Lords Sitting of 14 May 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 Oxford.

Gibraltar: Spanish Intervention
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the Spanish Government have objected to the participation by Gibraltar in an international conference of Customs officials which Gibraltar has attended for many years and whether they will protest to the Spanish Government over this course of action.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Spanish Government tried to prevent Gibraltar Customs attendance at an international conference in France last month. We intervened and ensured that Gibraltar Customs attended the meeting.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that satisfactory reply. Will she make it clear to the Spanish Government that these attempts to trouble Gibraltar will not pay the Spanish Government any profit; and that, on the contrary, we shall stand up to them in all these international obligations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his supplementary question. We have maintained our commitment to the people of Gibraltar and we shall go on doing so. The Spanish Government's behaviour in obstructing the border and in other harassment of Gibraltar only strengthens our resolve. We have protested to them about delays at the border. It is an absolute nonsense for them to suggest that they are justified by reference to smuggling. Our commitment will remain. We shall not let the people of Gibraltar pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. The election is on 16th May. We shall work with the new elected government to ensure good governance and an economically sustainable Gibraltar.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following what the Minister has just said, will she tell the House what plans, if any, the Government have to reopen talks on the long-term future of Gibraltar, and to find a solution which is satisfactory to Spain, Gibraltar and the UK? As elections are to take place on Thursday, would not now be a good time to consider reopening such talks, given that it is some time since the talks last took place and that they then broke down?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Gibraltar is British. As long as the people of Gibraltar want her to remain British, that is what they will voice in their
386
elections. That does not mean we should not discuss an appropriate modus vivendi with the Spanish Government, and that we do. We talk to the Spanish on all occasions. My honourable friend David Davis is in constant contact with them in order to resolve the difficulties that we have had. I do not believe that there is any reason to change the policy at the moment, and I do not believe that the people of Gibraltar wish it.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, have the Spaniards made any moves to give up their enclaves on the African coast?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in this House I might have been the first to hear of that had they done so, and I have heard no such message.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the Minister mentioned smuggling. Is not the smuggling of drugs a substantial common interest to Her Majesty's Government the Government of Spain and the Government of Gibraltar? What active steps are the Government taking to promote discussions on that matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord. We have taken firm action against smuggling in Gibraltar. We are determined that it should end for good. The situation has improved out of all recognition since the measures we took last year. Spain must accept that. Our measures have been further strengthened by action against the fast boats following the crash about which we spoke in this House some weeks ago. We have to have proper, continuous, sound cross-border co-operation. That is what we seek to have with the Spanish through Gibraltar. There have been bad problems, but they have declined. We intend to ensure that they remain as minimal as they can be made.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to come back, but I was a little surprised by the Minister's answer. Is she not aware that the Gibraltarians themselves are unhappy about their present constitutional position and wish to see talks on these matters?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware that some parts of Gibraltar are unhappy. We cannot possibly pre-empt the views of the newly elected Gibraltar Government who will no doubt emerge later this week. When we have their views, we can look at the future. Gibraltar is part of the EU by virtue of our membership. Its citizens are EU citizens. We want to work not just with the Gibraltarians but with the Spanish. I believe that we should continue to await the decision of the people of Gibraltar. We can then review what will happen. No one in your Lordships' House should be in any doubt—our commitment to the people of Gibraltar continues, and the amount of help that we give them is extensive.

Open Spaces in Urban Areas
2.42 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to encourage the revival, development and preservation of open spaces in urban areas.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government are committed to maintaining, enhancing and preserving open spaces in our towns and cities. We provide substantial planning and practice guidance, and 160 successful bids under the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund have included improved or reclaimed open space. In addition to the measures which the Government have taken, the Heritage Lottery Fund has launched an urban park programme.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging Answer. Is he aware of two reasons why the policy which he has announced must be faithfully pursued? The first is that the drift of people from towns is one of the major threats to the countryside. The second is that recent research shows that many species of birds prefer to live in towns so long as the habitat there is suitable—of course, I refer to real birds.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I am sure he is aware that peregrine falcons, in particular, find living in towns agreeable to the point where citizens of Cardiff have taken to eliminating them because of the threat to racing pigeons. Towns are places for people to live in, and we must make them pleasant places to live in.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Coal Enterprise, which has been privatised, was responsible for open spaces and recreational facilities in the coalfield communities? What assurances can he give that those will be maintained?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, those open spaces will be the responsibility of local councils and local people. I hope that they will continue the good work which British Coal started.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, have the Government given any thought to the future of Spring Common, which is in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon? Is he aware that the six acres of that haven for people and wildlife was saved from development only because the developer went bankrupt? Can he persuade the local Conservative council to heed the wishes of local people and stop development on that open space?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have to be careful about what I say about any particular site because my right honourable friend is the final "appeal court" on planning applications. I shall look into the particular site, about which I have no immediate knowledge, and write to the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, can the Government give some encouragement to councils to
388
look after allotment land in a better fashion? Such land is rarely properly guarded, and there is a great temptation for councils to try to reallocate allotment holders in order to sell the land for development purposes.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, while allotments are used well, they are an important part of the local community and should be regarded as such. I believe that they are protected under the planning guidance that we issue. Surely where allotments are no longer used it is right for the local council to try to find a better use.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, it is easy to create a situation in which allotments are deemed to be used improperly or to be under-used. The allotments become vandalised as a result of the provision of insufficient security. Equally, councils do not always publicise the availability of allotments and therefore they say that there is no demand. I believe that—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Earl asked a question, but I shall do so. The Minister spoke about certain steps which the Government have taken. Does he agree that local authorities which do not win what we regard as the lottery of the Single Regeneration Budget are left without any particular means of preserving open spaces in urban areas? Does he further agree that there is a need for legislation in respect of urban commons as opposed to rural commons? I believe that the Government have promised legislation on common land since 1987. Furthermore, can the Minister say what measures the Government have in their power to ensure that the Royal Parks in London are properly maintained?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as regards the first question, the Single Regeneration Budget is for regeneration; but the ordinary maintenance of parks ought to fall within the councils' ordinary budget. The SRB exists for improvements, for regeneration and the creation of new facilities. As regards the noble Lord's other questions, I shall write in answer to him.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what advice do the Government give to local authorities on the use of pesticides and weed killers on open land to which the public have access? Is he aware that in a recent court case relating to a young child who was sprayed with glyphosate the parents won about £10,000? Is he further aware that a number of children have been badly affected by the improper use of pesticides?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I confess myself entirely at fault; I had not anticipated a supplementary question from the noble Countess. I should have done because usually I am asked a question. I am not aware of any particular regulations relating to spraying in parks which do not apply to the ordinary application of what in many circumstances are dangerous chemicals. However, I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Countess.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since the Royal Parks became a next steps

389
agency, their maintenance has improved by leaps and bounds. That is particularly so in Regent's Park where, I believe, the eastern edge has been completely reconstituted to make a formal herbaceous border which is looking particularly fine at this moment. I saw it only 10 days ago.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend has great expertise in those matters. I am sure that he is right. I wish that I had more time to enjoy the beauty of London parks than I do.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I appreciate that the Secretary of State for the Environment is the final court of appeal in planning cases, subject, of course, to judicial review. Will my noble friend take seriously what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said so wisely about Spring Common, which is like a nature reserve and about which the people of Huntingdon are feeling very strongly because they do not want it developed.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Minister accept that Vauxhall is a wonderful example of success regarding inner London spaces? However, South London deserves a greater priority. I have just walked through Vauxhall. To whom do we owe the beauty of the spaces of Vauxhall? Is it Lambeth Council in the 1970s or can the Government take some credit for that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, far be it for me ever to try to take credit away from Lambeth Council.

Discrimination: Monitoring in DSS and Agencies
2.51 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to cut the budget for monitoring discrimination within the Department of Social Security and related agencies; and, if so, a by how much.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, there is no separate budget for equality monitoring. The great majority of equal opportunities monitoring is carried out as an integral part of the wider monitoring of the department's personnel work and this will continue.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. But is the Minister aware that that is at odds with a report in the Guardian which made it very clear that cuts are proposed? In fact, the Minister for disabled people commented on the proposed cuts and their effect. Is the Minister aware that all anti-discrimination policies are merely hot air unless they are monitored effectively? The proposed cuts which have been reported will undoubtedly lead to less effective monitoring on disablement, sex and race by the department. That
390
would be extremely regrettable because the Government should lead by example. Despite the Minister's response, it looks as though they are leading a retreat.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, that equal opportunities monitoring will continue in the department. But of course, we must look critically at our costs across the board in relation to how the department is run.
As regards disability, we are signed up to the fast-track scheme, a development programme for graduates with disabilities, at a cost of £20,000 over two years. We also provide disability awareness training at a cost of £20,000. We have a significant number of registered disabled staff and, in addition, there is an equally significant number of disabled staff who do not register.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that many of the reports coming from the Guardian should be treated with a large pinch of salt because, in many cases, they are misguided and misinform the general public? However, does he not agree that his department should discriminate in particular between fraudulent and genuine claims?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not comment on whether or not one should believe everything that one reads in the Guardian. That is largely because I do not read it myself and therefore am unable to make a judgment about such matters.
The second part of my noble friend's question is somewhat wider than his initial remark. My noble friend is quite right. The department is always working to make sure that we discriminate between those who genuinely require benefits and those who are making fraudulent claims. Currently, there is a very successful campaign taking place throughout the country to weed out those people who are making fraudulent claims.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the DSS is proposing a 50 per cent. cut in its budget for monitoring discrimination? Will he confirm what his honourable friend, Mr. Alistair Burt, said; namely, that:
"We have decided not to undertake any ethnicity follow-up surveys within the department or its agencies in the next three years"?
He then went on to say:
"This action will not affect our ability to promote equal opportunities and eliminate discrimination in the workplace".
If the Government do not monitor, how will they know?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position is quite simple. We have undertaken ethnicity monitoring and we have had a very good response to that—something like 86 per cent. When we looked at all the other demands on the taxpayers' money in the department's budget, we decided that we should not undertake any ethnicity monitoring for the next three years following the surveys that we already have. That does not mean that our personnel department will not be actively pursuing equal opportunities for people on grounds of race, sex, or disablement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Government do not monitor, how do they know whether those purposes are being fulfilled?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we shall monitor equal opportunities across the board. The point about the ethnicity study is that that sought to establish how many people of different ethnic groups work in the department and its agencies. The most important point is that we have a good base for those figures. There was an 86 per cent. return. We shall continue to monitor equal opportunities and, as I indicated, I believe that my department has an extremely good record in relation to disability.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that, first, he gave the House the clear impression that there had been no cuts and now he seems to be indicating that there are cuts? Secondly, there is no question of anyone believing all that they read in the papers, but this is a case of believing a specific report which includes the comments of one of the noble Lord's ministerial colleagues acknowledging the point. Will the Minister please tell the House exactly where the Government stand? At first they said that we did not need anti-discrimination legislation on disability and opposed successive Bills for 13 years. They then said that we do require anti-discrimination legislation and they brought forward a Bill. They are now saying that they will cut the amount of monitoring which takes place. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are coming or going?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are governing this country extremely sensibly. They are keeping public expenditure under control in a way which the Opposition certainly would not do because they oppose every proposal which I bring before your Lordships' House to contain government spending. But I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is not more generous in his appreciation of the fact that we piloted last year the Disability Discrimination Act. We—and especially my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt—are working very hard on implementing that Act.
As I indicated, we have taken steps to control the overall budget of the department. That includes the particular aspect of ethnic monitoring and so on. But I indicated quite clearly in my original Answer to the noble Lord that we spend money and time on ensuring that disabled people in the DSS are able to play a full part, right up to some of the highest levels of the officials in the department.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his early replies the Minister mentioned sex, race and disability discrimination. He did not mention age discrimination. As the reports are now showing, about 50 per cent. of people aged over 55 are not employed. Therefore, the country is losing a great deal of commitment and ability. Will the department and, indeed, all government departments give a lead to industry by employing a higher proportion of people over the age of 55?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the subject raised by the noble Lord is one about which
392
I become increasingly concerned with every passing year. However, I shall have to look into that particular matter for the noble Lord because the discrimination in the Question only focused on three grounds. However, as the balance of working people in the country to retired people continues to move in an adverse direction, I have little doubt that many employers, including ourselves as government, will realise the importance of employing people right up to the age of retirement.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that there is very clear evidence to show that people are discriminated against on the grounds of ethnicity? Further, can the noble Lord inform the House as to whether the Government's record as employers during the period when they have been monitoring the issue has achieved a result whereby they are totally satisfied that there is total equality of opportunity in the department and that all sections of the community are fully represented? What sort of example are the Government giving to other employers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I utterly refute what the noble Baroness said at the start of her remarks. If the noble Baroness has knowledge of any cases of discrimination in my department then I suggest that she writes to me on the matter. However, if she has not, I very much regret the fact that she chose to imply that she does have knowledge of such cases. We do know where are staff come from, so to speak—especially the disabled members—and we certainly know the sex distribution. Indeed, 67 per cent. of all the staff in the Department of Social Security are women. Moreover, 6 per cent. of all our staff belong to ethnic minorities. When one considers that our offices are scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country, I believe that those figures are very good.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the level of unemployment is unacceptably high among all classes, but that some of the worst figures are seen at the younger end of the social structure? Therefore, is it not sometimes a little dangerous to select one group of people—for example, on the basis of age—and go too far down that road at the expense of other groups? Is not the answer to provide more jobs in the general sense? Will the Government start to do so?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that it is important that more jobs are provided. Indeed, this Government have had an extremely successful record, with more jobs in the economy. The rate of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is coming down and, in comparison with our major European friends, we are in a far better position, largely because we have not signed up to things like the social chapter.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, so far as concerns age discrimination, the efforts of Marks & Spencer and of British Airways in advocating the employment of people of a mature age is to be welcomed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; I agree with my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston. So far as concerns the economy, as I said in an earlier reply on the question of age, it is particularly important as the ratios between the economically active and the retired move in the wrong direction that employers look towards making more use of people who are still very able to be economically active. Indeed, those people can offer employers a good employee and often one who is very loyal and who can be relied upon.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as regards the monitoring in the Minister's department, can the Minister tell the House in which grades the 67 per cent. of women that he mentioned are to be found?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Indeed, my Lords; I thought that I might be asked that question. Out of the 67 per cent. of all staff in the DSS who are women, 74 per cent. are in clerical and equivalent grades; 56 per cent. are in junior and middle-management grades; and 24 per cent. of senior management grades are filled by women. Moreover, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, the DSS is headed by a permanent secretary who is a woman.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House as to whether there is clear evidence that young people, in particular from ethnic minority and black communities, suffer employment disproportionately? Does the noble Lord agree that the ministry has a responsibility to monitor its employment pattern and ensure that it plays its part in helping that particularly vulnerable group?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we play our part in ensuring that, when recruiting people, we do not discriminate against them on any grounds. Indeed, we take people who can do the job regardless of such factors. In fact, of the administrative assistants and equivalent grades in the DSS, 8.6 per cent. represent ethnic minorities. I believe that that figure suggests that, in those areas where there are ethnic minorities in some numbers, we do try to recruit from that group in particular.

Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Abortion Act 1967 to prohibit the termination of a pregnancy on the grounds that the child, if it were born, would suffer from Down's syndrome. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Brentford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Armed Forces Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Energy Conservation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Noise Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Railway Heritage Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Treasure Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Security Service Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill which is before the House today is the first part of a comprehensive package of measures for tackling organised crime. The purpose of the Bill is to allow the skills and expertise of the Security Service to be used in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime.
I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will share the Government's concern about the threat posed by serious and organised crime. Seldom does a week go by without some story in the media about the suffering and violence that result from drug trafficking, whether it is the tragic death of some young victim or the recent spate of shootings in the Liverpool area linked to conflicts between rival drug gangs. Another important area of concern is economic crime, and in the past couple of weeks, we have read about Russian organised crime syndicates laundering millions of pounds through the London stock market.
The recent report of the Home Affairs Committee in another place on the subject of organised crime described it as,
"a cause for serious concern".

395
The report acknowledged that the level of such crime is lower in this country than some—for which grateful thanks must go to the existing efforts of our various law enforcement agencies—but concluded 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".
Part of the problem here is the changing nature of serious crime. Gone are the days when St. George could slay the dragon and solve his serious crime problem with a single, well-aimed blow. Serious crime is now a hydra—a monster with many heads—money laundering, trafficking in drugs, people and indeed anything that will generate profits on a sufficient scale. To combat it, the law enforcement response must involve a variety of agencies with a range of weapons in their armoury.
Increasingly, organised crime is being perpetrated by sophisticated organisations. Their activities cross national boundaries and are diversified into a complicated mixture of illegal and legal enterprises. As a result, the skills of intelligence gathering and analysis are becoming more and more valuable as the law enforcement agencies seek to dismantle entire organisations rather than responding to individual activities. The police and Customs are having considerable success and I should like to pay tribute to their efforts, but we must ensure they have all the necessary support at their disposal.
The Intelligence Services Act 1994 enabled both the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ to lend their support to the law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime. This is already proving useful in relation to gathering intelligence about overseas activities. Now the time has come to bring the Security Service's skills—in the collection, analysis and exploitation of intelligence—to bear in this country, not because of any deficiencies in the police service or Customs and Excise but because it makes sense to take full advantage of the Security Service's expertise, honed over many years of protecting the nation's security against a range of threats.
In a recent debate in your Lordships' House, initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, there was a useful discussion of the evolving roles of the security and intelligence agencies. The debate was marked by a number of authoritative contributions reflecting the wealth of knowledge and experience in your Lordships' House. I am confident that our discussion of this Bill will benefit in similar fashion. Two useful messages that emerged from that debate were the importance, on the one hand, of the agencies proving adaptable to the demands of a changing world; and, on the other hand, of not losing sight of existing threats and priorities. I endorse both messages. This Bill represents a sensible evolution of the role of the Security Service, offering us the option of using the service's skills in a new area where those skills will be beneficial. At the same time, I give your Lordships a categorical assurance that the Security Service will continue to pursue its existing responsibilities with the utmost vigour and vigilance.
396
The functions of the Security Service are set down in the Security Service Act 1989. At present these are limited to the protection of national security and safeguarding the economic well-being of the nation against threats from abroad. This Bill will add a new function relating to serious crime. However, countering terrorism will remain its top priority and, sadly, we have had recent reminders of the importance of that task as the Provisional IRA has resumed its shameful bombing campaign. As a result, the initial allocation of resources to the new function will be small.
In the future, the allocation of resources will depend on the demands facing the service across its other functions. Nevertheless we believe that it is an important principle that the Security Service's statutory remit should not prevent it from lending its support to the police in appropriate circumstances. Such a restriction cannot be right and we now have an opportunity to remedy it. This will enable Parliament to send a powerful signal that we intend to crack down on organised crime with all the means at our disposal; a signal which is to be followed by a comprehensive package of further measures.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister first announced details of the organised crime package in October of last year. Some of your Lordships will have followed the evolution of those initial proposals which has taken place since then but, with your indulgence, I should like to recap. The package consists of a series of interlinked measures, designed to improve the capability of our law enforcement agencies to deal firmly and effectively with organised crime, both now and in the future. More specifically, the package aims to develop the co-ordination between law enforcement agencies and to improve our capability to gather and exploit intelligence. The Security Service Bill, which is before us today, will support both of those objectives.
As a next step, we will set up a national crime squad, building on the work of the regional crime squads; we will develop further the role of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and we will put police intrusive surveillance operations on a statutory footing. There have already been organisational changes in the Home Office designed to improve the focus and effectiveness of support to the agencies fighting organised and international crime. The proposed national crime squad will ensure that the policing response to organised crime has an effective national tier. This reflects the changing nature of organised crime as it becomes an increasingly national and international phenomenon. No longer is this type of crime geographically localised, in the way that the gangland crime of East London used to be, but there are criminal groups capable of carrying out their activities across the country. With developments in travel and communications, crime has become more mobile, both within the United Kingdom and internationally. We have all read about the threat posed by the activities in this country of Chinese Triads and Jamaican "Yardies". The reporting is sometimes lurid and exaggerated; but the wide-ranging threat is very real. We must ensure that the police are equipped to deal effectively with threats that go beyond the local and regional level.

397
The regional crime squads have played an important and successful role in combating crime which crosses force boundaries but the present structure imposes a number of constraints. The squads are based on voluntary collaborative agreements and the national co-ordinator has no executive power. The new body will reinforce and develop the existing structure and bring it up to date. In doing this, it will not neglect close links with local police forces. The primary focus for policing in the United Kingdom will remain a local one. Similarly, the new squad will not disturb the tripartite relationship which underpins our policing. We are not proposing a British FBI. What will change is for the first time we will have an operational policing organisation which is able to offer a national response. Discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other interested parties over the detail of the new body are proceeding well. We intend to introduce early legislation to put this into effect.
I should stress at this point that "national" in this context means England and Wales. Scotland already has its Scottish Crime Squad, and of course the Royal Ulster Constabulary is Province-wide. Clearly it will be an important requirement for the new body in England and Wales to develop close contacts with its counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which underlines the importance of co-ordination.
This brings me to the development of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, or NCIS as it is known. NCIS was set up in 1992 to gather and assimilate intelligence on serious crime from law enforcement agencies in this country and from overseas agencies, for whom it acts as a focal point for contact. It has already made a useful contribution since then, establishing itself as one of the key components in the fight against serious crime. But it can be made more effective. We intend to give it a clearer statutory footing, independent from the Home Office, and greater freedom to manage its own affairs and develop its contribution. Again, we are developing detailed proposals in consultation with interested parties and hope to legislate as soon as possible.
The third area in which the Home Secretary has given a commitment to early legislation is intrusive surveillance operations carried out by the police. This is an issue which, your Lordships may have noted, has been the subject of considerable press comment in recent weeks. At present, such operations are authorised by chief officers in accordance with Home Office guidelines. The circumstances in which such authorisations can he given are tightly controlled and there has been no evidence of abuse. However, there has been concern for some time, from the police and others, that such operations should be governed by statute. The issue has been brought into relief by the present Bill because the exercise of equivalent powers by the intelligence agencies is already subject to statutory authority and safeguards.
I shall come on to the relevant provisions of the Bill shortly but let me emphasise now that the Government accept that intrusive activity of this nature should be governed by statute. This will provide the necessary protection for the public and, importantly, for officers
398
carrying out these functions. But we are still considering what form the statutory basis should take. This is an important and complex area and we do not want to legislate rashly or improvidently. We have no wish to undermine the police's use of surveillance technology which plays a key role in the response to serious and organised crime. We will bring forward legislation when we are ready. It is not something that can be addressed in this Bill, which is a discrete measure relating only to the functions of the Security Service.
I hope that your Lordships will permit me to outline briefly how we have arrived at the Bill, as a preface to explaining its provisions in detail. The Government established an inter-departmental/inter-agency working party last year to consider how the Security Service might contribute to work against organised crime. Its report included a set of five principles that should govern the Security Service's work in this field. Those principles represent the basis of the Bill and will, I believe, usefully inform our discussion. I shall list them. First, primacy of responsibility for countering organised crime lies and should remain with the law enforcement agencies. Secondly, the Security Service should be tasked through NCIS and relevant co-ordinating groups and act in support of NCIS, chief officers of police, regional crime squads and Customs and Excise. Thirdly, the Security Service's contribution should be co-ordinated through NCIS and existing structures. The service should not operate independently. Fourthly, the Security Service should be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. Fifthly, the costs of the Security Service's involvement should be borne by the Security Service.
There was widespread support for these underlying principles in another place, and I hope that your Lordships' will be just as responsive.
Clause 1 of the Bill introduces the Security Service's new function and provides some qualification of how it will work in practice. It amends the Security Service Act 1989 which, as I said earlier, presently restricts the Security Service's functions to the protection of national security and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats from abroad.
The new function is,
"to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime".
This makes it absolutely clear that the Security Service's role is to be a supporting one and reflects fully the principle that the police and other law enforcement agencies will retain the primary responsibility.
The only other point I should like to make on the wording of the new function relates to the use of the term "serious crime", when I have already spoken in some detail about the threat from "organised crime" and the Government's strategy for tackling "organised crime". There are simple and practical reasons for this. Firstly, there is no statutory definition of "organised crime". Nor is there even a widely agreed definition in common use. I am sure that we could spend many hours trying to construct a definition but that would, 1 fear, distract us from our task.

399
Secondly, work of the kind undertaken by the Security Service is frequently exploratory in character. In the early stages of an investigation into the links between pockets of criminal activity it will not be possible to be certain that they are all manifestations of organised crime. We must strive to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited by unscrupulous defence lawyers to challenge the legality of the Security Service's involvement in a case. It is more appropriate, in legal terms, for the function to be expressed in terms of the gravity of the crime rather than its level of organisation.
Nevertheless, it is the Government's firm intention, which I am happy to restate for your Lordships' benefit, that the Security Service should be deployed against organised crime, as it is commonly understood. It is the drug traffickers, the money launderers and the racketeers who are to become the Security Service's new targets.
The rest of Clause 1 offers a further safeguard on the Security Service's new role. To ensure that the service does not act independently, the Bill creates a new duty for the Director General of the Security Service to agree co-ordination arrangements with a person designated by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) stipulates that this person must be, or have been, a chief officer of police and the Home Secretary has made it clear in another place that he will be designating the Director General of NCIS for this role. This reflects the pivotal role which NCIS is to play in the co-ordination of the efforts of different agencies and, specifically, the use of intelligence. It also builds on the underlying principles that the tasking and co-ordination of the Security Service's contribution will be through NCIS.
These arrangements should not be administratively burdensome, nor should they hinder operational effectiveness. Our intention is that they should represent an agreement between the principal agencies on how the Security Service's contribution is to be integrated with existing efforts. This will provide a proper focusing of effort and ensure that the Security Service's operations remain visible to NCIS.
Clause 2 of the Bill reflects another of the underlying principles. If the Security Service's support is to be fully effective, we must ensure that the service is able to draw on all of its skills and capabilities. Accordingly, Clause 2 enables the Security Service to apply for warrants authorising entry on, or interference with, property in the United Kingdom in pursuance of its new function.
The capability to conduct intrusive surveillance operations is an essential weapon in the armoury of the Security Service. This power has been available to the service in respect of its existing functions since the passage in 1989 of the Security Service Act. The present Bill merely ensures that the power is available under the new function.
With regard to the Security Service and the other intelligence agencies, the issue of these "property warrants" is surrounded by a series of statutory safeguards. All warrants require the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State. All such warrants are subject to scrutiny from the independent
400
commissioner appointed under the 1989 Act. And any complaints submitted to the Security Service Tribunal which relate to alleged interference with property are referred to the commissioner for investigation.
All these safeguards will continue to apply to warrants issued in respect of the Security Service's new function, and there is a further test. Warrant applications will also have to satisfy a definition of serious crime, which focuses on characteristics such as the involvement of violence or substantial financial gain. The definition is the same as the one which has been used effectively to govern the issue of warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. A definition has been introduced here, when there is not one in Clause 1, because applications for property warrants are only likely to come at a more advanced stage when it is reasonable to expect there to be tangible evidence of serious criminal conduct. I believe that this represents a formidable set of safeguards, and rightly so, given the intrusive nature of the power.
With regard to the police, as I mentioned, we have acknowledged that there ought to be an equivalent statutory basis for the exercise of equivalent powers. In the meantime that is no reason for denying the Security Service the opportunity to use its powers when there are all the accompanying safeguards.
Clause 3 extends the Bill to Northern Ireland. The Security Service operates throughout the United Kingdom in its existing functions and it is only right that the same should be true for its serious crime remit. After all, organised crime is UK-wide.
Of course, there are legislative and organisational differences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This means that co-operation with the Scottish police and the RUC will be essential for the Security Service to be effective. Although NCIS is to play a central role in relation to tasking and co-ordinating the Security Service's contribution, this will in no way preclude or replace effective bilateral liaison with other agencies, including Customs, the Scottish police and the RUC. As I said at the outset, we must ensure that the differing skills and capabilities of a wide range of agencies are effectively harnessed if we are to tackle organised crime.
I am sure that we will all be united in our condemnation of the drug traffickers and their like who cause so much pain and suffering to the victims of their squalid pursuit of profits. This small but significant Bill reflects the Government's firm resolve to combat the menace of organised crime with all the skills and resources at our disposal.
Allowing the Security Service into the fray in support of the law enforcement agencies will not eliminate organised crime but it is one more piece in the jigsaw of an effective and focused response. The new national crime squad and the development of NCIS will be two more pieces. This Bill promises to bring valuable extra skills to support the sterling efforts of our law enforcement agencies. It does so without compromising the safeguards and systems of accountability which the Government have introduced via the Security Service Act and the Intelligence Services Act. The Bill attracted

401
all-party support in another place and I am confident that your Lordships will approach it in a similarly constructive manner. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about plans for future legislation on the setting up of a national crime squad which was always envisaged when NCIS was set up in 1979. I remember it well because the service took over a whole floor of Scotland Yard and threw out all our plans for relocation of offices. I also welcome the plans for the use of surveillance technology to be put upon a statutory basis; but, as I understand it, those plans are for next year's legislation and not what we are concerned with today. I have reservations about the Bill before us. My qualifications for speaking about it are not only my 34 years in the Police Service, but also that my father was in another branch of the security services for nearly 30 years—MI6, not MI5.
Any additional resources for the Police Service, particularly in relation to organised crime, drug trafficking and money laundering, when it is on an international scale, are clearly welcome. However, I have reservations about the method of providing the Police Service with additional resources. I also have reservations about the definition of "serious crime". The support of the security services as an intelligence-gathering background to police work is clearly welcome. But the drift into operational support concerns me, as does the unclear nature of the definition of "serious crime". Although I accept what the Minister said and her assurances that it is meant to apply to drug traffickers and serious money laundering cases, that is not what the Bill before us says.
We live theoretically in a democratic society, which protects us against the arbitrary use of powers by the state. Part of that protection should be to protect freedom of speech and the inviolacy of our homes. Those are important rights. To some extent, we voluntarily give them up when we are dealing with such matters as the security of the state, terrorism, acts of treason, and so on. But in relation to other rights that we have to speak freely in our own homes, to use telephones freely, not to have bugs planted in our homes and not to be burgled, it is important that the relinquishing of those important freedoms is hedged about with clear accountability and openness, particularly when things go wrong. The Minister dwelt on the application for warrants. My concern is not so much about the systems that apply to applications for warrants but what happens when things go wrong.
MI5 does not have a system of clear accountability. Of necessity, it is a secret organisation; its budget is secret; its numbers and resources are secret. It is accorded special privileges by the courts: for example, its internal paperwork is protected from disclosure; and its members can be given anonymity as witnesses. So its proceedings are not open. It has no public complaints system, and I shall return to that point in more detail in a moment.
402
Any other organisation that apparently had spare capacity—presumably due to the end of the Cold War and the hoped for reduction in IRA activity—would be subjected to market testing and required to justify its expenditure and current staffing. The fact that that does not happen is due partly to the protective pall of secrecy that is thrown over the organisation, but also, I suspect, to the remaining influence of old school ties in the corridors of power.
The Bill will extend the role of the security services to allow them to act
"in the prevention and detection of serious crime".
The definition of "serious crime" is drawn so widely in the Bill that it includes any offence subject to over three years' imprisonment and so could include street robbery and wounding with intent.
The Police Service is subject to an elaborate open complaints system which is already often widely criticised for being insufficiently independent and accountable. The Police Complaints Authority, however, would have no powers to investigate MI5 officers, even when they are involved in a joint operation with police. The Police Complaints Authority publishes its findings and its investigations have often resulted in many police officers going to court and being dismissed from the Police Service. In contrast, the Security Services Tribunal works in secret and has dismissed all complaints made against MI5 officers since it was set up in 1989.
If there is a joint operation between MI5 and the Police Service which goes wrong, if the wrong house is entered, if an innocent person's telephone is bugged, how will the complaint be investigated? Is it equitable that the police officers will be subjected to a higher level of investigation and that their jobs alone will be at risk? How will the interests of the public be protected in this dual secretive and unsatisfactory system?
There are no special skills or techniques in MI5 which are not available to the Police Service. If there are spare resources in the security services, then they should be transferred to the Police Service. To blur the distinction between the separate arms of the state is, I believe, dangerous and threatens the structure of our democracy which is often more frail than it may appear.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, made a significant and important speech. I agree with much of it and at least sympathise with her overall tone. On the third day of the debate on the Address on 20th November last, I said (at col. 148 of Hansard) that I was a little uneasy about the Bill then foreshadowed which is before us today. I went on:
"We are all in favour of more resources for the police and we are all concerned about the growth of organised crime. However, if the Security Service really has spare capacity, surely some contraction and a straight transfer of resources to the police would serve the purpose better. There are dangers in an alliance between two competitive forces with a different culture and accustomed to different tasks".

403
There followed in that debate a notable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not with us today. He spoke from his great experience of the Security Service. I have knowledge of it, and I respect him for the views he expressed. However, although I listened carefully to him, as I did to the Minister today, I confess that I have a residual anxiety about the Bill. The Minister helpfully circulated notes in advance of today's debate for which I thank her, and she largely spoke to them. I still have a nagging feeling that this is not a good Bill and that in time, if we are not careful, we may come to regret it.
There is an obliging symmetry about the thought that we need new resources to help fight organised crime—we all agree with that, as the Minister rightly said—and that the Security Service has some spare capacity, though perhaps less obviously now than in November when we debated the gracious Speech. However, my instinct tells me to be wary, especially about where we may be going, whatever is said today, and the direction we take, as well as the possibility that by barely detected incremental stages we will find that the Security Service has moved into inappropriate areas of our lives.
In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness referred in passing to recent violent crime in Liverpool which we all deplore. I wonder whether that indicates a move towards the use of the Security Service. If so, it goes beyond what I understood to be its limited role, as described in the gracious Speech and set out by Ministers in another place. Certainly if that were to happen and if we found that by incremental stages the Security Service had a bigger role than that now anticipated for it, there could be unacceptable infringements of civil liberties. The Minister did not refer to a joint opinion, in relation to the Bill, dated 10th May, prepared for Liberty by two distinguished barristers. I shall return to that matter; it certainly gives me pause. Whatever has been said, there may be still dangers to civil liberties under the Bill as drafted despite improvements made in another place.
Apart from the issue of civil liberties, there is the possibility, which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, had in mind, that incompatibility may be revealed between the police force and other law enforcement agencies, whether in style or culture. Those are very important considerations in services with a long tradition. There may even be incompatibility of equipment which, far from strengthening the fight against crime, might undermine the effectiveness of what the police are already doing.
I recognise, as the Minister reminded us, that the Bill enjoyed all-party support in another place. I am sure that the principles she set out as underlying the Bill command the support of all of us. However, I remain an agnostic in relation to the Bill. I do not believe that at this stage the case for it is proven.
Like most agnostics, I should like to believe. It may well be that I shall have faith in the Government's proposals before the Bill leaves this House. I also recognise that it has been substantially improved in another place by the Government proposing their own
404
amendments which were widely accepted. However, I hope the Minister will understand my anxieties, even though she does not share them. I shall do nothing to impede the progress of the Bill. I hope, however, that we shall scrutinise it very carefully in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the complaints procedures. I could see no reference to those in the Minister's briefing notes, and the Minister did not refer to them today. I hope that in her concluding remarks she will comment on any possible problems in relation to the Police Complaints Authority dealing with complaints appropriate to the police, and separate, or in-parallel, complaints having to be made to the Security Service tribunal which, if I am not wrong, would be responsible for dealing with any complaints against that service. A person whose complaint may be entirely legitimate could find himself or herself much confused as to which authority to approach.
Many noble Lords will have seen two very interesting feature articles in The Times last week. On 6th May there was an article headed:
"Spies in quandary over legal niceties".
It said:
"The involvement of M15 in tackling organised crime will lead to legal dilemmas because of the paramount concern of the Security Service to protect its sources and operational methods. Senior M15 officers admit they might have to restrict their inquiries because of the likelihood that intelligence officers will be required to disclose their activities in court as evidence".
I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that point. It is an important one.
The other side of the coin was described in another article in The Times the following day, 7th May. It said:
"Criminal trials will be at increasing risk of being held in camera or under the cloak of anonymity when the Security Service Bill becomes law".
Again, I should like the Minister to comment. These matters were not adequately examined in another place: they should give us pause in considering the Bill in Committee and on Report.
I shall not seek to set out some of the very important issues raised in the joint opinion to which I referred. I shall not press the Minister to deal in detail today with the content of the opinion. However, I hope that before the Committee stage, she will look at the joint opinion and, if she thinks fit, reply in writing to Members who have shown an interest today.
I quote briefly from the opinion:
"The Bill currently contains no indication, restriction or limitation about how it is proposed that the Security Services should 'act in support of the police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of … crime'".
The opinion continues with a reference to the very important safeguards that apply to our police forces in criminal investigations. It states:
"These procedural and substantive safeguards will be undermined if the Security Services are empowered to engage in crime prevention and detection without being subject, when engaging on policing support operations, to the same regime as applies to police actions".
Those are important comments; they require a reply.

405
I heard what the Minister said in respect of organised crime. If we find it easy to use those words in the course of this Second Reading debate, it is because they are the words used by the Prime Minister in trailing this legislation. I agree that if the legislation is as important as the Minister states, it ought not to be delayed for definitions. At the same time, in referring earlier to the incremental danger I had in mind the possibility that although the Security Service would start by dealing with organised crime as we understand it, it would, in an intangible way, despite the undertakings given today, begin treading in areas which at the present time are not intended.
There are awkward questions of accountability. The Security Service, in pursuit of serious crime (if that is the way we are to describe it) will be responsible to the Home Secretary through the Director General of the Security Service. The police forces will have a different route. Surely this is a formula for conflict and misunderstanding. Again, if the Minister has a reply to that point, I should be very glad to hear it.
We are all deeply concerned about the growth and impact of serious, especially organised, crime. I agree with a remark made by the Home Secretary—with whose remarks I do not always agree—that it could be a threat to the fabric of society. All of us who have served in government cannot doubt the important and necessary role played by the Security Service. Despite my reservations, I hope that the Bill will succeed in its purpose. However, I am not at present satisfied that all legitimate objections to it have been adequately answered.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is almost three months since this Bill received a First Reading. That suggests that it hardly tops the list of the Government's priorities. I note with interest the suggestion that emerged from the Minister's interesting opening remarks that changing circumstances may mean that M15 does not now have all that much spare capacity left over from its normal pursuits.
Be that as it may, perhaps I may begin on a personal note. In my career I have had a rather special opportunity of experiencing what is involved in the issuing of warrants and certain other activities. I have also had a more general opportunity of observing the work both of the police and of M15. I believe that this country can be proud of both services. I also accept that all possible resources should be used against organised crime when problems of drugs, money laundering, racketeering and the use of violence are on such a scale. Therefore, I approach this short Bill with perhaps a rather stronger bias in its favour than seems to have been managed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
However, there are aspects of the Bill which cause me concern and some puzzlement. Some of them have been explained very clearly already. I need touch on them only quite lightly.
Clause 1, as has been explained, adds to the functions of MI5 under the parent Act. We are given to understand that it is indeed aimed at organised crime. That is what
406
the Minister said in her opening sentence this afternoon. But as others pointed out, the clause does not say so. I suppose that we all know what we mean by organised crime, but it is not a phrase known to the statute book. The Minister explained that it would be difficult to draft a definition and I can well believe that. But I am bound to emphasise the point that "serious crime" is not defined in the clause.
There is indeed a definition of serious crime in another Act of Parliament and that bobs up in Clause 2. But it does not apply to this clause. We are left with the explanation given by Ministers in this Chamber and in another place that serious crime in that context means what they intend it to mean. What did Humpty Dumpty say?
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".
As to how the legislation is intended to work, an amendment to subsection (2) of the clause which was made in another place makes clear that it will be for MI5 to fit in with the police and not to act on its own initiatives. We are told that in practice the Director General of the NCIS (the National Criminal Intelligence Service) will be in the driving seat. But that part of the police organisation, as the Minister pointed out, has no statutory backing. So the Bill has to resort to the formula of:
"a person designated by the Secretary of State",
who must be a chief officer of police. All that is to be put right by later legislation.
When we reach Clause 2, the matter becomes a little more serious. That is the clause which authorises MI5, when covered by a warrant from the Secretary of State, to enter property—in practice, to search, install cameras and plant bugs. We know full well that the police already do that and that there are safeguards against abuse. But, as the Minister pointed out, the police do it without a warrant from the Secretary of State, who has no power to issue one.
In that rather shadowy area, where one day there may be a ruling from the courts, possibly of a rather uncomfortable nature, the police naturally fear that MI5 may simply take over, as under the clause it alone will be able to point to a statutory authority if things go wrong. Again, we are told that that lack of specific police power will be put right in legislation, although, as the Minister explained, just how to provide for it may not be quite so simple as at first sight it may seem.
Clause 2, unlike Clause 1, does spell out the kind of crime for which a warrant may be issued. It avoids the use of the phrase "serious crime", but borrows verbatim the provision in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, stating the conduct that is to be regarded as serious crime for the purposes of that Act. Paragraphs (a) and (b) toward the end of the clause reproduce precisely the wording of the 1985 Act. It leaps to the eye that those paragraphs go a good deal wider than the commonly accepted view of what constitutes organised crime, which, after all, is what the Bill is supposed to be aimed at. For example, in paragraph (a):
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose,"

407
could cover the protesters against the Newbury bypass. Paragraph (b) could apply to a serious mugger or a burglar.
All that means that property warrants could be lawfully issued under the Bill for purposes falling a good deal short of those at which the Bill is supposed to be aimed. I read with some care the explanation given at Committee stage in another place of how that all comes about, but I am sorry to say that I found it rather beyond me. I feel that the explanation given by the Minister today is a little clearer but I am not sure that I have taken it all in. Certainly, I should like to study it when Hansard is available.
I suppose that MI5's main contribution is likely to be found in analysis, surveillance and infiltration. I note that the Bill does not give it the police powers of arrest. But is there not some likelihood in practice of its getting involved with the rules for gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution, rules which are becoming increasingly complicated and of which it has no direct practical experience? Let me take a point raised earlier. If it comes to giving evidence, is there any reason to suppose that the courts will allow it the same protection of anonymity and secrecy about surveillance methods, which in practice is allowed in cases involving national security? That again was a point taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton.
What happens if, say, during an investigation an accused person alleges that drugs were planted on him? If the complaint lies against a police office, the Police Complaints Authority will, if necessary, bring in officers from another force to conduct an inquiry. But if it turns out that the individual complained of is an MI5 officer, the police inquiry will come to a full stop. Instead, a totally different procedure will apply, which, among other things, is designed to safeguard the anonymity of the individual officer. The complaint has to go to the Security Service Commissioner and his tribunal. It may or may not encourage the complainant to know that the first 187 complaints made over the past five years resulted in a success count of nought. It looks as though there may be some problems in running side-by-side those two separate procedures.
I should like to end with this thought. Those two services have quite different backgrounds and quite different cultures. There will be inherent difficulties in their working together, difficulties which must be overcome. But that is not made any easier by the fact that the MI5 activities, especially the property warrants, will be covered by statute, whereas the police side, particularly the role of the NCIS and the planting of bugs, has to wait for another Bill. The longer the wait, the more awkward it will become. We are told that it is hoped to bring forward a Bill in the autumn. But can we be sure? We have also heard of proposals for a Home Office Bill on national identity cards; for a second Bill on the control of guns; for a third dealing with stalkers, assuming the Bill introduced yesterday does not find its way onto the statute book. There is talk of a fourth, a major Bill on sentencing powers, and legislation filling the gaps in this Bill would make a fifth.
408
I wonder how big a share of the programme in the Queen's Speech for a short Session will be allocated to one department. We know that there are other claimants who speak confidently of having a place in the Queen's Speech. In the past individual Ministers could not do that, but that seems to have gone by the board. Anyway, can we be certain that there will be another Session?
4 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I speak as the only Member of your Lordships' House on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I took over from my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, who resigned from the committee in March having given it valuable service with all his experience as a Foreign Secretary. As your Lordships know, the committee's remit is to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service, the Intelligence Service and GCHQ. It is of course an all-party committee. I do not speak for the committee; I speak only for myself.
What has struck me in the few weeks that I have been a member is the energy and commitment with which the committee carries out its task. It meets often and already three of its reports have been published, all of them relevant to this Bill. An interim report was published in May 1995 concerning the way in which it was tackling and proposed to tackle its task; a report was published on the Security Service and organised crime, which is directly relevant to this Bill; and then its first annual report was published in March 1996, which also contains much which is relevant to the Bill.
In its first report the committee identified as one of the major issues on which it proposed to focus, in the post-Cold War age, the agencies' work with the police and other enforcement bodies in the UK and their relationship with the civil community. In its report on the Security Service and organised crime, which was submitted before this Bill was published, the committee agreed that the Security Service can bring a distinct package of skills to the problem of organised crime in the form of intelligence acquisition, processing, assessment and exploitation. It observed that the approach of the Security Service would be characterised by long-term investigation and analysis aimed at gaining a strategic advantage over organised crime targets. The committee endorsed the principles which the Government announced as guiding the Security Service contribution.
In the same report the committee made two points about the proposed legislation—that is, this Bill—both related to the importance of the primacy of the police and other law enforcement agencies in the fight against organised crime and to the relationship between those bodies and the Security Service. I am glad to say that both points were reflected in the amendments to the Bill which, as has already been said, were tabled by the Government in another place and now form part of the Bill.
In the other place there was all-party support for the principle of the Bill. I want to mention three subjects which are important as we consider the Bill and which it will be valuable to keep in mind as we watch how the arrangements work in practice once the Bill becomes law.

409
The first is accountability, which was referred to in a number of speeches this afternoon. With that topic I bracket the importance of the Security Service doing nothing to feed such fears as there are that it may pay inadequate attention to the freedoms of the ordinary citizen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
The openness which now surrounds the Intelligence and Security Services would have seemed astonishing only a few years ago when the very existence of such services was hardly mentioned. It is remarkable how well the services have adapted to the change. The Security Service is of course accountable to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, and through them to Parliament. It is overseen by a commissioner and a tribunal which can hear complaints. All warrants for entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy require the approval of the Secretary of State. The expenditure, administration and policy of the service will be overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee and either House of Parliament can debate the subject of the Intelligence and Security Services at any time—as your Lordships chose to do only a few weeks ago. The question of accountability is one of the topics that the committee will want to keep under review.
The second subject that we should watch is the relationship between the Security Service, the police and other enforcement agencies as the work of the Security Service on serious and organised crime develops. Recently there were some newspaper reports which suggested that there is an unsatisfactory rivalry between the Security Service and the police. I do not take those reports as being well founded, but it remains important that the relations between the different services should be those of practical and close co-operation. The matter is too important to allow "turf wars". I believe that the Bill as it stands, with the two amendments to Clause 1 tabled by the Government, should give the best possible framework for co-operation.
Clause 1(1) makes it clear that the Security Service is,
"to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies".
That is pretty tight wording. The rest of the clause provides arrangements which should make for effective co-ordination. But even the best drafted Acts of Parliament will not necessarily work unless there is a will to make them work. I have no doubt that this is the second subject on which the Intelligence and Security Committee will be keeping a close and continuing watch.
The third subject concerns resources. It has been suggested that the reason for this Bill was that the Security Service had, in a sense, run out of things to do. That suggestion, which was never convincing, looks wholly unconvincing today when we have recent evidence that Russian espionage against this country has increased and when the Irish terrorist ceasefire has come to an end.
In its report on the Security Service's work against organised crime, the committee of which I am a member said that it had been suggested to it that with the continuing commitments to work against terrorism,
410
espionage, proliferation and subversion, the resources available against organised crime will at first be relatively small. My noble friend the Minister repeated that today. The committee said that it was possible that at some point in the future decisions may have to be taken to move resources back to work against the traditional national security targets. All the tasks of the Security Service are so important that it is likely that some difficult decisions will have to be taken about the allocation of resources of the service. I believe that noble Lords will welcome the assurance from my noble friend the Minister today that countering terrorism will remain a top priority. I support the Bill.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Blaker said, with his valuable recent experience. My experience dates back much further. I do not share the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, nor those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for whom I have had a great respect for many years—I happened to be serving in the Home Office when he was first there, though in a different capacity from him.
On the question of what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, feared was a take-over of one public body from another, experience shows that that does not happen. Indeed, we are accustomed in our country to minding our own business to a much greater extent than we normally recognise. So far as public departments and bodies of various kinds are concerned, there is much more a tendency to pass the buck than to take over. I really do not think that in the scheme which the Bill will provide we have to fear anything like a take over.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Blaker referred to accountability. That is to a great extent an answer to the question. It is democratic accountability now. But it is combined with a continued obligation of secrecy where secrecy is necessary. I do not fear any prospect of there being trouble between the police and the Security Service. I think they will rely upon each other for mutual help in a sensible way. However, I feel that the Bill must be regarded to a very great extent as experimental because it is breaking new ground in a way where we do not have previous experience.
There is a strong justification for getting the Security Service to co-operate with our police forces and with Customs and Excise in the way envisaged by the Bill. Serious crime, especially on an international scale, is increasing, but the warlike threat to the world has decreased. I am therefore tempted to quote what the Prime Minister said at the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool last autumn. He said:
"It is an age when our children are more likely to be killed by a drug dealer than by an enemy missile".
That justifies the kind of change which the Bill envisages.
The Security Service is likely to find its overseas obligations diminished somewhat with the end of the Cold War. It has, however, much experience, especially in tracing terrorists, which could be of great advantage to our police forces. That alone justifies the Bill. But

411
I think there is more to it than that. Although one greatly admires the system built by Scotland Yard over the years, with its fingerprinting, the keeping of massive detailed records of crime and increased co-operation between our local democratically controlled police forces, our police forces do not possess enough international experience to enable them to overcome the increase in international crime. Interpol plays a valuable part, but that is not all and it is not enough. The Security Service could help tremendously with its expertise and its international experience.
Drug trafficking internationally has been mentioned as the worst form of organised serious crime with which we have to contend. I wonder whether I may mention another large-scale international crime in respect of which the Security Service could, I am sure, be of great help. Millions of pounds worth of art treasures and antiquities are stolen all over the world, especially in this country. It is a very profitable traffic. I must say in passing that a non-governmental body, the Art Loss Register, is performing a great service in helping the police and the owners of antiquities and art treasures. I would hope that the Security Service, with its international experience, would do a lot to help to fight that type of crime.
As to the Bill itself, it has the merit of being drafted in a short and simple way. It achieves its purpose without going into too much detail. I find that attractive. But having read again the two quite major pieces of legislation to which it refers—the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994—I think that sooner or later the Government should consider, in view of the ever changing circumstances, the amalgamation of those two pieces of legislation and of the services to which they refer. Then I would eventually hope to see those two previous important Acts of Parliament consolidated with what this Bill will become, the Security Service Act 1996. Having said all that, I congratulate the Government most warmly on putting forward the Bill.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her very clear presentation of the purposes of the Bill. She was good enough to recall in her opening speech that I initiated a debate on 13th March, having been successful in the ballot, on the Intelligence and Security Services. On that occasion speakers did not extend their comments expansively on the Security Service because this Bill had already arrived from the other place and we knew that today's debate was coming.
As we consider the possibility of additional roles for the Security Service, we should not overlook its present functions or think them unimportant. The Cold War has ended, but counter-espionage in the United Kingdom and the detection and prevention of terrorism are still very necessary. I support the principle in the Bill to enable the experience and techniques of the Security Service to be applied in helping to suppress serious crime, especially trafficking in drugs. My concerns are
412
how this should be done and how the Security Service can work effectively with the police and other enforcement agencies.
The police and those agencies are responsible for providing the evidence needed for bringing prosecutions. They have years of experience in doing that. In my view, the Security Service should not, where possible, be expected to give evidence in court, though this can be done with special arrangements to guard anonymity.
The role of the Security Service, as I see it, is to detect and provide intelligence that can enable the police to pursue and, if it is clear that criminals are at work, to obtain the proof that is needed. The police or the other enforcement agencies should then be the people who provide evidence in court. I am glad that the Government moved an amendment in the other place adding words which clarify the role of the Security Service; that it would be the function of the Security Service,
"to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies".
Another reason for restricting the new role was mentioned in The Times of 6th May and by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, today, that the Security Service's sources of intelligence need to be protected. There has always been a dilemma about privacy where MI5 is concerned. What sort of balance should be accepted between the safety of the British public, the security of our country and the degree of intrusion into the privacy of private citizens? Under this Bill there will be an increase in the scope for intrusion, and I accept that as justifiable in view of the evils which the Bill is designed to reduce and prevent.
I have some questions for my noble friend. She may not be able to reply to them all today, but no doubt she will write. There is no definition in the Bill of "law enforcement agencies". Besides the police, I assume that Customs and Excise, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and regional crime squads would be included. I understand that there are six of those crime squads. Are any of them in Scotland where the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the police and not the Home Secretary? My noble friend appeared to confirm that the functions of the NCIS (the National Criminal Intelligence Service) are confined to England and Wales and do not extend to Scotland.
I recognise the reasons for the absence of a definition. One of them may be that the Government are proposing to introduce another Bill in the next Session of Parliament, giving statutory status to the NCIS and creating a national crime squad. I believe that my noble friend confirmed that in her opening speech. Again I ask: will the national crime squad extend to Scotland? If it does not, I plead that the word "national" be not used because it only causes confusion in titles. Confusion has been caused in other fields; for example the national curriculum and the National Rivers Authority, which have no functions or writ in Scotland at all. The effect is simply to muddle the public and the media.

413
It seems strange that another Bill is needed as soon as has been indicated. According to the press, the next Bill will define circumstances in which eavesdropping or photographic devices can be used by the police, so that in future that use will not be a monopoly of the Security Service. I shall be grateful for some indication without pre-empting the contents of the Queen's Speech in the autumn.
That brings me to the highly relevant subject of telephone tapping and distant eavesdropping known as "bugging". Of the two, telephone tapping would seem the less intrusive and offensive. However, its use by government has been regulated and accepted by Parliament while the legality of bugging remains obscure. There is a paradox here. No one should regard a telephone conversation as confidential, if only because of the risk of crossed lines. However, the planting of a concealed listening device, continually transmitting private conversations to a distant operator or recorder, must be a greater intrusion into privacy.
As regards telephone tapping, I remind your Lordships that that has been authorised for both the Security Service and the police for many years under stringent conditions, the legislation now applying being the 1985 Act. The Home Secretary has to sign warrants personally before action in individual cases. In Scotland for the police, it is the Secretary of State for Scotland. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland from 1970 to 1974, I granted warrants only when I was convinced that they were essential in serious cases. I also asked to be kept informed. In at least one episode dangerous criminals were later convicted and heavily sentenced. The evidence in court was not the product of the telephone tapping. The tapping had assisted the police in getting on to the criminals' tracks enabling them to discover what they were plotting, obtaining incriminating evidence and making arrests.
Eavesdropping by bug has not been similarly regulated. Apart from any use by authorities, it is thought that there is considerable use made of bugging by private citizens to obtain commercial or other information of a confidential nature. I presume at present, however, that it is difficult to prove such bugging, when discovered and traced, to be a civil offence. I hope that I have said enough on this subject to indicate that the whole area of electronic eavesdropping seems at present to be outside the legal framework governing privacy.
While supporting this Bill, I predict that if press forecasts are correct about another Bill at the end of this year, that Bill will require very careful drafting and examination on legalising further invasion of privacy by the police, with bugs.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I speak with some diffidence in this debate because I am a former member of the SIS and, although I am glad to say that I worked closely with the Security Service, both at home and abroad, I do not speak with authority. At this point I should like to say how helpful I found the notes which, like other noble Lords, I received from my noble friend the Minister: they were extremely helpful.
414
There can be no doubt that the country's social fabric is threatened by the powerful increase in serious, organised crime, particularly drug-related crime, which has taken place in the past few years. It is natural and proper that any and every resource of skill and knowledge available to fight it should be brought into play; the more so because of its international nature and the new dangers in terms of the ease of movement for criminals now posed by open frontiers throughout Europe.
However, I share many of the anxieties expressed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. When I began my remarks I did not know that a representative of that committee would be present, so I apologise if I repeat some things. I share the committee's concern about the implications of the Bill for the central tasks of the Security Service; namely, counter-espionage and, now, counter-terrorism. Of course the new task in this Bill is relevant to the service's duty to maintain the economic well-being of the country against threats from abroad. The service has very great skills in the analysis of intelligence; in long-term penetration of subversive organisations; and in the identification of hostile agents. But the Bill represents a dilution of its resources and a dissipation of its professional effort, as well as the dangers inherent in exposing long-term assets, which concerns me very much.
At this stage I do not propose to pursue the committee's anxieties about accountability, clear lines of responsibility, and major differences in experience and procedures between the service and the various agencies—not only the police at different levels, but also Customs and Excise. Some of those seem to have been usefully and successfully addressed through government amendments at Committee stage in the other place, and there will be opportunity to debate them in this House.
What concerns me is that we are proposing to extend yet further the tasks of a very small service. In the other place (Hansard, 10th January 1996; col. 264) we were told that,
"The Security Service's total resources are only £150 million a year and the number of staff employed in the general intelligence group is just 340".
Hitherto, the Security Service, unlike my own former service, has been self-tasking: under this Bill, and rightly, the tasking in this new area will be done by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, itself intended as an intelligence-gathering service, and by relevant co-ordinating groups. I am not clear—no doubt we shall establish it at Committee stage—how far the tasking requires the provision and analysis of intelligence and how far it requires operational support. The NCIS still has no legal entity, and the amendment to the Bill now reads that it will be the function of the service to act in support of the activity of police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of crime. That, and the provision of property warrants in support of those activities, suggests that we are talking about a degree of operational support as well as analysis. All that will be without any additional provision in terms of money or resources for the Security Service.

415
My concerns are these: the new proposals, to be judged by everything that was said both in another place and to a lesser extent in the ISC's report, rest on the premise that, as one speaker said:
"With the collapse of the eastern bloc and communism, and the prolonged peace in Northern Ireland, many skilled people in the Security Service must either be made redundant or be redeployed".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/96 col. 265.]
I am well aware that the decision to redeploy some of the Security Service's great and valuable skills to fight a major threat to our national well-being was taken for positive reasons and not at all for the reasons suggested. Nevertheless, the events of the past fortnight in Russia, the very real possibility of a communist return to power there, and not least the end of the IRA ceasefire in February this year, after a long period of profitable operational preparation and targeting, must surely give us pause. Neither the KGB, the GRU nor the IRA has gone away—and nor will they do so. If the Security Service is, indeed, to play a part in the fight against serious crime—and in these days of the Russian mafia and the IRA's move into drugs as yet another lucrative source of money to finance its operations it is not impossible that there will be a useful cross-fertilisation—it must have more resources. It must not be required to carry out that new task at the expense of its national responsibility, a central responsibility, of protecting the security of the realm. It could, of course, be argued that it would be better in that case—I believe that this has been suggested today—to give more money to the existing law enforcement agencies which are also seriously undermanned. I have the Customs and Excise in mind because the new measures under the Schengen Agreement have opened doors to criminals right across Europe, but I recognise that the Security Service has very special sophisticated analytical techniques and expertise to offer. Even so, I am concerned at the proliferation of liaison groups, co-ordinating bodies, and international links which seems to be envisaged. It seems a very great pity that in the entirely understandable wish to allow flexibility in approaching a new situation, there seems little prospect of a clear statement on responsibilities, on the hierarchy, who gives the orders and where the buck stops.
The service has always been self-tasking. It is now going to be tasked by several other bodies. That seems to me to be a recipe for confusion, despite the prospect of the appointment of a co-ordinator. I fear that there will be large and high expectations of results which, given the tiny resources that are now likely to be available in the light of a very different and far more serious security situation, are bound to be disappointed. There will be confusion too over oversight, given the number of agencies involved and the different select and other oversight committees, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, and probably confusion over the protection of information from other agencies which could have adverse consequences on liaisons, and not only on those of the Security Service itself.
Not least, as has been said, the service and the police respect each other, but they are very different animals. The elephant is a wise animal; the owl is a wise bird;
416
they are not the same. The report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, issued just before the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, concluded that,
"the reductions in the Agencies' work on the former Soviet Union … have released resources to work on the newer 'functional' targets such as … serious organised crime",
but it also said:
"it is possible that at some point in the future decisions may have to be taken to move resources back on to work against the 'traditional' national security targets".
That time has come—and I contend that there was never any doubt that it would come, both as regards renewed Russian penetration of this country and as regards the IRA, and there is no longer any slack available for other tasks. If the new tasks are to be placed upon the Security Service, it would in my view—I fear that I shall not be popular with my noble friend the Minister in saying this—be absolutely essential to give it additional resources to carry them out. Like good civil servants and like the armed services, members of the service will no doubt be ready to try to do more without commensurate resources. In that case, to use a familiar mantra, the customer will not get value for money. Intelligence officers and agents take a long time to train and develop. We should not put strategic assets at risk for any relatively short-term tactical gain.
I support the Bill in principle, with the reservations I have outlined. I have every hope that it will be possible in Committee and in later legislation to solve at least the procedural problems, but I remain concerned about the central tasks of the Security Service.
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I welcome this short Bill and hesitate to rise to speak after so many eminent speakers. I have decided to speak, however, as a result of my limited experience with the security forces within Northern Ireland. For all the reasons that we have heard, it should be beneficial to have the ability to use the security services as a back-up to the law enforcement agencies, and I am pleased that the Bill will extend to Northern Ireland.
Turning to the Bill, I am interested in the appointment of a co-ordinator in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. There is a requirement in Clause 1(3)—in new subsection (3B)—for the Secretary of State to,
"designate for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above a person who is or has been a chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales, the chief officer of a police force in Scotland or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary".
I notice that the ranks of those from England and Wales who can be appointed as co-ordinator are much wider than the single rank available from Scotland and Northern Ireland. A chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales includes, I believe, three ranks: a chief constable; an assistant deputy chief constable and an assistant chief constable designate. A co-ordinator from Scotland or Northern Ireland can come from only one rank. In the former, he must be a chief officer of a police force and, in the latter, the chief constable of the RUC. Surely that is an anomaly, especially when senior officers sometimes serve in different parts of the country. An assistant chief

417
constable in Scotland or Northern Ireland, for example, would not be eligible for the post of co-ordinator while serving north of the Border or in Ulster, but if he served for a time in England or Wales, which is possible, he would become eligible. I ask my noble friend the Minister to explain that and to give the reasons for the apparent discrimination.
In addition, it interests me that the eligibility for the post should be so rigidly set in law. The Secretary of State would be breaking the law if he wished to appoint anyone from outside those ranks to the post of co-ordinator—or he would have to amend this legislation if he wanted to do so. Can the Minister explain why that is so? If the reason is the maintenance of police primacy, perhaps I may add one further point. As I understand it, the co-ordinating function is just that; it is not operational control. That will still be the responsibility of the chief constable in whose police force area the activity is taking place.
We have much experience of that in Northern Ireland. On occasions, it was deemed right to appoint someone from outside the police force to such a post—for example, Sir Maurice Oldfield. Your Lordships will be aware of the importance of the role of the chief constable of the RUC and the maintenance of police primacy in the Province. Therefore, it would not be a threat if the Secretary of State wished to appoint somebody from outside the police force. I believe that we in Northern Ireland understand more than most people the importance not only of the ability of such a person but of the personalities in different agencies. The Bill, in totality, is vague. It will rely for its success to a great extent upon the personalities of the individuals who will hold that post and not necessarily the service from which they come. I ask my noble friend the Minister to elaborate on the reasons for that.
For a moment I should like to look at some of the practical problems of using the security forces in those ways. There are two sides to an intelligence-gathering operation by the security services—the passive and the active. On the passive side, I am reasonably happy with the control by warrants for the placing of listening devices, the use of phone taps and so forth.
The active side of such intelligence gathering is the human factor at ground level or, to put it another way, at the coalface, within or close to the criminal organisation. I should like to make a couple of points about that aspect, but I shall be brief. An all-important issue is safety. We are talking about dangerous and ruthless criminal groups. To insert agents or turn criminals is a long-term task, and a dangerous one for those involved.
Who will provide the operational back-up for such a person in trouble, and someone who may have been exposed? That is not a normal policing task, as we have found in Northern Ireland, and is extremely hazardous. We have the police and the Army in the Province, and there are dedicated units for those tasks.
Over here on the mainland, who will supply that resource? Will it be the regional crime squads, later perhaps to become the national crime squad, or chief constables from their own manpower? On some
418
occasions it may have to be available for 24 hours a day. I ask my noble friend whether additional finance will be made available for specialist training and the establishment of such units.
Police primacy is to be maintained, but I am confused as to whether that is the tasking agency primacy on a particular operation—that of the NCIS—or primacy of operational control through a chief constable. On Second Reading in another place, the Secretary of State said:
"The way in which the co-ordination will usually operate is that the Security Service will be tasked in particular areas or operations by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will in turn liaise closely with local police forces and regional crime squads".
However, in answer to a question he said:
"I do not know that it would necessarily be appropriate for the police to be informed of every operational detail of the work that the Security Service was carrying out".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/96/; cols. 221-224.]
That is a serious aspect of co-ordination. It could be a matter of life and death. Experience in the Province shows that detailed work must be done on that aspect of the matter. The responsibilities must be made clear before any such operation is mounted.
I wish to mention just one other point about agents or turned criminals. In violent criminal organisations there is little or no bureaucracy; therefore an agent or turned criminal will almost certainly be drawn into criminal activity if he or she is to remain in place. How will we protect those people if such a case comes before the courts? A serious example of that in Northern Ireland was the well-known Nelson case. Two things went wrong. Due to a failure of immediate action on information supplied by him, he became involved in terrorist incidents. Also, due to lack of co-ordination, an agent of one branch (him) of our security forces, was arrested by another branch which was unaware of his activities.
There will be problems to be solved, but I have said enough to show that I support the Bill. The requirement for caution, planning and attention to detail is an understatement, and I look forward to success in this new role for our security services.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, at the beginning of her speech the Minister referred to the earlier debate we had on the security services initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and to the authoritative speeches made on that occasion. I am sure that she will be the first to agree that we have had a significant number of authoritative speeches today: the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, with his recent experience; the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth; the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, with a lifetime of experience in the Metropolitan Police; and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office, with substantial and direct knowledge of the workings of the security services. The Minister will have noted that three of those four speakers expressed significant disquiet about some aspects of the Bill.

419
I share that disquiet. However, it is right for me to say that despite any doubts I may have about the Bill, I welcome the discussions which took place in the other place between the Government and the Opposition, as a result of which some improvements were undoubtedly made to the drafting of the Bill. Those were made in a number of important respects, it has to be said.
I should like to begin, as did my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, by thanking the Minister for making available the Notes on Clauses and an explanatory memorandum on the Bill. I found them extremely helpful. In her covering letter, she said, when referring to the debate in the other place:
"Such debate and disagreement as there was revolved around the detail of the Bill".
That is of course entirely true, but, as I am sure she will agree, it is the detail of the Bill that continues to cause some of us concern. We must be certain that police primacy is retained, and that the most unambiguous language is used and placed in the Bill to avoid any disputes arising in the future.
We do not want to slide into the position that we have witnessed in the USA and elsewhere, where bitter inter-agency disputes have done serious damage to the fight against organised crime. I have been told by a number of leading figures in the law enforcement community in the USA about the fierce rows that have occurred between agencies funded by the federal government such as the FBI, the US Customs and the secret service on the one hand and local police and state police departments on the other. There is always the risk of such disputes between organisations which are locally accountable and those which rely exclusively upon the financial support of the federal government and committees of Congress.
Although our constitutional arrangements are different from those of the USA, there is one obvious similarity; that is, the Security Service, like the FBI, works entirely outside the form of accountability under which the police operate. MI5 is a great deal less politically accountable compared to federal agencies in the USA. One has only, to take one obvious example, to recall the various episodes involved in the drama of Watergate, to realise the direct accountability of the FBI to Congress. More than that, the Security Service has operated in a climate of secrecy—something entirely unknown in the USA.
Until the appointment of Mrs. Rimington no one, except of course foreign espionage organisations, even knew the name of the head of MI5. Despite differences between the roles of MI5 and the federal law enforcement agencies of the USA, there remains one clear similarity. They are all dependent upon the support of the national government for their resources. That of course is one of the reasons why we have the Bill. For although it is said that we require the Security Service to help in the struggle against serious organised crime, the reality is, as we all know, that there is at the moment a small team of MI5 officers working on precisely that agenda. As a result of the passage of the Bill, that team which, according to the Intelligence and Security
420
Committee, consists of nine officers may, I understand, be increased to about 16 to 20. That is my information but no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
If that is the position the questions, "What is there to be worried about?", and, "How can there be any threat to the primacy of the police from such a small group of people?", may well be asked. There are a number of answers to those questions but they can be dealt with only if one asks why the Security Service has struggled so hard to acquire the powers set out in the Bill. The Minister is well aware that it has so struggled and, as we know, struggled successfully.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain led to immediate consequences for MI5. As the Intelligence and Security Committee pointed out in its latest annual report, the significant reduction in the overall intelligence threat led to a cut of more than half in the operational resources which were required five years ago. Whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said, that that was a wise judgment is a different question. In other words, MI5 faced the loss of substantial numbers of staff unless it acquired new responsibilities.
That triggered the first Whitehall struggle; the battle led by MI5 to become the lead agency in countering republican terrorism on the British mainland. There was fierce opposition from a number of senior police officers, but MI5 won. Then came the Northern Ireland peace process. Once again, it looked as though there could be significant and negative manpower implications for MI5. So we began to read in the press that the Security Service could play a most valuable role in countering serious organised crime.
Facing the likelihood of serious damage to morale among many of the dedicated men and women who work for the Security Service—and of a kind which in recent months has been experienced in many government departments—Mrs. Rimington did what many of us might have done in her position—endeavour to extend the responsibilities of her department. As we know, she has succeeded. As a result, she may have avoided some of the "compulsory redundancies", referred to in paragraph 22 of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
At first the contribution of the staff of the Security Service is likely to be small but in future it could grow substantially, particularly if, as we all hope, the Northern Ireland peace process leads to a successful outcome. Therefore, what we are discussing today is not the employment of a score or so of MI5 officers working in support of the police but in future years a great many more.
That is why I believe five things are essential. First, we must ensure that police primacy is spelt out in the most direct language. Secondly, we must ensure that the requirement that the responsibility of the Director-General of the Security Service for co-ordinating his service's activity with the head of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is adequately explained and we are given an adequate explanation of why the position of the head of the NCIS is not placed on a statutory footing. That could have been done in this Bill and we would like to know why it has not.

421
Thirdly, what arrangements are to be made about case records? Where are they to be kept? Will MI5 make all its information available to the NCIS? Surely we must insist that where possibly three organisations are working together—that is MI5, the police and Customs and Excise—they do not have two or three separate databases holding information relating to precisely the same investigation. A real risk is involved because some years ago there were problems in that respect between the police and Customs and Excise. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that specific point in reply.
The fourth factor is of considerable importance. What is the position in relation to informants? The police have very tight guidelines about their recruitment. That became essential because of the unacceptable conduct of a number of officers. But for entirely understandable reasons, MI5 has far more relaxed rules. For instance, it might want to recruit a foreign agent and in those circumstances the relaxation is perfectly understandable. But who decides what will be the regime relating to the recruitment of informants in the areas we are now discussing? Can the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service lay down precise rules and require MI5 to follow them or will the Security Service be allowed to continue as at present? I believe that we deserve a reply to that question too.
Fifthly, there is the issue identified in paragraph 28 of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee; namely, that when planting listening and other devices during the investigation of serious crime the police and MI5 operate under entirely different rules. The Minister referred to that in her speech. MI5 requires a warrant signed by the Secretary of State; the police operate under non-statutory Home Office guidelines.
I am sure that the Minister and other noble Lords will be aware of the case of Mr. Kahn, a convicted heroin dealer. The case is now before the Appellate Committee of this House. I say only that surveillance techniques to which I have referred are of crucial importance in the investigation of serious crime. I would be seriously concerned were the different procedures involved—namely, those between the police and MI5—to be perpetuated.
I understand from what the Minister said that this may remain the case until at best the autumn of this year when new legislation may be introduced. I am afraid that I do not find that a very persuasive answer. Promising the introduction of legislation in the dying months of a Parliament does not measure up to the seriousness of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred specifically to this matter. There is not the slightest evidence that legislation of this kind could go through Parliament before the next general election. That is one of the reasons why we remain seriously concerned about that particular issue.
I have set out our anxieties about the Bill and I am sure that many of them will be discussed in Committee. I do not for one moment question either the ability or the degree of dedication of the men and women who make up the Security Service; indeed, quite the reverse. I have always been impressed by their professional
422
abilities and, I take only one example, the quality of their analytical skills about which Sir Paul Condon and others have spoken. However, what we are debating is a measure which could, if mishandled, create severe disharmony in the day-to-day working relationships between the police and the Security Service.
The Minister may tell us that the problem does not exist. However, some of us who are aware of former battles between some local police forces and Customs and Excise take a different view. The Minister must accept that struggles in this House and elsewhere during the passage of what became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act have hardly led to the creation of a mood of uninhibited trust between Ministers and the police service. Then we did our best to preserve the operational independence of chief officers. We certainly did not wholly succeed in our objective. The noble Baroness will have to take it from us that we shall be determined to do everything possible to ensure that the position of democratically accountable chief officers is not undermined by this Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in her clear and helpful introductory speech, the Minister placed considerable emphasis on the cross-party support for the Bill. She was right to do so: first, because, as I can confirm, my colleagues in another place expressed their support for the principle and purpose of the Bill; but secondly—and perhaps for a more long-lasting reason—because it is essential in matters which affect the security of our country there should he cross-party agreement on legislative measures which are presented to Parliament. Unless there is such cross-party agreement, the changes that we make in our security arrangements and plans for policing could suffer very damaging effects as other political changes take place. That would be most undesirable.
Our support for the Bill goes wider than the measure itself, as I shall make clear. It goes so far as to support the package of measures to which the Prime Minister referred in his Blackpool speech, of which the Minister will acknowledge this Bill is only part. The Prime Minister talked about co-ordination among the law enforcement agencies, an issue which is only marginally addressed by this Bill. He talked about the need for a statutory national crime squad and for a statutory basis for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Again, the Minister will acknowledge that that is not yet covered by the Bill and must be covered by future legislation. He talked also, as the Minister reminded us, about the need for statutory control and a definition in relation to the use of intrusive surveillance. Those are all issues on which cross-party agreement is essential. Cross-party agreement will have to be achieved not only for this Bill but also for a more comprehensive package of measures.
I believe that there is agreement among all of us about the need for change. We all agree on the increasing threat of what is called variously serious crime, organised crime or—I use the Minister's ingenious phrase—serious and organised crime. I do not care very much whether we call it serious crime or organised

423
crime. It is clear that some very serious crime is not organised and any increase in the legitimate powers of the police to pursue serious but not organised crime should not be excluded because we are concerned too much about words. Therefore, we shall not make a great deal of the difference between serious and organised crime in the wording of the Bill.
Secondly, I believe there is agreement on the need for a common statutory framework for our law enforcement agencies and especially for the security and intelligence services. In that context, we welcome the series of Acts of Parliament which have been passed since 1985: in particular, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I am not saying that we welcome every detail of those measures by any means, but the principle that there should be a statutory basis for all those is something for which there is, I believe, cross-party support.
There is also cross-party support for the changes which were made to the Bill in Committee in another place. There was clarification of the Government's intention, which is now statutory, that the use of the Security Service is to be in support of the activities of the police rather than in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime as such. It is essential that police activities should be the trigger for support from the Security Service; that it should be the police—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used the words "police primacy"—who ask for help from the Security Service; and it should be the police who determine whether there shall be an intervention from the Security Service. That was a good amendment.
There were other minor amendments which I need not go into which improved the nature of the Bill.
As in all those cases, our support for the principle and purpose of the Bill does not mean that we shall merely sit back and not take any part as a revising Chamber in Committee. There are concerns which have been expressed by virtually all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate about the Bill and the whole legislative project of which the measure forms a part, referred to first by the Prime Minister in his Blackpool speech.
The first of those concerns, which was echoed by a number of noble Lords in debate, is the whole issue of internal and operational accountability and the arrangements between the Security Service and the police force. The Government have made it clear that the designated person will be the Director General of NCIS. The Bill is opaque on that matter only because there is, as yet, no statutory basis for NCIS. We do not like Bills to be opaque but we accept reluctantly that that must be the case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, there is still a risk of there being a formula for conflict and misunderstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also referred to the potential for misunderstanding which can exist when the ultimate responsibility is not clear. I do not believe that the Bill does make clear who has that ultimate responsibility.
424
Secondly, there is the question of the definition of "serious crime". As I said, I shall not pursue the issue as between serious and organised crime. However, there is no doubt that the definition of "serious crime" in Clause 2 is extremely wide because it refers either to the risk of violence or serious financial loss or to the possible penalty if somebody is convicted of the crime. That is a very wide definition, even though it has statutory origins. Much more seriously, there is no definition of serious crime in Clause 1. The definition in Clause 2 refers only to Clause 2, which is concerned only with warrants.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the problem of the consequences on criminal procedure and criminal investigations. We have had several pieces of legislation on that subject in recent years and noble Lords who have been following those matters will be familiar with them. There are many problems in relation to the quality and admissibility of evidence. There are problems in relation to public hearings of criminal trials and in relation to adherence to PACE rules. All of those matters could become more difficult if the Security Service is to be involved in criminal investigations unless it is made clear that it is involved in such investigations under the existing conditions which apply to the police. If weaker conditions are applied to the Security Service than are applied to the police, there is a risk that prosecutions which are brought with the assistance of evidence from the Security Service will be challenged and could fail. It is essential to see to it that in operational terms the Security Service, in support of the police, adheres to the same rules and is accountable in the same way, and that its evidence can be relied upon in court, although whether given openly by a witness in court is another matter, if prosecutions are to succeed as a result.
A subsidiary issue is perhaps the whole question of the role of the Police Complaints Authority. That authority applies to the police in its criminal investigations and of course in other matters. Will it apply to the Security Service when it is working in support of the police? That is something which will have to be made clear before we can be sure that the role of the Security Service in support of the police will be effective.
Then there is the whole question of Clause 2 and of warrants—that is, property and intelligence warrants. There is another name for them, but I am afraid that I cannot recall it. However, the very fact that one of the two substantive clauses in the Bill is entirely about warrants shows the complexity of the issues that we face when considering the Bill. Frankly, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the issue of warrants which is the only one they choose to submit to the gaze of Parliament at this stage.
Who is responsible for warrants? From the background of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which is being amended, and from paragraph 4 of the helpful briefing that the Minister supplied to us, we understand that authority for those property warrants will come from the Secretary of State. But that is different from the situation of the police. Their property warrants must have a judicial trigger. We must at least ask whether the

425
rules should be different for the Security Service when its members are acting in support of the police. Should there not be a judicial intervention in warrants? If that is the case, should there not be some statutory basis upon which those warrants are to be justified?
In any case, we must be sure that the Bill is not a back door either for giving the Security Service powers in relation to warrants which are not available to the police in this country—I believe that the phrase used in the Bill is "British Islands"—or that the powers of the police in relation to warrants are not being increased by the back door as a result of the legislation. Nothing appears in the explanation of the Bill's intentions; nor was there any reference to the matter in the Minister's opening speech. However, if we are to be satisfied about warrants—and, indeed, if the European Court of Human Rights is to be satisfied—the Minister will have to confirm that no extension of powers is proposed in that way and that there are no inconsistent powers as between the Security Service and the police. At present, it appears that there could be.
Then there is the whole question of the rest of the legislation—that is, the statutory basis for NCIS, the national crime squad, and so on. We are promised that in the next Session, although I suppose that the words cannot be quite so firm. However, I want to be able to say that the Opposition will give the utmost support to such legislation because we support the whole package. But in order to do so we must be involved in discussions and we must be taken into the confidence of the Government as to precisely what they mean by it.
Looking at the whole package, the problem with the Bill is that there are two elements: one is the extension of powers; and the other is the extension of accountability and scrutiny. What we have in the Bill before us is only the extension of powers, not the extension of accountability and scrutiny both by Parliament and by judicial means. Therefore, we have the most difficult part to play in the process of the Bill. As I said, we want to support the whole package but, in order to do so, we must be consulted on the matter.
That leads me to the next and final point on our concerns about the Bill; namely, the whole question of external accountability of the law enforcement agencies in the broader sense in which we are now talking about them—in other words, the police service, the other law enforcement agencies and the Security Service in support of them. Our concern is that the accountability proposed seems to be only to the Secretary of State only to the Executive branch. We cannot believe that that is right. We cannot believe that there should be no accountability to Parliament, perhaps in the form of accountability to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Indeed, perhaps there would have to be changes in the composition and reporting of the Intelligence and Security Committee and perhaps there would have to be new bodies to which the new designated person—the Director General of NCIS—will have to be responsible.
After all, it is only a very short time since, under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, we supported the continuation of the tripartite responsibility system for
426
our police forces. We supported the continued involvement of local authorities and magistrates in the control of the police and in the membership of police authorities. Something will have to be done in the form of accountability other than simply to the Secretary of State as regards NCIS and the national crime squad. That does not mean that it should be the same body and that it should be the same organisation because they have different functions. But they should be responsible to the same body in some way.
Therefore, what we have before us is incomplete legislation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, recognised that fact when he said that he would like to see consolidation of the Bill when it is enacted with previous legislation. I should like to see consolidation not only as suggested by the noble Lord but also with the rest of the programme which the Prime Minister announced in his Blackpool speech. While reserving our right, as I made clear, to seek particular changes to the Bill—the purpose of which we support—we pledge our support for the whole programme. We hope to see a coherent and effective programme which encompasses increased effectiveness for our police and law enforcement agencies with continued democratic accountability.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have had a relatively short but useful and constructive introduction to the Bill. As is so often the case in your Lordships' House, the debate has been enhanced by a number of contributions informed by relevant personal experience. I have no doubt whatever that our considerations on the Bill during its remaining stages will also benefit from that expertise.
When anyone says that he accepts a Bill in principle, I have learned the hard way at the Dispatch Box that I am in for a pretty lively, busy and probably lengthy session on the Bill. Another aspect that has characterised today's debate has been the support that has come from all sides of the House for the principles that underlie the legislation. However, as I said, that does not preclude the fact that we will have interesting debates hereafter. There has been widespread agreement that it is sensible to bring the particular skills and expertise that the Security Service possesses into the battle against organised crime in support of the efforts of the law enforcement agencies.
The Government are grateful for that endorsement of the measure. When dealing with an issue as serious as organised crime, it is important that there should be unity among us at least and that the message should go forward strongly from this House and, indeed, from another place that we are united in our efforts to do all that we can to tackle organised crime.
A number of specific points were raised during the course of the debate. Some of them will no doubt be raised again in Committee and, indeed, would be more appropriately dealt with at that stage. However, I should like to refer to some of those points and leave the debate on those that I do not mention today to the next stage of the Bill.

427
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, brought an enormous amount of expertise to our debate. As she informed the House today, it was not only personal expertise but also that inherited from her father, who also had very close involvement with the Security Services. The noble Baroness referred particularly to complaints. I can tell her that there are appropriate mechanisms in place for dealing with complaints against the police and indeed against the Security Service. They take account of the different powers available to police officers and to members of the Security Service.
As I believe the noble Baroness realises, members of the service have no executive powers. Accountability arrangements for the Security Service inevitably need to take account of the organisation's need for secrecy as well as protecting members of the public. If the complaint against a member of the Security Service relates to an alleged criminal offence, then that will be investigated by the police. Members of the Security Service are, of course, subject to the law.
The noble Baroness also referred to the definition of serious crime, which has been referred to by many speakers during the course of the debate. The definition does not cover any offence attracting a penalty of three years. It covers offences for which a person aged 21 or over with no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to receive a prison sentence of three years or more. That is a much tougher test. It is rare for a first-time offender to be given a custodial sentence of three years or more. Indeed, to be given a custodial sentence at all is unusual for offenders with no previous convictions. Therefore a test based on an offence for which a person who has attained the age of 21 and who has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more is a tough test. It is only that which is likely to bite on the most serious of offenders.
Reference was also made to the threshold of the definition being too low. The definition used to cover the issue of property warrants is the same definition which is being used effectively to govern the issue of warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. All parts of the definition focus on criminal offences which constitute different forms of serious crime. They are differentiated according to the likely sentencing outcome or key features: the use of violence, or substantial financial gain. This is not the only safeguard. In general the requirement for co-ordination arrangements to be agreed with the Director General of NCIS is a means of ensuring that the Security Service's contribution is only directed into appropriate areas. More specifically, applications for property warrants require the authorisation of the Secretary of State and are subject to scrutiny from the commissioner. This will ensure that warrants are not granted in inappropriate circumstances.
Continuing on the theme of accountability, with reference to the safeguard mechanisms, the powers of the Security Service tribunal to examine complaints about alleged activities of the Security Service will extend to investigation of complaints arising from the
428
proposed new function of the service. The Intelligence and Security Committee set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be able to examine the role of the service in countering organised crime. I recognise the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Blaker to that committee. Under the Security Service Act and the Interception of Communications Act commissioners will be able to review the issue of warrants by the Secretary of State which allow the service to intercept telephones or to carry out operations which involve interference with property.
Continuing with the theme of accountability, I was asked how members of the Security Service would give evidence and whether they would give evidence anonymously. Witnesses can give evidence anonymously or from behind screens only if the trial judge is satisfied that it is in the public interest for them to do so. The Security Service will be no different from the police. Members of other agencies including the police and the Army give evidence behind screens or under pseudonyms or anonymously where the judge rules that it is in the public interest for them to do so. Any application to the court for screening of and anonymity for Security Service witnesses will be made by prosecuting counsel only after full consideration of the issues involved and the closest consultation with the prosecuting authorities, and only where it is absolutely necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to giving evidence in court. I believe I have covered some of his points. I, too, had read the articles in The Times to which he referred. As I have said, the Security Service is aware of the consequences of becoming more involved in serious crime work and of the possibility that it will be called on to give evidence in an increasing number of cases. I have given examples of how that is carried out in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also mentioned different access to Ministers as regards the police and the Security Service. It is an important pillar in the accountability arrangements of the Security Service that the director general is answerable to the Home Secretary. Clearly this is different from the accountability arrangements for the police. The different systems reflect the differences between the two organisations and no one wishes to compromise the operational independence of chief officers of police. However, the requirement for the activities of the Security Service in support of the police—that is the important point—to be subject to co-ordination arrangements agreed with the director general will prove an important control in this respect. It was described by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as the thin end of the wedge.
When I opened this debate I made clear that the resources devoted to the Security Service's new function will be small and that the protection of national security will remain the service's main priority. Indeed it will be a matter for the service itself to determine whether it has the resources to offer assistance to the police. I hope that that will offer some comfort to my noble friend

429
Lady Park as I know that she is worried about pre-empting precious resources of the Security Service which could detract from its main priority.
I also made clear that there are elaborate arrangements to ensure the accountability of the Security Service. They will apply to the service's new function in the same way as they do to the service's existing functions. I was asked why, if there were spare resources, we did not simply hand them over to the police, in which case we would not need this Bill at all. The Security Service needs to retain the flexibility to be able to respond to sudden demands in any of the areas for which it is responsible. That would not be helped by a permanent transfer of resources from the Security Service to the police. As regards the flexibility to which I referred a moment ago, it is for the Security Service to determine whether it wants to help in this area. If it does not, it will need those resources itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred, I believe, to the Security Service having no experience of gathering evidence in such a way that it can be used in court. I think that I have partly covered that point. Since 1992 the Security Service has had the lead responsibility for combating Irish terrorism on the mainland and, in carrying out that function, the service has had to gear its activities to securing the conviction of terrorists. There have been a number of notable successes. The service has, and indeed will have to have regard in its new function to those aspects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that are applicable.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the joint opinion which I believe was secured by the organisation, Liberty. I can give him an absolute assurance that I shall make sure that we give a proper response to that joint opinion. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the definition of law enforcement agencies and asked for some elaboration on that. The national crime squad will cover England and Wales, as I have said. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is already in existence a Scottish crime squad. Similarly, the RUC is Province-wide in Northern Ireland and naturally there will be a need to have close operational links between the national crime squad in England and Wales, the Scottish crime squad and the RUC. I cannot comment on whether we shall remove the word "national", but no doubt I shall reflect on what my noble friend has said.
The Security Service will normally act in support of the police and Customs and Excise. However, there are other bodies that the service might assist in the pursuit of serious crime. They could include the Serious Fraud Office, the Immigration Service and the Benefits Agency. In regard to the latter two organisations, it is important to realise that the service would only help to combat large-scale racketeering and fraud rather than dealing with individual cases. My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth asked about arrangements for the service's involvement in this area. She believed that they were too complicated. The Director General of the Security Service will retain operational control of the service. It is right that there should be arrangements in place to ensure that the service's serious crime work is co-ordinated with that of law enforcement agencies. We
430
do not believe that the arrangements will be over-elaborate or burdensome. However, my noble friend is right in that this is an area that we shall have to watch carefully.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the regulation of electronic eavesdropping. As I said earlier, the Home Secretary has given a commitment to legislate on intrusive surveillance by the police. We are not planning to go beyond that. The Government gave consideration recently to the wider issues of privacy and decided not to proceed with legislation. Of course, as my noble friend said, the practice of telephone tapping is comprehensively regulated under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised, I believe, the point about whether chief constables will automatically know if the Security Service is operating in their areas. Normally a chief constable will know. However, there could be circumstances where the service was tailing a suspect along a motorway which passed through several force areas where particular chief constables were not alerted. The important factor is that the activities of the service will be known to and visible to NCIS which will have responsibility for tasking the service on behalf of the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the head of NCIS. Again, as I made clear, we intend to introduce legislation to put NCIS on a statutory footing in the near future. Legislation on the head of NCIS would be outside the scope of the Bill.
The noble Lord also referred to the handling of agents. The police are subject to clear guidelines on the handling of informants. Those guidelines address the issue of joint operations with other agencies such as Customs. The emphasis is on co-operation and discussion both at a strategic level to resolve issues of policy and at operational level to resolve practical issues. This is a useful model for involvement of the Security Service. The service has clear guidelines governing agent-handling procedures. Those guidelines have been formulated in response to the requirements of the service's existing functions. The work involves co-operation with the police. In preparing for the new function, the service is discussing with the police and others how to develop existing co-operation.
That is the right way to proceed. The emphasis throughout the Bill is on developing co-ordination between the contributions of different agencies, not on rigidly standardising those contributions. I look to my noble friend Lord Renton. He welcomed the framework of the Bill. I believe that my noble friend had some confidence that sensible negotiations would be achieved and that arrangements would be arrived at by the varying agencies. But that is no reason for not making the point; it is an important one. I have confidence that arrangements will be secured at the end of the day.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough and my noble friend Lady Park referred to extra finance. The Security Service has made it clear that it believes that it can take on this new function within its existing budget. Like the rest of government, it is striving to be as efficient as possible and to provide as good value for money as

431
possible. However, I repeat the point. It is for the Security Service to determine how it can support things without compromising its primary duty of looking after national security and the economic well-being of the country.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough was rather concerned about the range of chief officers who could be called upon for appointment from English and Welsh forces and not from Northern Ireland. I believe that there is a misunderstanding. My understanding is that it is only chief constables in all situations, whether it is Ireland or England. The only variation to that is that it is a commissioner of police in London rather than a chief constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked about the sharing of information and the recording of information between agencies. For co-operation between the agencies to be a success in practice, there will be a requirement for appropriate sharing of operational information. The recent improvement in co-operation between the police and Customs—it was referred to by the noble Lord—acts as a useful model and no doubt will be drawn upon when arrangements are drawn up for this very purpose.
The noble Lord also referred to the democratic accountability of chief constables. We value that local democratic accountability of chief constables and will do nothing in this Bill to undermine it. That is one of the reasons why the Bill makes clear that the Security Service will have a supporting role and will not be able to act independently in this serious crime field.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked whether operational primacy will lie with NCIS or with chief constables. All operations by the Security Service will have to be visible to NCIS. NCIS will ensure that chief constables are kept informed although circumstances may well require a greater level of co-operation with the local force. This will vary from case to case.
Many noble Lords have referred to the extension of powers in the Bill. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that the powers already exist for the Security Service. The intention is simply to extend existing powers to the new functions described in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked how the effectiveness of the new Security Service role will be assessed. He asked whether there is a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government keep matters of this nature under review. There are also existing mechanisms for overseeing the work of the Security Service. I have mentioned some. It is the wish of all parties for our response to organised crime to be as effective as possible. It will be open to the Intelligence and Security Committee to look into appropriate aspects of the Security Service's new role in due course. However, its future work programme is a matter for the committee to determine. My noble friend Lord Blaker is listening to the debate and will no doubt take that message to heart.
Organised crime is a menace which should have no place in a civilised society. That is why the Government are bringing forward the package of measures to which
432
I referred in opening the debate to ensure that our response to it is as effective as possible. This Bill represents the first part of the package. The package was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who preferred to talk about the whole package rather than the Bill.
The Bill is a discrete piece of legislation which is part of the package. That is why we have been able to bring it forward in advance of the rest of the package. By enacting it now we will be demonstrating that we are not prepared to delay bringing forward all available resources against those responsible for serious, organised crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996
5.37 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996 No. 965) be not proceeded with and that this House invites Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations in place of Part 1 when they can show that it will significantly help to alleviate the problem of over-payment of housing benefit and in place of Part 2 when they can show that the supply of shared accommodation is sufficient to carry the burden which would be placed on it.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before beginning any other argument, I should like to offer my thanks to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal and to the usual channels for their courtesy and kindness in passing the business Motion to enable this Motion to be taken before the Prayer which follows it.
The regulations to which I draw the House's attention are divided into two parts. The first provides that housing benefit shall be paid in arrears instead of in advance. The second provides that young people under 25 shall receive housing benefit only at the rate appropriate to shared accommodation which is defined, for some reason which I have not fathomed, as accommodation not including use of their own sitting room.
My concerns about the regulations are, first, that they will tend to shut out the unemployed from the housing market, secondly, that they will drive large numbers of landlords either out of business or out of the housing benefit market, and, thirdly, that they will create considerable homelessness among those under 25 years old.
However, those are not the points I am making in my Motion. In my Motion I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on all those points. We are all wrong sometimes. What I complain of—it is the subject of my Motion—is that the Department of Social Security has not done enough work on the regulations to be able to tell me whether or not I am mistaken. If I am, the

433
department will not know it. Therefore, the point of the Motion is to ask the department to go back and do its homework.
I have said in the past that the Department of Social Security, left to itself, is the most competent in Whitehall. I do not withdraw that phrase; but the operative words are "left to itself". If I should describe the regulations as "a pesky proposal", I should not be returning—greatly though I might like to—to old-fashioned 16th century abuse. I should say it originated from the public spending round. With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan, we will never get social security right until Exchequer spokesmen,
"do not itch
to interfere in matters which
they do not understand".
I can see the Minister already thinking out his reply and I have a fair idea what it will be.
We all agree with the argument put by Mr. Chris Smith in his excellent lecture on Social Justice in the Modern World that one should aim to get the social security budget lower. That is no excuse for measures which are more likely to have the effect of increasing the social security budget. Also, while we are in dialogue with Exchequer spokesmen, we should remind them that a large part of the social security budget is the result of their errors. It is their responsibility to put it right.
I am also concerned that the Government are showing a considerable degree of discourtesy to the Social Security Advisory Committee, to which we are, as usual, much indebted. The Government say that they welcome the recognition and support for the proposals provided by the committee in its report. However, from the committee's conclusions we see what kind of recognition and support it is. Paragraph 47 states:
"We do not believe that, as presented to us, the potential effects of the proposals for paying Housing Benefit in arrears and for cutting Housing Benefit for people under 25 are sufficiently well understood to make it responsible to proceed with them. There needs to be a more thorough assessment of costs and benefits before any change is implemented".
On the first part, the committee recommends that the department takes more time to consider the implications for claimants and the private rented sector. On the second part, it recommends that the proposal be not implemented in the form presented to the committee. If that is support, one can do without it. To describe it as the Social Security Advisory Committee's "recognition and support" I am tempted to regard as cocking a snook at the committee. I do not believe that it is a courteous response.
In Part I, the Government show considerable concern about tenants taking housing benefit and absconding without paying the rent. I know that that happens. Once in my bachelor days it was done by my next-door neighbour who was known as "Mr. Lawless". But we have no evidence before us on the extent of the problem. The Government admit that the abuse may not be widespread. Noble Lords will note from the "may", that the Government have no figures available to them whatever.
There we have one mischief which may not be widespread, but if the regulations go through they will create other mischiefs which may be more widespread. In the first place, it is an incentive to breach of contract. The almost invariable landlord's contract is for rent in advance. The citizens' advice bureaux comment that they have never heard of a landlord willing to take his rent in arrears. So tenants who do not have the money will be put into a position of breaking their contract. The National Federation of Housing Associations is surely right that that will discourage landlords from renting to people on housing benefit or will encourage those of them who go on doing so to do what one always does in response to late payment: increase one's charges. Of course, the Government will pay for that in housing benefit too.
The delay may be much longer than the two months envisaged. The idea that all local authorities settle housing benefit claims within two weeks is not in the real world, especially since the two weeks only run from when the local authority has all the relevant information. Local authorities are often in no hurry to obtain it. In the London Borough of Brent, from which I come, delays of three months are by no means unusual. Add another couple and the landlord is waiting for a long time.
Delay is often caused by notification of change of circumstances, to which the local authority does not react with the requisite speed. One case which the citizens' advice bureaux have found is of notification in June, reaction on 5th September; overpayment of £172. That is not abuse by the tenant, it is a grave hardship to the tenant. Before the Government use overpayments of housing benefit as a justification for the regulations they need to know a great deal more than they do at present about why there are such overpayments: which are error by the local authority; which are error by the Department of Social Security (and that happens too); which are honest error by the claimant and which are fraud. Until some distinction is made, we can have no reliable proceedings.
The Government admit that they have little evidence concerning hardship to the landlord by an absconding tenant. But there will be a great deal of hardship if the regulations are proceeded with. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux quotes a case in North London, which is not exceptional, where with two months' rent and a deposit the claimant would be forced to provide out of his own resources, while waiting for housing benefit, £1,213. What person, recently unemployed, is in a position to do that? The Government said that people recently unemployed will have several weeks' wages in hand. If I had no other reason for looking forward to the next election, I should look forward to it for the pleasure of hearing Conservative candidates repeating that argument in Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. I should expect it to confirm the Conservatives' status as the third party in all three of those cities. It is not in the real world.
Apart from that, we must consider the effect on former prisoners. They do not come out of prison with several weeks' wages in hand. All of us, even the Home

435
Secretary, agree that if prisoners are to go straight they must be able legally to be housed and to work. If they cannot do that, the costs will be much greater.
The second part of the regulations is, if anything, even worse. People of 24 are too old to be compulsorily kept at home. They are not children and their parents do not want to treat them as children. They are entitled to live independently. When I got married 25 was the average age of marriage for men and 21 for women. To be kept at home, as the Government wish, up to the age of 25 is an unnecessary indignity. I find it a curious provision that such people are not to be allowed a sitting room. It is the opposite mirror image of what happened in the 1930s when male undergraduates were first allowed to visit St. Hugh's College, Oxford. The college laid down that they could only visit between the safe hours of two and five in the afternoon and that all beds were to be moved out into the corridor before they came. The Government seem to have got that back to front and I do not understand why. It puzzles me. The biggest problem is that I do not see what they know about the supply of shared accommodation. To quote their own argument at paragraph 29 of their note to the advisory committee,
"There is no reason why Housing Benefit, which is intended to meet reasonable housing costs, should meet rents for types of accommodation which tenants would not be able to afford if they had to meet the rent from their own resources".
But that argument does too much. It is an argument against all housing benefit. The essential point of housing benefit is that it meets rent that the tenant could not otherwise have met. If that is the argument on which they rely, I shall be asking, come the general election: could we expect them, if in office, to continue housing benefit at all for another Parliament? It creates a very real doubt.
The supply of shared accommodation is the most surprising element. The Government invoke the housing market for students. I do not think they will find anyone in any university who agrees that that proves a plentiful supply of shared accommodation.
In a Written Answer to me on 29th January, the Minister said that there must be a large supply of shared accommodation because young people move house so frequently. I should have thought that evidence might have proved exactly the opposite. Many people move because their shared accommodation is not satisfactory, in many cases not safe: the fire rate in houses of multiple occupation is considerable.
The only quantifiable information we have is from Gloucestershire. We owe it jointly to Shelter and Gloucester city and Gloucestershire county councils. They found shared accommodation for 949 people. In a Written Answer, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, went better and found 1,223. There is a difference of definition there which I have not found, a shortfall—on Shelter's figures of 900 places, and on the noble Earl's figures of 600; and he knows absolutely nothing about the supply of shared accommodation or the demand for it in Gloucestershire. The Government should have had that information before they brought in these regulations.
That is the sort of evidence that makes me believe that this measure must lead to homelessness. It is my view that the Gloucestershire figures are likely to be typical. If the Government have one bit of evidence to the contrary I shall hear it with very great interest. The Minister will doubtless say that the Government are confident. They are often confident, but that confidence is sometimes misplaced. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996 No. 965) be not proceeded with and that this House invites Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations in place of Part 1 when they can show that it will significantly help to alleviate the problem of over-payment of housing benefit and in place of Part 2 when they can show that the supply of shared accommodation is sufficient to carry the burden which would be placed on it.—(Earl Russell.)
5.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, my concern is with the regulation that restricts housing benefit for people under 25. The trouble with youth, as someone said, is that it is wasted on the young. It is easy to pick up a false stereotype of young people as though they were all having a thoroughly wonderful time as purveyed by the colour supplements. But for a good many, life today is not at all easy. We need, particularly in this House, to hear some of their concerns.
I understand that the purpose of the regulation is, above all, to ensure that young people on housing benefit do not take on accommodation that will lock them into dependence on benefits and prevent their taking up modestly priced employment. I imagine what is envisaged is a person in a flat paying more rent than he or she can earn and that money at present being paid through benefit.
The aim of helping people into employment is entirely laudable. But it needs to be set against the background of a number of other considerations. The first is the very high level of unemployment, particularly in some areas and especially among young people. In some areas of the country unemployment is still over 20 per cent. Jobs are simply not there for very great numbers of young people. We need to bear in mind also the increasing homelessness, disillusionment and other problems associated with so many of that age group. This will be one more blow to a good many. It has been calculated that some 144,000 young people could have their benefit reduced by the regulation.
The Social Security Advisory Committee could not accept the principle of making rates of benefit that distinguish those over 25 from those under 25. I have to agree. There seems no good or logical reason for drawing a line on the basis of that particular age.
The relevant regulation restricts the amount of benefit payable to someone under 25 to "single room rent". That means in effect that the young person will have to live in a multi-occupancy house if he or she is to have benefit paid in full. That might be perfectly acceptable to a good number. Those of us who were sent away to boarding school or served in the forces may very well

437
not consider it to be much of a hardship. But some people will be badly hit. For example, there are young people who had work but who have suddenly become unemployed. While in work they managed to afford modest accommodation which included exclusive use of a small kitchen and bathroom and toilet facilities. When unemployed, they will lose all that. The single room rent benefit will not be enough to cover the rent for that kind of accommodation.
As mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, there are those who have been discharged from prison or who have mental health problems. Such people do not always find it easy to obtain accommodation. And there will be people who, for a variety of perfectly understandable and good reasons, might very well need something more self-contained than a single room in a house of multi-occupancy. Few of those will have family resources to fall back on. Some will be estranged from their families. Their problems can only be exacerbated by the regulation.
Life is already difficult enough for many young people today. It is estimated that 100,000 of the homeless in Britain are under 25 years of age. Many people affected by the regulation will come from a broken home or one from which they are excluded. They may have very little in the way of skills and training. The jobs open to them are few and far between. The rents in an area of acceptable accommodation may be way beyond what would be covered by benefit for a single room. I am afraid that this regulation, although well meant, far from helping young people into modestly paid employment as is its aim, will further depress and demoralise a good number.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for today's Motion on the Order Paper. When the regulations were foreshadowed in the social security Statement last November, we on these Benches strongly opposed them.
Of course it is true that the housing benefit bill has soared—and we know why. The reason for some of that increase is demographic; the increasing numbers of lone parents and more particularly pensioners. Some is due to the recession and the growth in unemployment and of irregular, temporary, casual work combined with falling wages and low pay. But most of the reasons for the growth in housing benefit is the deliberate decision by the Government to introduce into housing the market and market economics. In the local authority and private rented sector there has been a deliberate switch from subsidies in bricks and mortar to subsidies for individuals, thus, at a stroke, creating dependency, without adding a single extra house to the housing market.
The second way in which government policy added to the growth in housing benefit was the deregulation in 1988 of the private rented sector. The Government hoped—it was not an unreasonable hope—that it might encourage investment in private rented housing. That has not happened. At most, something like three-fifths of the new private rented tenancies are one-off
438
properties let by individuals—individuals like me, for example. I am temporarily a landlord of my parents' former home until the market becomes sufficiently robust to sell it on into owner occupation. There is no evidence, except at the luxury end of the market, that significant portfolios of permanent rented housing have come onto the market.
The Minister at the time, Sir George Young, said that housing benefit would take the strain of government policy decisions. It has done so. Whereas in 1987–88 the housing benefit bill was £3.9 billion, it was £11.1 billion in 1994–95. So it has risen threefold or fourfold. That was because of demography and recession but, above all, because the Government willed it so by way of their policy decisions. Now the Government complain of the cost of their own folly. Did they not think of the consequences before making those policy choices? The Government now seek to cut the very housing benefit bill that they themselves forced upwards. Having made the mistake, they are determined that someone else will pay the price. In this case, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the right reverend Prelate said, the price will be paid by those under 25. I wish now to speak about those people.
Why have the Government targeted the under 25s? It is in the belief that young people under 25 can and should live at home. The Government believe that they do not do so because they are enticed into their own luxury accommodation through the generosity of housing benefit. The argument goes: cut housing benefit, get young people to shop around for cheaper accommodation—or better still, go home—and the DSS bill will at a stroke be cut by £65 million and one will simultaneously strengthen family life.
Every point of that analysis—if such it can he called—is false. It is false that those young people could live at home; that they are living in luxury accommodation and do so because of the generosity of housing benefit. The Government know that analysis to be false because, to my certain knowledge, since 1990 they have commissioned three significant pieces of research which show their arguments to be false.
Can and should those young people live at home? The great majority already do so. Two-thirds of young people under 25 live at home. A further 850,000 are owner occupiers. Only about one young person in eight lives away from home in private rented housing. Especially if they come from a rural area, to move to a place where they may find work may be the only way for them to get a job, however ill paid. Many others have left home because they are highly vulnerable there. Research by the Rowntree Trust showed, for example, that of those leaving authority care, something like 60 per cent. did so because of a background of family conflict and around four in 10 had experienced abuse at home which made it unsafe to return there. But, even if they could return home, they would not be particularly welcome there. If the parents themselves are on housing benefit, the Government, by virtually doubling the non-dependent adult deduction, have made sure that their parents' housing benefit will be cut. Therefore those young people will not be welcome there.

439
Let me move to the second part of the Government's so-called analysis. Do those young people seek up-market accommodation, courtesy of housing benefit? No, they do not. Peter Kemp's research for the DSS itself shows—I quote from Report 26—that housing benefit has "minimal effect" on young people's housing decisions.
Single people under 25 already have a hard time in the housing market. Why is that? First, it is because the private rented sector is a landlord's market and not a tenant's market. The landlords in private renting choose the tenants. It is not the other way round. So, whom do the landlords choose? Research by Peter Kemp for the Government has shown that over half of all landlords will not accept DSS tenants. Among those who do, most of them prefer couples with or without children or the elderly. By far and away the least popular letting that a landlord will make, and then only grudgingly, is to a single person on benefit and not in work. Landlords will not let to those young people if they can let to anyone else. As a result, those young people end up in the grottiest accommodation. It is of the poorest quality, represents the worst value for money and stock that private landlords cannot let to anyone else. Therefore, the Government's notion that those young people can somehow shop around for more modest accommodation is utter nonsense. That argument has been proved false by the research and the Government know it. If they do not, they have not read their own research and should not have commissioned it.
Is housing benefit funding over-expensive accommodation? No, it is not, because housing benefit is already capped. Again, the Government do not seem to be aware that two-fifths of private tenants already find that housing benefit does not cover their rent by, on average, something like £19 a week. Deregulation in 1988 encouraged landlords to raise their rents dramatically. But housing benefit did not follow because local authority rent officers capped the benefit that they would provide. A childless couple in a two-bedroom flat will not receive full housing benefit, however low their income, because they are regarded as being over-housed.
So what happens then? What happens if a young person under or over 25 in a modest flat or a bedsit with kitchen and bathroom finds that housing benefit does not cover the rent? That young person has to top it up out of his income support. However, if one is under 25, income support is £9 a week less than if one is over 25. Perhaps I may give the example of a young person to whom I was talking just four days ago. He is under 25 and lives in a bedsit which he rents for £43 a week. That was the only one he could find that was reasonably salubrious. The rent officer said that the accommodation was worth £27 a week in housing benefit. So from that young person's income support of £36 a week, he has to top slice £16 a week to add to his housing benefit to remain in the very modest bedsit that he currently occupies. He has £20 a week on which to live—£3 a day for food, heating, clothes, a newspaper and bus fares in order to search for a job. It is absolutely impossible.
440
The more reluctant the landlord, the more the young person has to spend; the younger the person, the less income support and the more will go on rent. Those young people are caught in a vicious circle. As a result, because housing benefit does not cover the rent, there is an increased risk of rent arrears and eviction. When such a young person is evicted, he finds it that much harder to find another home, not only because of his record of rent arrears but because in future housing benefit will be paid four weeks in arrears.
Nearly half of all single homeless people are under 25. One of the biggest reasons for their homelessness is the lack of affordable rented accommodation and the reluctance of landlords to take them in. Most of those young people are unable safely to go home. Without a home they cannot get a job; without a job they cannot afford a place to rent; without the money for rent they cannot afford a home; and without a home they cannot obtain a job. And so they go round the treadmill of dependency that the Government, by their policies, have created.
Now, after the battering that those under 25 year-olds have taken, they are told that housing benefit will be depressed even further in order to finance only a room in a shared house. The Social Security Advisory Committee has said that shared accommodation is already in short supply. Such young people are out-bid by students who share or families wanting the entire house. It is precisely that accommodation—a room in a shared house—which will be withdrawn from the rented sector when housing sales pick up. In any case, a high number of those young people, as the right reverend Prelate said, come from homes where they have been abused. There are 20,000 young people who come from local authority care but do not come under the Children Act. There are those with some degree of health or mental problem, wheelchair users, partially sighted people or those dependent on a guide dog. Some of them are HIV positive. For all those young people, it is not clear that shared accommodation is right or right for the people with whom they would share. Yet that is all that they will be able to afford without top-slicing their income support, thus forcing them into deeper poverty. The discretionary moneys available to local authorities do not even begin to touch the problems that will emerge. The standards are extremely low. Finally, to add insult to injury, those under 25 will not have the right to a 50 per cent. top-up between the actual and average rent that those over 25 will enjoy.
These regulations are monstrous. The Government encouraged rents to rise deliberately and said that they would be underpinned by housing benefit. When, as a result of what they did, housing benefit rose, the Government fingered those living in rented accommodation, especially young, single people, for the folly of the consequences of the Government's own decisions. Then the Government have the effrontery to say that young people have an alternative to private rented accommodation. They can live at home, which they cannot; they are living in upmarket accommodation, which they are not; and when they make a legitimate claim, housing benefit is available, which it is not. Already half of all young people are

441
paying part of their income support to contribute to a housing benefit which does not meet their rent. The Government will plunge them further into poverty.
What are the implications? For the young man I spoke of, with a net income of £20 a week, these regulations will mean that he will have a net income of £11 a week—£1.50 a day; not even the cost of a McDonald's meal of a burger and chips. That £1.50 a day must buy his food, clothes, newspaper and travel in his search for a job, his toiletries and so forth.
The Social Security Advisory Committee said that these regulations should not be implemented. It is quite right. Hence we will support the Motion on the Order Paper as hostile, but not fatal. We accept the strict convention of this House that we do not vote against a statutory instrument because to do so would create a situation where, unlike amendments to a Bill, the view of an unelected, largely hereditary House would prevail over that of an elected Chamber. In my view that would be wrong. But we feel so strongly about the inequities of these housing benefit regulations in which the Government created a housing policy which forced up rents and therefore housing benefit, and having done so are then penalising young people for the consequences of their policies, that if the noble Earl chooses to press his Motion, we will be happy to support him in the Lobbies.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendments we are debating tonight are designed to serve two purposes: first, to focus housing benefit more effectively in the private rented sector; secondly, to strengthen the Government's fight to tackle the abuse of public funds.
We have just been treated to the noble Baroness explaining how appalling the social security system is; how monstrous it is; how miserable it is; and how inadequate the various levels are. As always, the noble Baroness never ever puts anything into her speech in the way of numbers as to what her party would prefer to do; what they suggest; how much extra government expenditure they will be prepared to put into housing benefit. The logic of the 14 minutes to which I have just listened, as I have listened on a number of occasions, is that there ought to be a considerable increase in taxpayers' spending in this field. Fine. If that is the case, let the noble Baroness say so and let her come to the conclusion, as she must do, that either something else must be cut—perhaps another part of child benefit—or that taxes will have to be increased.
I do not need to challenge the noble Earl in that regard; he is honest enough to say, when we discuss these matters, that as a taxpayer he is happy to pay more taxes in order to increase benefit. I hope that he is not going to disillusion me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was merely going to say that I am reluctant to pay more tax in order to implement these regulations, which are not beneficial and are excessive.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl is therefore suggesting that any savings we
442
propose to make he would prefer to forego because he feels that the money saved ought to continue to be spent on housing benefit. I believe that I paraphrased him correctly.
I come back to my point, which is simply this. As always, the noble Baroness makes a case that paints a picture of people who need a great deal more money. That is the only logical conclusion of the language she uses. Fine.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The reason young people need more money for their housing is that government policy has deregulated the rents that they are forced to pay. We would not have been in that situation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness would re-regulate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not say that. I wish the Minister would not attribute words to me that I did not use. I said that we would not be in that position had we been in power. The Government are responsible for the crisis in housing benefit that they created, not us and not young people under 25.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am at a loss. Perhaps it is too late in the day for me to follow the logic. But if the problem is deregulation, then the alternative is regulation. Therefore, when the noble Baroness says that there is a huge problem with deregulation, logic tells me that she is suggesting re-regulation. But there is obviously another course of action which is beyond my mental capacities to work out. I shall be interested to see—it may well be revealed at some time in the next few months—the alternative to spending any more money in this field. We either have to do something about regulating, controlling—whatever word we use—or reviewing the private housing market, or we must spend more money if the points made by the noble Baroness are correct regarding how poor the situation is and how inadequate is the housing benefit that we give to people.
The noble Earl in his amendments seeks to have these regulations declared invalid and replaced by new regulations only when the Government can show that the measures will significantly reduce overpayments of housing benefit and there is sufficient shared accommodation available. I believe that your Lordships can be satisfied on both accounts and that these regulations should proceed as planned.
I begin with periodicity. Local authorities are responsible for administering the housing benefit scheme. They currently pay housing benefit wholly or partly in advance to claimants who rent from private landlords. Payments to local authority tenants are made by way of a rebate and are not affected by these amendments. In practice, that means that private tenants are usually paid every two weeks in advance or every four weeks; that is, two weeks in advance and two weeks in arrears. Payments may be sent to the claimant to enable him to pay his rent or in some circumstances—

443
for example, where there are substantial arrears of rent or where the claimant has requested—the benefit may be paid directly to the landlord.
The noble Earl raised the question of delay in processing claims as a point of concern. Local authority performance in that area has been improving. Currently, over 80 per cent. of claims are determined within 14 days of all the information being made available. These regulations do not affect the authorities' statutory obligations to decide claims quickly and, where there is a delay, to consider making payments on account. The Department of Social Security constantly monitors local authority performance in that regard.
There is a major disadvantage in paying benefit in advance. Quite simply, it presumes a future entitlement to benefit based on what local authorities understand the claimant's circumstances to be at the date of the claim. It also relies to a great extent on the honesty of both claimants and landlords to report changes likely to affect benefit. While the majority of claimants and landlords are completely reliable, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that claimants do not always tell local authorities promptly when their circumstances change. But even when they do, the current benefit rule of paying in advance often prevents authorities from changing the amount of benefit straightaway. That may result in the claimant being overpaid or underpaid benefit.
On other occasions a landlord who receives payments direct from the local authority may be tempted to delay reporting a change if he thinks he will gain financially from so doing. In some cases, people receive the payment in advance but do not pay it over and then it takes the landlord three or four months to obtain access to his property again.
There were approximately 2 million recorded overpayments of housing benefit in the private rented sector during 1994–95. Recent studies also suggest that fraudulent encashment of housing benefit costs as much as £1 billion a year. Other overpayments cost an estimated £400 million last year, including £165 million in the private rented sector alone. We must curb this loss by whatever means at our disposal. It would be irresponsible of any government to do otherwise.
That is why these amendments to pay housing benefit in arrears from 7th October represent an important step forward. From that date, new claims from private sector tenants, and claims made following a move to private sector accommodation, will be paid wholly in arrears. However, the amount of benefit payable will remain unchanged and payments will continue to be made at the same two or four weekly intervals as before, but in arrears. Payments made direct to landlords in such cases will be made four weekly in arrears.
That will immediately reduce the amount of benefit overpaid or underpaid by local authorities because they will be able to take account of changes in circumstances much earlier than at present. This effect
444
was acknowledged by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report. We do not, of course, maintain that paying housing benefit in arrears will prevent fraudulent activity, but we expect it to reduce the amount of benefit overpaid in the vast majority of cases.
Another abuse which we discovered when talking to landlords' representatives concerned a practice by some claimants to abscond with the first payment of benefit—which may be a significant sum—without paying their rent. We are determined to stamp that out.
These amendments will enable local authorities to make the first benefit payment payable to a landlord, but to send it to the claimant. This will send a clear message to claimants that it is their responsibility to pay their rent and at the same time offer positive safeguards to landlords. It has been widely welcomed both by the Social Security Advisory Committee and by landlords.
These amendments contain advantages for taxpayers, for claimants, for landlords and for local authorities. I can assure the House that the new rules will have no effect on local authority obligations for determining claims as quickly as possible.
I turn now to the question of young people. The new rules governing the payment of housing benefit to young people were announced in another place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, during the social security Statement in November 1995. My right honourable friend Peter Lilley saw them as essential in discouraging benefit dependency and encouraging young people to take up employment. The noble Earl wants the Government to demonstrate that the supply of shared accommodation is adequate before this measure is implemented. That cannot be done because the availability of accommodation depends, in part, on the demand for it. Any research in this area can only be of limited use because the change we are seeking to implement is designed to encourage behavioural changes on the part of both landlord and tenant.
There is evidence to show that the private rental market has been able to respond to the demand from students for shared accommodation. We have every confidence that landlords and young people will be able to adapt to this change. We are not withholding housing benefit. We are saying that young people who decide to set up their own households must make sensible accommodation choices where they expect the taxpayer to help meet their housing costs. We are asking them to behave responsibly and to make the same decisions as their counterparts who are in employment or in full-time education. Most young people expect to live in modest accommodation, such as bedsits and rooms in shared flats and houses. There is ample scope for young people to share houses and flats without landlords losing rental income. I do not believe there is any risk of the amount of available rented accommodation declining because of these moves.
Housing benefit should not provide an incentive for young people to leave the parental home nor encourage migration to seaside areas where

445
unscrupulous landlords arrange expensive accommodation for young unemployed people. The initial proposals for this measure provided exemptions for couples and those single people with the care of children, and that is still the case. This was to ensure that all households would be able to occupy accommodation which is suitable to their needs.
The right reverend Prelate asked about those youngsters in need of care, support and supervision. It was decided from the outset that young people who live in accommodation provided by housing associations, charitable or voluntary bodies, where an element of care support or supervision is provided, would be exempt from the proposals. We are confident that this exemption will provide protection for the majority of disabled young people who tend to live in accommodation where care is provided. Other vulnerable young people are often housed in this type of accommodation as well, so they would also be protected.
As the measures apply only to the private rented sector, all local authority tenants will be exempt. We consider that this will also protect a proportion of vulnerable young people from being affected by the changes.
The amendments were submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations prior to being made. A number of helpful comments and suggestions were made, for which we are grateful. As a result of the submissions received, two changes have been made to the original proposals.
A number of submissions expressed concern for vulnerable young people who find themselves living independently on leaving local authority care, a group to which the noble Baroness referred. As some of these young people are as young as 16, and often have no family support to rely on, we considered it reasonable to make a further exemption for this group. We have decided to allow all young people who leave local authority care to be exempted from these changes up until their 22nd birthday. We hope that this will enable young care leavers to live in accommodation where some support is available to them—for instance, supported lodgings—until they are able to live independently.
We also decided to exempt from these provisions all those young people who live in self-contained accommodation provided by a registered housing association. Many young people who are housed by registered housing associations have a priority need for social housing. We believe that this exemption, taken with those mentioned already, will provide protection from the changes for most of the vulnerable young people for whom exemptions have been suggested.
The discretionary funding which was available to alleviate cases of exceptional hardship under the January changes to housing benefit will also apply to this measure. The Government will increase their cash contribution to local authorities to enable them to prevent exceptional hardship to those young people
446
who are not within the scope of the agreed exemptions. We are currently consulting the local authority associations on the proposed increase.
We intend to monitor this change to gauge its impact on the rental market as a whole as well as the effectiveness of the change in relation to young people's choices of accommodation.
These amending regulations will safeguard public funds and continue to provide protection to tenants and landlords. They will also encourage young people to make sensible accommodation choices that are within their own and taxpayers' means, just as other young people, either in employment or in education, have to do. I commend the regulations to the House.
6.28 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness for a helpful pair of contributions. I congratulate the Minister, who really is a trouper. His skill in making bricks without straw I admire very much indeed. I told your Lordships he would say that the Government are confident. He did. He gave us no reason for that confidence at all. Above all, he gave us no statistical information on which to base his arguments.
Perhaps I may deal first with fraud. Fraud is a crime. Because it is a crime it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because it is a crime it must be dealt with by punishing the individual who is found guilty; not by a collective punishment for everyone in any way associated with him. It was suggested that there might be £1 billion of fraud. There is no evidence for that; or at least there is none before us at the moment. If the Government are publishing any tomorrow, I shall look at it with great care.
What do the Government actually say? They say:
"The Government acknowledge that there is little evidence about the number of landlords who are left with substantial debts because new tenants have absconded with their Housing Benefit. However, this proposal illustrates the Government's determination to protect the taxpayers' interest and stamp out abuse".
It sounds like an argument for, "There must be fraud because we stamped here".
The Minister said that he cannot carry out any survey of the amount of shared accommodation available. If he cannot do the one thing, then perhaps he should not do the other. The maxim, "Look before you leap" has a great deal of sense behind it. I am not alone in my belief that there is simply not a sufficient supply of shared accommodation. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux thinks so; the National Federation of Housing Associations thinks so; the Social Security Advisory Committee thinks so; most universities with which I have talked, think so. In fact, everyone thinks so except the Minister. It really cannot be the central item of government policy that we are all out of step, but our Johnny. I commend the Motion to the House.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Dubs, L.

Palmer, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rea, L.

Fitt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Hertford, M.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tope, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kintore, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Young of Dartington, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Aldington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Colwyn, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Courtown, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Balfour, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Barber, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Beloff, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Berners, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blaker, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blyth, L

Eden of Winton, L.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bowness, L.

Elton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Goold, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gray, L.

Brentford, V.

Gray of Conrin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Greenway, L.

Brookes, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Henley, L.

Cadman, L.

Hesketh, L.

Caithness, E.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Carnock, L.

Ironside, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

448

Lindsay, E.

Prentice, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Prior, L.

Lucas, L.

Quinton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lyell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rennell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Renton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L

Mersey, V.

Savile, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stockton, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Munster E

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Newall, L.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Tebbit, L.

Teynham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wilcox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wynford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
6.39 p.m.
The Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th March be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to remove unnecessary burdens from business and to remove statutory obstacles to contracting out. It follows and builds on the thrust of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and seeks to advance two important government priorities: the deregulation initiative and the competing for quality policy.
The provisions in the order make good sense. This is demonstrated by the small response to the consultation exercise. Comment was invited from over 300 individuals and bodies with a particular interest in the order and only considered necessary.
I shall deal first with deregulation, then address the contracting out issues, and end with an explanation of the enabling powers the order contains.
The clear aim of the Government's deregulation initiative is to produce "fewer, better, simpler" regulations. This initiative is at the heart of the Government's policy to create an environment in which businesses can grow and increase their competitiveness. Over-prescriptive by imposing costs and inflexibilities. Small firms in particular stand to benefit from such moves.
Good progress is being made. Businesses in Northern Ireland are seeing benefits—104 regulations affecting business in Northern Ireland have been repealed or amended.
Let me stress that deregulation does not mean the reduction or removal of necessary protections. The Government's priority is always the proper protection of public interest.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced 13 specific deregulatory changes which benefit business in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This order adds a further six specific deregulation provisions of benefit to Northern Ireland businesses.
Three articles will introduce further deregulatory change to Northern Ireland. These will remove statutory constraints on measuring a pint of beer; remove restrictions on Sunday sporting activities; and remove constraints on totalisator operators in relation to deductions from stakes. This provision follows a Great Britain order made under the enabling powers of the 1994 Act.
The remaining three provisions are unique to Northern Ireland. Article 3 removes the requirement to license premises used for horticultural processing; Article 5 removes redundant controls on local auctions; and Article 8 removes the requirement for taxi drivers to sit a separate driving test in order to obtain a taxi driver's licence.
The other side of what is to be enforced is how those measures are to be enforced. Businesses complain that they often incur unnecessary costs in order to meet the demands of over-zealous enforcement officers. They also suggest that they should be able to challenge enforcement officers' decisions at an early stage and, when a formal decision has been made, that their rights of appeal should be clarified and the appeal procedure should be speedy and inexpensive.
The Government recognise those concerns. They believe in ensuring that the manner of enforcement is as fair, transparent and consistent as possible. This is stated in Article 9. Article 10 sets out powers to introduce "model" appeal provisions which will provide a clear procedure to help businesses to appeal enforcement decisions.
Let me now turn to the other provisions in this order. These relate to contracting out and are based on the Competing for Quality White Paper, published in 1991, the aim of which was to improve the quality and responsiveness of our public services, while ensuring that the cost of their provision is one which the nation can afford.
The competing for quality programme exposes public services to the influences of competition. There are some areas of public service where the potential to test whether a function can be undertaken more effectively and efficiently may not be realised because of small but significant legal obstacles.
The order seeks to remove obstacles to market testing and contracting out where they may have been identified, thereby widening the opportunity for central departments, district councils and non-departmental public bodies to consider whether services should be opened to
450
competition. An important point to make here is that the provisions in the order do not prescribe competition; they merely allow it. Final decisions will rest with departments, councils and other bodies.
Measures removing statutory obstacles to contracting out are contained in Parts III and IV of the order. They include a number of specific provisions, enabling functions which are presently the responsibility of statutory office holders, departments and non-departmental public bodies to be exercised by duly authorised contractors.
Articles 11 and 12 enable the Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver to delegate functions to their own staff and to contract out functions.
Articles 13 to 15 are technical provisions relating to the important areas of accountability and contract conditions. They make it clear that the accountability of Ministers is not diminished if a service is contracted out; nor will contracting out affect the responsibilities of office holders or departments in relation to services affected by the order. Although work may be delegated, responsibility may not.
Additional measures in the order remove statutory obstacles to the contracting out of the administration of housing benefit.
The order also contains two measures specific to Northern Ireland which remove obstacles to contracting out in the areas of the agricultural census and dog control services provided by district councils.
A further category of obstacle is where restrictions are imposed by statute or other obligation on the disclosure to others of information held by government. Article 16 and Schedule 4 enable such restricted information to be disclosed to contractors where this is necessary to discharge their contractual responsibilities. In making such information available, it is important to note that contractors will be bound by the same obligations, and be subject to the same penalties for unauthorised release, as would public servants in the same circumstances.
Although most of the provisions follow practice in Great Britain, I need to draw your Lordships' attention to two departures from that practice and to a special measure for social security issues.
The first concerns the Sunday betting provisions in the 1994 Act. As the result of an extensive public consultation exercise a decision has been made not to include those provisions in the order.
Secondly, a general order-making power similar to that in the 1994 Act has not been included in this order. Such a power would have enabled Northern Ireland Orders in Council to be amended by subordinate legislation, where the aim is to effect deregulatory change or to remove an obstacle to contracting out. This would have meant that such orders would not be subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. That would have created a situation substantially at odds with that in Great Britain where an effective system of parliamentary checks has been put in place.
A special order-making power for social security legislation has been included in the order. This is a necessary exception to the general rule. The inclusion of

451
this power in Article 17 recognises the need, on the grounds of fairness and established practice, to provide for parity of treatment for social security legislation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The powers in Article 17 will enable any changes made in Great Britain by orders made under the 1994 Act to be introduced into Northern Ireland without delay.
I commend this order as a sensible and reasonable provision. It adds to progress already made across the UK. Its approach is entirely consistent with the Government's initiative to help business to become more competitive by reducing unnecessary burdens. The removal of obstacles to contracting out offers possibilities for flexibility in the delivery of public services. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th March be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and explanation.
"No advanced society can manage itself outside a regulatory framework. Indeed, it is impossible to contemplate the sophisticated assumptions on which we conduct our everyday lives without the underpinning of regulation".
That is a direct citation from the remarks of the then President of the Board of Trade as recently as February 1994. We agree.
The Minister said that the order does not mean the reduction of protection to the public. I wish I were able to share her confidence since £1 billion of public money is now seriously at risk by virtue of deregulation and the removal of controls from the rendering and animal feed industry.
I wonder whether the Minister can reassure me over one or two articles. Article 3 relates to the repeal of licensing provisions relating to horticultural produce. Can the Minister reassure the House that public standards will be maintained?
Article 5 relates to the local control of auctions. Will the public be protected adequately from the scourge of bogus auctions? In Article 10, of course one welcomes a sensible, efficient, inexpensive appeal procedure. Can the Minister give the assurance that there will be no adverse effect on fair employment, in particular, the fair treatment of female employees?
I welcome the local option being introduced into Northern Ireland in respect of betting on Sundays. We did quite well with local option in a different context—drinking on Sundays—in Wales for many, many years, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris is willing to testify.
Deregulation is not the only answer to these problems. There is of course a strong public service ethos, particularly in Northern Ireland. The note of caution that I should like to sound is that contracting out/deregulation may be superficially attractive as an aspect of political dogma, but it sometimes inflicts upon the public service ethos wounds which are not readily cured.
I shall say one last word if I may. On the previous occasion when we discussed Northern Ireland business I asked the Minister about the position of Patrick Kelly.
452
I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I want to thank the Minister publicly for fulfilling the indication she gave that that was very much in the mind of the Northern Ireland Office. I am glad to say that the Northern Ireland Office—she may not agree with my terminology—was able to overbear the traditional stubbornness of the Home Office in seeing to the moving of Patrick Kelly from Northern Ireland to a prison in the Republic where he will be nearer to his family and relatives. I thank the Minister.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her introduction of the order. It is a bit of a rag-bag, is it not? It reminds me of the reported remarks of Winston Churchill when faced with a mess on his plate:
"This pudding has no theme".
We seem to have here an assortment which has been put together for largely ideological reasons.
The Minister is right when she says we must try to reduce barriers to businesses' effectiveness, but the Government should be careful when they claim that they are consistently on the side of reducing regulatory barriers. Butterworth's Company Law had 500 pages in 1979; it now has more than 4,000 pages. As the noble Baroness will know better than most Ministers, the number of necessary forms it recommends businesses to look at has grown from 80 to 265. So under governments of all persuasions—notably the Government who have been in power for the past 17 years—the burden of regulation has tended to grow, and so it is of course right to winnow from time to time—to cull, as it were—the burden of regulation as it grows.
The horrors of BSE, which were due, at least in part, to the removal of appropriate regulations, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, should make us look at each point of removal rather carefully, especially where consumer safety is involved. Like him, I should like to press the Minister on the Horticultural Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. The order removes the need for licences under that Act. The Minister failed to mention the fact that these licences are currently required only by horticulturists who produce more than a tonne of horticultural product a year—we are talking about fairly large enterprises—and that the licence deals exclusively with the simple and basic matter of hygiene. I wonder whether she is satisfied that this is not a safety barrier unnecessarily removed.
There is then, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, also said, the repeal of the Auctions (Local Control) Act (Northern Ireland) 1957. That Act gives local councils the right to license properties in which auctions are to be held, and allows them to refuse to license properties owned by people with convictions for an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how local councils in Northern Ireland will be able to protect themselves against that type of fraudulent provenance of an application once that provision has been repealed.
Then there is, of great interest to all of us who are beer drinkers, the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Interestingly, that is an order which was brought in by this Government in the first place. So, it is—if I dare use the words—a U-turn. The Government have changed their mind about the froth on the top of the beer. I happen to agree with them. It should stop short

453
measures. In that sense, it has my full support, but they might want, in all modesty, to own up to the fact that it was their regulation in the first place.
Finally, contracting out is a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave. First, as the Minister knows well, the private sector is not always strong in Northern Ireland. When a service is contracted out, we must be sure that there is proper competition; that there is no fix of the sort that used to disfigure public life in Northern Ireland; and that genuinely competitive options are available in a particular service. At the same time, we should be careful about wantonly destroying the infrastructure of public service that exists in Northern Ireland.
I hope that in the application of their powers to contract out in Northern Ireland the Government will be extremely careful. I do not propose to do anything but sit mute when we come to vote on this order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their contributions to the debate. First, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that as Minister for Agriculture I am well aware of the effect of BSE on Northern Ireland industry. I assure him that the current difficulties in the beef industry are not the result of deregulation policy but of a combination of factors, the majority of which resulted from economic changes. I hope that we can resolve the problem in the near future.
I share the noble Lords' respect for the high standard of public service in Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt about the commitment of civil servants to the governance of the Province. The contracting out orders represent tools for providing high quality, value-for-money services which everyone has a right to expect. If we save money on administration, we can spend it on the services. That must be to the benefit of the people.
Market testing has shown that the Civil Service has a high degree of competency, as it has won many of the bids. It must be satisfying to prove that one is right. Both noble Lords expressed some concern over horticultural deregulation. I suspect that neither noble Lord has such a horticultural establishment. If they did they would be pleased that they need no longer complete annual licensing applications or pay annual fees. They are not measures which should put the health of the industry, which is so important, at risk.
The fact that we are not removing powers from local authorities regarding auctions is well proven by the fact that in 39 years no local authority has considered it necessary to use the powers. The views of the RUC and the Association of Local Authorities were sought and both were content that the Act should be repealed. As Minister not only for agriculture but also for women issues in the Province, I am aware that contracting out may have a detrimental effect on employment opportunities for women. The Government are looking seriously at the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission and will report soon. We are completely committed to ensuring the delivery of services to the public on a non-discriminatory basis and to securing equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all
454
people of Northern Ireland in accordance with statutory requirements. Indeed, I was recently told by a member of the Church that Northern Ireland was a matriarchal society. Other noble Lords may have differing views but there can be no doubt about the influence of women and their contribution to the economy.
It gives me no problem to say that if one looks seriously at a difficulty and takes a different view one comes forward with a different view. I am pleased to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that we do not have people standing around in bars measuring the froth on beer, which could not be considered productive to the growth of the Northern Ireland economy which we all wish to see.
The order is straightforward. We recognise that there is no point in having unused legislation on the statute book, and as the noble Lord said, that it is better to cull the duplication of legislation. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order would introduce provisions to bring the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 broadly into line with the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 already in force in Great Britain. While this order, in providing regulation-making powers for the Department of Agriculture, may appear to be somewhat at odds with our earlier debate on deregulation and contracting out, I can assure your Lordships that the issues are technical and procedural and necessary to ensure parity between the Province and Great Britain.
I believe that it will be helpful if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The main purpose of the order is to amend the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to provide enabling powers for the Department of Agriculture to implement by regulation various European Community directives on structural and hygiene standards and on inspection and associated controls in premises processing meat and meat products, including poultry meat. The order also includes a number of procedural amendments in relation to enforcement responsibilities on milk.
The opportunity is also being taken to make minor amendments to bring the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 more into line with the Food Safety Act 1990 in Great Britain.
In addition, the draft order draws on the provisions previously discussed of the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, relating to the effect of contracting out on departments and other

455
persons responsible for the provision of services and the termination of contracting arrangements and ancillary provisions regarding contracting out authorisations.
Perhaps I may stress that this is a necessary technical and procedural order. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I welcome all forms of regulation which inure to the protection of the public health. On that basis, I have nothing further to say.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness. I support the order, as I support anything which relates to the safety of food products, in particular meat. Perhaps I may shamelessly abuse this opportunity and comment on BSE as it affects the industry in Northern Ireland. It is a subject which we have not had an opportunity to discuss in this House. Agriculture is three times as important to the economy of Northern Ireland as it is to the rest of the United Kingdom. The dairy and beef industry in Northern Ireland has a uniquely high reputation. The beasts are fed and cared for to the highest standard. There is every reason to believe that cattle in Northern Ireland have been relatively immune from some of the excesses produced by the wrong feeding and the whole chapter of accidents with which we have become all too familiar.
I hope that if and when there is an opportunity, within the EU, of obtaining "advance treatment" of beef products in Northern Ireland the Government will not be inhibited by their general negotiating position on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that they will be prepared to support the high quality beef of Northern Ireland, given the potentially friendly treatment which, during the past two or three weeks, has appeared possible in Brussels. I hope that for the sake of general negotiations they do not hold back an early relaxation of the ban in the European Union. That would be a great mistake and would not be understood by the people in Northern Ireland who farm to the highest standards.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for raising the issue of BSE. I support what he said. As the Minister is aware, approximately 80 per cent. of beef is exported from Northern Ireland. Therefore, the situation is serious for its economy, which is more rural than any other part of the United Kingdom. There cannot be a shop in Northern Ireland which is more than 15 minutes from a green field and therefore affected by the agricultural spending power.
456
We have the most modern system in the United Kingdom, perhaps one of the best in Europe, for logging the movement of cattle. One wonders why it is not used in this country. The traceability of progeny from BSE-infected cattle should be easier to cope with.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for bringing to our attention the effect of BSE in Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord abuses the opportunity he does so in the interests of Northern Ireland, about which we all care.
It is right that the beef and dairy industry in Northern Ireland represents 4 per cent. of GDP. Nowhere is the effect of an export ban felt more keenly. Fifty per cent. of meat is exported because it is of such high quality and more than 70 per cent. leaves the Province. We must discover how to get the ban lifted. When I ask what is required to have the ban lifted, I receive replies to the effect, "How long is a piece of string?" That is not a scientific answer by any stretch of the imagination. I hope that we shall see a more rigorous and logical examination of the issues in Brussels tomorrow.
Northern Ireland has a tremendously high standard of traceability and inspection. I have absolute confidence that the veterinary service in the Department of Agriculture ensures that all requirements are complied with. Veterinary officers are available at all times at meat plants. There is a much smaller incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that cases are down to nine per month, which is significant progress. In fact, that progress demonstrates that the rules which were imposed have been observed. However, there is an incidence of BSE and we must restore confidence.
I assure noble Lords that no one could be fighting harder for the lifting of the ban. My colleagues recognise that the effect on Northern Ireland is greater than anywhere else; I believe that even the Scots are prepared to acknowledge that. We must work extremely hard to establish what is required to lift the ban. I am certain that all the benefits we have in Northern Ireland will leave us ahead of the field, and we shall make quite certain we stay there.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is she implying that the standards in the rest of the United Kingdom are lower than those which apply in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am talking about investment in traceability, which is unique to Northern Ireland. As my noble friend said, a similar system is not available in England. In addition, we have more veterinary officers in the industry which enables us to ensure that those who wish perhaps to bend the rules are not in a position to do so. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Henry Johnson, Sons & Co. Ltd.
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past seven o'clock.