continue to improve awareness and to make sure that criminals are dealt with more effectively. We have to do what we can to make people more responsible. A great deal
1488
is being done in that respect by way of the production of leaflets, the provision of information and the bringing together of some interesting organisations. I refer to motor manufacturers, traders, the vehicle rental and leasing sectors, the consumer and motoring organisations, the insurance industry, the police and vehicle security organisations. All of those organisations come together in a consortium to advise the Home Secretary on ways and means of reducing criminal activity.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that total crime, not violent crime, had begun to drop before the present Home Secretary began the disastrous regime which has recently been denounced by five former Conservative Home Office Ministers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not believe that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary would claim personal credit for the fall in crime. However, the fall in crime happily coincides with his term of office. I believe that the Home Secretary takes very seriously the prevention of crime and dealing in a more effective way with criminals. He has placed at the front of his policy-making the protection of the community.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that I also agree that unemployment is not an excuse for crime? I was not in the least raising that issue. I was reflecting on the fact that the Home Office had a good research unit and was asking what research was taking place into the relationship between unemployment and crime. It involved no feeling one way or the other. I have not had an answer as to whether or not research is going on.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I appreciate the seriousness of the point that the noble Baroness makes. The personal comments I made were no reflection on the noble Baroness. I am not able to give a sufficient answer because I am not aware of any scientific research that has been done in that respect. However, I believe that the more we go on looking for a correlation between unemployment and crime will we continue to create the perception that somehow or other, because people are unemployed, they have a licence to commit crime or it is easier to commit crime. We do not subscribe to that view.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, what is the clear-up rate in terms of theft of motor cars and property from motor cars? That seems relevant in the light of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not as good as it should be, and more work is being done on that. I believe that it is about 15 per cent. It is different from the theft of cars where the figure is rather lower. The police are targeting more and more on reducing

1489
crime and doing more and more with the community to ensure that young people do not get into crime in the first place.

The Dearing Committee: Selection Criteria
3 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria were used in the selection of members of the national committee of inquiry into higher education (the Dearing Committee).
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we sought to reflect a broad balance of interests in higher education while keeping the committee to a manageable size. Members have been drawn from a range of institutions which provide higher education across the United Kingdom and also from those who benefit from higher education, whether as students, employers of graduates or users or research.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a prime consideration should have been that the committee had the confidence of the whole university community? Is he aware that, alas, the selection does not come up to that criterion?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept what my noble friend has said. We have seen relatively little criticism. I accept that there have been a couple of letters in The Times commenting on the appointments, but I believe that the committee and its composition have been broadly welcomed. I say to those who object to the appointment of some of those on the committee that it was open to them to put forward their own suggestions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the vast size and importance of the faculties of arts and social sciences and humanities in the universities, and given indeed the inherent importance of the humanities in our national cultural life, which appears to be recognised in the terms of reference of Dearing, would not the Minister agree that the excellent credentials of those who will be speaking for industry and science on the Dearing Committee might be matched by equal excellence on the part of those speaking for the humanities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have no plans to appoint any further members to the committee. I should remind the House that there are several members with backgrounds in the humanities and social sciences. It is also open to the committee itself to take evidence from individuals or representatives of certain sectors. It will also be open to the committee, should it so wish, to co-opt members on to the committee or on to sub-committees.
Lord Annan: My Lords, while not dissenting from what the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, said, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important that the committee
1490
should consider the colleges of further education? It is upon them that Sir Ron Dearing's committee will have to concentrate, because it is there one finds the greatest of our weaknesses; we need to make professional qualifications at the lower level valid.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should remind the noble Lord that the review is not into further education but into higher education. It is therefore that sector, the representatives of that sector and those who will be making use of that sector who we believe should be represented.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever else they have done the criteria have created a committee with powerful expertise in financial planning, and that university funding is now a matter of the utmost urgency? Does he further agree that the Robbins Committee took three years to report upon a much smaller and simpler constituency, and that the Dearing Committee must not be rushed if its report is to have comparable authority and weight? If he does, would it not be wiser now to defer cuts in capital expenditure until after the general election, and ask the Dearing Committee, as a matter of urgency, for an interim report on funding in the summer of 1997, and a full report thereafter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. Perhaps I may remind him that we spend well over £7 billion on higher education throughout the UK. Over 20 per cent. of the budget is spent on education throughout the country. That is a significant amount of money. It is also a large amount of money considering all the priorities that exist in the educational world. We also believe that it will be possible for Sir Ron and his committee, if they pursue the appropriate methods, to report by next summer. That is what we hope they will do, and what I believe that we on this side and the noble Lord and his party would welcome.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, given that the Dearing Committee can trigger major new expenditure in higher education, in which case it needs, above all, the confidence of the Government, or invite the whole community of higher education to engage in a process of reform, in which case it needs credibility within that community, and given the criterion for which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked, which was to place more emphasis on confidence in government than on credibility within higher education, may we assume that there will be a massive increase in the resources made available as a result of the Dearing Committee report?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret to say that I think that the noble Lord's logic is somewhat tortured. It may be that Sir Ron and his committee will make recommendations that require extra new expenditure, but I have to remind the noble Lord that it will be the Government of the day—I believe that that will be a Conservative Government—who will make the

1491
decisions as to what expenditure is required. Perhaps I may repeat, we already spend about £7 billion on higher education in the UK. That is a significant sum.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, further to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Beloff, is it not more important that Dearing 3, as I believe it is known, should command the confidence of the whole country rather than, if necessary, the confidence of the university sector, especially for those of us who are beginning to wonder whether there is any system of quality control at all in higher education?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the dangers of the committee being seen to be a mere cosy collection of academics. That is why we wanted to ensure that the committee represented not just higher education but, as I said, those who benefit from higher education—the students, those who will later employ students and users of the research from the universities.

Business of the House: Stalking (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord McIntosh of Haringey to advance the Second Reading of the Stalking (No. 2) Bill [H.L] from Friday 14th June to Wednesday 12th June. —(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Security Service Bill
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Functions of Security Service]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (4) above, conduct is "serious crime" if it constitutes (or, if it took place in the United Kingdom, would constitute) one or more offences, and either—
1492

(a) it involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; or

(b) the offence or one of the offences is an offence for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more."").

The noble Lord said: With the usual slow start that is necessary to enable noble Lords who have no interest or inadequate interest in this important Bill to leave quietly, I move Amendment No. 1.
Anyone looking at the Bill will appreciate that, although it is only a short Bill, it is a Bill of considerable significance both in terms of its object, which is to assist in the prevention and detection of serious crime, by introducing the power for the Security Service to assist in those functions, and because of the civil liberties implications of the Bill as drafted.
As the Prime Minister recognised, the Bill is only one part of a programme of measures to increase the effectiveness and accountability of law enforcement agencies, which are to include the Security Service. The Prime Minister in his speech last year to the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool made a number of points with which I have already expressed agreement and which we on these Benches strongly support. We are in favour of the increased accountability and legislative provision for law enforcement agencies.
Perhaps it is paradoxical that the first piece of legislation to be introduced in implementation of the Prime Minister's wishes is the most difficult, because the Bill before us increases the power of the Security Service to act as a law enforcement agency in this country without in any way performing the other necessary functions of increased accountability and responsibility. Therefore, in dealing with the Bill we are always conscious that our criticisms of it are in the context of support for the Government's ultimate objective as regards this legislation.
However, it is our responsibility, which we are performing today, to look in detail at the provisions of the Bill. We face a number of difficulties in doing so because Clause 1 is couched in terms of amendment to the Security Service Act 1989; Clause 2 is couched in terms of amendment to the Intelligence Services Act 1994; and Clauses 3 and 4 refer only to the extent, the short title and commencement. Therefore, it will be seen that when the substantial contents of a Bill are framed entirely in terms of amendment to other legislation it is peculiarly difficult to express general concerns and make general points. I believe that we have succeeded in doing so in our amendments to Clause 1, but as regards our considerable concerns about Clause 2, I as an amateur found it impossible to express them in the form of detailed amendments. I have dealt with that by giving notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
The difficulty is the greater because although the Bill purports to cover the range of issues which arise as a result of giving these new functions to the Security Service, it deals only with a small number of them. Clause 1 deals only with the new functions of the

1493
Security Service in support of the activities of police forces, and Clause 2 deals only with the issue of warrants. One can imagine a whole series of further controls that will be necessary in order to complete the process which the Prime Minister set out if the Bill were not so unrepresentative an advance guard of the programme of legislation which is required. I am sorry to make such a lengthy introduction to an amendment but it is important to see the context in which we are seeking to debate the Bill today.
Amendment No. 1 relates to the definition of serious crime. The peculiarity of the Bill is that Clause 1 refers to:
"the function of the Service to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime".
However, there is no definition of "serious crime" in Clause 1. The only definition occurs in Clause 2, in which it is confined to the basis on which property warrants or interception warrants are to be granted and pursued.
I do not know what that will mean in terms of interpretation in the courts. However, if I were a judge required to consider whether, under Clause 1, the Security Service was acting properly in pursuing its function in support of the activities of police forces I would be inclined, first, to ask, "What is serious crime for the purposes of this section?", and then to say, "Well, there appears to be a definition of serious crime in Clause 2 and I suppose that the safest thing is to apply that definition to Clause 1". That might be a bit sloppy for lawyers but it is the way in which a layman looks at it.
Therefore, in Amendment No. 1 we propose that the definition of "serious crime" that is used in Clause 2 should apply also to Clause 1 so that the courts and anyone else seeking to implement the legislation should know what they are talking about. At the moment it is unclear what definition, if any, of "serious crime" is to be used for the purposes of Clause 1.
Having said that, and having adopted the exact wording of "serious crime" which occurs in Clause 2, I must say that the definition appears to be extremely wide. It refers not only to the detection of crime, where a crime has already taken place, but also to the prevention of crime. In many investigations that could justify a wide range of law enforcement activities. It is also true that the definition involves either (and I stress the word "either"):
"the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose; or ‖ the offence or one of the offences … for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
I accept the point which the Minister made in her winding-up speech on Second Reading: that the definition of
"a term of three years or more"
is tighter than if it were simply an offence for which a term of three years or more could be given. I accept that there are many crimes for which although a possible sentence is three years or more in prison the probable
1494
sentence for a first adult offender is much less. There are fewer such crimes and therefore I agree that that point is valid. However, it is the fact that "serious crime" is defined so broadly either in terms of the offence involving the use of violence, substantial financial gain or conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose which causes us great concern. Members of the Committee who read the leading articles in yesterday's Observer and today's Guardian will realise that our concerns are felt more widely than simply in the Labour Party.
Perhaps I may give the particular example relating to the involvement of conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. There is no suggestion that it should be a common illegal purpose; it is any common purpose. A great deal of legitimate protest could be included within the definition of "serious crime" for this purpose. In the hands of an authoritarian and unscrupulous Home Secretary—and I am not suggesting that our Home Secretary is authoritarian or unscrupulous—it could lead to a serious curtailment of civil liberty. It is not only the powers of the police (whom we can all see) which are now to be brought into the prevention or detection of "serious crime", but here we are concerned with Security Service personnel, whom we cannot see or call to account in the same way.
The necessity for this amendment is, first, a drafting necessity in that there should be prevention of serious crime for the purposes of Clause 1. But it also provides us with an opportunity to express our concern, which we have not yet been able to express in terms of the drafting of a definition, about the wide scope of the definition of "serious crime" which is used for the purpose of this Bill.
I shall not press this or any other amendment because we are in Committee on a Bill the purposes of which we support generally. Nevertheless, we need reassurance from the Government that they intend to have a definition which is sensible, usable and as tight as possible for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Although the noble Lord is entitled to put forward and move the amendment in the way that he did, I rather feel that his argument falls clown when he complains of too wide a definition of "serious crime".
If the Security Service is to be given those new functions in order to assist the police, I do not believe that they should be limited. The police have a very broad responsibility in any event and it is a responsibility which is difficult to discharge in view of what in recent years has been a steady increase in crime. If we were to attempt to limit the scope of the new activities of the Security Service by having, however carefully drafted, a complicated and narrowing definition of "serious crime" we should be making a mistake.
Of course, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about this, but, quite frankly, my instinct is not to feel encouraged to accept this amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support this amendment, although, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out, it has defects. I regret to

1495
say that I disagree profoundly with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If power goes to the Executive, it is essential that it should be constrained and scrutinised strictly. One must look at the whole of the Bill to see the vice of which my noble friend complains.
We shall later be discussing executive warrants, which are dangerous in themselves. Only last week we had an interesting debate about the proper relationship between judicial control and executive power. No voice was heard to suggest sensibly or with any prospect of persuasion that judges' intervention in controlling executive power is wrong. This Bill intends to give power to issue executive warrants.
As my noble friend also pointed out, this is simply a skirmishing attempt to achieve a sense of proportion and public safety. If one looks carefully at the definition of "serious crime", one is aware that it cannot be sensibly upheld. It relates to any offence which "involves the use of violence". Does that include common assault? It does not even have the adjective "serious" to qualify the word "violence". It does not specify that it relates to violence which threatens public safety, public security or state security. It simply refers to violence. Is that power intended to cover such minor offences as common assault? What is "substantial financial gain"? What is,
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose"?
I offer an example which may soon become reality. Let us assume that university students wish to protest against a visit to their campus of, for example, the present Home Secretary. Those students might be rowdy. Of course, they will offer no violence, but they might offer a certain amount of verbal criticism of the Home Secretary, in common with a large section of the rest of the community. They may well be committing an offence—conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Is that the sort of conduct with which we are concerned, where the power is to be unrestrained by judicial control?
What are the Government contemplating here? The Bill relates to an offence:
"for which a person who has attained the age of twenty-one and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more".
What sort of examples do the Government have lurking in the back of their mind?
I believe that the press, or part of it, has recently performed a useful public service in drawing attention to some of the defects. There is no doubt at all in my mind that in certain appropriate cases, circumscribed by a proper regime of judicial control, the use of agencies other than the police is essential. Such cases are not limited to security matters. There is an increasing number of cross-border frauds, some of which are linked to European moneys, many of which are linked to the passage of arms and many are connected with drugs. It is the last example which I wish to underline.
But if one has a proper purpose to serve, one first needs to define the purpose and then carefully erect structures and mechanisms for public control.
1496
Unfortunately, this Bill does not recognise those proper objectives and certainly does not get anywhere near fulfilling any objectives.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: If there is a skirmish, I should like to join it. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I have many reservations about the Bill. I expressed them initially in the debate on the gracious Speech and again on the Second Reading of the Bill when I said that I had a nagging feeling that this was not a good Bill. That remains my view. Although I remain, as I was then, an agnostic, and for that reason I wish to participate in any attempt to improve the Bill, I have a feeling that time will show that we have made a mistake and the Bill will be used to intrude into areas of national life which at present are not contemplated.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh: having once agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill, it is extremely difficult to amend it to take account of the anxieties which I believe are felt on all sides of the Committee. The attempt to make this amendment is a measure of the difficulties which may follow thereafter.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about the role of MI5 in combating benefit fraud. I understand—although this is outside the area of my knowledge and competence—that such frauds are sometimes organised on a large scale. Certainly within the provisions of the Bill I have no objection at all to the Security Service playing its part in that. But can we be sure that that role will not be extended from organised crime and benefit fraud on a national scale to casual or occasional frauds which may be committed? Once the door has been opened, it will be very easy for it to be opened much wider.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew attention to the proposed new subsection (3B) in Clause 2 of the Bill which states:
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said at Second Reading that the subsection could cover protesters against the Newbury bypass. If that is the case, and if the lack of definition of organised crime in the clause we are now discussing could lead to the Security Service being linked with the police in dealing with protesters of that kind, it would be a serious matter. In another place much time was given to attempting a definition. I remain of the belief that if a definition can be found it would remove at least some of the anxieties for later stages of the Bill. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Gridley: Having listened to some of the arguments that have been made there remains a puzzle in my mind as to how one will reconcile the information the secret services need, or the way they work, with the functions that one wishes the police to carry out. We must consider most seriously other ways of proceeding. The secret service picks up information and passes it on to the police. The police may have an operation in mind which should not be disclosed. It is not desirable to limit in any way the functions of the police.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The effect of the amendment would be to apply a definition of serious crime to all aspects of the Security Service's work in support of the activities of the law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime. I can see why this may appear attractive but I hope that, on reflection, the Committee will appreciate some of the drawbacks. Indeed those were spoken to eloquently by my noble friend Lord Renton with whose words I agree.
Crime does not always come in nice neat packages clearly labelled "serious" or "not serious". That is particularly true of the kind of work the Security Service will be doing. With its particular skills and experience, the service will be most effective gathering intelligence and infiltrating organised crime groups, who may extend tentacles into a wide range of activities. The very nature of the work means that the service will not always know what it is dealing with, particularly in the exploratory stages. Inevitably, some leads will turn out to be blind alleys and criminal organisations may find novel forms of criminal activity which were on the margins of a rigidly defined serious crime. There is a need for a degree of flexibility—as my noble friend Lord Renton said—and common sense in determining what lies within the function, without transgressing on inappropriate areas of inquiry.
We must avoid a situation where the Security Service is prevented from becoming involved in a case until there is certainty that it meets the requirements of a rigid definition of serious crime. That would hamper the service's effectiveness and create endless opportunities for unscrupulous defence lawyers to challenge the legitimacy of the Security Service's involvement on technical grounds. It is much better that the Security Service should initially have a degree of freedom to develop investigations but, at the point when the service wishes to employ intrusive investigative techniques, such as the entry on, or interference with, property or the interception of communications, it should be required to demonstrate that it is involved in combating serious crime as one of the controls over the issue of warrants. That is why the definition of serious crime in Clause 2, is restricted to the issue of property warrants following the precedent of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
That is not to say that the Security Service will end up dealing with trivial cases. Indeed, Ministers have given repeated assurances that, in practice, the service is to be tasked with the investigation of organised crime, as it is commonly understood. This means that the service's principal targets under its new function will be drug traffickers, money launderers and racketeers.
Furthermore, it is clearly sensible to devote the limited resources which the Security Service will be able to devote to its new function to those areas where it can make the greatest contribution. This means the acquisition of intelligence on complex criminal organisations. The co-ordination arrangements between the law enforcement agencies and the Security Service are designed to ensure that this happens.
1498
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the definition as large numbers of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. The noble Lord said that the conduct does not have to be illegal. However, I refer him to new subsection (3B) of Clause 2 which states:
"Conduct is within this subsection if it constitutes … one or more offences, and either—
(a) it involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
Those pursuing a legal common purpose cannot be caught by the Bill. That is made perfectly clear.
This Bill is one component of a package of measures designed to ensure that our law enforcement agencies can benefit from all the support, skills and structures they need to tackle organised crime effectively. The amendment would undermine the effectiveness of the Security Service's contribution to that effort. It would do so unnecessarily as there are alternative safeguards in place to ensure that the Security Service does not get involved in inappropriate areas. I hope, with that explanation, the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I am unhappy with that reply not only because it shows a misunderstanding of the nature of the amendment and indeed the nature of the concerns underlying the amendment, but also because it presents a totally distorted picture of the way in which the amendment was moved and what it states. The Minister is saying that the nature of the involvement of the Security Service in law enforcement in the prevention and detection of serious crime is such that one cannot have what she called a rigid definition of serious crime.
There is no rigid definition in this amendment. There is no rigid definition in Clause 2. The definition of serious crime, which is given in Clause 2 and which we have adopted without change, is so broad as to be virtually non-exclusive. The Minister is right in saying that it refers only to offences which involve the use of violence or,
"substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose".
However, there is an absence of a definition of what is meant by violence. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn suggested, it could be just common assault. There is an absence of a definition of substantial financial gain. Is it substantial financial gain to the putative criminal, or substantial financial loss to the putative victim? There is an absence of any restriction whatever on the nature of the purpose which a large number of persons could be pursuing. It could be anything from the Gordon Riots to the Peterloo massacre, or any public order event of the past 200 years where there could easily be a minimal offence of disturbing public order when the purpose itself was not only not illegal but could indeed be admirable.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I say with great respect to him—I am trying to help—that I think he has overlooked the limits of

1499
Clause 1(1). It introduces a new subsection referring only to "prevention and detection of serious crime". At that stage there would seem to be no purpose in limiting the activities of the security services to prevention and detection.
However, Clause 2 deals with the issue of warrants. The noble Lord is quite right, and the Government have anticipated that we need to be a little more precise and have a definition. That is what the Government have done. If the noble Lord were to confine his remarks to prevention and detection, it would be more to the point.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Perhaps I may intervene. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, overstates the case. There is clearly a need to restrain the security services in their activities. Constitutionally it is extremely important that they should not transgress on to what are generally clearly matters for the police. It is essential that the security services should have a clearly distinct role and this intrusion into police matters should be carefully controlled, defined and monitored. That should not be allowed to be as broad or as wide as is being suggested. It is a very slippery slope down the path of non-accountability and potential injustice, not only to the public and the police but also the security services.
I believe that the Bill is seriously flawed. This amendment is an important restraint on what could be an extremely dangerous situation and a constitutional impropriety.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. That is a serious travesty of an interpretation of the Bill. First, the noble Baroness knows that the Security Service will not in any event act independently of the police. It will be tasked by the police, or the work will be done in support of the police or the other agencies mentioned in the course of the debates. The service will be acting only in that capacity.
My noble friend is right. In the early stages of any investigation we want there to be relative flexibility. Otherwise, as I said in speaking to the amendment, it is likely that the early, important activities of investigating and working for the prevention of crime will be thwarted by some legal definition as to whether the interpretation that noble Lords propose in the amendment would restrict the service because the task did not fall neatly into the category of the definition included in Clause 2.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That seems an utterly deplorable approach to the drafting of legislation. The Minister gives us an assurance that the Minister's intention in increasing the functions of the Security Service is to deal with major issues such as drugs, fraud, and so on. I accept that; I am grateful for it. If that were what the Bill said, we should be a good deal happier.
However, I believe that the definition is far wider than the Ministers give credit for. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, specifically said that my point about legitimate public demonstrations was invalid because the function had to be for the prevention and detection of serious
1500
crime. Without the definition of serious crime, one might have a perfectly legitimate demonstration by a trade union, environmental organisation, or whatever, and the police might call in the security services to install surveillance cameras to check people off against lists of what they would call troublemakers—members of Left-wing groups, supporters of the British Council of Churches, and all kinds of subversive groups—on the grounds that by doing so they might be assisting in the prevention of the serious crime of breach of public order.
Where a large number of persons are present in pursuit of a common purpose, there is the definition in the amendment of "serious crime". The absence of a definition of serious crime in Clause 1 makes the situation even worse. In effect, the Minister is saying, "Don't pay any attention to what the Bill says. The Bill deliberately does not have a definition of serious crime. Rely on the probity of Ministers". I rely on the probity of present Ministers. When we make laws, I do not rely on the probity of all possible future Ministers. I rely on our law to be properly discriminatory and to define the purpose and scope of legislation. This provision does not do that. The definition does not do that. The lack of a definition in Clause 1 makes the situation even worse.
If I had not already said that it was a probing amendment I should be sorely tempted by the inadequate nature of the Minster's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In carrying out its function under subsection (4) above, the Service shall be subject to the provisions of Parts VI (Codes of Practice) and VIII (Evidence in Criminal Proceedings) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984."").
The noble Lord said: This is a second attempt to pursue the general line of argument with which I may already have wearied the Committee. However, it is important that there should be a statutory expression for the controls under which the Security Service, like the police service, will operate in the prevention and detection of crime. The police operate under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. For the purpose of this amendment, in particular they operate in accordance with Part VI which relates to codes of practice. There are important schedules attached to Part VI; Part VIII relates to evidence in criminal proceedings. Beyond that, the codes of practice which are subject to lesser parliamentary scrutiny are essential to our confidence in the police force and the rules under which it collects and presents evidence and makes possible prosecution of offenders.
We need to be sure that when the Security Service acts in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the Bill, it will be acting also in accordance with the same rules of procedure that apply to the police. I should have thought that that point was self-evident. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support the amendment. If the Government's purpose is, as the Minister indicated, for other agencies to act in support of the police, there must be contemplated circumstances in which agency employees or personnel would be obliged to give evidence. Alternatively, there will be applications by what the Minister calls, I think, clever defence lawyers.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: "Unscrupulous".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was not sure whether there was complaint that one was clever or that one was a defence lawyer. I am obliged for the correction.
There will be a serious question about disclosure, and the discovery of documents—the usual questions that we have discussed and with which the Minister has dealt on many earlier occasions. There must be some regulation in the interests of the security services, defendants, proper transparent prosecutions and the judicial process. Unless one has a regime which is structured in the way indicated by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, there will be serious difficulties; and it will not simply be unscrupulous defence lawyers who seize upon them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: We are dealing with codes of practice. This is the moment when I should say something about the issue of warrants to the police.
Since the Second Reading on 14th May, a senior member of the judiciary has commented publicly on the absence of legislation on eavesdropping devices, also known as "bugs", suggesting that the whole area needed to be cleared up and, where necessary, legislation introduced. I pointed that out in the Second Reading debate; and that telephone tapping by authorities had been closely regulated for many years. But there has been nothing to control bugging, although it is far more intrusive and offensive.
The latest annual report of the Commissioner, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, was issued last week for the year 1995, under the 1985 Act. It records the number of warrants issued by the Home and Scottish Secretaries during that calender year. I remind the Committee that over 22 years ago I was for four years a Secretary of State personally considering whether warrants be issued or not in each case. This annual report gives a satisfactory picture, but in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was saying on the last amendment, on a subject where we all share his concern, I quote from paragraph 9 of the report. It states that the number of warrants issued under the counter-subversion head remains very small. That is good news. From the Government's response to the debate on 14th May, it seems that the subject of the use of bugs by police is to be covered in the forthcoming Bill in the next Session. We will have to wait until it
1502
comes forward before we can discover what is intended. There is nothing at present on the use by private persons or private bodies of eavesdropping devices.
In replying to the debate in the middle of May, my noble friend Lady Blatch said that this would be part of a privacy Bill, but that, as we know, the Government are not proposing such a Bill at present. I draw attention to the fact that there is still a gap where eavesdropping devices are concerned with no codes of practice and no legislation. It requires to be filled, and since the debate I have had the support of a very eminent member of the judiciary.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment affords me the opportunity to state clearly what the position of the Security Service will be in exercising its new serious crime function, as there has been a certain amount of ill-founded speculation on the point.
The Security Service does not have, and never has had, any executive powers. Officers of the Security Service have no powers of arrest nor are they able to exercise any of the other powers that the police may, in certain circumstances, exercise such as the power to stop individuals and search them. That will continue to be the case under this Bill. The Bill confers no new powers on the service—it merely allows the service to exercise its existing powers in a new area.
It has always been the case in connection with the Security Service's existing functions that though the service may gather intelligence, at the moment when executive powers need to be exercised, such as an arrest or stopping and searching an individual, the matter is passed to the police for action. That will continue to be so when the service is acting in support of the law enforcement agencies against serious crime.
The codes of practice which the Secretary of State is required to issue by virtue of Part VI of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act govern the exercise of powers by the police such as arrest and stop and search. Since, as I have explained, the Security Service has none of the powers, the exercise of which the codes regulate, I hope the Committee will accept that there would be little point in applying them to the Security Service and that the first element of the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Some have referred to the fact that one of the codes of practice regulates police searches of premises and it may be helpful if I were to clarify the position. The code of practice in question relates to searches authorised by a search warrant issued by a court. The Security Service may obtain from the Secretary of State a warrant authorising entry on, or interference with, property but these covert operations are very different from the kind of searches covered by the code of practice. As the Committee may be aware, the police too can carry out intrusive operations but when they do so, they are governed by a separate set of guidelines issued in 1984 rather than the code of practice in question.
Continuing in the same vein, may I say that I also believe the second element to be unnecessary. Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act contains general provisions that apply across the board and, so

1503
far as they are relevant to the Security Service, it is bound by them. Nothing in the Security Service Act 1989 or in this Bill cuts across or supersedes Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the Security Service in connection with its existing functions has considerable experience of gathering evidence in a form that can be presented in court. Security Service officers are also increasingly being called upon to give evidence in court. Let me assure the Committee that the Security Service is subject to all the normal rules of court and the laws of evidence apply to the service as they do to any other body or individual.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend who raised the issue of police surveillance operations, that we have accepted the desirability of moving away from the existing administrative arrangements, although we believe that they have served us well up to now.
We have accepted that a statutory system would be preferable, but we need to look carefully, with the police, at the alternatives. There are some highly complex issues here and we are determined not to inhibit their operational effectiveness in this area. It is important to emphasise that the present Bill covers only one discrete element of the package of action against organised crime which the Prime Minister announced last October. Its scope is deliberately limited to a single issue that can sensibly be tackled in isolation. It is concerned only with the functions of the Security Service. We need to settle the question of police surveillance operations in the context of broader decisions including, of course, the details of the new national crime squad and the new arrangements for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. We are working on all those issues with the Association of Chief Police Officers and will make further proposals as soon as possible. In the light of what I have said on the amendment, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I raised this matter on Second Reading in relation to a case involving a criminal defendant, a Mr. Kahn, a convicted heroin dealer, which is at the moment before the Appellate Committee of this House. The issue is fundamental. I had hoped to receive a letter from the noble Baroness following the Second Reading, as she did not deal with the matter in her reply, for totally understandable reasons. However, I received no such letter.
The question which has been raised in the debate is that MI5 and the police operate under totally different procedures. MI5 requires a warrant signed by the Home Secretary, the police operate under non-statutory Home Office guidelines.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? He said that the matter is being considered at the moment by the Judicial Committee of this House. Therefore, it is sub judice. It is not only contrary to
1504
practice but wrong for us to comment upon it in case we should try to exercise any influence over the decision of the noble and learned Lords on that committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Nothing I say will necessarily influence the noble and learned Lords who are considering the case. I am discussing the issue of policy involved and merely pointing out that in the case of Mr. Kahn the matter is before the Appellate Committee of this House. The fundamental question which has been raised by the Association of Chief Police Officers repeatedly with the Home Office is whether the system should be perpetuated. Kahn merely illustrates the problem.
The noble Baroness's reply, so far as I understand it, is that the Government will at some stage in the future propose legislation to deal with the problem. However, we are in the last 10 or 11 months of this Parliament. The next Session will begin in October or November this year and the prospect of legislation being carried onto the statute book is a matter of considerable speculation. Why is the issue not being addressed in the Bill? It seems to me to be profoundly unsatisfactory that MI5 should operate under one procedure and the police under another. The police have said to the Home Office consistently that they are deeply uneasy about the arrangement. So far the Home Office has appeared wholly inflexible, save to say that at some stage in the future, maybe in the last three or four months of this Parliament, it might introduce a Bill. That does not seem to me a satisfactory answer in any respect.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is improper for the noble Lord to have invoked the name of Mr. Kahn in the course of this amendment. Anybody reading Hansard will believe that all the noble Lord's following remarks had a bearing on that particular case. My noble friend's intervention was absolutely right.
We are not inflexible. We have made it absolutely clear that there are a number of issues to be dealt with. I hope I made the point clearly enough that this is a narrowly focused Bill, and that this particular issue and the measures in the Bill are freestanding. They do not preclude any of the legislation that may follow. I also emphasised a number of times that the powers of the Security Service are not being changed one jot by the Bill. Under the Bill the service will be able to employ its existing powers in a new area of activity. I believe the safeguard is there.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am well aware of the fact that the powers of the Security Service are not being affected. The point put repeatedly by the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Minister's department is that it is highly undesirable that there should be two different procedures in dealing with cases of very similar character: one dealing with MI5 which means that the Home Secretary has to sign a warrant; the second being the police operating under non-statutory Home Office guidelines. As the Minister will be aware from her officials, this matter has been repeatedly put to her department. It fills some of us with a great deal of

1505
concern that this very unsatisfactory situation will be perpetuated. All that we have received from the Minister is an assurance that at some stage in the future a Bill will be introduced in Parliament. Given the fact that the Government have only some 10 months or less before the general election, the quality of that assurance is not very considerable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that my small amendment has been hijacked to some extent by those who wish to talk about warrants. I was not talking about warrants at all. I suggest that they are properly discussed in the context of Clause 2, and I shall offer the Committee an opportunity to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will therefore forgive me if I do not respond to the points that he made, which are properly addressed in consideration of Clause 2. The same applies to that part of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, concerned with warrants and to the Minister's reply.
It is useful to have the reminder from the Minister of what I said at the beginning of our considerations today; namely, the Bill is only part of a package of measures concerned with increasing the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies. It is the package of measures that we wish to consider. For that reason we find it very difficult to consider constructively a small part of a package of measures put before Parliament without knowing what the remainder of the package is. We have to examine the part that we are offered and take it as all that we are legitimately able to debate. We cannot assume that the Home Office will produce any particular piece of legislation even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, rightly pointed out, there were an opportunity in the next Session of its going into law.
I am also not very happy with the Minister's repetition of the claim she made about there being no new powers for the Security Service. She said that, instead, existing powers are to be used in a new function. That means new powers—unless one is deliberately obscuring the issue, which I am sure the Minister is not. It is like George Bush saying, "Read my lips: no new taxes". He quite deliberately allowed it to be thought that there would be no increase in the level of any taxes, whereas literally what he said was that no new form of taxation would be introduced. When he broke his implied promise not to increase taxes he said: "I did not mean that at all; I simply meant that I would not introduce a new kind of tax". That was a deliberate piece of obfuscation. I hope and believe that the Minister is not a party to that. Existing powers applied for new purposes are in effect the same as new powers. There is no meaningful distinction so far as the scope of activities of the Security Service is concerned.
The Minister gave the assurances I sought so far as Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is concerned. At least, I think she did; I shall read her reply very carefully in Hansard. I understood her to say that nothing in the Bill supersedes or detracts from the coverage of Part VIII of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. She did not make the same assertion about codes of practice. However, I hope that she meant that the Security Service, when operating its intelligence
1506
gathering functions under the Bill—we all agree that the Bill is concerned with the question of intelligence gathering rather than arrest or the functions of constables—will be controlled by the same codes as the police. I seek an assurance from the Minister that when the Security Service is called in to assist in the activities of police forces, those called in have no powers that are not available to the police. That is the assurance we are looking for. I should be grateful if the Minister would dot the i's and cross the t's.
Baroness Blatch: I understood that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was to be spoken to with this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 6 is to be spoken to with Amendment No. 3. At the moment we are concerned with Amendment No. 2. Perhaps that gives the Minister a moment or two more to consider the very direct question I am putting to her. Can she give the Committee an assurance that, when the Security Service is called in under the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill, it will have no powers that are not available to the police?
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord still speaking to Amendment No. 2? The debate has continued for so long that I thought that we had moved on.
The powers that the Security Service has now are not being extended in the Bill. What the Bill will facilitate is that the existing powers of the Security Service will be applied in a new area of activity. Therefore the powers will not be the same. As I have already made clear, the Security Service, for example, has no powers of arrest; the police services do have powers of arrest. Therefore there is already a distinction in that particular area. The Security Service will use existing powers—no additional ones—and will act in support of the police services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what I feared. So the situation is much more serious than it appeared. We are back to George Bush and his ambiguous election promises.
What we need is not an assurance that the Security Service is being given no new powers over those that it presently has; we want an assurance that when it acts in support of the activities of police forces—in other words, in dealing with the criminal law in this country—it does not have powers that the police do not have. We need to know that there will not be a new body of law enforcement officers coming in to do work which in the past has been done by the police, with powers about which we do not necessarily know, because the Security Service is a secret service, that are not available to the police. We know that the police have powers that are not available to the Security Service. We want to be assured that the Security Service, when acting in support of the police, has no powers that the police do not have.
Baroness Blatch: That sounds a very convoluted way to put the point. But I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the Security Service will have no powers that the police do not have.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am satisfied with that answer. I am grateful for it. It is of enormous importance

1507
in a civil liberties sense to know that those who perform functions which have been the functions of the police in this country will be subject to the same rules and the same restrictions on powers as are the police. I am enormously grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.3:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In carrying out its function under subsection (4) above, the Service shall be subject to the provisions of Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Police Complaints and Discipline)."").
The noble Lord said: This is a related but separate amendment. It is the amendment being discussed in conjunction with Amendment No. 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. It is complementary to Amendment No. 2. Once we have established that the Security Service, in performing these functions, has no powers which the police do not have, it is rational to say that it will be subject to the same procedures as those set out in Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—police complaints and discipline—which set up the Police Complaints Authority.
To make sure that I am perfectly well aware of it, the Minister will tell us that the Intelligence Services Act 1994 establishes both a commissioner and a tribunal for the Security Service. I take it that the roles of the commissioner and the tribunal are in no way affected by the Bill; in other words, all the other activities that the Security Service has always undertaken will be subject to the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act.
Without again getting into the new power argument, we are now talking about a new function for the Security Service. It operates alongside police forces in activities which, when carried out by the police, are subject to the provisions of Part X of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which established the Police Complaints Authority. I do not mind whether it is by way of my amendment or the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; we are simply looking for an assurance that the Police Complaints Authority has the same responsibility for all those who undertake those actions, not just the police. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am happy to respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The objective of his amendment, in my view as in his, is the same as that of Amendment No. 6, which I intend to move.
On Second Reading, substantial anxieties were expressed on all sides of the Chamber—notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, who is present today, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as well as myself—about the arrangements for dealing with complaints. But they
1508
were barely referred to by the Minister in reply. Principally, the noble Baroness drew attention to the existing arrangements and did not take account of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has referred to as the new function of MI5. In other words, she referred to the roles of the Police Complaints Authority in dealing with complaints against the police and of the Security Service's tribunal and commissioner in continuing to carry out their different duties in respect of the Security Service.
However, there is a new situation. I hope very much, whatever the noble Baroness says in reply, that she will recognise that. The object of the Bill provides for the Security Service and the police to work together. Yet there will be two totally different ways of dealing with complaints. The matter was explored at some length in another place. Some very interesting exchanges took place. For example the Minister was asked:
"If somebody complains to a police force and is unaware that the Security Service is involved and it becomes clear to the police that it was a Security Service matter, will the police tell the complainant that the Security Service is involved?"
The Minister, in reply, said:
"As I understand the present position, the police will investigate. If the matter does not concern a police officer, the police will inform the person that there is no case to answer in the context of any of their people and will give the complainant the leaflet that I described"—
to which I will refer in a moment—
"pointing him in the direction of other sources to which he can make a complaint".
The matter was pursued. Questions were raised about exactly how a complainant would be told that a police officer was not involved and about the need to give the complainant a clear indication of the person to whom he should complain. The Minister replied:
"I understand that that would not be the usual procedure".—[Official Report, Commons; 14/2/96; cols. 1026–271.]
In my experience, when Ministers—I include myself once upon a time—say, "I understand that", they really mean, "I don't understand this at all but this is what I have been told to say." That includes Ministers of both sides. I see that the Minister shakes his head. I have had long experience; it is a well known formula, which is popular with the Civil Service as well as Ministers. Ministers do not usually admit any doubt about understanding what is said. They say, "I know that", "I will" or "I do." If they say, "I understand that", they mean, "I don't understand what is going on but this is what has been written on a piece of paper and I am going to repeat it to the Chamber", whatever Chamber it may be.
That being the case, there is cause for concern. That concern grows at the mention of the leaflets. The Minister may have seen them; I assume that they are in the Library of the House. I expect that they are familiar to all other Members present today and that I alone am ignorant of them. Perhaps the Minister will be very obliging and send me a copy before we reach Report stage. But it is a rather curious procedure. The complainant complains and, after some interval, the police say to him, "Not me, guy. Take this leaflet and see if you can come up with somebody else. Cheerio."

1509
I am sure that that is not the proper patois on some occasions but the meaning is clear. It is a case of saying to the complainant, "We have had a look at it. It may have taken weeks or months. Indeed, I cannot remember when you made your complaint. I am sorry, old chap, but it was not us. Here is a leaflet. Go away and look at it".
It is a very interesting leaflet indeed. Again, according to the Minister in the other place, it contains a comprehensive list of alternative avenues of complaint. The complainant, knowing that it was not the police but not knowing who it was, is therefore left to go seriatim through a long list of other organisations to which he may complain before coming up with MI5.
I make ridiculous what I regard as a ridiculous procedure. Certainly, nothing said so far in either Chamber makes me feel confident that, however few they may be, the way in which complaints will be dealt with is consistent with the high standards that Parliament requires in such very difficult and sensitive areas. Whatever the Minister may say today, I hope that before Report stage she will come up with a better formula for dealing with the problem as we see it.
First, the amendment—Amendment No. 6, to which I am speaking principally—is right in principle in saying that there should be a single, simple channel of complaint. I believe that that is necessary to protect the public, the police and their present arrangements, and the Security Service too. In the absence of such procedures, the Bill—I am not one of its strongest supporters but, given the reservation I have mentioned, I wish it well—will come into disrepute because of its failure to deal adequately with complaints.
I referred to delay. What kind of delay does the Minister anticipate a complainant would suffer before the police came back with the answer that it was not a complaint against the police but a complaint against some other person unknown who may or may not have been involved?
Secondly, how can the Minister ensure that there is no conflict between the police and the Security Service when two persons may have been involved in a single event which led to the complaint? If those two persons, one being a member of the police force and the other a member of MI5, were each responsible for the cause of the complaint, how will the two complaints be dealt with in parallel? Thirdly, given all the experience we have of these sorts of uncomfortable arrangements between two services with different cultures, techniques and backgrounds, can we avoid buck-passing on the one hand or the alternative of collusion on the other, neither of which can be satisfactory?
Finally, it seems to me that one of the victims—I have referred to this but must emphasise it—of the arrangement spelt out in the Bill will be the Police Complaints Authority. We know that in some people's minds, though not in mine, it is not wholly above suspicion. But if the provisions of the Bill stand, how can we be sure that those who may have a legitimate complaint will believe that they can get it through the clear, relatively simple procedures now in place? How
1510
soon shall we find that the probity of the Police Complaints Authority is, fairly or unfairly, called into doubt? I ask the Minister to think again.
Lord Knights: First, I express my regrets that I was not present for the Second Reading of this Bill. It was my intention to be here, but circumstances combined to prevent me.
I should begin by saying that I find myself of two minds in considering these amendments. On the one hand, I can well understand the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, regarding the position where two different organisations are working together. I can well understand their wishes that there should be a clear, open, acceptable system for calling to account the actions of officers, whether working on their own or together. I also recognise the possible difficulties when it comes to their being disciplined and appearing before different tribunals.
On the other hand, I find myself wondering whether the problems are not a little more imagined than real. Have not police officers and security officers worked together before? Have those operations produced problems of this kind? What is different today? Serious crime, organised crime—or whatever other definition one may give to it—is surely no different from terrorism or major international fraud which, together with espionage, have been the remit of the Security Service since 1989 and non-statutorily before that.
Clearly there must be joint working with the police in those fields. What about joint police/Customs operations? They have been going on for a long time. Have any problems relating to accountability surfaced there? It would be helpful if we could know the subject of the 21 complaints levelled against officers of the Security Service last year, and indeed the years before that. Were they the kind of actions which your Lordships had in mind in tabling the amendments?
I suggest that the difficulties we are experiencing in this matter stem from the cloak of anonymity and confidentiality which covers the activities of all the security services. I shall no doubt be accused almost of sacrilege if I inquire whether that is still completely necessary or justified in all the circumstances. It will be interesting to see how the different practices work in joint operations against organised crime.
More to the point, perhaps, until October 1992 it was the police who were responsible for intelligence operations against the IRA in mainland Britain. The officers engaged in those operations were accountable for their actions in exactly the same way as any other police officer. If it were not for the confidentiality and anonymity aspect, we could well see a better way of dealing with complaints against Security Service officers.
The more one thinks about the difficulties, the more one wonders whether they were given any consideration at all before this Bill was presented. Might it not be better to ensure that the police have, in their own organisation, the special skills of the Security Service in the fields of acquiring intelligence, processing and

1511
assessing it—I believe they do—rather than seeking to provide them in this clearly complicated way? On balance, I find myself in favour of the status quo without complicating the matter even further, which is what the amendments would do, and I would therefore be opposed to them.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may add to that. I was deeply impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said. I have two concerns which are relevant.
At Second Reading I said that I was concerned about adding more commitment to an already fully committed and small service. What concerns me now specifically is, for instance, the lack of clarity about the powers of the co-ordinator. Will he have powers to decide that the police should be free to act on information received from a long-term security source asset which the service may need to protect for long-term strategic reasons? Clashes of interest will arise which may be difficult to resolve. For instance, it could easily happen in relation to the IRA or drugs.
Secondly—this relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said—although I realise that security officers may have to relinquish anonymity in court proceedings if that proves to be necessary and I understand the desire for transparency particularly in the interests of justice, the service is a small one. Eventual disclosure of most of its officers could only be bad for its long-term operations. One must remember that if those officers are publicly identified one by one, life will be extremely dangerous for the agents they run. That is true not only in Northern Ireland, but also in other areas. When there are only a few people in an organisation one cannot afford to have them identified quite so happily as one may with the police force. I entirely accept that in certain areas the dangers are the same. But that is another reason why I feel deeply uneasy about the new tasks the service is being given. I hope that some consideration can be given to those factors which are professional but need to be mentioned.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Not for the first time I find myself in broad agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Knights. It is difficult to see, though I agree with the general thrust of my noble friend's argument, how one can deal with the complaints situation effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, said that there is the problem of the climate of secrecy which envelopes the Security Service in this country, unlike the situation in the United States where there is a large sign south of Washington telling one where the offices of the CIA are.
The problem in relation to complaints is an exceptionally difficult one. As the noble Baroness will have been informed, the deputy chief constable is responsible for investigating complaints against a police officer. The complaints can fall into one of two categories. First, it may be a criminal offence, in which case the papers are sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions; secondly, it may reveal evidence of a disciplinary offence in which case the chief constable ultimately, after consultation with the Police Complaints Authority, may bring proceedings against that officer.
1512
The question which my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank asked was this: how does one deal with the problems of the individual complainant? He goes to a police station. There he will obtain the existing leaflet—I have not seen any new one—which tells him what his rights are in terms of making a complaint. He makes his complaint. The deputy chief constable then starts an investigation in an operation in which both the police and the Security Service have been involved. Does the deputy chief constable, in the view of the Minister, have locus in this matter? Can he investigate a complaint of allegedly improper behaviour by a member of MI5? What happens if the complaint is made against three or possibly four people, three of whom are police officers and one a member of the Security Service? Does the deputy chief constable have the responsibility of continuing that investigation or does he say, "I will investigate the allegations against the three police officers, but as regards the member of the Security Service, I cannot investigate that"? I would find that a very difficult outcome because one may be faced with a situation where three police officers may well say, "Mr. X has a legitimate complaint, but it was not us who did it, it was our colleague who is a member of the Security Service". That is the first problem; namely, the position of the deputy chief constable and the investigation of a complaint under his personal jurisdiction.
We then come to the disciplinary hearing. The chief constable will preside and possibly, in some cases, with a member of the Police Complaints Authority sitting in. That tribunal would have only the responsibility of considering the allegations against the two or three police officers and not that against the member of the Security Service against whom the policemen may well say, "He is responsible". He will be judged by a different tribunal. One has only to begin rehearsing some of these problems. They are real problems, because the noble Baroness can take it from me that a number of chief officers have raised this problem with me. We all accept that there has to be a complaints system affecting both the police and the Security Service and, in certain circumstances, Customs & Excise who may be involved in drug-related offences. One has to have a complaints system which has the confidence of the public. How will the noble Baroness reply to the particular questions that I have put to her? I shall be very grateful to hear her response.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I have no doubt at all that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank was an exceptional and outstanding Minister. It is just conceivable that he never had to resort to the words, "as I understand". I admit wholeheartedly to fallibility. From time to time I have used the words, "as I understand", but not, I hope, very often because I have no idea what the information is. I have learnt the hard way that in dealing with technical and legal matters it is better not to stand at the Dispatch Box and sound as though I know everything about everything. "As I understand" does at least give me the opportunity to write subsequently if I am not right on the first occasion. The phrase "as

1513
I understand" is useful. It is not a sign of incompetence, but a sign of being cautious where matters are intricate and involved.
That is an important issue and it is right that we should debate it. Amendment No. 3 and new Clause 1 both stem from the wish that Security Service officers, when acting in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies, should be subject to an adequate complaints procedure which safeguards the interests of the public.
The Government share that view. That does not, however, mean that the Security Service should be subject, when working against serious crime, to an identical complaints procedure to the police, as would be the effect of Amendment No. 3. Indeed, there could be positive disadvantages in making the changes that this amendment proposes. Similarly, I am not persuaded that the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is necessary or would enhance the Bill.
Before moving on to the detail of the proposed amendments I should like, with the Committee's indulgence, to describe the complaints mechanism which covers the Security Service at present and which will apply to the new function as well. As part of a wide-ranging set of safeguards, the Security Service Act 1989 established the independent Security Service tribunal to investigate complaints.
Under the 1989 Act, any person can complain to the tribunal about anything they believe that the Security Service has done to them or to their property. That person can be an individual or an organisation and a complaint about a person's property may include the place where they reside or work. Any complaint that is not trivial or vexatious will be looked into. The members of the tribunal are all senior members of the legal profession. For complaints relating to action against property the tribunal will involve the Security Service Commissioner. The tribunal and commissioner have full powers to call on any official documents or information they may need.
If the tribunal finds in favour of a complainant, it has the power to order the termination of the service's inquiries and the destruction of records; it has the power to quash warrants; and it has the power to order suitable compensation to be paid. This constitutes an important and robust safeguard, which must not be taken lightly. These procedures were approved by Parliament; they have been in force for more than six years and they have worked well. The independent Security Service Commissioner, who reports on all aspects of the work of the Security Service, has not had cause to question the impartiality or effectiveness of the complaints mechanism. The procedures have also been endorsed by the European Commission on Human Rights.
Amendment No. 3, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to superimpose the police complaints mechanism on to these tried and trusted procedures, in relation to the Security Service's new function. The mechanism for dealing with complaints against the police, set out in Part 1X of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, was created with the police in mind. It takes account of the duties and responsibilities
1514
of the police and the fact that the police have daily contact with the public and also have executive powers, such as the power of arrest, which the Security Service do not possess.
By contrast, the Security Service tribunal was established to investigate complaints against the Security Service and in its procedures and operations is mindful of the special needs of the service. So, for example, it is careful to preserve the confidentiality of the names of Security Service officers. That was a point mentioned by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth.
These bodies are separate and independent and I suggest to the Committee that it would be unwise to confuse their respective responsibilities. A consequence of passing this amendment would be that officers of the Security Service would be subject to two different complaints mechanisms—the police complaints mechanism when they were working in the serious crime field and the Security Service tribunal at all other times. It would also mean that it could become possible for a suspect to make a complaint simply as a way of determining under which of its functions the Security Service had an interest in him.
The Security Service already works closely with law enforcement agencies in relation to its existing functions, in particular in the counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation fields. The fact that more than one complaints procedure applies to those working in joint operations has not caused problems. Similarly, the police and Her Majesty's Customs & Excise frequently work together on joint operations yet their officers are subject to a separate complaints mechanism and this has not presented problems, either. Those were points which were very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights.
There is another aspect to this, also related to Customs & Excise. Though the Security Service's serious crime work will normally be conducted in support of the police, on occasion the service will support other law enforcement agencies such as Customs but also possibly the Serious Fraud Office or the Immigration Service. It would be a very strange state of affairs indeed for a Security Service officer, acting in support of Customs, to find himself subject to police disciplinary procedures. Are we suggesting that every time two agencies co-operate over an operation their complaints procedures should be aligned in some way? I do not think that that is necessary or desirable.
The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, takes an alternative approach but I fear that it shares a number of the pitfalls.
Let me deal first with subsection (1) of the proposed clause, which seeks to restate the role of the Police Complaints Authority even though there is nothing in this Bill which would preclude or limit investigations by the Police Complaints Authority. More specifically, the amendment seeks to reinforce the Police Complaints Authority's role in respect of investigations into
"actions undertaken by … police officers in pursuance of activities authorised by this Act",
but this Bill does not authorise any action by police officers, apart from the simple task for the designated chief officer of agreeing co-ordination arrangements

1515
with the Director General of the Security Service. Beyond that, there is no reason why complaints in respect of normal police operations should not be properly investigated as a result of this legislation. There is no statutory obstacle—in this Bill or the 1989 Act—which would prevent the Security Service from co-operating with an investigation by the police into a complaint against a police officer, arising from a joint operation.
The amendment is also concerned with actions undertaken "on behalf of police officers" but the statutory remit of the Police Complaints Authority, as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, restricts it to investigating complaints against police officers. It does not permit the investigation of complaints against actions "on behalf of police officers, and, as I have already suggested, it would not be appropriate to apply a complaints mechanism, drawn up with the powers and procedures of the police in mind, to the Security Service when its officers operate in different contexts and without any executive powers. I would therefore suggest that this subsection is unnecessary.
The second subsection proposes to create a link between the Police Complaints Authority and the Security Service Tribunal so that if a complaint is submitted to the police and they decide it is worthy of investigation but find that it actually relates to a member of the Security Service, the complaint can be sub-contracted to the Security Service Tribunal for investigation. Again, I can see why this may appear attractive, but I think the existing procedures work very well.
At present we rely on procedures which have been tailored to suit the powers available to those officers and the contexts within which those powers are applied. In the unlikely scenario that a person submits a complaint against the police which actually relates to a member of the Security Service, the police will decide whether the complaint merits recording and, if it does, they will investigate it. If they then conclude that it does not relate to the conduct of a police officer, they will explain to the complainant what other avenues of complaint are available. This will include the Security Service Tribunal. All police forces have been issued with leaflets explaining the work of the tribunal and I understand that these leaflets will be revised and reissued in the light of the present Bill.
I have already pointed out that the Security Service co-operates with the police and other agencies under its existing responsibilities. Precisely the same hypothetical situation could arise in respect of complaints from members of the public but there is no evidence that this has caused any problems.
Members of the Security Service have no executive powers. Where executive action such as an arrest is required as a result of an investigation—whether it is a counter—terrorism investigation or a serious crime-related investigation—this will be for the police. Members of the Security Service are not going to be patrolling the streets and coming into regular contact with members of the
1516
public as a result of this Bill. Most complaints about misconduct on the part of police officers arise from this type of situation.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, whose name has been mentioned in this debate, raised the hypothetical scenario of a defendant claiming that drugs had been planted on him by an officer, who was actually from the service. Let me assure the Committee that if a complaint relates to alleged criminal conduct by a member of the Security Service, the police will be the appropriate agency to carry out the investigation. Members of the Security Service are fully subject to the law of the land.
The amendment does not make clear whether the complainant would be informed of the involvement of the Security Service Tribunal. If the complaint is passed in secret to the tribunal for investigation, this would compromise the integrity and independence of both bodies, without offering any gains in terms of transparency. We believe that complainants have a right to know which body is to investigate their complaint.
If, however, the complainant is informed that the complaint has been passed from the Police Complaints Authority to the Security Service Tribunal, this would confirm that the Security Service has been involved in the case. Clearly this could be exploited by potential targets to secure information about the activities of the service. I refer back to the points made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth who I know is concerned about exposing people who are working in this sensitive area. It would be unfortunate if it was confirmed unnecessarily that an officer was a member of the Security Service as a result of an administrative procedure, thereby potentially compromising its future effectiveness in other capacities. This would also undermine the present procedures, which have been carefully constructed to protect sensitive information.
For those reasons I would suggest that this Bill is not going to generate the kind of difficulties which a number of noble Lords appear to anticipate. There is no evidence that the kind of problems that some of your Lordships foresee arise in connection with the Security Service's existing functions. Perhaps I may borrow a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Knights, and say that I believe that much of this is more imagined than real.
The Security Service and the police have a long history of co-operation in the counter-terrorism field. Although they work together, their officers are subject to different but parallel complaints procedures. That has not caused problems either for the agencies involved or for the public, and we see no reason to depart from it in regard to the service's new function.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to the nature of complaints against the security services. Again, as I understand it, the substance of complaints submitted to the Security Service Tribunal is entirely a matter for the tribunal which does not disclose details of individual cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked what happens if the police and the Security Service working together give rise to a complaint. They will be subject to different complaints

1517
mechanisms. As I have already said, that already happens when the Security Service works with the police in the area of counter-terrorism. It also happens when police and Customs work together. It does not cause problems and there is no reason to assume that problems will arise in the new area.
I have been asked about the length of time the procedure will take if a complaint is lodged with the police. It will, of course, take as long as is needed. In the first instance, we hope that the procedure for determining whether it is a proper complaint that needs to be investigated will take no more than a few days. If it is determined to proceed with the investigation, the investigation will then take as long as is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also referred to the tribunal leaflet. I shall, of course, send the noble Lord a copy of the leaflet. It is specific to the Security Service. My right honourable friend in another place said that the police would supply complainants with copies of all the relevant leaflets—they will all have their own leaflets—with respect to each of the services, such as those covering complaints against the Security Service and Customs and Excise.
Again, I shall have to preface these remarks with "as I understand it" because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to what will happen if a complaint relates to, say, three members of a police force and one member of the Security Service. I think that I am right in saying that if it is a single complaint, either naming or not naming those four theoretical members who are the subject of the complaint, and if that single complaint is substantiated and if any of the police officers is involved, the complaint will be addressed by the Police Complaints Authority. If it is discovered that the three police officers—or however many were involved—were not party to the maladministration or wrong conduct that is the subject of the complaint, the other procedure will apply and the complainants will be given all the information about the other "complaining" authorities and will be able to resubmit the claim, if they want to, to whichever other agency is deemed to be the most relevant.
My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth referred to the Security Service giving evidence in court. The decision on who needs to give evidence in any particular case is for the prosecuting authorities and prosecuting counsel. In recent years, members of the service have given evidence on a range of issues in many trials, including counter-terrorist cases, where that is necessary to ensure that all relevant evidence is before the court. We have no reason to believe that that should not continue to be the case. It will not affect operational effectiveness. It must be remembered that members of the Security Service have no executive powers. Where intelligence work by the service leads to executive action this will require co-operation with the appropriate law enforcement agency, who will give evidence as normal. This is likely to limit the need for members of the Security Service to give evidence. Officers of the police and security services are subject to the complaints procedures appropriate to their respective organisations.
1518
Both procedures work well in their respective contexts, and we should not confuse the two. I hope therefore that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As I understand the reply of the noble Baroness, a deputy chief constable pursuing an allegation of misconduct by members of his force who finds that one of the people against whom the complaint is made is a member of the Security Service, and, in his view, it is an allegation of criminal misconduct, is to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director would then be in the difficult position of having to decide whether or not to pursue the matter on public interest grounds. I understand her answer. I am not wholly clear what happens if it is an allegation of grossly improper behaviour short of criminal behaviour.
Let us assume that the complainant goes to a police station, makes a complaint and the police begin to investigate it. As I understand it, the deputy chief constable still has responsibility for investigating that complaint, albeit part of the complaint relates to a member of the Security Service who is then interviewed by the police to find out whether or not he has behaved improperly. No doubt either today or in correspondence the noble Baroness will tell me whether or not what I say is correct. If he takes the view that there has been improper behaviour by the police officers he will prefer disciplinary charges against them which will be considered by the Police Complaints Authority and the tribunal at which the chief constable will preside. At that stage the officers will have legal representation if there is any question of either dismissal from the service or being reduced in rank. Those are the present arrangements.
As part of their defence, the police officers might say that Mr. X., a member of the Security Service, was the person who undoubtedly behaved improperly. Referring to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, presumably in that situation the member of the Security Service would or might be obliged to give evidence before the deputy chief constable in order to validate the allegations made on behalf of the deputy chief constable. Presumably, it would mean that the identity of the officer would become known even though the complainant might be a person with a formidable criminal record. I shall be grateful if at some stage the noble Baroness confirms that what I have said represents the truth of the matter. From my knowledge I believe that it is an accurate picture.
What happens to the member of the Security Service whom the police officers say has behaved with gross impropriety? Presumably, his case could be put before the Security Service Tribunal. The police officers, who perhaps had been acquitted, might be asked to give evidence against the officer. I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness between now and Report stage can tell me whether what I say represents the Government's belief as to the accuracy of this matter.
The noble Baroness said that there would be no problem because the police and Customs work together. That is perfectly true. But the major distinction is that Customs and Excise is not a secret organisation. There is no question of trying to throw a cloak of secrecy over

1519
the identity of a member of Customs and Excise because, by definition, it is a publicly accountable organisation. Members of Customs and Excise are known. There is nothing like the climate of secrecy which exists in the Security Service. In my view, this issue is fundamental. But it will not arise in the immediate future. At first there are to be only 16 to 20 members of the Security Service involved in this work. But once the legislation is on the statute book there will be the possibility of a larger number of members of the Security Service becoming involved. I believe that all concerned deserve a clear explanation as to what will happen.
Baroness Blatch: I shall read carefully what the noble Lord said and write to him. I will make available my response to all Members of the Committee who have an interest in this matter. When a person complains to the police authority the matter will be dealt with as a complaint to that authority. If, either at the initial stage, or subsequently, it emerges that a member of the Security Service has behaved illegally it will be dealt with. Whether it comes to light in the course of the investigation or in any other circumstances, that person will be subject to the law and the law will take its normal course. The Crown Prosecution Service will make a determination as to whether to proceed with charges.
If, however, in the course of investigating a complaint to the police authority it is discovered that the policemen involved in the particular case are not involved in any impropriety but it is just conceivable that members of the Security Service are, it will be dealt with as a complaint to the police authority. The authority will determine whether or not there is a case to answer. In this hypothetical situation there would not be a case to answer. The complainant will be invited to seek redress for his complaint elsewhere. All of the information as to how to do that and the range of bodies to which the complainant can go to pursue the complaint will be made available. If the particular complaint involves both the police and members of the Security Service but the complaint is proved on the basis that someone in the police authority has caused some grievance to the complainant, the complaint will be upheld and it may or may not involve invoking the Security Service. But the noble Lord raised a number of issues. I believe that it would be wrong for me to try and answer them in any more detail. I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This has been a most interesting debate, notably for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, with his knowledge of the police service, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, with her knowledge of the Security Service. Members of the Privy Council Bench who expressed approval of those interventions should reflect that both speakers were considerably more radical in their response to the Bill than might at first have appeared.
The Minister has no difficulty in persuading me that my amendment is defective and that it should be withdrawn. Although her answers go some way to explain the procedures which will take place on this
1520
complicated issue, they do not go all of the way. What happens if a member of the Security Service commits an illegal act is quite clear. We can be agreed about that. But as to how the public are to know where their complaints should lie and as to the degree of collaboration between the Security Service Tribunal and the Police Complaints Authority, I heard a number of encouraging remarks by the Minister but a rather discouraging remark at the end. I believe that it is best that I read carefully what she said and, in the meantime, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, at beginning insert ("After consultation with the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee established under section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994,").
The noble Lord said: The amendment, which is in the same form as other amendments, is perhaps related but it deals with a separate issue. It deals with the issue of the designation, for the purposes of this clause, of the person who is, as we understand it, to be the director-general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. What we propose in the amendment is that such a designation shall not take place unless the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which was set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, is also consulted.
We appreciate the difficulties which the Government have in that they have not yet found it possible to draft the legislation which will give statutory authority to the NCIS and the NCS. It would of course have been easier to understand the Bill if that had not been the case—if we had not had to tread delicately around this designation rather than having it named directly. But whether it is yet statutory or not, surely this is a sufficiently important role in triggering the intervention of the Security Service in support of the activities of police forces for the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has the function of parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service, to be involved. Parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service, if it is to be complete, has to cover also the functions which are provided for in Clause 1. It would seem logical and natural for Parliament to be involved in this, perhaps minimal, but nevertheless significant way. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I have some sympathy with the noble Lord over this amendment. It is important that we should ensure that there is co-operation and no conflict between that important body mentioned in the Intelligence Services Act—namely, the Intelligence and Security Committee—and the police. It is rather significant that, although this is a Bill dealing with the functions of the Security Service, there is to be under Clause 1(3) a chief officer of police to be the responsible person for ensuring that things work smoothly. It may be that the Secretary of State, on advice from the Home Office, would in any event consult the chairman appointed under Section 10 of the 1994 Act, but it is a

1521
point that should somehow or another be covered. It seems to me that the amendment is appropriate, but I naturally wish to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The only anxiety I have on this question is why this issue has not been addressed within the Bill. The Home Secretary has made it clear that the person he intends to designate—f officer of police to whom the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just referred—will be the director-general of the NCIS. I believe that that is the correct person to have that responsibility. It is the only way of ensuring police primacy.
What I still find extremely difficult to understand is why that matter has not been addressed on the face of the Bill. After all, we are introducing for the first time the Security Service into sensitive areas of police operations. That being so, it seems strange that we are being asked to pass a Bill which gives new authority to the Security Service but does not clearly define, on the face of the Bill, the senior police officer who will have that critical role. I find that disappointing. I still hope that on Report or at subsequent stages that matter will be dealt with.
Lord Knights: The point which interests me in this matter is not so much the inclusion of the commissioner or the Security Service people in the appointment of the officer who is to be the link but, as has already been said, that the Home Secretary has already indicated that it will be the officer who is in charge of the NCIS. That officer, under present circumstances, as I understand it, cannot be a chief officer of police. He can only be a former chief officer of police, because he will give up his command as a chief constable when he takes up that post.
If the Home Secretary has already decided who that will be, there does not seem to be much point in consulting someone else before he is appointed. He is the only one who can be appointed. There is no choice if that is where it is to lie. But the whole situation raises, and it will raise later when the legislation to make the NCIS a statutory body comes before this place, the question of what supervision there should be of its activities. At that stage we shall need to consider whether similar arrangements should not be made for a committee to supervise its work in the same way as the work of the security services is being supervised now. That is where the real arguments will come as to the position of the officer in charge of the NCIS.
Baroness Blatch: Although superficially attractive, I have to confess that I am somewhat puzzled by the intent behind this amendment. It seems to me that it would not enhance the Bill and runs the risk of damaging the standing of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Clause 1(2) requires the director-general of the Security Service to agree arrangements with a designated person so as to ensure that the activities of the Security Service in connection with its new serious crime function are co-ordinated with those of the police and the other law enforcement agencies that it will be
1522
supporting. That is an important safeguard which is designed to ensure that in the serious crime field the Security Service acts only in a supporting role and does not act independently. The agreed co-ordination arrangements will cover questions such as tasking and how the Security Service's contribution can best be meshed with the work in this field that others are already doing.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear all along that it is his intention to designate the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS as it is known) as the person with whom the Director-General of the Security Service must agree these co-ordination arrangements. That reflects the key role which all the players have agreed that NCIS will undertake and which I outlined in opening the Second Reading debate on this Bill. Indeed, ideally we should have liked the fact that the designated person will be the Director-General of NCIS to be specified in the Bill. Unfortunately, that is not possible since NCIS currently has no statutory footing. The Committee may be aware that part of the next element of the Government's package of measures, which I have already made clear this afternoon, against organised crime will be to put NCIS on a statutory footing.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Knights, made the important point that some of the detail of the supervisory arrangements will have to be thrashed out during the course of that next piece of legislation. Nevertheless, despite, any uncertainty in drafting terms that may exist, the Government have been in no doubt that the Director-General of NCIS will be the designated person. So far that proposition has received all-party support and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others should call it into question by suggesting that prior consultation is required before the designation process can take place.
I am also concerned that the noble Lord should be seeking to involve the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee in this way. The Intelligence and Security Committee exists to,
"examine the expenditure, administration and policy",
of the intelligence agencies. It is an all-party group of senior parliamentarians and my noble friend Lord Blaker is a distinguished representative of this place.
One of the great strengths of the Intelligence and Security Committee is that it is independent of both the Government and of the intelligence services whose activities it oversees. It can therefore be relied upon by the Members of another place and of this place to carry out its duties effectively and without fear of being compromised. I have every confidence in the ability of the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Tom King, MP. His integrity is beyond question.
Nevertheless, I question whether there is not a danger that the independence of the committee would be called into question if it were to become involved in operational issues which could have a direct bearing on the work of the Security Service. Indeed, a much more likely scenario is that the committee will want to

1523
examine the effectiveness of the Security Service's work in its new function, including the co-ordination arrangements. We believe that seeking its advice or influence in that appointment would run the risk of compromising its independence.
For that reason, and on the basis of the firm undertaking which has been given and which I am happy to repeat—that the designated person will be the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service—I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I make it clear from the outset that I am not casting doubt—indeed, my party has never cast doubt—on the intention of the Home Secretary to appoint the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service as the designated person under Clause 1 of the Bill. I cannot understand how the Minister read that into what I said or into the amendment. We accept that the appointment will be that person.
However, there will be future appointments, and we suggest that since the role of the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is expanded by the Bill—in other words, in addition to running his criminal intelligence service he also has the responsibility, which is laid down in Clause 1, of defining arrangements for co-ordinating the activities of the service in pursuance of Section 1(4) with the activities of police forces—there is therefore a Security Service role as part of that person's terms of reference. It seems a minimal involvement of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Security Service which is provided by the Intelligence and Security Committee for the chairman of that committee to be involved in the appointment. That does not mean that the chairman will be involved subsequently in the activities of that committee; only that when the appointment is made, parliamentary involvement and the role of the Security Service should be recognised—
Lord Renton: The noble Lord has gone a bit further than his amendment. It properly refers to consultation; the Secretary of State should not be required to do more than consult. To go into the matter of greater responsibility is going beyond his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not intend to go beyond my amendment. It is a minimal amendment. There is a small amount of parliamentary involvement in a very hierarchical way. Only the chairman is involved and not his committee; and he is involved only in a consultative capacity; and he is involved only at the time of the appointment of the designated person.
I am surprised that the Minister reads so much into my small amendment, but it is not one that I wish to press at this time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
("(3C) The Secretary of State shall by order appoint a special police authority to exercise the relevant functions under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1993 in relation to the arrangements made under subsection (2)(c) above."").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 refers to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, in addressing the previous amendment. I agree that the more important matter is to which police authority the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and indeed the national crime squad, should be responsible.
In our lengthy debates on the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill 1994 we secured considerable changes to the original government proposals. We secured that there should be a continuation of the tripartite system of control of the police which had served us so well. In every respect—except the control of the Metropolitan Police, where unfortunately the Government changed their mind—the Government agreed that we should continue with the tripartite system, with local authority involvement and with local responsibility for the objectives and conduct of police forces in this country. For that reason, we believe that there should be a comparable body for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the national crime squad, particularly as the director-general is to be the guardian at the gate, so to speak, for the intervention of the Security Service in policing matters.
I believe that even the Home Secretary now accepts that there is a need for a body to which NCIS should report and that is one of the reasons why legislation has not been brought forward to provide the statutory basis for NCIS and why to that extent the Bill is incomplete. In the amendment I have referred to the body as a special police authority, without spelling out in detail its composition. However, I believe that it should include representatives of chief police officers and local police authorities so that the national police work is tied back into the systems and accountability of local police activity.
Clearly, this is a probing amendment. If it found favour with the Government, no doubt there would have to be a considerable amount of drafting in order to establish the constitution and powers of such a special police authority. However, I hope that by presenting the matter in this simple way it raises the issue adequately, meets the longer term objectives of the Home Secretary in this package of legislation and finds favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I am relieved to know that this is only a probing amendment because it is defective. It refers to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1993, but in fact it was passed in 1994. I say with respect that, in any event, the idea of having a police authority imposed upon the machinery already envisaged under the Bill is utterly inappropriate. In Section 4 of the 1994 Act, which amends the 1964 Act, the noble Lord will see

1525
elaborate arrangements for the membership of police authorities and their appointment. I cannot imagine that his proposal will find favour with the Government.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I understand the noble Lord's desire for the work of the Security Service in pursuit of its new function to be accountable, but this amendment seems to be a very strange way to pursue that aim. In any case, I believe that the present accountability arrangements governing the work of the Security Service are highly effective.
The amendment proposes that there should be a special police authority to oversee the co-ordination arrangements which will govern the Security Service's support for the law enforcement agencies. By way of clarification, it refers to the relevant functions under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, whether 1993 or 1994. I am at a loss to see how the functions under that Act would be relevant. The primary objective of a police authority is to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force. In doing so, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act refers to the police authority's duty to set objectives in consultation with the chief constable and local people and to issue local policing plans and annual reports. Those functions are all appropriate to maintaining a police force with an essentially local focus. They do not seem appropriate to the work of the Security Service.
The Security Service is a different type of organisation and it has its own systems of accountability. Ultimately, the Security Service is accountable to the Home Secretary, through the Director General. By way of independent oversight, we have established the Intelligence and Security Committee, a committee of distinguished parliamentarians including my noble friend Lord Blaker, who represents your Lordships' House. The ISC will certainly be able to oversee the Security Service's new function.
Under the new function, the Security Service will be supporting police forces and law enforcement agencies. All police forces are accountable to their own police authority and organisations like Customs and Excise have their own accountability arrangements. I do not think it would be appropriate for there to be a new police authority duplicating these existing accountability arrangements for occasions when the Security Service is supporting a law enforcement agency in pursuance of its new function.
The other key organisations in the Security Service's new role is of course NCIS. The co-ordination arrangements will have to be agreed with the Director General of NCIS, as the designated chief officer, and NCIS will perform a central role in co-ordinating the contributions of the various agencies. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have views on the accountability arrangements which would be appropriate for NCIS but, I fear, this is not the occasion to pursue them.
It is the Government's firm intention to bring forward legislation placing NCIS on a clear statutory footing, with greater independence from the Home Office. I assure the Committee that we shall address the issue of oversight arrangements as an integral part of that legislation and we are aware of the need for public
1526
accountability. But there are complex issues involved and we are still developing our proposals in consultation with the police and other interested parties. Nevertheless, we hope to bring forward the legislation as soon as possible.
In the meantime, we want to ensure that the co-ordination arrangements which will govern the Security Service's new role are not unduly bureaucratic and do not stifle operational effectiveness. The arrangements will cover practical issues such as mechanisms for ensuring the visibility of Security Service operations; mechanisms for sharing information; and the role of groups such as the Drugs Trafficking Strategy Group. This does not justify the setting up of a new police authority in an oversight role. It would be cumbersome and inappropriate. Instead we should rely on the existing accountability arrangements, which are tailored to the needs of each organisation. In the case of NCIS we have given clear commitments that we will place the organisation on a statutory footing with revised oversight arrangements and therefore I ask the noble Lord to avoid pre-empting that piece of legislation now.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Baroness referred to placing the National Criminal Intelligence Service on a statutory basis. As she is aware, a number of us have expressed regret during our debates this afternoon that that is not being done in this Bill. I wonder whether there is any possibility of the Government reconsidering this matter because it would relieve a number of us of our anxieties in that regard.
We heard what the noble Baroness said about the Director-General of NCIS being the former chief officer who will be appointed to the role which had been referred to by the Home Secretary. But it would be far better to deal with NCIS and place it on a statutory footing in this Bill. I still wonder whether it is possible to do that on Report or at Third Reading.
The noble Baroness has told us on a number of occasions that the Government will be bringing forward their proposals. But the difficulty is that the new Session of Parliament will begin in October or November of this year and the Government will then have a life of, at the most, five months to put through the legislation. The Minister refers to a package of measures but, as she will know, a part of that package of measures is highly controversial. The prospect of such legislation reaching the statute book, unless this issue is dealt with in isolation, is remote in the extreme. Why is that issue not dealt with in this Bill?
Baroness Blatch: At the risk of being repetitive, because I have said this a number of times this afternoon, discussions are continuing with all the relevant agencies involved with this matter. However desirable it might have been—and I have said that it would have been desirable—to deal with the matter in this Bill, it is inappropriate to deal with such an important matter by amendment at this late stage in the progress of the Bill. It has already passed through another place and is now completing its Committee stage in this Chamber. Therefore, only two stages remain. I believe that it would be a mistake to introduce

1527
that provision without it being properly thought through. I hope the noble Lord will accept that we intend to deal urgently with the matter and that it will be the next piece of legislation to be dealt with in this package of measures.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister really confirms all that I was saying and all that I have been thinking about this issue. Clearly with an amendment of this kind to this Bill as drafted, I could do nothing other than propose a special body which will have the functions referred to in Clause 1.
Equally clearly, if the designated person is to be the director of NCIS then the work of the National Criminal Intelligence Service will be subject to the same police authority. But since it does not exist, I could not propose that in an amendment.
The Minister seeks to make a point about the fact that some of the functions under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994—and I acknowledge with thanks the correction of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, are not appropriate to this purpose. I did not say that they were. The amendment refers to the "relevant functions" under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act.
We are in a difficulty which is entirely of the Government's making. Because they have not been able to prepare the legislation which surrounds this Bill and makes it make sense, we cannot consider even the most modest provisions of this little Bill in the way that we should if that legislation were before Parliament. For that reason, of course my amendment is very limited and does not do all that we would wish it to. But the acknowledgement by the Home Secretary, confirmed by the Minister today, that there will have to be a police authority of some kind when the statutory basis for NCIS is legislated for is welcome. I hope that it is clear that that will include the functions that are laid down in Clause 1. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Warrants]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In dealing with Clause 2, we come down to earth with a bump because we are now concerned with one of the very many practical issues which will arise from the implementation of Clause 1; that is, the issue of warrants. If it is of any comfort to the Government, the complexity of the arrangements for warrants confirms the difficulty which I can see that they are experiencing in drafting legislation to deal with the other issues which are raised by Clause 1.
When we deal with warrants we are in a very difficult situation indeed. It is proposed that the existing warrants used by the Security Service, which are property warrants and interception warrants, which at present cannot cover action in relation to property in the British Isles shall be permitted for the Intelligence Service and
1528
the Security Service if the activity concerned is, as is now defined, for the prevention or detection of serious crime.
That raises two very important questions which the legislation shies away from. The first issue is in relation to what is the present statutory basis for the use of interception warrants by the police. When this matter was debated in Committee in the other place, it was clear that there was a considerable amount of embarrassment on the part of the Minister concerned because he could not define the statutory basis for the use of interception warrants used by the police. It is quite clear that they are used. However, because of a lack of statutory justification, there is the possibility that a policeman using an interception warrant—bugging, in other words—could be subject to prosecution or pursuit on a civil trespass. Clearly something has to be done to provide a statutory basis for the powers which the police have, although they do not necessarily use them on a statutory basis.
That is not the case for property warrants where the police have to have a judicial trigger. They have to apply to a magistrate, or under certain circumstances to the High Court, to obtain a property warrant. What the Government are proposing in this Bill is a rather curious approach. Instead of rationalising and justifying the police powers—which is what would surely be the right way to approach the matter because that way Parliament and the people would know what the powers of interception and property warrants are—the Government are proposing to provide a statutory basis for interception and property warrants on the part of the Security Service, not in line with police powers but in line with the existing Security Service powers as they apply outside the British islands or the United Kingdom. That raises huge problems because there is no judicial trigger; there is only an executive trigger in the sense that the warrant is granted by the Secretary of State rather than by the judiciary. That immediately raises questions of the propriety, in civil liberties terms, of having the Executive able to authorise bugging by persons necessarily unknown in a way that the police are not able to do.
Therefore, there are two issues that we have to face. First, is there in Clause 2 an extension of the powers of anyone—the police, the Security Service or anyone else—to bug and to plant bugs in the homes, places of work or wherever of the people of this country? If that is the case at the very least we ought to know about it and the extent to which it is proposed that it should happen and we ought to know what safeguards are proposed. Secondly, does the wording of this clause raise the possibility of powers, as between the police and the Security Service, which are inconsistent? In other words, do they have powers of investigation, of bugging and of access to property in pursuit of the same case of detection or prevention of serious crime which are different from each other? If that is the case, I should have thought there is something rather seriously wrong. The issue of whether these powers are being exercised differently by different people or whether there are different powers being exercised by different people

1529
who are exercising for the purpose of this Bill the same functions ought to be out in the open. We ought to know where we stand.
I apologise to the Committee for being able to raise this matter only on a clause stand part debate. I know that in the House of Commons it is always considered possible to have new clauses which raise completely new issues. If I possibly can I prefer to amend the wording of the Bill in order to improve the effect of the Bill. Any Member of the Committee who looks at Clause 2 will realise how difficult it is to change the wording when it is itself an amendment to the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
What we want from Clause 2 is an assurance that the security services have no powers which are not available to the police and that there is congruity between the powers available to the police and those available to the Security Service. If that means a better statutory basis for police powers, so be it. We want an assurance, above all, that we are not, by the back-door and by inference rather than by deliberate legislation, extending the powers of the law enforcement agencies to plant bugs in any of our homes or places of work, or indeed to extend the powers of property warrants. I am not saying that there are not circumstances in which the people and Parliament might not give those powers, but they ought to do so explicitly, clearly and knowing what is involved. Clause 2 does not provide that. It does not provide any answers to those important and difficult questions. I suggest to the Committee that unless the Government have some clear and new answers to those problems, Clause 2 ought not to stand part of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, I raised a subject connected with warrants on his Amendment No. 2 because I was keen to make sure I did not miss an opportunity to do so. Of course I did not know what particular point or points the noble Lord was going to raise in his proposal to remove Clause 2 altogether. I wish simply to add to what I said earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is, of course, referring particularly to property warrants, which are the important ones in this Bill. I was referring to the warrants which have been issued over many years to police, as well as to the Security Service, for telephone tapping and interception of postal communications. I made reference to the latest report from the commissioner, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, who was present a few moments ago. His report of 1995 was issued only last week. The incidents which he reports on concern only telecommunications and letters. He provides figures in the summary at the end of his report. He lists interceptions only in the categories of telecommunications and letters. A total is given for the two categories.
As far as I know—I am sure this is the case—the noble and learned Lord does not report on what are known as bugging incidents; that is, the surreptitious placing of eavesdropping devices in premises to enable conversations to be overheard from a distance, night and
1530
day, and either to be listened to by an individual or recorded. As I said before, I think that is far more offensive and intrusive than telephone tapping because anyone who picks up a telephone and has a confidential conversation must know that he could be listened to by anyone quite by chance. Personally I would not mind anyone listening to any telephone conversation that I have had for as long as I can remember because I would never use a telephone to speak of any matter which I thought was confidential or which might be indiscreet concerning the reputations of other people.
The report which I am discussing is issued every year. I have just referred to the most recent edition. As far as I can see, it does not deal with bugging; that simply is not mentioned in the report at all. It is an area which needs considerable, careful consideration, clarification and, if necessary, legislation. At Second Reading, my noble friend indicated that the issue would be dealt with at the next stage of the legislation.
I have assumed that bugs are an important part as regards property warrants. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the Committee stage in another place. It did not become clear whether bugs were used already by the police under administrative arrangements. As I said earlier, the interception of telephone communications has been authorised and accepted by Parliament, to my knowledge for at least 30 years. As Secretary of State, I was signing warrants, or withholding my signature, nearly 30 years ago. Therefore that situation has been accepted. It seems strange that that aspect should have been regularised in such intimate detail. Yet nothing has so far been done about placing eavesdropping devices in premises.
I simply speak further on a subject which I raised briefly on Amendment No. 2. It is an important matter to which an eminent member of the judiciary drew attention in recent days.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: I join in the degree of anxiety that has been expressed on Clause 2. I cannot pretend to have my mind round all the ins and outs of the powers currently exercisable in relation to the surveillance of private property, the entry of private property, tapping of telephones connected to British Telecom, tapping of telephones not connected to British Telecom, the long-distance bug, or any of those matters.
In my experience, the present situation is extremely confused. So far as I know there is no statutory authority currently sanctioning the invasion of premises by police to plant bugs. A case is pending in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords where exactly that point is at issue.
I rise on this occasion because apparently I have either the wrong end of the factual stick or I have the wrong judgment. I believe that what is being proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill is a major constitutional shift. There was a famous case in the eighteenth century called Entick v. Carrington which decided that the Executive could not enter premises, search and remove goods; it was not part of its function or rights. As I read the Bill—I speak subject to correction—what is happening is that as part of the process of introducing

1531
the security services into the prevention and detection of crime, powers—people accept, albeit reluctantly, that they have to be exercised in that extremely tricky half-light of espionage—are being brought in to be exercised by the security services, not in the context of espionage but of ordinary police duties. That seems a very serious matter. If the police, or any law enforcement officer, are lawfully to enter and search, ever since Entick v. Carrington a search warrant has been required, granted by an independent judge or magistrate.
As I read the Bill—again I ask for information as much as for anything else—under the arrangement in the Bill an officer of the Security Service (the Minister says that he has no executive power but I am not sure what that means) obtains a warrant that is not signed by a judge or a magistrate but by the Home Secretary or someone to whom that power is delegated. That officer can enter, search and remove things from a private house. The policeman with whom he is co-operating can do no such thing. He requires a warrant.
I hope that the Minister will indicate to us that my fears about what is being done under the meritorious concept of seeking to deal with organised crime is not treading on those matters which we have habitually regarded as the Englishman's basic freedom; namely, the safety of his home.
As regards bugging, we are in fairly advanced days. One does not need to get on to the premises. One sets up some gear 100 yards away; windows vibrate and speech is heard. There are very sophisticated arrangements now in place whereby what is going on inside a man's or woman's house is capable of detection from outside.
I hope that this matter will receive careful consideration before the Government confer on the security services wider, different and non-independent powers to invade the privacy of the Englishman's home. It may well be that I have the Bill wrong. I look forward to finding out why my fears are not realities.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I find myself in substantial agreement with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, said. I believe that all of us accept that in the investigation of serious crime intercepts can be of critical importance in a series of cases—blackmail, kidnapping, terrorist offences and so on.
The noble and learned Lord referred to a case before our Appeals Committee. I should not dream of referring to it by name in case that caused displeasure to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. This issue will be addressed in the relatively near future. It is a matter of critical importance. Ministers should have no doubt of the constitutional importance and other implications of this matter.
It seems wholly unsatisfactory that we should have one system of arrangements for the Security Service and totally different arrangements for the police, notwithstanding the fact that the Security Service and
1532
the police will be working together as colleagues in exactly the same operation. I do not see how one can justify that.
I find it a matter of deep regret that on an issue of this kind—I repeat that it has consistently been drawn to the attention of the noble Baroness's department by chief officers of police—this matter is not being addressed adequately within the Bill. I do not see how members of the two organisations, who we assume will be working closely together as colleagues as a result of the passage of the legislation, will have totally different arrangement as regards intercepts.
What can conceivably be the basis of that judgment so far as concerns Ministers?
Lord Knights: Perhaps I may first quote from a report of a Home Affairs Committee in another place on Organised Crime. It was published in July 1995. At paragraph 48 it states:
"We consider that taken as a whole it"—
that is to say organised crime—
"is a cause for serious concern. There is no doubt that, while the level of such crime in the UK may be lower than in some other countries, it is nevertheless substantial and probably growing…We conclude that the Government and the police will need to take effective pre-emptive measures if an irretrievable expansion of organised crime in this country is to be avoided".
The Government have responded to that by saying that the Security Service shall play some part in dealing with that serious matter. If the position is as serious as that, and no one has suggested that it is not, there can be no doubt that there are occasions when clandestine and covert arrangements are essential if the necessary intelligence on which to base further practical operations is to be obtained.
Parliament should recognise that and that we cannot use kid glove measures to meet the dangers which this type of crime presents, not only to society as a whole but to the individual officers involved in it. Only recently it was known that a police officer was killed when seeking to obtain information, in that case not within the premises but while keeping observation outside.
As I understand it, the clause seeks to correct a situation which exists because of the present legislation dealing with the Security Service. Security services under the existing statute can bug premises—and that is what we are talking about—with a warrant from the Secretary of State in the discharge of their responsibilities, but not in furtherance of the responsibility or authority which they have to pass criminal information to the police. Now that they are to be involved in seeking actively to develop criminal intelligence, it follows that they will seek to bug premises.
It may be that today it is not so essential to enter premises in order to bug them and that it can be done from outside. I am not technically minded enough to be able to comment on that, but it would surprise me if the number of occasions on which it is essential to enter premises to bug them is anything more than rare.
Be that as it may, the police do not have such authority at the moment. If any of us is confused, there is a difference. We are not talking about searching

1533
premises for which search warrants must be obtained from magistrates or courts. We are talking now about bugging referred to in the famous book: Burgling and Bugging Across the Country. In 1984—a long lime ago so my memory may not necessarily be accurate—the police were given guidance by the Home Office as to the way in which they should conduct themselves if they were seeking to obtain information in that way. It included not just bugging premises but covering the whole range of covert activities: vision, listening and any other way in which information can be obtained, whether by using binoculars outside the premises or on private land or whatever it is.
The information within those guidelines was and still is helpful. But it leaves one area on which the guidelines give no guidance: the entering of premises without the knowledge of anyone else. Plenty of advice is given as to entering premises with the consent of the owner or occupier, in order to bug the premises to listen to activities or people; but where there is no means of entering the premises with authority, the guidance does not exist. I personally never authorised a police officer to enter premises to bug them unless he had the consent of the owner or occupier. I should be surprised if other chief officers of police had done that on more than a few occasions. It might have been done in dealing with terrorism, but not with ordinary crime. The circular anyway restricts the area of crime in which it would be appropriate to use bugs.
Now that the Security Service has moved in, I believe that there can and will be occasions when it will need and wish to bug premises in a few serious cases without the consent of the people who own them or live there. It follows that if the Security Service is to work with the police, then the police need to have the same authority. I see few occasions when that option will be used, but a chief officer of police would be unwise to authorise any of his officers to conduct such operations without legal authority for doing it. He certainly could not plead a Home Office circular in his defence, if he were brought before a civil court for trespass or some other legal matter. If the Security Service is to come into this area, then bugging must be recognised as being a requirement on rare occasions. I therefore wish to see it included in the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: The detail of Clause 2 has not been debated by the Committee but it is none the less important. I entirely accept the mechanism used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in order that we should have this debate. One of the principles which will underpin the Security Service's involvement in the work and to which I referred during the Second Reading debate, is that the Security Service would be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. That is designed to preserve the service's operational effectiveness.
To ensure that the Security Service is able to deploy all its capabilities, it will under certain circumstances require special authorisation to enter or interfere with property. These authorisations are known as "property warrants" and Clause 2 will allow the Security Service to apply for property warrants under its
1534
new function. In doing that, we are merely applying an existing power in a new area. That point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. The Intelligence Service Act 1994 (and before it the Security Service Act 1989) already provides for the issue of property warrants under the Security Service's existing functions. The 1994 Act also made that power available to the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, though with the additional safeguard that serious crime property warrants could not relate to property in the United Kingdom. This was, in part, because the remit of those agencies is focused on operations abroad.
In keeping with the principle that the Security Service should be able to draw on all its capabilities, this safeguard now needs to be adjusted to allow the service to apply for serious crime warrants in the United Kingdom. The prohibition will continue to apply to the other two agencies.
This is a highly intrusive power which demands the application of detailed safeguards to control its operation. Accordingly, warrants are signed by the Secretary of State with additional oversight from the commissioner, who also assists the tribunal in this aspect of its complaints work.
As a further safeguard, when applying for a serious crime property warrant, the application must meet the test of the definition of serious crime given in Clause 2 of the Bill. This is the same definition that Parliament approved to govern the issue of warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. That has worked very well and we see no reason to depart from it now. Furthermore, it would not be sensible if the Security Service required interception warrants and property warrants in the course of an investigation and had to meet different tests for each warrant.
That is the position for the Security Service, but it is true that the position for the police is rather different. The police also carry out this kind of intrusive operation and it represents an important investigative tool for them. At present, though, the conduct of police intrusive surveillance operations is governed by administrative guidelines. These administrative arrangements have served us well and there is no evidence of abuse. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, said how rarely the powers were used. But the Government have accepted the desirability of placing this type of operation on a statutory footing.
We are not using the present Bill for these changes, as some have suggested we should, because it is deliberately limited to a single issue that can sensibly be tackled in isolation. It is concerned only with the functions of the Security Service. The question of police surveillance operations is a complex one and we do not want to legislate hastily or improvidently or in a way that inhibits the operational effectiveness of the police in this area. We also need to take account of other initiatives, including the details of the new national crime squad and the new arrangements for NCIS. We are giving careful consideration to the options, in consultation with the police, and hope to bring forward legislation as early as possible.

1535
In the meantime, the simple fact that the police do not yet have a statutory basis for the power is no reason to deny the power to the Security Service, when the exercise of that power is surrounded by a formidable set of safeguards. I can give the Committee the assurance that the Security Service will have no powers that the police do not have. The police have the same powers as the Security Service in regard to entry to or interference with property, but the police exercise those powers on the basis of chief officer authorisation. Although that system has worked well, the Government accept the need to put it on a proper statutory footing at the earliest possible opportunity.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked about the extension of powers to bug. I must continue to repeat myself: the Bill will allow the Security Service to apply for warrants authorising entry on or interference with property in the United Kingdom in serious crime cases. These powers are subject to the safeguards I described. As I have already said, the powers exist; they are being extended to a new situation.
My noble friend Lord Campbell referred to bugging. The power available to the Security Service to enter on or interfere with property, which covers bugging, is overseen by the Security Service Commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, described this as a major constitutional shift. The powers to enter or interfere with property were first set down in statute in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I repeat, there are no new powers. It is merely that the powers that do exist are extended to a new area of activity.
6 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether those powers were exercisable in England in relation to property in England in relation to criminal matters? That is the big move that has taken place.
Baroness Blatch: That of course is the move. They are existing powers which the Security Service has. The new area of activity is precisely the area just referred to in the United Kingdom.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, referred to the case of Entick v. Carrington. That case concerned the requirement at common law for lawful authority before there could be interference with property. There will be lawful authority under the Bill when the Security Service obtains a warrant to interfere with property.
The noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred to the 1984 police guidelines not covering entering property without the owner's consent. The 1984 guidelines do cover entry on to property for the purposes of placing a bug without the consent or knowledge of the property owners. The powers are used very sparingly and with appropriate safeguards; but they nevertheless exist.
1536
This clause refers to the Security Service. It is a focused clause and I recommend that it stand part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister's reply was truly breathtaking. Let us be clear what we are talking about. We are talking not just about a search for evidence of the kind recognised for many years by a warrant given by a magistrate or by the High Court. We are talking about what is technically called "intrusive surveillance". The Minister herself described it as "very intrusive".
Intrusive surveillance means interception of post and telecommunications, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, reminded us. It involves the planting and using of bugs without the agreement or acquiescence of the owner or occupier of a property. It is about as far as you could go in breaking the rule that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is doing everything that we should well understand in a spy novel were it being done in premises in Moscow or in relation to international spying. To do it in pursuit of what is laughably called "serious crime" in the very wide definition that we have debated in relation to Clause 1 is Orwellian.
The wording that the Minister used is also Orwellian. She did not say that the safeguards are being taken away; she said the safeguard needs to be adjusted. Adjusted, my Lords! She did not say that the police have no statutory authority to do the bugging; she said the authority exists under "administrative arrangements". That was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. In other words, there is no statutory power. A chief officer of police can do what he likes and it is called "administrative arrangements". It is all right so long as those doing the bugging are not caught. If they were caught they could be charged with the civil offence of trespass.
The situation is Orwellian because the Minister says she can assure the House that there are no powers that the police do not have. Those were her very words. But it is quite clear that there are powers that are available to the Security Service. The Minister boasted about those powers. She said that the purpose of the Bill is to bring the whole range of skills and powers of the Security Service to the pursuit of serious and organised crime. And these are being applied in conditions in this country in pursuit of serious crime where the police themselves have no statutory authority.
We land up with the worst of all possible worlds on warrants. We land up with an extension of powers for the Security Service, not because they are new powers for the service but because they are applied for the first time to the people of this country. We land up with inconsistent powers as between police and the Security Service in pursuit of the same objective. We have a different trigger for the exercise of these powers. The trigger we have chosen is not an extension of the judicial trigger—the need to apply to a magistrate or a judge—but an extension of the trigger of the executive power, in other words, the Home Secretary or anybody to whom he chooses to delegate these responsibilities. There is no

1537
provision whatsoever so far as I can see for adequate accountability and scrutiny in the exercise of these powers.
I cannot imagine a situation under which there has been a greater extension of the powers of the state against the powers of the individual—and this by a Conservative Government—being done in such a way that it is virtually incomprehensible when the clause is simply read as drafted; namely, as an amendment to previous legislation. Only under questioning has the extent and enormity of the increase in the powers emerged.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I simply cannot allow that to go on the record as the last word on this amendment. To say that the Security Service is not accountable in the process and to suggest that the Home Secretary can act in some kind of cavalier way is simply wrong. The security services are accountable. They are overseen by the committee; they have a security tribunal; they have a commissioner, who will certainly hold the Security Service in operation to account. If a warrant is applied for and secured, it will be secured on the basis of meeting the serious crime test set out in detail in Clause 2.
We take the view that in the pursuit of serious crime—for example, drug trafficking, money laundering and racketeering—these powers are absolutely essential. They will be awarded only on the basis of conforming to Clause 2.
In conclusion, the Home Secretary himself is also fully accountable to Parliament for his actions. The whole situation is entirely transparent. Clause 2 does not refer to safeguards for the police because, as I have said, we wish to put the system on a statutory footing. It is a subject for another debate on another day. Clause 2 refers to the security services. I believe they are accountable; they can be trusted; the system is overseen and is properly transparent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister used the word "cavalierly" in relation to the Home Secretary's use of the powers. The Committee will note that I did not use that word. I simply said that the Home Secretary can delegate his power to authorise intrusive surveillance to somebody else. That is simply a fact. The power can therefore be exercised by the Executive. Ultimate responsibility to Parliament is a fact; but it is a very remote fact when it comes to the exercise of powers of this kind.
I yield to no one and my party yields to no one in our desire to pursue those involved in drug trafficking, racketeering, money laundering, and all those things the Minister mentioned. Serious crime, as defined in Clause 2 of the Bill, is a very much wider issue. It has been made clear that it covers a large number of matters for which the kind of powers being sought through this clause are entirely inappropriate. This is not an issue of law and order in the party sense. There is no disagreement about the need to pursue
1538
serious crimes. It is fundamentally an issue of civil liberties. I am not satisfied with my own approach to this.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I have just been reminded to correct the noble Lord on another point. For the record, the Home Secretary cannot delegate his responsibility for signing warrants.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: So, if he is not available, no warrant will be signed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I can intervene. I have with me the latest report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. In paragraph 7 he describes over the year—dealing with telecommunications and postal interceptions—the very rare occasions in emergencies when someone else has to do it. He is perfectly satisfied that it was very occasional and could only be done in certain circumstances. I recommend to the noble Lord paragraph 7 of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is nice to know. He can delegate under exceptional circumstances. Let us hope that the present practice of doing so only in exceptional circumstances will be maintained.
As I started to say, I am not satisfied that a Motion to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill is the right way to achieve our very serious objectives in criticising the clause. I propose to come back at Report stage with precise amendments which precisely set out our objectives and requirements in this most important matter. I shall not pursue the Motion further.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
POWERS AND DUTY OF POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY
(".—(1) Nothing in this Act shall preclude or limit investigations by the Police Complaints Authority in respect of any actions undertaken by or on behalf of police officers in pursuance of activities authorised by this Act.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Police Complaints Authority to ensure that any complaint duly made to it by any person in respect of activities carried out in support of the police under the provisions of this Act by officers of the Security Service is forwarded for investigation by the Tribunal appointed under the Security Service Act 1989, which shall report to the Police Complaints Authority on the conclusions of any such investigation.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was fully discussed earlier together with Amendment No. 3. I do not wish to diminish the central question of principle involved in Clause 2, which we have just discussed. However, the whole question of the complaints procedure is not a minor or technical matter. The view of the Minister is broadly that the existing procedures work well. From these Benches and elsewhere in the Chamber, we have sought to demonstrate that we are now dealing with a new

1539
situation. The problem of complaints and the shortcomings of the Bill remain. I shall not proceed with the amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996
6.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure that it is for the convenience of the House that we also deal with the Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations and the Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations at the same time.
The jobseeker's allowance provides a new and very different way of giving help to unemployed people. It replaces an outdated, confusing and fragmented system which contained disincentives to job seeking.
We know that the majority of unemployed people want to work. The focus of JSA is therefore firmly and properly on motivating and helping jobseekers to get into employment within a framework which will provide a better and more streamlined service.
JSA will be implemented from 7th October this year. There are still a number of areas in the framework of secondary legislation to be completed before JSA is introduced, and so the Government are bringing these regulations, which have been debated and approved in another place, before your Lordships' House for your approval today.
The main set of jobseeker's allowance regulations was considered by this House in January. During the debate on the principal regulations, we made it clear that it was likely that the Government would need to come back to the House with further regulations, including amending regulations, before JSA was introduced.
My department constantly reviews benefit policy. It is important that the benefits that we pay to people keep up with changes in modern life and reflect the Government's policy intentions and that the public funds to which we all contribute are spent wisely. Scrutiny of income support and changes to that benefit form part of this process and it is right they should do so. A number of changes have therefore been made to income support since the principal JSA regulations were introduced. Because income-based JSA is broadly aligned with income support, we now need to amend the original jobseeker's allowance regulations to mirror these recent changes in income support.
The original JSA regulations are an intricate and extensive set of regulations and it is right that they should be so. It is in the interests of JSA claimants that the rules under which their benefit is paid to them should be fully laid out in law to ensure that they are treated fairly. These amending regulations put right some minor errors in the original regulations, which detailed scrutiny has revealed.
Many of the most important and complex decisions on JSA claims are taken by adjudication officers who are independent of the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment and who use adjudication guidance prepared by the Central Adjudication Service to aid them in their work. It is important that that guidance is correctly drafted to ensure that claimants receive the high standard of adjudication they deserve. Preparation of this guidance has thrown up some areas of possible ambiguity in the original regulations. So we have taken the opportunity to clarify certain regulations so as to put their interpretation beyond doubt.
I turn first to the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 28th March. They make the type of minor amendments which I described earlier. Your Lordships may like to take particular note of one or two.
Regulation 10 introduces new provisions into the jobseeker's allowance regulations covering persons from abroad and asylum seekers. Your Lordships may recall that the equivalent income support regulations have already been the subject of a full debate both in this House and in another place. These JSA provisions do no more than bring JSA into line with income support and they will ensure that only genuine asylum seekers who have permission to work will be supported by taxpayers' funds while they look for work.
Regulation 11 also follows changes in income support. People on income support who are in residential care, nursing homes or certain other types of residential accommodation will be able to have £16,000 of capital before they lose their entitlement to benefit, and up to £10,000 will be wholly disregarded when calculating the amount of benefit they will receive. These regulations amend the JSA rules to bring them into line with the income support rules. Only a small number of people on JSA will be affected but it is important that they are treated in the same way as recipients of income support.
The Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General)(Amendment) Regulations were laid on 30th April. Again, these regulations are mainly concerned with clarification and with keeping JSA aligned with income support. However, I should like to draw attention to two provisions of particular interest.
The Disability Alliance pointed out to us that the rules governing the ability to restrict the hours for which a claimant can be available for work due to part-time study, voluntary work or temporary lay-off did not link up with the provisions which allowed a claimant to restrict their availability hours due to their mental or physical condition. I am grateful to the Disability

1541
Alliance for drawing that matter to our attention, and I am glad to be able to correct the situation with the amendments in Regulations 3 and 4.
Regulation 33 is an amendment to the income support regulations. It is to ensure that there is no break in the eligibility for income support for a claimant caring for someone with disabilities. At present, a carer is entitled to income support if the person they are looking after has claimed attendance allowance or the higher or middle rate of disability living allowance and is awaiting a decision or is being paid either of those benefits. From 7th October carers will also be entitled to income support in cases where the person they care for has had a decision but payment is not due until a future date because they have not yet completed the qualifying period for attendance allowance or disability living allowance.
The final set of regulations, the Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations, consist mainly of amendments consequential on the introduction of JSA. In many cases the amendments simply bring forward to JSA principles which apply to the adjudication of income support. However, the regulations contain two new adjudication provisions which are needed for JSA. Regulation 56A enables an adjudication officer to decided a JSA claim in the jobseeker's favour and for JSA to be paid while the adjudication officer is still considering a separate question of whether a sanction should be applied. That fulfils our commitments during the passage of the Jobseekers Bill that JSA would continue to be paid in full in advance of any sanction decision. Regulation 56B provides that where a claimant or his partner switches to JSA from income support or vice versa, the existing claim can be terminated where the adjudication officer is satisfied that entitlement will exist to the alternative benefit. In addition, it provides that they will not have to serve the three waiting days for new claims to JSA.
When I introduced the Bill to bring JSA into being, I indicated that the Bill and JSA, when it comes in in October, will provide more help to the unemployed in their search for work. It will be targeted at those most in need and will provide better value for money for the taxpayer. It will offer a better service for the unemployed and will be both easier to understand and simpler to run.
As I recall, the noble Baroness did not completely agree with my views on JSA. Indeed, on 3rd April 1995 at Second Reading, she said:
"the core of this Bill we believe to be nasty and pernicious…it takes as a starting point the blaming of the unemployed for their unemployment and therefore seeks to make life on unemployment benefit, to coin a cliché"—
unusual for the noble Baroness—
"mean, nasty, solitary, brutish and short… We have nothing but contempt for [the Bill]".—[Official Report, 3/4/95; col. 47.]
Those were her words on 3rd April. Her colleague, Mr. McCartney, in another place, on 17th January 1996 said,
"We reject the JSA and all it stands for".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/96; col. 765.]
It therefore puzzles me when poor Mr. Meacher writes an article in Red Pepper—a magazine of which I had not heard until he wrote the article but which is probably compulsory reading for the party opposite—repeating those assurances. At least, I felt that he repeated them, and he obviously thought so too when he said that the Jobseeker's allowance is unacceptable and that Labour will abolish it. However, poor Mr. Meacher had to swallow his words and say that it was the fault of his researcher, Mr. Ian Willmore, who made a drafting error. So it was a drafting error to say that it was unacceptable and that the Labour Party would abolish it.
Furthermore, on the detail, I understand that a few weeks ago Mr. Brown, the shadow Chancellor, vetoed attempts to extend the payment under JSA from six months to one year. As I recall, that was a matter which the noble Baroness particularly thought was "mean, nasty, brutish" and so forth.
I should like to know, as well as hearing a welcome from the noble Baroness for the regulations, exactly what is the updated position of the party opposite on JSA. Were the noble Baroness and Mr. McCartney correct? Was Mr. Meacher's assistant correct when he wrote the article? Or have the headmasters who summoned Mr. Meacher to their study and reprimanded him suggested that JSA is after all a splendid idea which should be backed and encouraged?
With those few thoughts on the wider scene, I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 28th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was about to thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. But given, first, that he entered into territory that is clearly unfamiliar to him when he talked about Red Pepper and, secondly, territory that was equally unfamiliar to him when he appeared not to be au fait with the reference to Hobbes and his assessment on the nasty state that currently surrounds us in the body politic of Britain, I have crossed out, rightly, my welcome thanks to him.
JSA replaces income support and unemployment benefit for those in the labour market. Last January we spent almost two-and-a-half hours discussing the JSA regulations—not the Bill but the regulations—that is, 160 pages, 10,000 lines and three times longer than the original Bill. At the time we reminded the House that, as a result of the regulations, 250,000 people were made poorer. Instead of having national insurance cover for 12 months, it was slashed to six. If one was under 25 one received a lower rate even so and after six months it was means tested which meant that if there was a spouse in work he or she would lose pound for pound.
Let us assume that it is the woman in part-time work. It is not surprising therefore that the only women who can afford to work are those who already have a husband in work. That accentuates the work-rich/work-poor divide that is such a problem in today's society. It equally affects

1543
the older man with a redundancy package which may exceed the capital rules and denies him benefit for which he has paid national insurance all his life.
We made the point then and make it tonight that a means test to JSA is a tax on a working wife. It is a tax on savings, and it also encourages dependency. If neither party is working they need more housing benefit and more council tax benefit rather than less; therefore, the partner on JSA will have to earn even more to spring both of them off dependency. He cannot, so he will not. Means-tested JSA locks people onto benefit because it costs too much to get off it. As the Social Security Select Committee recently said, JSA, like other means-tested benefits, may therefore be an additional incentive to fraud.
Last January we debated 160 pages of 172 regulations. Some months later we find ourselves debating amendments to 40 of those 172 regulations; in other words, the Government have found nearly a quarter of their regulations to be defective. The Government say that they need to bring the amendments forward because of what "detailed scrutiny" has revealed. That was the phrase the Minister used; it was used also by the Minister in the other place.
This House has a right to know why detailed scrutiny follows the introduction of regulations rather then precedes it, which is what this House has a right to expect. Therefore, we are having to amend regulations on such important matters as sanctions against young people, payment of training allowances, voluntary redundancy, hardship payments, volunteers, part-time students, short-time working, sickness periods, housing costs and occupational pensions, all to bring JSA and income support into line with each other. Talk about competence in drafting! The Government are giving a new meaning to the phrase "learning on the job". It is a pity about the unemployed who are at the receiving end of the Government's work experience programme.
We have seen exactly the same pattern with the Child Support Agency—it is not a new phenomenon—in which the Government pass a Bill, reject most of the amendments from the Opposition Benches, then six months later pass regulations and then spend the next two years amending the regulations and the legislation because they got it wrong as they were too arrogant to listen to the views from the Opposition Benches in the first place. Therefore, they have had to smuggle back in as regulations and amendments to legislation the very selfsame amendments that the Opposition moved in the first place.
Even the Treasury now admits that it has got it wrong in a wide swathe of social security matters. It has abandoned all considerations other than the narrowly financial. Therefore, the Government, the taxpayer and families have been paying the Treasury bill. The Treasury admits getting it wrong with the CSA and with incapacity benefit, and we now find that disabled people are actually dying before they receive the benefit moneys owed to them by the Benefits Agency. The Government are now getting it wrong on JSA, as these amendments, which represent one quarter of all the effective regulations, show. It is remarkable that after
1544
nearly 18 years in office the Government still cannot get their social security legislation right, their drafting or regulations, let alone their policies. They are all deeply flawed.
The Government are no more competent in getting their sums right. Savings to the Treasury were originally going to be £410 million in the years 1996–1998. That figure then fell to £320 million. Meanwhile, the costs of introducing JSA have soared to £280 million, to be spent on new computers, additional training and nearly £11 million on consultancy fees. That figure has soared also. So obviously the savings target has been cut and cut again. The Minister was very silent on this matter. Will he tell us that the computer problems have now been resolved and that the JSA computers and the income support computers are now talking to each other? Or is it true that we now have two systems which are going to run in tandem for a further 15 months? What sort of chaos will that produce?
We now experience error rates on income support of 22 per cent. Nearly one-quarter of all income support payments are erroneous—not fraudulent—but erroneous from the Government's side. According to the National Audit Office, they have either underpaid or overpaid 22 per cent. of income support. What estimate of error do the Government now anticipate on JSA when they cannot even get their computers talking to each other over income support? Do they estimate a 25 per cent. error rate, or 30 or 35 per cent.? We are talking about taxpayers' money. This inability to deliver the system smoothly is frightening.
Many of the errors will be due to inadequate staff training and resources. The abolition of home visits has meant that inaccurate information is too often processed, so it is not surprising that inaccurate decisions come out the other end. What are the Government going to do about that as regards JSA? Every report we now receive from the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and from the Government's own annual reports, shows that the rate of error and fraud appears to be increasing rapidly. Any means-tested benefit risks high error and high fraud. JSA is a means-tested benefit and will carry with it a similar high likelihood of error and fraud.
We welcome Regulations Nos. 33 and 56A, and some of the adjustments for the disability benefits. But one regulation being introduced today is not an error in the sense that it is a deliberate piece of Government policy. It brings the treatment for asylum seekers for JSA in line with the changes already made to the asylum seekers and income support. When the Government were introducing those changes they claimed that they would save £200 million in denying benefits to people while they were seeking to establish their right to have support in this country. The Treasury might save £200 million, but we argued at the time that costs would be displaced elsewhere on to Churches, charities and local authorities. Will the Government now tell us what the balance sheet looks like? How much will be spent on reimbursing local authorities? Given that one-quarter of all the families have dependent children, how many

1545
such children do the Government expect to come within the Children Act 1989 and what do they expect the net overall savings will be?
It is a deeply wrong policy precisely because the Home Office cannot get its act together. Many asylum seekers are waiting a year or more to have their claims processed. The right way to deal with bogus claimants is to speed up the hearing and not to deny all claimants, other than those at the port of entry, benefit in the meantime whether they are bogus or not. Asylum seekers are losing their benefit not because they are not genuine—how can the DSS know that until the situation has been investigated? —but because the Home Office is not competent. That is unethical. If on top of that the Government do not know how many are affected, how much money will be saved and how many will come to local authorities for survival, they are adding administrative incompetence to deeply immoral policies and then wrapping the whole lot in Tory Party conference jingoism.
In his opening peroration I believe that the Minister said that the point of JSA was the motivating and enabling of unemployed people to move into work. Oh really? There are currently 12 people chasing every vacancy. Will the Minister tell us how, by turning JSA into a means-tested benefit and making it more penal, and by encouraging fraud and error in the process, that will add a single extra job to the labour market? I accept that instead of 12 people chasing every vacancy there may now be 13 doing that. Perhaps that 13th person will take away a job from the 12th person who might otherwise have got it. In what way does that create an extra job? Worse still, perhaps that 13th person would have got that job by being willing to undercut the wages of the other 12 jobseekers. If so, that will cost the taxpayer even more by adding to family credit or earnings top-up, if it is extended, because as we and the Minister know, in-work benefits are now the biggest growing expenditure sector within the DSS budget.
In what way does JSA, and these regulations, create a single extra job save for the private consultants on whom the Government have lavished £11 million? JSA is deeply flawed and we shall review it. As we see today, the Government cannot even yet get their drafting right. We shall have to take the job over.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe I heard at the tail end of the noble Baroness's speech the words "we shall review it". That is certainly a long way short of what I remember being assailed with day after day when we took the Bill through your Lordships' House. Indeed, "reviewing" seems to be the policy for everything as far as the party opposite is concerned. I notice that at least I have made some progress, which is more than my colleagues in the other place have managed to do, in that I have some kind of statement from the noble Baroness that the party opposite will review the jobseeker's allowance. Therefore, I am not surprised that poor Mr. Meacher was reprimanded for
1546
saying what he thought was party policy from last year's passage of the Bill and had to withdraw his statement that the party opposite would withdraw JSA.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for interrupting so early. Our difficulty is that all the evidence shows that the financial situation that the Labour government will inherit appears to be deteriorating by the day. Only when we see the books can we know what we can afford to do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a good try, but the books are clear. Every year we publish what is called, the Red Book. I commend the noble Baroness to read it where she will see the situation. It is the lamest of lame excuses that her party cannot make up their minds on policy until they win the election. That will not go down very well. Talk about buying a pig in a poke! As I was about to say, my recollection is that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is sorry that he cannot be here this evening, made it very clear that if his party were to gain power or to gain influence, it would abolish the jobseeker's allowance. I suspect that he retains that position. Anyway, we have had a commitment that the Opposition will review it. It does not sound as though they are as concerned about the jobseeker's allowance as some of their rhetoric might lead one to believe. However, I welcome that half-conversion that the scheme is so well founded that a review is all that will be necessary to keep it going.
Turning to the regulations, I have tried to explain why we need them. They are largely minor and, essentially, we need them for three reasons: first, to replicate recent income support changes in JSA. Those changes have occurred since we brought forward the JSA regulations. One of those changes is that mentioned by the noble Baroness and relates to persons from abroad and asylum-seekers. I shall come to that in a moment.
The second reason is that following the passage of the regulations, the Central Adjudication Service started work on them and has advised us that some amendments are necessary to ensure that there is no confusion over interpretation. I should have thought that that was a sensible way for government to proceed in the interests of both good administration and customer service.
The third reason is that a few typographical and cross-referencing errors occurred in the main regulations. Indeed, I recall pointing one out when we dealt with those regulations earlier this year. We have taken this opportunity to put right those errors. I think that those are perfectly reasonable reasons for bringing forward the regulations.
I turn now to implementation. We have always made it clear that it is our intention to implement JSA in October as planned and we are holding to the timetable. The noble Baroness will be happy to hear that trials are running successfully in 29 offices. Those trials are a valuable step in our preparations for the introduction of JSA as we seek to ensure that a high quality service continues and that staff are fully prepared when JSA is implemented in October. Training is a very important aspect of social security matters and is being delivered on schedule to all staff in response to their detailed training needs as analysed.

1547
Work on the IT systems is continuing and is progressing on schedule. We have said for more than a year that we are retaining the other two systems—the National Unemployment Benefit System (NUBS2) and the Income Support Computer System (ISCS)—to reduce the risk which anybody who knows about computers is aware accompanies any large-scale new computer system. Existing claims on 7th October will remain on those systems. New claims will be handled on the new system (JSAPS). We shall move gradually from three computer payment systems to a single computer payment system by August 1997. However, there will be a seamless service for jobseekers who will certainly not be aware that three systems are in operation.
The noble Baroness drew your Lordships' attention to the error rate with income support. We are, indeed, concerned about that error rate and are looking at the reasons for it and at the ways in which we can improve upon that situation. It is exactly that which has led us to believe that the far-reaching change programme on which we have embarked in the Department of Social Security must play a key part in reducing that error rate. Frankly, our system is far too complex. It is often driven by the demands of various very small groups which want everything tailored to the very last dot and comma. That complexity alone leads to errors. We are looking for ways to simplify the whole system so that it is fair and can deliver benefits quickly, efficiently and correctly. I hope that, as the years progress, the noble Baroness will applaud our work on the change programme.
I turn now to persons from abroad. The amendments simply bring JSA into line with the changes introduced with regard to income support. If people from abroad apply for asylum at the port of entry, they will be eligible for income support, but naturally they will not have to consider JSA until they have been here for at least six months and until they have asked for and been granted leave to seek work. I suspect that very few will make that move.
On costs and the general point about asylum seekers, we are working with local authorities with regard to some of the costs that may arise for them initially because of the changes that we have made. Of course, there will be great savings to them when the number of people who come here seeking asylum and are proved to have no justifiable grounds for the granting of asylum or of exceptional leave to remain is reduced. There will be great savings for local authorities when that flow decreases, as it has done over the years for most of our European friends. When that flow decreases, which I hope will happen as quickly as it has increased over the past seven to eight years, not only will we be able to deal with applications much more speedily, including appeals, but local authorities will find that they save a great deal of money—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who our "European friends" are?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows very well that our European friends are all those other members with which we share the European Union, as well as Norway and some other countries in Eastern Europe which are not yet members of the European Union, including Slovenia, which one day we hope to welcome. Many of those countries, with perhaps the exception of Germany, have seen a quite dramatic reduction in the number of their asylum-seekers, following the firm steps that they have had to take following considerable increases earlier.
I know that the noble Baroness will be more than delighted to learn that comparing month for month last year and this year we have seen a steady and gradual decrease in the number of asylum applications. Indeed, the figures for May show a reduction of 49.16 per cent. from 3,450 in May 1995 to 1,754 in May 1996. If that trend continues, what I said when I introduced the regulations on asylum-seekers will, indeed, come about. We shall be able to deal much more speedily with asylum-seekers' first applications with appeals also. Local authorities and others will be saved a great deal of money because they will no longer have to look after the large numbers of people who come here who have no justifiable grounds for the asylum that they seek.
It seems to me that the early figures are encouraging. As I have already explained to the House, most of those who come here are, understandably, economic migrants who see this country as a far better place in which to live than their country of origin.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can answer another two questions about asylum-seekers. What is the Government's current estimate of the net saving and what percentage of asylum-seekers do the Government expect to fall within the local authorities' remit in terms of the Children Act 1989?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult to judge how many people will fall within that remit. If the decline that I have quoted from last year's May to this year's May continues, the number of people coming within the ambit of a local authority in that regard will fall considerably.
As I have said in this House—and as my right honourable friends have said down the corridor—we have promised that we shall help local authorities with unavoidable additional costs which, to be honest, have still to be seen. We have already agreed how that will be calculated with the local authorities. We shall have to see how much money we shall have to give local authorities in order to help them over the problem, as opposed to the £200 million which we estimate will be the benefit saving from not paying benefit to people who apply in-country, who are found not to be genuine asylum-seekers or not to justify the granting of exceptional leave to remain and who appeal. They are no longer eligible for benefit. Against that benefit saving of £200 million, social services and housing authorities will have to spend some money. We have been negotiating on that with the local authorities. We have made clear what we are prepared to

1549
pay. We shall have to see what it comes to, but it will certainly come to a great deal less than £200 million unless there are a lot of imaginary people around—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Government must have made some estimate of that figure for the Minister to be so confident that savings will result. What estimates have they made?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have the figures to hand, but if your Lordships want an exercise in logic, perhaps I may say this: if we reduce the number of people who come here, obviously many fewer people will need the services of the local authorities for education for their children or for their social or housing needs, so a considerable amount of money will be saved. That is what we believe will happen. Once this begins to act properly, as it appears to be, local authorities will find that they are spending less money on asylum-seekers because there will be many fewer of them. I am sure that most people in the country welcome that.
On the general question of employment and whether or not the JSA will help people, one of the important elements is the agreement. There will be a pact between the employment service and the individual in order to try to get the individual back into work as quickly as possible. It is well worth pointing out that two-thirds of people are already back in work within six months of becoming unemployed. We have a number of schemes that are designed to help those who are in long term unemployment and are often very difficult to place in employment. We believe that the jobseeker's agreement along with other schemes that we have introduced will go a long way to help those people get back into work. Of course, we do this against the background of falling unemployment, in contrast to what is being experienced by our major European friends. Their unemployment levels are higher than ours, and rising. However, the Labour Party continues to harp on as if the United Kingdom were the only country in the world with high unemployment, oblivious to the fact that UK unemployment is lower than the average of our European friends and is falling while theirs is rising. I believe that JSA will add greatly to our raft of measures to help people back into work. I commend these regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1996
6.51 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 30th April be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations 1996
6.52 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HM Prison, Wandsworth
6.53 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the annual report of the board of visitors of HM Prison, Wandsworth.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is probably the first debate that we have had in the House in recent years on the report of a board of visitors of one of our prisons. I believe that it is right at the outset to express our warmest thanks to all the members of these boards, who, both at Wandsworth and elsewhere, make a major contribution to our penal system. Before I come to the contents of the report of the Wandsworth board, I believe it is right to refer to the problems which now confront the Prison Service as a whole. We are told that the numbers in our prisons may rise to the staggering level of 60,000. At the same time, the service faces large cuts in running costs. Over the three years 1995–96 to 1998–99, the service is to be compelled to reduce its costs per place in real terms by 10.2 per cent. or by 14 per cent. if new money, specifically earmarked for security measures following the report of Sir John Woodcock and for the service's drugs strategy, is left out of the calculation.
It is estimated that as a result of these cuts at least 2,800 posts will be lost, including many of the most experienced officers who, because of their position on the salary scale, are more expensive than the younger, less experienced officers. There will be significant cuts in prison education services. A recent survey by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education suggested that in a cross-section of prisons there had already been an average cut of 14.5 per cent. in educational provision. We know from a recent Written Answer given to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, that 85 of the current probation staff of 645 will have their posts wiped out of existence. In addition, there will be reductions in chaplaincy services—a matter which is specifically referred to in the report of the Wandsworth board of visitors—and a cut in the funding of visitors' centres, which do so much to maintain relationships between inmates and their families. Finally, there have been heavy cuts in the prison refurbishment programmes.
That is the background to the report of the Wandsworth board of visitors. Their report rightly pays tribute to the work of the governor and his staff and to some of the improvements undoubtedly made in previous years, such as the refurbishment of C and D wings at Wandsworth. But what the report discloses in detail provides a most disturbing commentary on how the cuts in the service imposed by Ministers will affect Wandsworth prison. The board say that the effects will force a choice between reducing manning levels and drastically modifying the regime in the establishment. Of course, either would be deeply damaging. But in addition they run the risk of creating serious disturbances within the prison.
I should like to deal now with a number of specific issues mentioned in the report. First, what is to happen to A and B wings at Wandsworth? This matter is specifically referred to in the report. For the moment, both have been mothballed; on neither has the planned refurbishment programme begun. The board has asked for an undertaking from the Home Secretary that the wings will never again, in their unrefurbished state, be used to house prisoners. Is the Minister prepared tonight to give the board and the House that undertaking? I remind the noble Baroness what the board has said about A wing at Wandsworth, which is now mothballed:
"Its unreconstructed, crumbling Victorian fabric permitted little in the way of hygiene and the vile procedure of 'slopping out', which took place in the same recesses as the sinks used for washing dishes, made the sense of unremitting gloom even worse".
As to B wing, the report said:
"A feeling akin to hopelessness and despair often seemed to afflict both prisoners and officers."
I am sure that the noble Baroness will not need to be reminded that in his report of March 1995 the Chief Inspector of Prisons said the following:
"The planned refurbishment of A and B wings should not be delayed once C wing reopens".
Well, C wing has reopened, yet there is no sign of any activity as far as concerns the refurbishment of A and B wings. I hope that the noble Baroness will provide a clear answer to the board's question: is this work to begin? If not, will the noble Baroness undertake never—I repeat never—to return prisoners to the existing wings and the disgusting conditions which exist there? That is a clear question, and I believe that the House deserves a clear indication of the Government's intentions.
Next, I come to education at Wandsworth. This year there will be 201 hours of education in the prison. That is 25 hours fewer than last year. In the words of the board, this is likely to drop drastically this year because of the financial cuts to which I have already referred. I remind the noble Baroness of what the board said on this topic:
"Education is the backbone of rehabilitation in a prison and any cuts in this service will be a retrogressive step which will almost certainly lead to greater operational problems".
I should be obliged if the noble Baroness would deal with that specifically in her reply.
I come to the library. The board report:
"It is regrettable that imminent financial cuts are likely to lead to reduced library staff and further reduced access to the library next year".
That of course is this year.
I turn now to the chaplaincy. Its work forms an essential part of the welfare and rehabilitation work of the prison. "In particular", says the board:
"it contributes positively to work on suicide prevention, education and reform of offending behaviour".
There are, says the board, likely to be reductions in chaplaincy staff, because of the national cuts imposed on the service. Is that really so? Can we really be contemplating such folly?
I hope that the Minister will not, like her colleagues in the other place, attempt to shelter behind the governor of Wandsworth, and suggest that those matters are entirely for him, because it is Ministers, not officials, who have imposed these slashing cuts on the service. They are the people who proudly proclaim that "prison works"; yet at the same time as the prison population is accelerating upwards, presumably to the gratification of Ministers, they are, according to what the Minister said earlier this afternoon, cutting the resources available to the service. They are playing an extremely dangerous game, and game it is. It no doubt gets them the cheerful headlines in the Daily Mail and the Sun, but in the real world they are creating conditions which could lead to the development of a most serious situation in our prisons.
On page after page of the Wandsworth report, there are references to the deterioration of staff morale. And of course they are not alone. In a letter to the Home Secretary this April, the Swaleside board of visitors wrote:
"The proposed loss of over 30 staff (approximately 10 per cent.) mainly from uniform and education has already had a devastating effect on morale, and will quite quickly destabilise the regime".
Remembering, no doubt, the shameful way in which the governor of Parkhurst, Mr. Marriott, was summarily removed from office when developments occurred at that prison for which Ministers carried a heavy burden of personal responsibility, the Swaleside board said:
"We wish to place on record that the responsibility for the consequences should not be placed at the door of our Governor or his colleagues".
The report of the Wandsworth board of visitors demonstrates the alarm now felt by many in the Prison Service about the consequences of the Government's conduct. I hope that in her reply the Minister will at least be able to indicate that she and her colleagues have at last begun to appreciate the crisis of confidence which now exists within the Prison Service.
7.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there is a rare quality about the Minister which we admire. I must give her the details on another occasion of a famous statesman who finally felt that he could no longer defend the Government's position. He put aside his brief, saying:
"You must handle this one, I can't".

1553
That moment may come, although possibly not tonight. I cannot imagine a more punishing indictment than that provided by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on the strength of this damaging report. If someone from abroad wanted to find out what was going on in our prisons he would have only to look at this report, where the whole thing is summarised.
I have more than a little interest in Wandsworth. I suppose I have been there many more times than the Minister. I first visited Wandsworth about 40 years ago. Around that time, I visited Maidstone Prison. It was an enlightened prison. I remember saying to a prison officer there, "I wouldn't mind being governor here". He said, "Anyone can be governor here, but you wouldn't last five minutes in Wandsworth". That was Wandsworth's reputation, which the report recognises as being the worst prison in the country.
A little after that, a famous governor—I found him to be a very good chap—was so unpopular because of the regime he had to implement that he was crucified by former prisoners when crossing the common. I was not actually present. Had I been, no doubt I should have offered him some ineffective assistance. At any rate, that was the kind of treatment that former prisoners meted out to the governor, due to the intensity of feeling at that time.
However, in recent years there has been, as the report brings out clearly, considerable improvement under the present much-to-be-admired governor. I am about to say something nice—it may be for the first time, but I hope not for the last—about the present Home Secretary. I visited Wandsworth because I am in touch with a prisoner there. I had a letter from the governor today. I have been visiting Wandsworth and there are restrictions there. They do not compare with the restrictions in some of the other prisons such as Whitemoor, where one has to take off one's shoes and go through a few other humiliations. I said to the young woman who searched me, "I realise that you have to carry out Mr. Howard's orders". She said, "He came here the other day. He was a nice gentleman". She said that in a tone of utmost surprise. That is the first kind word I have heard said about him in a prison in recent years. At any rate, she thought he was a nice gentleman. Let us agree that Mr. Howard is a nice gentleman, but he has the most evil policy that has ever been applied in a British prison. That is accepted by everyone in the prisons.
So we have the situation now in Wandsworth. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, it is astonishing that these cuts have been made which fall so heavily on Wandsworth. They do not fall only on Wandsworth of course. I was at a conference the other day. There was a lady who was responsible for a great deal of counselling. She had been counselling three prison officers, although not from Wandsworth, who had become fearful for their lives because of the atmosphere in the prisons. That is just one example.
The terrible atmosphere has been brought about entirely by the Home Secretary, with the full support of course of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That is the situation throughout the country. In Wandsworth we
1554
have these cuts. I have given the Minister an hour or two's advance notice of what I am going to say. She ought to be able to answer the question that I am putting to her directly, but I bet she does not. Why are these cuts being implemented? We are told that the country is more prosperous than ever. So why on earth are these cuts being made? I am asking the Minister, and I hope that she can answer. Why are these cuts, which are so damaging, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, being imposed?
One explanation, and the most obvious, is that it is the Government's desire to make prisons unpleasant. They are deliberately treating prisoners as second-class citizens. That may be preventive, and I hope that the Minister has the correct information. At a time when, according to the Government, the country is getting richer and richer, why are they making these cuts?
7.8 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for raising this matter. The 1995 annual report of the board of visitors to Wandsworth reflects great credit on two groups of people: first, the visitors themselves. There was a total of 543 visits in 1995, with a member visiting the prison virtually every day. Many of the visits were unannounced. The commitment of those ordinary members of the public to the work of this prison, their pride in the improvements that have been made, and their real concerns for its future shine through the words and conclusions of the report.
Secondly, the governor and the staff of the prison must take the lion's share of the credit for bringing Wandsworth from the 19th century very belatedly into the 20th. Until seven years ago, as has been said, Wandsworth was generally regarded as the worst prison in the country, both to be in as a prisoner and to work in: old, decaying, infected, insanitary, depressing, dehumanising and at times plain cruel in its regime.
Since then a vast amount of constructive work has been done in an attempt to provide prisoners with conditions which are at least humane and with a regime which, within the restrictions imposed by budget, staffing levels and accommodation, is a constructive one. Past Home Secretaries deserve credit for the building work which has been done and the reconstruction which has been completed. As a result, staff and prisoner morale has been improved. The appalling A and B wings have been taken out of service, as both the inspector of prisons and the Director General of the Prison Service rightly said they should. A regime, which by any standards is austere, now, through the efforts largely of the staff, tries to provide conditions in which prisoners can begin to address the reasons why they offended and plan for the future.
However, the message of the report is that those improvements are now under threat. That threat comes from a Government who tell the public that prison works and who take steps to ensure that more members of the public will enjoy the benefits of a stay in one of their establishments while refusing to provide adequate funds for the Prison Service to cater constructively for its increased clientele.

1555
The public are well aware that the Home Secretary wants to see those who commit crime sent to prison for longer. I wonder whether the public realise that he has made no plans to pay for that. Do they realise that the net capital expenditure on prisons in the financial year 1995–96 was £330 million; that in 1996–97 it is to be reduced to £117 million; and in 1997–98 reduced again to £110 million? At the same time the prison population has been seriously underestimated. The projected population was estimated to reach 59,500 in 2004. It is now set to reach that figure next year. The public need to know that because it amounts to serious mismanagement of the Prison Service. All those who work within the service agree that overcrowded and understaffed prisons do not work. Budget cuts against the background of a rocketing prison population are a recipe for disaster.
The report shows that in Wandsworth the cracks are already appearing. First, staff morale is damaged. There are fears that those who felt they had a role to play in future crime prevention are being seen by the Government as no more than turnkeys in a lock-up, to use the words of the report. Staff shortages mean that valuable work can no longer be done.
Perhaps I may take two examples from the report. The sex offender treatment programme, a very valuable part of the work of the prison, is suffering from problems because staff shortages make it difficult to produce officers to work alongside probation officers in the scheme. Searches for drugs in the visitors' area, which is the main point of entry of drugs into our prisons, cannot be conducted routinely because of staff shortages. Waiting lists of those wanting to learn, not as A-level or Open University candidates, but simply to read and write, are growing. It is likely that cuts will make the position still worse next year, affecting the contract with South Thames College. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to those issues.
It is feared that the probation staff of the prison will be cut from 12 to five. Already no probation officer can be found for the newly refurbished healthcare centre. By far the greatest fear in the report relates to A and B wings, which held 480 men. In September 1995, less than a year ago, the Government stated that the work of refurbishment would begin by February this year. In January 1996 we were told that the work was still being considered. The fear in the report is that those insanitary, disease-ridden wings will be used again as they are. Perhaps I may repeat the question that was put so forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Will the Minister tell us what the plans are now for that refurbishment? Above all, will she, in the light of the report, give a clear and unequivocal undertaking that neither of those wings will be used unless refurbishment first takes place?
To use those wings again in their present state would be to return to conditions degrading and dangerous for prisoners and staff alike. It would send a message to the governor and his staff in this much improved prison that their work during the past seven years is regarded by this Government as a waste of time.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have read with interest the Wandsworth board of visitors' report and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for initiating the debate. It gives me the opportunity to be as selective as noble Lords have been in the debate and also to put the record straight. I shall not, as the noble Lord accused in anticipation of my speech, hide behind the governor of Wandsworth Prison. From the outset I shall pay a tribute to him and to his staff for the management of the prison. For that part of my speech I shall pray in aid extracts from the report and from the open letter sent by the Board of Governors. It stated:
"This year, with some exceptions, the report finds much to praise as it reviews the strenuous efforts of the governor and his staff to make the prison a place where prisoners, although held in conditions which, by any standards, are austere, can, nevertheless, begin to address their offending behaviour before they return to society".
In response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about improvements in the prison, I shall quote another part of the report. It states:
"The past seven years have seen a sea-change. Much of the fabric has been modernised; the regime has been improved; prisoners spend much more time out of their cells involved in work, education and physical exercise; slopping out has all but disappeared; the bug-ridden kitchens have been replaced by temporary, but hygienic, modern ones. Such changes are designed to fulfil the Prison Service's mission statement and to aim to turn prisoners from crime to law abiding lives".
Nothing that has happened in terms of the budget this year will alter that.
The noble Baroness, I believe rather discourteously, referred to previous Home Secretaries as having been responsible for that programme. Perhaps I may remind her that a good deal of the programme has taken place under the present Home Secretary. There have been drainage and water supply improvements, a new reception, temporary kitchens and improvements in sanitation in G, H and K wings. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred only to C and D wings being refurbished. I can tell him that C, D, E, F and G wings have been refurbished. There have been sanitation improvements in E wing and refurbishment in D and C wings. Healthcare, simple sanitation and security work has been carried out, as has perimeter security work, which is still in progress. The healthcare, sanitation, security and perimeter work to C wing has taken place under my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. That expenditure totals £21.3 million. That is a different picture from that painted so far.
I am glad to be able to pay tribute to the work of boards of visitors. It is always welcoming to know that members of boards of visitors, who are unpaid volunteers, willingly give of their time and effort to prepare a document such as this to alert Ministers to areas of concern and issues that often can require our urgent attention.
Despite the headlines which some of your Lordships may have seen in the national press, the 1995 board of visitors' report on Wandsworth was in fact very positive; particularly in comparison with the report which the prison received in 1994. The board's report for 1995 recognises the efforts made by staff and management to deal effectively and constructively with

1557
prisoners there. Some of the noted successes included the improvements that had been made in dealing with prisoners' requests and complaints; the imaginative way staff training courses have been conducted; the high standards of control and discipline within the prison; and the increased standard of the care within the healthcare centre.
There are, of course, always areas of concern raised by BoV reports and today I shall tell your Lordships what the Prison Service is doing in response to each of the main areas of concern that have been expressed individually.
The board of visitors at Wandsworth is concerned about the programme of cost reductions at the prison. Wandsworth, like the Prison Service generally, is required to make efficiency savings this year. The board has expressed its concerns about those cost efficiency savings and fears that they will impact on the positive progress that has been achieved at the prison over the past few years. The board also fears that prisoners will react to staff reductions and some reduction in time out of cell by acts of indiscipline. While I can, of course, understand the board's concerns, the governor and management of Wandsworth have a wealth of prison experience and the governor too recognises that purposeful activity for prisoners is essential not only to maintain control within prison but to assist prisoners to lead law-abiding lives on their release.
The governor has also planned to ensure that the efficiency savings that are required will impact as little as possible on the regimes that he and his staff introduced successfully at Wandsworth. Although the measures he has implemented have been viewed as drastic by some, they are in the spirit of the instructions issued by the director general: that purposeful activities, especially programmes that address offending behaviour, should be preserved.
It is the Government's policy to exercise firm control over public expenditure and to secure greater efficiency in the running of public services. It is right that the Prison Service should not be exempt from this policy. The savings in unit costs which are required of the Prison Service are broadly consistent with those expected of the public services generally.
There is scope for greater efficiency in the day to day running of the Prison Service; for example, by the cost-effective deployment of staff. Additional funding has, however, been made available for security improvements and to combat drug abuse.
It is essential to maintain the balance between security and control measures, constructive and effective regimes for prisoners and providing support for staff. The emphasis, across the Prison Service, is on reducing costs rather than constructive activity for prisoners, and resources will continue to be given to those programmes which help prisoners to address their offending behaviour.
It is true that there will be a reduction in staff in the probation, education and chaplaincy departments at Wandsworth. The probation department will be reduced not from 12 but from 11 to five staff. But the governor
1558
is confident that this level of provision will enable him to continue to meet his commitments under the national throughcare framework agreement.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain why those cuts are necessary?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Earl quite directly when I reach that point. The governor is confident that that level of provision will enable him to continue to meet his commitments under the national throughcare framework agreement and to maintain and, indeed, to improve the quality of sentencing planning at Wandsworth. The governor also plans to reduce by 1.5 the number of chaplain posts at Wandsworth, but this (and the other reductions) coincides—a point not mentioned in the debate so far—with a reduction of 380 prisoners in the prisoner population as wings without integral sanitation have been taken out of use. Therefore, the figure is not 480, as the noble Baroness said. Rather, 380 prisoners are no longer there and that is matched by a reduction in chaplaincy needs. But no prisoner will suffer as a result of that. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, those wings certainly need sanitation improvements in any event. That is one reason why they were taken out of use. The loss of the posts will not affect the number of prisoners who are able to have access to the church services.
As to the provision of education, emphasis will be placed on meeting prisoners' basic educational needs. A number of classes have, in the past, run with small numbers and were therefore not providing good value for money. Some of these classes will therefore no longer be available. During 1996, however, a further 135 places will be created in workshops to provide additional employment places for prisoners and the emphasis on basic literacy will be intensified and not reduced, as the noble Baroness suggested.
Another major concern of the BoV report is the accommodation of immigration detainees. That was also highlighted in their 1994 report. I know that this is an area of concern which is shared by other boards of visitors across the prison estate. The board at Wandsworth is specifically dissatisfied about the continued detention of convicted overseas nationals who have completed their sentences and are awaiting deportation. The board feels that, when a detainee has completed a sentence for a criminal offence, he should not remain at Wandsworth. The Prison Service cannot give an unequivocal assurance that such detainees will be transferred automatically. My honourable friend the Minister for prisons has previously informed the board that there is no reason why a person who has served a sentence for a criminal offence and is to be deported from the United Kingdom should not remain there temporarily while arrangements are made for deportation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but is the Minister aware of what the Chief Inspector of Prisons said on this issue? In March 1995 he said that those detained for immigration

1559
purposes should not be held at Wandsworth. That is a clear recommendation which the Government appear to be rejecting out of hand.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has not gone on to outline the reasons for that. A prisoner may have completed his sentence but be subject to a deportation order. The view has been taken that he should remain in custody and therefore, he must do so. As I have said, we hope that that will be temporary while deportation arrangements are made. Some prisoners are moved to other prisons but on some occasions, it is not possible to do that.
Where it is clear that deportation will be delayed, transfer to another establishment may be considered. But much will depend on the individual circumstances. This can include the nature of the offence of which the person was convicted and the immigration issues that need to be resolved before deportation can be effected.
The board is also concerned that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office is not "hard charged" for holding detainees in Wandsworth. The Prison Service is, in fact, allocated appropriate funding to enable it to accommodate immigration detainees. The budget allocated to Wandsworth is based on its operational capacity, and additional funding for particular types of prisoner is therefore not necessary.
The board is extremely concerned that A and B wings should be refurbished to a high standard in addition to having in-cell sanitation installed, and should not be used as contingency accommodation to cope with a steep rise in prison population.
A and B wings at Wandsworth were taken out of use in February 1996 to meet the deadline for providing prisoners with 24-hour access to sanitation. Due to the reduction in the Prison Service's capital expenditure, the refurbishment work at Wandsworth, which was scheduled to start in 1996–97, may have to be deferred. I know that the Prison Service is currently investigating all available options to start the refurbishment work as soon as possible and does not plan to operate A and B wings until this work is completed.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I have no wish to be accused of discourtesy twice in the course of this evening. But perhaps she will clarify a point for me about A and B wings. I gave a figure of 480 and the noble Baroness told me that I was wrong about that. Therefore, is the figure wrong on page 40 of the report, because the board of visitors appears to believe that those two wings taken together can hold 480 prisoners? I should be grateful to know which is right.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am told that as a result of the closure of A and B wings, there is a reduction of 380 prisoners in the prison. It may well be that capacity is greater but 380 prison places have been taken out of existence. If I am wrong and the noble Baroness is right, I shall certainly write to her about that, but certainly I have been told that the closure of those wings affected 380 people. My understanding is that that is more than
1560
25 per cent. of the prison population at Wandsworth, which was about 1,100 at the time at which those wings were closed. That accounts for some of the reductions in staff and provision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I promise that this will be the last intervention. I specifically put a different question. I understand the position in relation to the capital refurbishment programme but I asked a very different question. I believe that the Wandsworth board of visitors and many others would be interested in the Minister's reply. An unequivocal assurance is sought that A and B wings will never again be used to house prisoners while they remain in an unrefurbished state. Is the Minister able to give an answer on that point, because it is a mater of considerable significance to the board and to many of us?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to give a definitive answer. However, I can say that there are no plans to bring A and B wings back into operation before refurbishment is completed. I cannot be definitive because an emergency may arise before the refurbishment. We then have to consider the alternative of police cells. Although we believe that that is an unlikely situation, A and B wings may then have to be brought into operation. But, if that does happen, a view will have to he taken about making those wings habitable for those purposes. That may fall short of a complete refurbishment but we do not plan to bring the wings back into operation until those refurbishments have taken place, which we hope will be as soon as possible.
The governor has ensured that all allegations of assault are thoroughly investigated by prison line management or, where necessary, by an independent investigator, whether that is in-house, a governor from elsewhere in the Prison Service, or the police. The governor took command in 1988 of a prison which he has acknowledged had a reputation for unwarranted use of force against prisoners. He has ensured that there are systems in place which address these problems. I have talked at some length with the governor about the changes that he has brought about. I am more than convinced that he is anxious that he has as open a system as possible and that all prisoners are given open access to make sure that their complaints and grievances are properly heard and properly dealt with.
When the governor took up post independent bodies such as the board of visitors were not allowed unsupervised access to the residential areas and were not therefore privy to the complaints that prisoners wished to air. The board of visitors now has free access to all areas of the prison and is able to listen to prisoners' complaints in an appropriate manner. This is in line with how boards should operate within prisons. The board of visitors' report to the Home Secretary comments on the positive relationships which have been formed with the governor. It is a fact that the governor has facilitated access to the prison for members of the board and ensured that all prisoners have access to them.
The governor has adopted an open attitude and would, and will not, conceal his own concerns about the allegations that have been and continue to be made

1561
against staff by prisoners. It is inevitable that when prisoners are given free access to ventilate their complaints this will raise the number of complaints that are made. It is also inevitable that prisoners will sometimes make spurious complaints. This will happen sometimes to "settle old scores", or as a reaction to the control measures which are in place at Wandsworth.
The police have recently conducted an investigation into the conduct and results of the investigations that had taken place into allegations of assault in 1995. This independent police investigation concluded that the inquiries undertaken at Wandsworth had been carried out appropriately and the conclusions reached were satisfactory. Concerted efforts will continue to be made to ensure that this position is carefully maintained.
It is important not to get carried away with the picture that the press might want to paint of a prison at which nothing is going well. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have tried to outline what staff and management at Wandsworth are doing in response to the board of visitors' report. There is a wealth of other good work which is being done at Wandsworth.
The governor and his staff have been enthusiastic in their implementation of the Prison Service's drug strategy: the establishment was selected this year to become a specialised drug treatment centre, and mandatory drug testing has been implemented effectively at the establishment. The drug dealers who remain in the prison have not taken kindly to the stringent measures the governor has taken to prevent drugs being smuggled into his prison. This year, so far, there have been 48 finds of drugs on prisoners and 26 visitors have been gate arrested attempting to bring drugs into the prison. The positive mandatory drug testing results reflect that these measures have been effective. In April this year 82 prisoners were tested and 10 proved positive; this is approximately one-third of the national average. All prisoners who test positive on the MDT programme are offered counselling and treatment.
In his last year with the Prison Service the governor of Wandsworth continues to implement innovative programmes at the prison. For example, the governor is introducing a programme which is designed to help to break the cycle of offending, which is based on the Cambridge study of delinquency development which followed 397 families from South London over 30 years. The programme will address the needs highlighted by local research to identify the size of the delinquency problem amongst prisoners and children.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who referred to the library services. It is unfortunate that the need to provide cells prevented the provision of a proper library on C Wing. Arrangements have now been made for the end of the ground floor to be used as a library. There are no cuts in access to libraries throughout the prison. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked why there have been cuts. I have
1562
made my next point before but I shall repeat it. We are continuing to seek efficiency improvements and economies throughout the public sector.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, why is it necessary to cut the Probation Service and education service to produce greater efficiency?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the services have not been cut at all. The functions that were carried out by some of those members of the Probation Service are being carried out by the Prison Service. The governor has thought this plan through carefully. Through-care work, both in prison and beyond prison, is an important aspect of prison life and sentence planning. Again, I have talked at length with the governor about this. I believe that the plans he has put in place are effective. I have come clean about why the cuts are necessary; namely, because we believe that the peak of efficiency has not been reached and that more can be done, and we shall continue to pursue that. I would ask the noble Earl whether he would like to pose his question to his colleagues in another place who are not promising any more money for any services whatsoever. That is a pertinent question for members of his party. The Prison Service cannot be exempt from efficiency improvements. The public expenditure settlement for the Prison Service for 1996–97, and beyond, reflects the level of efficiency savings which the Government believe it is reasonable to expect. Extra money has been made available to the Prison Service for extra places and for security.
Much has been said about provision in Wandsworth Prison. It is important to put on record the range of facilities that are available there. There are photography classes and a brass band supported by the London Symphony Orchestra. NACRO runs a gym and power lifting courses. There are 15 computers for 10 sessions a week accommodating up to 150 people. Those courses are run by NACRO. In the main prison there are another 10 computers for nine sessions a week with a capacity of 90 places. The vulnerable prisoners' unit has seven computers for eight sessions a week and provides 56 places. In addition there are basic literacy and numeracy courses and a range of other subjects which can offer fairly high level qualifications. Noble Lords who are familiar with this prison will know that it is a local prison and many of its prisoners are referred to other prisons. If a prisoner arrives at the prison who is already doing an Open University course, provision is made for that. National vocational qualifications are being gained by many of the people who pass through Wandsworth Prison. There are carpentry workshops and work is provided making brushes, and in tailoring, laundry, catering and gardening. A great deal is going on in the prison. In addition, the voluntary sector works within Wandsworth Prison. I refer to NACRO, the Samaritans, the Prisoner Listeners Service, the Bourne Trust, the Prison Reform Trust, SOVA,

1563
Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Gamblers Anonymous, the Prisoners Resource Service, the Rehabilitation of Addictive Prisoners' Trust—
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I hope the Minister will be good enough to give way for a moment. She has listed a large number of voluntary agencies doing work and people who are providing what are clearly important contributions to prison life. However, is there really any substitute for properly trained people to do a job? I have in mind page 25 of the board's report. The board comments in relation to the loss of a probation officer for the healthcare centre:
"The loss of a Probation Officer is causing concern; much of the work is being done by nurses which is unacceptable to the Board. Future provision appears bleak".
Are the Government going to do anything about deficits such as that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will be a full reply from the Prison Service to the board of governors on the specific points that it has raised. Of course the noble Baroness is absolutely right. There is a place for the professional, and the professional will provide services. In terms of the through-care programme, it is possible for prison officers to become involved in that work, just as it is possible for probation officers to do so. Indeed many probation officers become prison officer staff and certainly prison officers work with the professionals to provide the services. The first range of provision I referred to is provided by professionals. I do not wish to decry the important contribution that the voluntary sector makes to the Prison Service. I believe that most prisons work with the voluntary sector in a complementary way to the benefit of prisoners.
1564
I shall complete the list. There is the Rehabilitation of Addictive Prisoners' Trust, Fujalto, a service to foreign prisoners, the Visitors' Centre where the CAB provides a regular surgery, and St. George's Drug Advice and Rehabilitation Service Programme.
There is also an innovative programme called the Koestler Award System. It is an award given for works of art. That is co-ordinated from Wandsworth Prison. In 1994 there were 2,000 entries from prisoners; by 1995 the figure had risen to 2,800; in 1996 it has risen to 3,000. That is a patchwork of work undertaken in prisons to ensure that people are profitably spending their time there.
It is also worth noting that when the present governor came to this prison there was no association time. This prison has come a very long way since then. It has met all its targets for times out of cell for prisoners. Even with the budget reduction this year, that is not expected to change; it will remain the same. The prison intends this year to meet its targets for hours out of cell for prisoners.
More generally, Wandsworth Prison performed more than creditably when measured against the Prison Service's key performance indicators. In 1995 there were no escapes from the establishment. On average more than 24 hours a week of constructive activity was provided for prisoners. On average prisoners spent around 10 hours a day out of their cells. This is not a picture of doom and gloom but a good performance from a prison whose staff and management are doing excellent work. I pay tribute to those staff and that management.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.