Lords Sitting of 20 March 1997

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

Bletchley Park
Viscount Montgomery of Alameinasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that Bletchley Park should become a national monument to wartime achievement.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government recognise that Bletchley Park is of great historical importance to the nation. We hope that a way can be found to preserve the park as a monument to its wartime activities. I must declare an interest because I worked at Bletchley Park during the war and have been a friend of the trust since its inception.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I too must declare an interest, albeit a minor one and in no way comparable to the distinguished wartime service rendered by my noble friend during the war when she was a young girl. I am one of a number of honorary patrons of the Bletchley Park Trust.
If the Government appreciate the importance of the achievements of Bletchley in saving lives both on land and at sea and in the creation of the computer industry—it was there at its inception—should not resources be put behind a programme to create a museum which will enable young and old, both now and in the future, also to appreciate what was achieved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I greatly resented the Daily Telegraph for saying that I joined Bletchley when I was 22; in fact I was 18. In answer to my noble friend, there are already 2,500 museums in the UK. The Government can only provide direct funding for a limited number, such as the country's national museums and galleries.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in addition to herself working at Bletchley as a teenager, a number of other ladies at the other end of the Palace also worked there? Is it not a fact that some of the outstanding successes of the last war—such as the tracking and sinking of the "Bismarck" and later the "Scharnhorst"—can be laid at the door of ULTRA. While at the time Britain stood alone and was not able to deliver many victories, its use certainly gave enough warning to mitigate the worst of some of the German's successes. It is absolutely right that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, asks this Question and the
1044
suggestion should be accepted by the Government. If Bletchley is destroyed, there is no record of what those people did.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, without the successes of Bletchley Park this nation could have starved to death. If I may be garrulous for one moment, perhaps I may read a letter I received from a Mrs. Morley. She said that she ended her service in the WRNS taking apart with tweezers and a screwdriver the very machines that helped us to end the war, thereby committing the secret of the bombs to oblivion. She continues,
"I have read books and articles about the Enigma Miracle and the brilliant code breakers but I have seen very little indeed about the contribution made by hundreds of WRENS to this special war effort with eyes straining but devoted commitment to a boring job".
I should like to pay tribute to and honour the Wrens and civilians who did the actual donkey work for the brilliant mathematicians.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I was 23 rather than 18 when I was sent to Bletchley Park. It was a large establishment and to my great regret I did not have the honour of knowing the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, there. However, as it now seems to be generally appreciated that Bletchley Park was crucial, perhaps to a greater extent than those who were working there appreciated at the time, and as it has been vastly seminal from a computer point of view, it would be a great pity if it just became a built-over site on the outskirts of Milton Keynes. No expressions of goodwill can achieve that unless the Government are prepared to take a financial initiative and put some limited but necessary sums of money forward.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, when I went to Bletchley there were 400 people there; when I left there were 6,000. Had the noble Lord and I met then, think how different our lives might have been!
In answer to the noble Lord's Question, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the Bletchley Park Trust on 3rd March to hear their plans for a further lottery application. Their first application was turned down and the Heritage Lottery Fund provided the trust with detailed advice on how to submit a revised application and on how applicants can receive help with preparation of a business plan. It is up to the trust to submit a decent plan. It can then raise money and run the trust.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, Bletchley Park has been so secret that people have not known enough about the amazing work it did. What terms have Her Majesty's Government and BT offered the Bletchley Park Trust for the transfer of the land in question?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the site is currently owned by British Telecom and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. They have jointly agreed to terms under

1045
which the Bletchley Park Trust can be offered a permanent leasehold interest in the site, allowing the trust to acquire the majority of the museum land free of charge.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, on the eve of what may be a political change, may I, with the permission of the House, say how much I have enjoyed working opposite and with the noble Baroness? Her openness, her warmth and her sense of fun have been a pleasure to us all. I did not know that she was one of the delectable band of maidens of Bletchley Park, assuming they were maidens. Is she aware that we on this side of the House wholly support the proposals that have been put forward? But will she confirm that in fact none of the original technology is still there? In that context, and bearing in mind that the first programmable computer, Colossus, was there, would it not be appropriate if the centre was also a museum for computer technology, which might attract support from private industry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is adept at bowling a maiden over. The noble Lord is perfectly correct with regard to the first part of his question. I am given to understand that Churchill for some reason decreed that all the machinery there should be destroyed at the end of the war. The letter I quoted gives the House an example. Some of it, like Colossus, has been rebuilt. Other machines are being rebuilt. But there will be no original machines in the museum. The trustees want to have a history of the computer because the two really major historical events of the 20th century that took place at Bletchley were the development during World War II of the science of cryptology and the first digital electronic computer.

Women Prisoners
3.12 p.m.
Baroness Haymanasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the current management policies within the Prison Service relating to women prisoners.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Prison Service fully recognises the special needs of women prisoners and keeps the relevant policies under review. That is why in November 1996 the director general announced his intention to set up a new unit to ensure appropriate oversight and co-ordination of the care and treatment of women prisoners. That unit is now operational.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. But does she not accept that there are still concerns about the overview with regard to women prisoners? Will she undertake to give serious consideration to the advice of the Chief Inspector of Prisons that there should be a director of women's prisons at board level within the Prison Service? Given the rising number of women prisoners
1046
and the very special and sensitive issues that relate both to them and their children, would it not be sensible to revert to the practice of the past and have one person with an overview in this area?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is not without its difficulties. At present, Prison Service establishments are for good reasons largely managed on a geographical basis. The chief inspector's proposals would cut across that structure. But the director general recognises the particular needs of women and young offenders and has set up this new unit in the Prison Service headquarters to focus on the management of these prisons and on improving current levels of care and treatment. He is confident that this change will bring significant benefits. But whether a radical change would be appropriate is one of the issues which will be considered by the current review which the director general is undertaking.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that women prisoners who are pregnant are taken outside the prison walls to have their babies?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance that no baby is born inside a prison, barring accidents, of course, where it cannot be avoided. All babies are born in hospitals outside of prisons.
Lord Winston: My Lords, that assurance from the Minister is received with gratitude but it does not go far enough. Can she tell us what provision is made for ante-natal care for women prisoners? These are women whose pregnancies are of a high risk nature. We now know that ante-natal influences can affect paediatric development. Can she tell us what ante-natal paediatric expert help there is in their care and what qualified obstetric care?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. All the needs of the pregnant mother are properly met. There are also facilities post-pregnancy. Some will be met within the prison through prison staff. Some will be met by visiting medical staff; for example, doctors come in each day to give check-ups. Some is external to the prison where the prisoner goes to an external hospital. No medical needs are neglected.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the 1950s and 1960s there was an assistant prison commissioner with responsibility for women prisoners and borstal girls? Is it the intention of the Government at least to consider restoring that position? I am not clear.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have said that a review is looking at the structure. Given that we have a unit and that there is a head of that unit with specific responsibility for women prisoners, who represent 4.3 per cent. of the prison population, I hope the House will agree with me that what really matters is the service

1047
delivery on the ground at a local level. That is where our efforts must be, and not on some bureaucratic head of a service.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness's review look into the question in particular of Category A prisoners held in Holloway where the conditions are totally unsuitable for them? Is it possible for conditions in Holloway to be modified so that those who need to be kept there because they are on remand can enjoy civilised facilities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like the noble Lord to tell me what particular provision is not being made for Category A prisoners at Holloway or any other prison.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister has given answers which reflect administrative arrangements rather than real care. I am sorry to say that but it seems to be the case. Is it not a fact that the scandals which have been made public in recent years, in particular of the shackling of women prisoners going to hospital and going into and enduring childbirth, have made it clear to the public that something other than the present administrative arrangements is necessary? Would it not be wise to look again at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, who reminded us that between 1943 and 1959 there was indeed a deputy commissioner of prisons responsible for all women prisoners and for policy in that area? Would it not be desirable to consider returning to that position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, what I am addressing is almost entirely the opposite. I am not talking about administrative arrangements. I am talking about having sound strategic and policy oversight. But the real executive management ought to be found at a local level. A particular instance was cited by the noble Lord. He will know that that practice was not approved of at a local level. It was very quickly remedied. A policy statement was put out by the Home Secretary on 18th January. No pregnant woman is shackled in hospital either during birth or from the time of her arrival at the hospital.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as the interests of the child are obviously affected by this, can my noble friend say whether, if a birth occurs by misadventure inside the prison, it can be registered as having occurred outside the prison, following the precedent which is adopted in the case of death in the Palace of Westminster?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I need to check out a technical answer to my noble friend's question. It is the policy that no baby should be born in prison. For the particular reason my noble friend has given, we do not wish the address to be prison. I believe it is administratively possible in the case of any pregnant mother who may have started having the baby in prison for the address to be the hospital at which she would complete the medical treatment for that birth.

ODA: Fundamental Expenditure Review
3.19 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken following the fundamental expenditure review of the Overseas Development Administration.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, most of the recommendations in the fundamental expenditure review were accepted and have now been implemented.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept—and this is the last opportunity to say so—how much, in view of her own personal commitment, we have all felt for her in the steadily declining priority given by the Government as whole to overseas aid programmes, let alone the sad diversion of resources from poverty and development priorities, as evidenced in episodes like the Pergau Dam? Is it not unfortunate that when months ago the far-reaching fundamental expenditure review stated explicitly that the resources available to ODA were not adequate to cover its commitments and that prioritisation was essential, no considered strategic response by the Government was put before this House? Where do the Government stand on the recommendations for prioritising the 20 poorest countries, reducing commitments in regions like the Caribbean and cutting specific multilateral programmes? What consultations have there been with those adversely affected?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Oh, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, really does not know what is going on! He will have to do a lot better than that because he has not bothered to find out. I have good news for him because today the report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the ODA, which extends to 160 pages, has been published. He will find in the blue section a great deal of information which will help him. I am sure that he will benefit from reading it. Further to that, perhaps I may tell him that we have been concentrating on the poorest countries and that is exactly what the outcome of the FER was. Assistance to the value of £175 million has gone to the 10 poorest countries. Eighty per cent. of Britain's bilateral aid goes to sub-Saharan Africa and to South Asia. We have been concentrating on pumping in that development assistance from which countries can benefit, and will benefit by their own efforts as well as ours, as fast as we possibly can. In addition, we have the second highest combined private and official flows going into the developing world. It is 1.38 per cent. compared with the UN target of one per cent. of GNP. My officers in Scotland, London and across the world have done a fine job. It is beneath the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to criticise them. They have delivered better value for money than ever before. They are targeting it and have the common

1049
sense to make sure that the money is applied where it can do most good in the poorest countries with the poorest populations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I certainly do not take second place to anybody in my appreciation of what the dedicated staff of the ODA do with their meagre resources. But the Minister cannot have it both ways. If she accepts all the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review, she accepts that the resources are not adequate for the programme; that prioritisation is essential; and that the 20 poorest countries must be targeted in a way that they were not before. Does the Minister agree that it is no good reading off a lot of ad hoc statistics if she accepts, as she said she does, the recommendations of the fundamental expenditure review?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I was tempted not to respond, but maybe I should. Since the honourable Member in another place, Mr Gordon Brown, said that he would keep to this Government's expenditure programme, and since we are credited by OECD and all the other international organisations with having the best targeted and the best-delivered development programme in the world, I have no reason to apologise for what we have been doing with the resources which have been made available. Of course, we all wish to do more in many different areas of life, but we also know that, unless Britain continues to have a sound economy, as it will have under the next Conservative Government, we will not be able to do as much.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not having read the 165-page review published this morning. It is obviously a failing that we have on these Benches. Does the Minister foresee that the bilateral budget will be sufficient this year or, because of commitments to the European budget, will there have to be some topping up of the bilateral budget?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I believe the noble Lord knows, there is an undertaking by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that should the non-discretionary spending exceed the revised forecast, the Exchequer will meet the bill. That is a guarantee that we have never had before and it shows the importance that we attach to development. Any reductions in the baseline were fully attributed to the lower forecast of the UK's commitments to multilateral organisations, largely the European Union. So if the demands of the European Union or of other international bodies increase, the Treasury will have to go to the reserves. We will deliver no less than what we have planned. We have planned with great care and with the full co-operation of the governments we seek to help. I believe that is a good record and my staff can be proud of it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that over the period of this Conservative Government, in world terms, the standard of living of this country has dropped from 13th to 18th in the table, and bearing in mind that the per capita income in the Republic of Ireland is now greater than that for the United Kingdom, how many more years of Conservative Government must we have before this country qualifies for ODA assistance under the criterion of giving money to the poorest nations of the world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Well, my Lords, we are sinking to a depth which I did not expect to see in your Lordships' House, whatever might happen in other places. I can only say to the noble Lord that I do not believe he has looked at the figures. According to the figures, the average household is a good deal better off in real terms than any of those with whom I deal on a day-to-day basis. I am talking about countries which have fewer than 700 dollars per head per annum. That is a very tiny sum when compared with the average income in this country. Anyone who knows anything about figures will not deny that some people will be poorer than others. The overall movement in this country of income after tax has been up and up, and under a Conservative Government it will continue to be so.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister accept that it is a final indictment of the Government's approach to overseas development that, at the eleventh hour plus, they produce 160 pages in response to an Opposition Question when in 18 years of government they have never produced a single White Paper on the overseas aid and development programme?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, believes that this document was produced since he put down his Question, he is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land. This annual report was published last year and the year before. It is a regular document which, if he had read it in previous years, he might have learnt something about it. All I can say is that I am very grateful to the people who really know what is going on, and they are the staff of the ODA.

Violent Crime in London
3.28 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the last Question of the present Parliament standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the increase in the level of violent crime in London between 1979 and the present time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there has been a steady and consistent increase in violent crime in England and Wales since 1946. I understand from the Commissioner

1051
of Police for the Metropolis that violent crime in the Metropolitan Police District has risen from 24,995 incidents in 1979 to 89,861 in 1996.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the Metropolitan Police have been doing a good job in difficult circumstances, the Government have failed abysmally in dealing with violent crime? Is it not a disaster for the people of London that the violent crime rate increased by 20 per cent. in the past year alone to 90,000? Is not the truth that this Government are weak on violent crime and weak on the causes of violent crime?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since 1946, crime has risen by 2,305 per cent.; between 1946 and 1979, violent crime rose by 803 per cent. and between 1979 and 1996, it rose by 166 per cent. Noble Lords opposite may wring their hands about crime, and about violent crime in particular, but where were they when I looked for support to crack down on violent crime? We are extremely concerned about the rise in violent crime and we are committed to introducing tough measures to cut down on crime, and particularly on violent and persistent crime as well as crimes such as domestic burglary, drug dealing and repeat violent offences. Noble Lords opposite, however, were found wanting when it came to putting their fine words into action.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider what I regard as a vital issue; namely, the reduction of manpower in the police force in many of our London boroughs? We are all proud of our police officers, who do splendid work. However, in the London Borough of Ealing there has been such a massive reduction in the number of police officers that the Greenford and Northolt areas now have no patrolling policemen whatsoever. Such things are noted by the criminal classes who take full advantage of them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since 1979 the Government have increased the funding for the police by 90 per cent. in real terms. I and my ministerial colleagues on these Benches take daily criticism from noble Lords opposite about the level of expenditure on our programmes, but tell that to Mr. Gordon Brown in another place who has pledged to continue that level of expenditure on programmes!
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, makes an important point because there are now 16,000 more policemen than in 1979. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister pledged to fund another 5,000. The money for that was made available last year and money has been made available this year. The whole 5,000 will be funded by the end of the next financial year. We shall meet our pledge. However, two points arise from that, one with particular regard to London. Sadly, because of the reappearance of the IRA on the streets of London, the Commissioner chose to use the money to pay for extra overtime using experienced policemen. That was what happened to London's money for new policemen. However, the Metropolitan Commissioner has welcomed the extra money for the financial year
1052
that we are about to enter and he will be increasing police numbers to 27,400. The other point is that we now have information and intelligence, including new technology, CCTV and many other innovations, which extend the arm of the police.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am in the hands of the House, but I wonder whether the Liberal Chief Whip could come in first.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have found her answers to these questions puzzling because they appear to relate to the Crime (Sentences) Bill? Is she also aware that if Parliament had been prorogued next week or after Easter many of the Government's legislative problems would not have arisen? Is she further aware that some of us find it very strange that the Government decided to prorogue Parliament in the way that they did?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that if we had met for one more week he would have supported the Government's tough policies on crime?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister—
Noble Lords: Time!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I would have loved to hear him one last time, but the 30 minutes for Questions are up.

Southampton International Boat Show Bill
3.33 p.m.
Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

The Barony of Moynihan: Committee for Privileges Report
The Chairman Of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In inviting the House to agree to the Report of the Committee for Privileges I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle and Lord Slynn of Hadley. They felt, I think rightly, that the House would wish to conclude this

1053
long-running matter before the end of the present Parliament and have produced their opinions with the minimum of delay. I am sure that the House will wish me to express our gratitude to them for that. I thank also the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keith of Kinkel and Lord Ackner, for their assistance in the committee. I am grateful also to my fellow lay members of the committee for their help.
Those of your Lordships who have had an opportunity of reading the opinions of the noble and learned Lords will, I am sure, have no doubt that the committee has reached the right conclusion and that neither of the two sons purporting to be the sons of the Third Baron can, in fact, be an heir to the peerage. In the case of the elder, Andrew, the committee was shown overwhelming genetic evidence that he cannot be the son of the late Lord Moynihan; and so far as the younger, Daniel, is concerned, the evidence clearly shows that he is the child of a bigamous marriage and is therefore illegitimate. In those circumstances, it is clear beyond doubt that the petitioner, Colin Moynihan, must be the rightful heir and that his Petitions must succeed.
Moved, That the Report from the Committee for Privileges be agreed to (HL Paper 53).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
That the Committee have met and have considered the Petition of the Honourable Colin Berkeley Moynihan to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct that a Writ of Summons be issued to him as Baron Moynihan, together with Her Majesty's Reference to this House and the report of the Attorney General thereon:
That the Committee have also considered the application of Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan (by his mother and next friend Jinna Sabiaga) praying for leave to be heard in opposition to the said Petition and, leave having been given, the Committee have heard Counsel on behalf of the said Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan; and
That the Committee have also heard the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown and have heard the Petitioner in person, and have come to the following Resolution:
That Daniel Patrick Berkeley Moynihan has not succeeded in his opposition to the Petition and that the Petitioner, the Honourable Colin Berkeley Moynihan, claiming to have succeeded to the Barony of Moynihan has made out his claim to the said Barony.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 66).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to.
1. ENHANCED MESSAGE SERVICE
The Committee approved the first two phases of a message handling project for both Houses. The first phase, lasting until September 1997, will involve a consultation process to determine
1054
the implementation and content of the project. The second phase, lasting from October 1997 to August 1998, will consist of the initial implementation of new message services and will be followed by a fundamental review of the project.
2. COMPUTER TRAINING AND SUPPORT
The Committee agreed new arrangements for computer training and support for Lords to permit more effective use of resources. Peers may go without notice to the Computer Room for training and advice between 11.30 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Mondays to Thursdays, and between 11.30 a.m. and the rising of the House on sitting Fridays. Outside those times and in recesses, Peers are invited to give notice before seeking training and advice from the Computer Room. Emergency calls for support will continue to be met without notice.
3. COMMEMORATION OF 150 YEARS OCCUPATION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS CHAMBER
The Committee agreed to a proposal from the Chesterfield Canal Society to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the occupation of the House of Lords Chamber in 1847. It is proposed that a cubic foot of stone from the quarry where stone for the Houses of Parliament was extracted will be transported by canal from Derbyshire to Black Rod's steps, and will be used in the restoration programme of the Palace.
4. RECEPTION TO CELEBRATE THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN
The Committee agreed to share the cost of a reception to be held in the Palace of Westminster by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker as part of the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the independence of the countries of the Indian sub-continent.
5. BLACK ROD
The Committee agreed to the extension for a further two years from May 1997 of the appointment of Sir Edward Jones as Black Rod.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships if I am a little more incoherent than usual, but I have only just arrived on the premises to see to my surprise this report on the Order Paper. Perhaps the Chairman of Committees will in due course, after the election, furnish the House with a list of the dates when the committee reported to the House and the dates when Parliament rose. I suggest that this is not the first time that such reports have been put through at the very last minute. Although I am not suggesting any ulterior motive, the practice is unfortunate for those of us who take an interest in these matters.
Paragraph 1 on the "enhanced message" service was the subject of some discussion last time when the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, inquired about the cost of the service. At that time the Chairman of Committees was unable to enlighten the noble Lord, but I can tell the House that the consultancy charge was £144,000. It was done on a daily basis and included the charges of two partners for two days. I believe that the House is being taken for a ride, as is the other place, which shares the expense with us. Therefore, I should like some more information on this because when we discussed it previously it was suggested that there should be wider consultation. Will the Chairman of Committees tell us what opportunity there has been for ordinary Members of your Lordships' House to contribute; and how much notice was given, and how, of the demonstration that was available to members of the committee?
I do not think that the other items in the report are of a sufficiently contentious nature to mention, but the question of the message service is terribly important

1055
because we have recently seen an example in another place of how the use of automatic message services can be grossly abused to devalue the entire traditions and honour of both Houses.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, perhaps I may point out—your Lordships may know this already—that the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices met on Wednesday of this week. It was thought—I strongly supported, and do support, this view—that it would be right to present the report of that committee to your Lordships at the earliest possible moment so that there would be no delay into the next Parliament. That is the first point. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, knows, I am always anxious to assist your Lordships as much as possible on such matters, not least the noble Lord himself, because I know that these domestic matters are of interest and are regarded by your Lordships as of importance to the House.
If I may say so, ample notice was given of the demonstration carried out last month for members of the committee. There is to be an extensive consultation process between now and September of this year in which noble Lords will be consulted about their requirements. There will be ample opportunity for noble Lords' views to be put forward before the matter comes back to your Lordships' House.
As the noble Lord has said, mention has already been made of the costs. As far as concerns the consultancies, your Lordships' committee has been assured that the costs are certainly in accordance with normal practice in these matters. They are regarded as being market value, if I may put it in that short way. As the noble Lord has indicated, the costs have been shared with another place, which has also scrutinised them.
I hope that that provides some assistance to the noble Lord. If I am able to provide any further information I shall do so by means of writing to the noble Lord. Any queries on further matters arising out of this report to your Lordships' House can always be dealt with in the new Parliament by means of Questions for Written Answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial Accountability
3.41 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It may be of assistance to your Lordships if I say a few words about the background to this Resolution and explain why I bring it before the House and commend it to your Lordships.
The Resolution stems from a recommendation by the Public Service Committee of another place in July last year. In its 1996 report on ministerial accountability and responsibility, the committee recommended that Parliament should lay down in the form of a Resolution how it expected Ministers to discharge their duty of accountability to Parliament. In their response, the
1056
Government agreed that there could be value in this, not because Ministers were in any way unsure about what was required of them, but because such a Resolution could set out clearly and unambiguously for all to see what the standards were and the standards against which Ministers were prepared to be judged.
The Prime Minister's document Questions of Procedure for Ministers sets out what he, as head of the Government, expects of his ministerial colleagues in this respect. This Resolution would parallel my right honourable friend's expectations by laying down in similar terms, perhaps even more importantly, what Parliament required. The Government took the view that to have the full authority it deserved, such a Resolution should, so far as possible, be adopted by cross-party agreement, and that both Houses would want to consider it.
To this end, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster initiated discussions with the main opposition parties in another place. I have done likewise with representatives of the main opposition parties and the Convener of the Cross-Benchers in our House. I should like to take this opportunity to thank noble Lords who took part in those discussions for their courteous and constructive participation. Our aim throughout has been to reach a stage where we can lay Resolutions before both Houses to complete this piece of business during this Parliament. This we have now done. Noble Lords may be aware that colleagues in another place last evening adopted a very similar Resolution to the one now before us.
I make just two points about the wording of the Resolution. First, I make a technical but nevertheless important point. The Resolution refers to two documents: the Civil Service Code and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. These documents have, I believe, attracted widespread support, but they remain government documents rather than parliamentary documents and are therefore capable of subsequent amendment by the Government. I should like to make clear that if these documents were amended, they would not automatically alter the terms of the Resolution itself. For that to happen, the House would be required to take an independent decision on whether the Resolution should be amended to refer to any additions.
Secondly, the Resolution that I commend to your Lordships is not identical in every particular to the one adopted last night by another place. While the principles are identical, the format is slightly different. I am indebted to the learned Clerk of the Parliaments for his advice that technically it would be more appropriate if in a Resolution of this House the two government documents that I have mentioned were referred to in a separate paragraph; that is, paragraph (5) on interpretation. That is the paragraph that we have before us. The advice he gave was that that would be more appropriate rather than that it should be cited within paragraphs (3) and (4). I found that an extremely helpful suggestion, for which I am most grateful. I am more than happy to adopt it.

1057
I hope that is sufficient to explain why I believe that this is a useful addition to the armoury that the House possesses in its manifest duty to render Ministers accountable to Parliament. It is in that spirit that I commend the Resolution to your Lordships.
Moved, That, in the opinion of this House, the following principles should govern the conduct of Ministers of the Crown in relation to Parliament:
(1) Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Steps Agencies;
(2) It is of paramount importance that Ministers should give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;
(3) Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest;
(4) Ministers should require civil servants who give evidence before Parliamentary Committees on their behalf and under their directions to be as helpful as possible in providing accurate, truthful and full information;
(5) The interpretation of "public interest" in paragraph (3) shall be decided in accordance with statute and the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, January 1997); and compliance with the duty in paragraph (4) shall be in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of civil servants set out in the Civil Service Code (January 1996).—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome the Resolution. We believe that it is sensible and appropriate. We have waited long enough for it. It is time that Parliament had its say on ministerial responsibility. Is it not extraordinary how the approach of a general election concentrates the Government's mind? Here we are on the very last day of the Parliament and at last we have a sensible Statement on ministerial responsibility. For every sinner that repenteth there is joy on these Benches!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for his Statement. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was consulted. The noble Viscount will be aware that he is content, as are the rest of us on these Benches.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is a matter of great constitutional importance. I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for his lucid explanation of it. It is a matter of great satisfaction that this is agreed between the parties.
For centuries ministerial responsibility has been a matter of convention. Now we have it clearly laid down. I believe that sometimes in the past it went too far.
1058
Ministers were held responsible for the actions of all their civil servants, sometimes several thousands of them, with an ever-widening scope of activity. It was impossible for Ministers to know about everything that was happening in their departments, even within the scope of the policies that they had declared and laid down.
With that in mind, I invite your Lordships' attention to paragraph (1), which says:
"Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and he held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and Next Steps agencies".
Let us briefly consider that proposition in the light of what I have said about the vast number of civil servants and the scope of their activities. It is quite clear that Ministers should be responsible for policies and decisions of a major kind, but not all of the minor decisions that must be taken from time to time to implement those policies. It is right that they should be responsible for the actions of the government departments so long as Ministers know in advance what those actions are required to be.
For Ministers to be responsible for every minor incident, which has sometimes led to parliamentary embarrassment and even the resignation of Ministers in unjust circumstances, would be absurd. Therefore I hope that that important paragraph will, in future, always be interpreted in the light of reason.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Lord Privy Seal two questions on the Resolution. In his helpful elucidation he referred to Questions of Procedure for Ministers. In fact the resolution is not about responsibility; it is about accountability. But Questions of Procedure for Ministers deals also with responsibility. Does this resolution take the place of paragraph 27 of Questions of Procedure for Ministers, which hitherto has made it clear that Ministers have not just a duty of accountability but also of responsibility?
Is the Lord Privy Seal reminded of Sir Richard Scott's report which at reference D4.42 stated:
"The answers to Parliamentary Questions in both Houses of Parliament failed to inform Parliament of the current state of Government policy on non-lethal arms sales to Iraq. This failure was deliberate and was the inevitable result of the agreement between the three junior Ministers"?
Does the Lord Privy Seal believe that, if we had had the resolution at the time of the Scott report, the three junior Ministers would have been required to resign because of their deliberate lack of openness to both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does the House a service by drawing our attention to principle (1) of the resolution. He dealt with the first part, for which I am grateful. I wish to take the matter a little further. The principle refers to:
"Actions of their Departments and Next Steps Agencies".
The Next Step agencies are meant to be different. Members on the Select Committee of your Lordships' House are finding that there are Next Steps agencies and Next Steps agencies. They are not all the same.
I had an answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the other day to a Question I asked about the Prisons Agency, for example. The Prisons Agency is very different from other agencies. Are we to take it from the first principle that there is no difference between a department and a Next Steps agency? If that is the case all the talk about the difference there would be in government as a result of the setting up of Next Steps agencies, which are different from normal departments and are within a big department, amounts to nought. Why Next Steps agencies? We are told by the Government that they are different.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support the Motion that the Leader of the House has put before the House. Perhaps I may ask him a technical question of some importance which, from me, I can assure him, is completely non-controversial as usual. According to paragraph (1) of the Motion, Ministers have various duties in relation to Parliament.
In view of the fact that both Scrutiny Committees of European legislation are to be out of action for about six weeks, how do Her Majesty's Government intend to safeguard the interests of Parliament with regard to the normal cascade of regulations that appears from the European Commission on Parliament's steps? May we have an assurance that those matters will be dealt with promptly, and that all concerned will be duly informed?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I must apologise for rising twice in the same day. I should like to put a point to my noble friend the Leader of the House on paragraph (3) which states:
"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
We are constantly having cases at Question Time when information is refused on the ground of "commercial confidentiality". I quote that phrase. A case occurred in the House this very week.
It is well known that British industry is secretive compared with American industry; it is well known that government departments are excessively secretive; it is well known that in this country governments of all complexions are excessively secretive. The excuse of commercial confidentiality is usually only a cloak to hide inefficiency, incompetence, and uncompetitive behaviour.
May we have an assurance that, in the interests of the greater efficiency of British industry, Ministers will take great care not to advance the excuse of commercial confidentiality in order to justify a refusal to give the House information only in the most extreme circumstances, and where, in the terms of this resolution:
"Disclosure would not be in the public"—
I stress the word "public"—
"interest?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich—I am sorry to find that the noble Lord,
1060
Lord Harris, is not still in his place—for their support. With the indulgence of the House, perhaps I may take the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, during the past two and a half years or so during which I have had the privilege of being the Leader of your Lordships' House, and say that, although we may differ politically, I have learned to view him with a mixture of respect and affection, which has been a great pleasure during my time here, and which I hope will continue when we face each other from the same positions from 7th May next. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has always been a great exponent of wishful thinking, and I see that that has not changed.
My noble friend Lord Renton, almost predictably, puts his finger on an extremely important point. It has become almost a truism that, in the days of highly complex government and administration, often involving many civil servants, it is impossible for a Minister to know everything that happens in his department. Nevertheless, those of us who have had the privilege to be departmental Ministers—in my case an extremely junior one—will know that any hard working, conscientious Minister will make it his or her business to know the essentials of what is going on in the department and to be able to make a judgment. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, may be in a better position to know whether or not what I say is justified as to where, perhaps, the ministerial gimlet eye should alight.
Nevertheless it means that Ministers have an extraordinarily difficult judgment to make, but also—dare I say it?—Parliament has a difficult judgment to make, particularly when Parliament inevitably will have its judgment coloured—I make no complaint about this—by considerations of party politics. There have been, as the House will know perhaps better than any other body, attempts, particularly by my right honourable friends, to try to define, as is only right, where that difficult decision should lie. There have been attempts to differentiate between operational responsibility and ministerial accountability.
In the end, it is a matter of careful judgment. Ministers are only human; they can get things wrong. I dare say that we all do, and that if in a decade or so the party opposite found itself in office it would be faced with similar decisions. My noble friend Lord Cockfield and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, are right in stressing the importance of paragraph (3) of the Motion before us. There is an absolute obligation for Ministers to be as open as possible with Parliament.
If, like me, your Lordships are fans of that extraordinarily perspicacious programme, "Yes, Minister", you will remember that often both civil servants and Ministers are depicted by Mr. Anthony Jay and his co-writers as saying that the object of Answers to Parliamentary Questions is to reveal as little as possible. It might be for the edification of your Lordships if you allowed me to take a trip down memory lane to when I made what was clearly a joke in very poor taste to the first civil servant who came to brief me on a Parliamentary Question, implying that perhaps that was the object of all

1061
civil servants. I shall never forget the chastening look that I received from the individual concerned; it made it very clear that one does not joke about such matters.
I hope that your Lordships will take at least some comfort from the fact that the best traditions of the Civil Service will try to make sure that even the most tempted of Ministers do not stray from an obligation of this kind. Questions of procedures for Ministers and Parliament insisting on a complementary regulation of this kind will reinforce something that has been called into question in recent years.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that I do not want to go over the individual paragraphs of the Scott Report. They are paragraphs which, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, I know entirely by heart. I dare say that if I try very hard I can complete the quotation that she gave, but I hope that she will not test my assertion. I do not believe that Ministers would have been required to resign. I believe that if Ministers take their job seriously they will always try to keep Parliament as well informed as possible.
My noble friend Lord Cockfield knows more about commerce than I suspect I ever shall and I bow to his superior wisdom. However, I suspect that, more often than not, government contracts and their terms, particularly in the defence field and in substantial contract terms, are very sensitive. It is a matter of judgment to see how we can reconcile commercial confidentiality with the demands of Parliament. That is a difficult judgment to make but it is one that we attempt.
My noble friend Lord Bruce—perhaps I may be allowed to indulge myself for a moment—knows that during our term of office we have done perhaps more than most to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny of European matters and that parliamentary reserves apply. I can assure him that when we are returned by the electorate on 1st May any parliamentary scrutiny which has had to go by the board because of the events of the next six weeks will, without question, be put before Parliament as speedily as possible.
Lord Richard: My Lords, lest the House slips into confrontation in its last Session, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his kind words. We have had a vigorous relationship over the past two-and-a-half years. Certainly we have not always agreed. Our disagreements have usually been civil, but not invariably. Given the nature of your Lordships' House, of course, the incivility is dressed up in the most extraordinary politeness and charm. Therefore, when the noble Viscount began by saying nice things about me my limited classical education sent me straight back to the quotation which begins "timeo Danaos". I was wrong and I am delighted.
This House cannot function unless the usual channels can function. It is right that before the House goes down I should say that, as regards the noble Viscount and his noble friend the Chief Whip, my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip and I are grateful for the co-operation in the functioning of the usual channels
1062
that we have received in the past two-and-a-half years. We look forward to that continuing when positions are reversed.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. Sir Anthony Jay was knighted, presumably for his services to Parliament.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. As always, he knows more about these matters than I do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Distributions) Bill
4.6 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I wish to take this opportunity to recognise the remarkable achievement of my honourable friend Douglas French, Member of Parliament for Gloucester, in steering two Ten-minute Rule Bills through another place in the lifetime of this Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Police (Health and Safety) Bill
Read a third time.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I wish to thank my noble friend and all other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Luke.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [H.L.]
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (91) as first printed by the
Commons.]
4.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

1063
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 23, after ("Part I") insert ("or III").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 17, 22, 30, 31, 43, 48, 88, 91, 94, 103, 112 and 113.
These amendments tidy up the text of the Bill and bring Scottish provisions in line with those for England and Wales. For example, they detail the manner in which a direction by the Secretary of State as to payment under an NHS contract may be enforced through the courts. They insert a definition of the term "health authority" in the 1978 Act and clarify a reference in Clause 23 to make clear that the provisions relate to GPs providing GMS and not to GPs providing PMS.
I hope that your Lordships will support these technical amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.1.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
("() The functions of an NHS trust include power to provide piloted services, and to do so as a member of a qualifying body (within the meaning of section (Provision of personal medical services under a pilot scheme) or (Provision of personal dental services under a pilot scheme)).")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, 20, 23, 28, 89 and 107.
The whole question of who should be permitted to provide services under the Bill featured prominently in our earlier discussions of the Bill. We have in fact, I believe, always been entirely at one over the objective of the Bill—to enable NHS primary care to be delivered to even higher standards across the country, as part of the NHS. Nonetheless, we listened carefully to the views put to us, both in this House and by the professions, about the possible threat of commercialisation, and we took prompt action to deal comprehensively with that threat.
The amendments now before your Lordships make it explicitly clear that only those whom we have called members of the NHS family will be able to put forward proposals for pilot schemes and make contracts with health authorities for the provision of services under the Bill. The list of those who comprise the NHS family ensures that key groups who work in the NHS—doctors,
1064
dentists, nurses, NHS trusts—are included, but puts beyond doubt the exclusion of commercial organisations from these possibilities.
One important feature of the new provisions is that it ensures that all professional groups encompassed by the definition of the NHS family are treated equally under the Bill. We will look at all proposals which meet the new rules we have set on their merits, regardless of the professional group they come from. However, we will expect all proposals to indicate clearly how they intend to secure the medical or dental involvement that all pilots and permanent arrangements will require.
There has been a lot of concern about the danger of commercialisation resulting from this Bill. This has always been at the periphery of what the Bill is really about. The changes made to the Bill in another place deal fully with those concerns, and I am glad to say that the British Medical Association has endorsed the changes we have made. But the changes also refocus attention on the main thrust of the Bill which is and always has been about new opportunities for the existing primary care workforce. We believe strongly that it is the NHS workforce, with its range of professional skills and expertise and its commitment to NHS principles that will develop NHS primary care and take it into the next century. That is what we want, and that is what these changes help to underpin.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.2.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, this is the first of a substantive group of amendments which importantly affect the operation and principle of the Bill as it was first debated and considered in detail in your Lordships' House. We certainly do not intend to debate every one of the amendments and on these Benches we accept that the amended Bill as it stands, as it has come hack from the other place, will be a useful tool for an incoming Labour Government.
Nevertheless, at this stage, it is appropriate to repeat the general point which has been made several times in the past 72 hours in your Lordships' House. It would have been more appropriate to the functions of this House if the 117 Commons amendments that are now before us on this important Bill could have been considered in more detail and with less haste than will be possible this afternoon.
That applies particularly to this group of amendments, which goes to the heart of the Bill, and, as the Minister has just explained, it contains the provisions which the Government are now suggesting to deal with the problem of commercialisation which was threatened by the Bill as previously drafted. That was one of the major concerns which we on these Benches have been raising ever since the Second Reading of the Bill. Had the Government been able to accept or redraft some of the amendments which we on these Benches proposed at earlier stages, which dealt precisely with that issue, we should not have needed this rather breathless consideration this afternoon.
We know—and the noble Baroness has referred to it—that one of the important matters in relation to the Bill has been the intervention of the British Medical

1065
Association. We know too that the BMA has made firm representations to the Government that, had they not achieved the terms of the amendment which are now before your Lordships, it was prepared to campaign on this issue during the forthcoming general election campaign. As has been mentioned several times on many other pieces of legislation in your Lordships' House within the past two days, that has greatly focused the mind of the Government. As the noble Baroness said, the amendments now before us deal with the issue of commercialisation and limit those who can propose pilot schemes to those within the NHS family.
As the Minister knows, because she has been kind enough to discuss this with me, we still have doubts as to whether the new clause is sufficiently strong to exclude positively commercial companies. We should have preferred a new clause which made that more specific and explicit. This afternoon the noble Baroness has said that that is done in the terms of the present amendment. But she knows also that there are private companies—for example, Unichem, BUPA and PPP—all of which have been saying very recently and publicly that they regard their plans for proposed pilot schemes as being very much still alive and on the table. I hope that they have now heard the message that the Minister has given clearly.
Finally, I ask the Minister whether she is now able to underline that commitment to the exclusion of commercial companies by correcting her earlier statement when she said:
"We do not want to rule out any sensible opportunities, including a GP being employed by a commercial organisation."—[Official Report, 17/12/96; col. 1403.]
If she were able to correct that statement, that would lay our fears to rest and make the exclusion of the private companies about which we have been concerned since Second Reading much more remote.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should just like to remind your Lordships of the sequence of events when this Bill came to this House and during its various stages before we parted with it and it went to another place.
During the first stages of the Bill, the BMA gave its general support to what was in the Bill. It was only two days before Third Reading, just before it was leaving us, that it issued a press release—and some of us received a document from the BMA—saying that it was very worried about the possible commercialisation which might result from the Bill. On Third Reading, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege was very sensible in saying that rather than move amendments, the matter should be sorted out in the other place. Therefore, I am glad to note that it has been sorted out in the other place and with the BMA behind the scenes.
On Third Reading, I said that I thought it was wise of the Government to suspend what they were doing until they had had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the BMA and that they had time in the other place
1066
to make other changes or pursue different policies. I am sure that it was right for the Government to work closely with the BMA, the profession.
Only today, I received a document from the BMA indicating that it now appears to be happy with the restrictions on what is called the NHS family. Bearing in mind the atmosphere when the Bill left us to go to the other place, I am glad that those matters now seem to have been sorted out and that these amendments are being put forward.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I too welcome these amendments. This is much too late a stage to start even trying to play around because it is not possible to achieve anything. We may not have 100 per cent. of what we were asking for but it is a tremendous improvement on the Bill as it was drafted and we welcome that.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for the principle of the Bill. I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as to how we managed to clarify, throughout the course of the Bill, some of the fears and misunderstandings which were originally apparent.
At one point during the course of the passage of the Bill, the noble Baroness was concerned about my use of the word "chatter"; that there was a good deal of chatter going on as regards commercialisation. I should like to assure your Lordships that no organisation has approached us to explain how it thinks it might be able to provide services under the new provisions in the Bill. Therefore, I am very happy to put clearly on the record exactly what the provisions mean. We have taken great care to rule in members of the NHS family and to define that and to rule out others. Now the only companies whose proposals may come forward to the Secretary of State and which may make contracts with health authorities to provide services under the Bill are those which fall within the definition of a qualifying body. We have defined a "qualifying body" very carefully; that is,
"a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (c) of subsection (2)".
I believe that the situation is now crystal clear. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, we believe that we have the support of all the health professionals, including the BMA, and they can rest happily that their initial fears have been resolved.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Cumberledge.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
3 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
>PROVISION OF PERSONAL MEDICAL SERVICES UNDER A PILOT SCHEME
(" .—(1) This section applies to any pilot scheme under which personal medical services are provided.
(2) An agreement which constitutes, or is one of the agreements which together constitute, a pilot scheme may be made by an authority only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) a suitably experienced medical practitioner;

(c) an NHS employee or a pilot scheme employee;

(d) a qualifying body;

(e) an individual who is providing personal medical services under that or another pilot scheme.

(3) In this section—
"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service, is employed by—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a medical list; or

(c) a medical practitioner who is providing personal medical services in accordance with a pilot scheme;

"pilot scheme employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of personal medical services in accordance with a pilot scheme, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"qualifying body" means a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e) of subsection (2).
(4) For the purposes of this section, a medical practitioner is suitably experienced if he is suitably experienced for the purposes of section 9 of this Act, section 31 of the 1977 Act or section 21 of the 1978 Act.
(5) In this Part, "medical list" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 29(2)(a) of the 1977 Act;

(b) in relation to Scotland, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 19(2)(a) of the 1978 Act.").

4 Insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF PERSONAL DENTAL SERVICES UNDER A PILOT SCHEME
(" .—(1) This section applies to any pilot scheme under which personal dental services are provided.
(2) An agreement which constitutes, or is one of the agreements which together constitute, a pilot scheme may be made by an authority only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust:

(b) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a dental list;

(c) an NHS employee or a pilot scheme employee;

(d) a qualifying body;

(e) an individual who is providing personal dental services under that or another pilot scheme.

(3) In this section—
"dental list" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 36(1)(a) of the 1977 Act;

(b) in relation to Scotland, a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 25(2)(a) of the 1978 Act;

"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service, is employed by—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a dental list; or

(c) a dental practitioner who is providing personal dental services in accordance with a pilot scheme;

"pilot scheme employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of personal dental services in accordance with a pilot scheme, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"qualifying body" means—

(a) a body corporate which, in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Dentists Act 1984, is entitled to carry on the business of dentistry; or

(b) a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (e) of subsection (2).").

5 Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
("(2) An authority must prepare and submit such proposals if they are asked to do so by a person—

(a) who wishes to provide piloted services, and

(b) with whom an agreement which constitutes, or is part of, a pilot scheme may be made;

but otherwise they may not do so.").
6 Page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
Baroness Cumberledge: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 en bloc. I spoke to these amendments when dealing with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 to 6.—(Baroness Cumberledge).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if—

(a) the Secretary of State intends to approve proposals for a pilot scheme; and

(b) it appears to him that the effect of implementing the proposals would be to increase or reduce the number of general practitioners in the area of the authority concerned.

(2B) The Secretary of State must have regard to the effect that the proposals, as he intends to approve them, are likely to have on—

(a) the distribution of general practitioners in England, in the case of proposals submitted by an authority in England;

(b) the distribution of general practitioners in Scotland, in the case of proposals submitted by an authority in Scotland;

(c) the distribution of general practitioners in Wales, in the case of proposals submitted by an authority in Wales.

(2C) In carrying out his functions under subsection (2B), the Secretary of State must consult the Medical Practices Committee or (as appropriate) the Scottish Medical Practices Committee.").
Baroness Cumberledge: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 8, 25 and 32.
Your Lordships will recall that the issue of the distribution of GPs and the role of the Medical Practices Committee was subject to continuing discussions with the profession. We have reached an agreement on the new arrangements. In brief, these involve greater scope for local people, who know about local needs, to decide on the distribution of doctors within an authority's area. We shall also ensure that a robust national overview of the GP workforce is drawn together so that we can achieve an equitable distribution of GPs between health authorities. That will draw on the expertise of the MPC and the NHS Executive's national resource allocation group and involve representatives of the profession and of health authorities.
The amendments before the House reflect the agreement that we have struck. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 ensure that the Secretary of State pays due regard to the effect that pilot schemes will have on the distribution of GPs. To enable him to do this, he will be required to consult the Medical Practices Committee when proposals for pilot schemes are put to him which increase or reduce the number of GPs in the area of the authority concerned. In short, the amendments acknowledge the important role of the Medical Practices Committee and ensure that its knowledge and expertise inform decisions on pilots made by the Secretary of State.
I can also assure your Lordships that, before we take forward any regulations on the issue, we will discuss the relevant issues with the MPC. That will provide a further opportunity for us to consider any outstanding concerns that it may have. Amendments Nos. 25 and 32 give legislative effect to proposals that recognise that national distribution of the GP workforce must be kept in view by the Secretary of State in considering permanent schemes. They ensure that any regulations governing the introduction of permanent arrangements are framed with this in mind. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Cumberledge.)
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should like briefly to welcome what the Minister said when introducing the amendments. As she will be aware, the crucial role of the MPC—the work that it has carried out thus far in terms of ensuring a proper distribution of GP services—was an area that we discussed at length during the Committee and later stages of the Bill in this House and in another place. While we welcome what has been done so far, there remain concerns about the role of the MPC and whether we are in fact striking the right balance between a national overview and a local input into those areas.
1070
I heard what the Minister said about her feeling that it was the correct balance. However, I know that the MPC, and many others, are concerned that we have pitched the balance too far in putting the responsibility on health authorities in some of those areas. I therefore welcome what the noble Baroness said about looking very carefully into the matter before regulations are introduced to assess whether the balance is right and whether we should perhaps be strengthening the provisions of the Bill through regulations in regard to the role of the MPC. That is something which has been built up over the years and which we should not let go lightly. Certainly the area of the regulations, as regards what the input of the MPC would be when permanent versions of the pilot schemes come into force, is something that we would want to consider very closely in government. However, given the procedural situation that we are in, I believe that we have to say that, thus far, we welcome what has been done. However, we would welcome the opportunity to look more closely at the areas where we believe there is still scope for further action when it comes to regulation.
As regards the issue of local consultation, we would also have to consider an area where the BMA has signified that it is still unhappy; namely, on consultation with local medical committees; indeed, I believe that the BDA has the same anxiety regarding local dental organisations. Some of us feel that the actual nature of the involvement of those working in pilot schemes and on local representative committees is not as strong as it ought to be and that it does not necessarily provide enough robust structures for ensuring that local professional views are fully taken into account at all stages.
Perhaps the Minister could tell the House how she foresees involving those GPs who are working in pilot schemes in the statutory and non-statutory consultation process with local representative committees, which I know the department has said that it is anxious to continue. That is another area where I believe that the Bill has been improved during the course of its passage but where concerns still remain. While we do not have the procedural opportunities at this stage further to improve the Bill, I believe that we should put down markers that these are areas where, had we perhaps had more time and opportunity, we would have wished to go further.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to know that I am pleased to see both this amendment and those associated with it. More than once during the earlier stages of the Bill I raised the concern of the BMA that the MPCs were apparently being ignored. Clearly that has been sorted out and now I welcome the wording which will be inserted in the Bill.
Of course, I drew attention to the fact that the MPC does not extend to Scotland and therefore the Scottish Medical Practices Committee is also to be included in the new section to be inserted in the Bill. I believe that

1071
meets the main objectives which were raised and that it should help to get an optimum distribution of medical practitioners over the country.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too welcome the improvement that have been made to the Bill, although in my view it is not quite enough. Together with the noble Baroness, I look forward to seeing the regulations that are due to be introduced whereupon we may be able to make alternative arrangements. There is an enormous difference between the MPC having the right of approval of pilot schemes and, under the new amendment, the right only to consultation. It is not the same thing. Consultation sometimes can be a negative process. For instance, one can ask someone, "You are going to be killed; which way would you like us to do it"? That is sometimes what consultation means. I want to be certain that this Bill will ensure that the MPC has a real input into the distribution of general practitioners over the country. It has done a good job in the past and I believe that the regulations must enable it to continue to do so.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is right to say that we now have a different approach with these pilot schemes. There is much more flexibility. We believe that the flexibility which the Bill provides will allow different ways of delivering services to be tested.
During various debates your Lordships have referred to the salaried employment of doctors or, in some cases, different roles for different healthcare professionals. That is an important point with regard to the MPC and the powers that it has had. It cannot consider in great depth schemes that involve other health professionals. We know that primary care is about team work. Therefore it is important that the whole team is taken into consideration. We believe there is a call for a different approach to workforce planning. That is why the Secretary of State intends to use a range of expertise which will of course include the MPC but also the resource allocation group because we believe that will ensure an equitable distribution of human and financial resources. We have listened to the concerns of the MPC and of your Lordships. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said, we believe that the balance is about right.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 3, page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("() In this section "general practitioner" means any medical practitioner who is providing general medical services or performing personal medical services.")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I have already spoken to this amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMEN
9 Clause 5, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
("() Each pilot scheme must be reviewed under this section before the end of the period of three years beginning with the date on which piloted services are first performed under the scheme.")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. This delivers on the commitment made originally in this House to impose a three-year time limit on the period of time from the coming into operation of a pilot scheme to its evaluation. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who raised this important point and argued for this change with great conviction and persuasiveness in our earlier deliberations on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, the Minister will know that I am delighted that this amendment has appeared. I am particularly delighted that it stands alone; it is as if it is my amendment still. I am grateful to the Minister. At Third Reading she promised that she would raise this matter in the other place. She has fulfilled her promise, as she always does. We receive the amendment with great pleasure.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, too, welcome this amendment and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on succeeding in having it accepted. I believe it was the only amendment from this side of the House during the passage of the Bill which has succeeded in reaching this stage of the proceedings. Without wishing in any way to diminish that success as regards the timing of evaluation, I should add that we remain concerned that the nature of the evaluation is not made more specific on the face of the Bill. As noble Lords will remember, at many stages during the passage of the Bill we asked how the pilot schemes were to be evaluated. This amendment has made specific the time period over which they will be evaluated. However, we remain concerned that simply to rely on the evaluation—however, the word "evaluation" is not used—or the review of the Secretary of State of what may be disparate types of schemes undertaken in different parts of the country without any central criteria for judging them against one another may cause great problems in deciding whether one has been more effective in improving services.
I remember from the context of the discussions which we had at earlier stages of the Bill that noble Lords on all sides of the House agreed that there would be considerable difficulty in establishing any formal matrix, as it were, of national criteria by which these pilot schemes could be judged by the Secretary of State, or whoever undertook that task. Nevertheless, there is an issue to which we shall certainly wish to return at a later stage if we have the opportunity to put this Bill into force; namely, considering the ways of integrating

1073
the processes of objective evaluation into the review of pilot schemes. These ways are well developed in other parts of the National Health Service.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I wish to pick up some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I understand her feelings about the one amendment that has been passed in your Lordships' House. However, I would not want the noble Baroness to think that all her hard work and that of her colleagues on the Benches opposite has not made an impact in another place.
We take the issue of evaluation seriously. However, as the noble Baroness has said on the Floor of the House it is hard to work out the details. Indeed, we felt it was not appropriate to put that on the face of the Bill. As your Lordships will know, we have set a high priority on working with those in the National Health Service who provide the services.
In the intervening period since your Lordships had the Second Reading of this Bill we have set up national consultative groups. They have a wide-ranging membership which guarantees their representative nature. They are looking at local criteria. They are looking to see the principles which need to be established. When the initial pilot schemes are set up, they will set out detailed requirements for evaluation. They will cover the principles of the wider impact that the pilots may have on local services. That is the important point. They will need to ensure that there is improvement in quality; that there is a wide range and accessibility of services; and that value for money is provided by the pilot. Those will be the principles but clearly every scheme will need to have its much more detailed criteria against which it can be measured.
I am aware that I did not reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on LMCs. We consider that they also have an important role to play in terms of evaluation and consultation. In the new developments health authorities will need to seek their views on the impact of pilots and on existing arrangements before the piloting and during evaluation stages. We very much value LMCs but we felt that it was time for a change in that there will not be a statutory duty for LMCs to be funded specifically relating to contracts. However, we still think that they will have an important part to play. It will be up to GPs to decide whether they want to use the LMCs or seek an alternative in terms of the full consultation necessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
10 Clause 8, page 5, line 11, after second ("by") insert ("regulations made or")
11 Page 5, line 12, leave out ("Part I of")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 1.
1074
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 9, page 5, line 16. at end insert—
("() Subsection (1) does not prevent the performance of personal medical services by—

(a) a person who is acting in the course of acquiring the experience prescribed by regulations made under section 32 of the 1977 Act or section 22 of the 1978 Act;

(b) a person who is provisionally registered under section 15 or 21 of the Medical Act 1983, acting in the course of his employment in a resident medical capacity in an approved medical practice (within the meaning of section 11(4) of that Act); or

(c) such other category of person as may be prescribed.")

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 29, 33, 54, 69 to 73, 81, 101 and 106. At Second Reading in another place cross-party concerns were raised about the limitations in the Medical Act 1983 which prevented pre-registration house officers taking placements in general practice except in health centres. The Government responded to those concerns through Amendments Nos. 54 and 106.
These amendments are designed to enable more young doctors in their final year of basic training—the pre-registration house officer year—to undertake part of that training in general practice. Allowing them to train in general practice fits in well, given that this Bill provides opportunities for more flexible ways of working and providing services. Our proposals are also fully supported by the profession.
Finally, the amendments to Clauses 9 and 20 and to Schedule 2 also extend to the new arrangements the provisions for vocational training which currently exist in the general medical services. They will also enable the Secretary of State to provide for vocational training in the personal dental services.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.12.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. We support the concept of giving junior doctors at an early stage in their career the opportunity to participate in general practice. We have all been concerned with the issues of recruitment and retention in general practice. It is wise to allow those pre-registration house officers to have a taster of general practice. It is to be hoped that they will be encouraged to spend at least a part of their career in that branch of the service. The combination of the training opportunities, together with the possibilities of salaried service—we hope that the pilot schemes will give an opportunity for more flexibility at various stages of people's careers than general practice has allowed for in the past—is

1075
important. Therefore we welcome the amendments as part of the process of rebuilding the general practitioner service.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. General practice is under threat at present. There is every need for young doctors to become interested in it. They will see everyday conditions in general practice. When the system was limited only to health centres it was not wide enough. It is a splendid amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendments.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support. I commend the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
13 Clause 14, page 7, line 14, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

("(1) In the case of a pilot scheme entered into, or to be entered into, by a single individual or body corporate, that individual or body may make an application under this section to become a health service body.

(1A) In the case of any other pilot scheme, all of those providing, or proposing to provide, piloted services under the scheme may together make an application under this section to become a single health service body.").

Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13 and I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 and 18. These amendments deal with additional points which concern the way in which NHS contracts will work in pilot schemes. They will ensure that the benefits of NHS contracts can play a full part in the new arrangements.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 clarify who may apply to become a health service body for the purpose of piloting. The provisions of Clause 14, to which the amendments relate, will of course be available only to members of the NHS family. Individual GPs or dentists can already apply to become health service bodies under the Bill. These amendments will enable applications to be made by various groupings from within the NHS family—for example, partnerships of GPs—and ensure that such groupings can comprise a single health service body. The amendments also ensure that each time the membership of a health service body changes after it has been granted health service body status (for example, where one partner in a partnership retires) it does not have to re-apply for such status. The provision fits in well with the flexibilities which the Bill aims to achieve.
Finally, Amendment No. 18 removes a power which is already provided elsewhere in the Bill. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question on the amendments.
1076
We welcome them in general. As she said, they add to the concepts of flexibility within the pilot schemes, in particular extending the role of the NHS family—as I am glad we all now call it.
I cannot recall the number of the amendment withdrawn at Report stage because concern was expressed by Members on these Benches about the expression "body corporate" as regards the number of people who could be involved in contracts. I wish to be absolutely clear. I come back to the points raised earlier on the group of amendments with Amendment No. 2. Does the expression "body corporate" exclude "bodies corporate"? I believe that we would understand the common sense meaning of that term to include commercial organisations.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness. Those who apply for the pilot schemes have to ensure that all the shares are held by members of the NHS family. The noble Baroness can rest assured that this is not a back-door into privatisation or commercialisation. That is not our intention at all. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 14, page 7, line 21, leave out ("("the scheme)").
15 Page 7, line 26, leave out ("the applicant is") and insert ("—

(a) in the case of an application under subsection (1), the applicant is, and

(b) in the case of an application under subsection (1A), the applicants together are,").

16 Page 7, line 33, at end insert—
("() Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, a pilot scheme health service body resulting from an application under subsection (1A) is to be treated, at any time, as consisting of those providing piloted services under the scheme.").
17 Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("Scotland,") to end of line 41 and insert ("in like manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.").
18 Page 7, line 44, leave out from ("circumstances") to end of line 46.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 18.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
19 Clause 19, page 11, line 15, leave out ("and section 28D").
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 21, 27, 34 to 42, 55 to 59, 61, 64 to 68, 78, 84 to 87, 96, 102, 104, 105, 111, 114 and 115.

1077
These amendments make minor drafting amendments which help clarify the text of the Bill and repeals. For example, they extend provision enabling the right to choose a medical and dental practitioner to be exercised on behalf of certain individuals by others. This can be used when parents choose practitioners for their children; they also ensure that the powers of the NHS Tribunal in Schedule 1 are brought into line with existing legislation; and they put it beyond doubt that the Secretary of State's direction-making power may be exercised as flexibly as his regulation-making powers.
I commend these important, if technical, amendments to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
20 Clause 19, page 11, line 23, at end insert—
("Persons with whom agreements may be made.
28CA.—(1) A Health Authority may make an agreement under section 28C only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—

(i) a qualifying medical practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section 17C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a qualifying dental practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section I7C arrangements;

(d) an NHS employee, a section 28C employee or a section 17C employee;

(e) a qualifying body.

(2) In this section—
"the 1978 Act" means the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service in England and Wales or Scotland, is employed by—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—

(i) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a medical list kept under this Act or in a corresponding list kept under the 1978 Act; or

(ii) a medical practitioner who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section 17C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 36(1)(a) of this Act or section 25(2)(a) of the 1978 Act; or

1078

(ii) a dental practitioner who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 28C arrangements or section 17C arrangements;

"qualifying body" means—

(a) a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1); and also

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided, a body corporate which, in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Dentists Act 1984, is entitled to carry on the business of dentistry;

"qualifying dental practitioner" means a dental practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 28D(2)(b) of this Act or section 17D(2)(b) of the 1978 Act;
"qualifying medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 28D(2)(b) of this Act or section 17D(2)(b) of the 1978 Act;
"section 17C arrangements" means arrangements for the provision of services made under section 17C of the 1978 Act;
"section 17C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section I7C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"section 28C arrangements" means arrangements for the provision of services made under section 28C; and
"section 28C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services.").
21 Page 12, line 22, leave out ("and section I7D").
22 Page 12, line 22, at end insert—
(""Health Authority" has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 1977;").
23 Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("Persons with whom agreements may be made.
17CA.—(1). A Health Board may make an agreement under section 17C only with one or more of the following—

(a) an NHS trust;

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—.

(i) a qualifying medical practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a qualifying dental practitioner;

(ii) an individual who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

(d) an NHS employee, a section 17C employee or a section 28C employee;

(e) a qualifying body.

(2) In this section—
"the 1977 Act" means the National Health Service Act 1977;
"NHS employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in the health service in Scotland or England and Wales, is employed by—
(a) an NHS trust;
(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal medical services are provided—

(i) a medical practitioner whose name is included in a medical list kept under this Act or in a corresponding list kept under the 1977 Act; or

(ii) a medical practitioner who is providing personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

(c) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided—

(i) a dental practitioner whose name is included in a list prepared in accordance with regulations made under section 25(2)(a) of this Act or section 36(1)(a) of the 1977 Act; or

(ii) a dental practitioner who is providing personal dental services in accordance with section 17C arrangements or section 28C arrangements;

"qualifying body" means—

(a) a company which is limited by shares all of which are legally and beneficially owned by persons falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1); and also

(b) in the case of an agreement under which personal dental services are provided, a body corporate which, in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Dentists Act 1984, is entitled to carry on the business of dentistry;

"qualifying dental practitioner" means a dental practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 17D(2)(b) of this Act or section 28D(2)(b) of the 1977 Act;
"qualifying medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who satisfies the conditions imposed by regulations made under section 17D(2)(b) of this Act or section 28D(2)(b) of the 1977 Act;
"section 17C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services;
"section 28C arrangements" means arrangements for the provision of services made under section 28C of the 1977 Act; and
"section 28C employee" means an individual who, in connection with the provision of services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, is employed by an individual providing those services.").
24 Clause 20, page 12, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 48 and insert—
("medical practitioners performing personal medical services, and dental practitioners performing personal dental services, in accordance with section 28C arrangements.
In paragraph (b) "practitioner" does not include a practitioner who is undergoing training of a prescribed description.").
25 Page 14, line 4, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State must—

(a) consider whether section 28C arrangements are likely to have an adverse effect on the distribution of medical practitioners providing general medical services or performing personal medical services in England or in Wales;

(b) if he thinks that the arrangements are likely to have that effect, consider whether it is necessary to include in the regulations provisions designed to secure that, so far as is possible, the arrangements do not have that effect; and

(c) if he thinks that it is necessary, include such provisions in the regulations.").

26 Page 14, line 4, at end insert—
("() Regulations which impose conditions on persons performing personal medical services or persons performing personal dental services (whether made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or otherwise) may, in particular, include provision of a kind that may be made by regulations under section 32.").
27 Page 14, line 11, after ("arrangements") insert ("or corresponding services under section 17C of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978").
28 Page 14, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.
29 Page 15, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 and insert—
("medical practitioners performing personal medical services, and dental practitioners performing personal dental services, in accordance with section 17C arrangements.
In paragraph (b) "practitioner" does not include a practitioner who is undergoing training of a prescribed description.").
30 Page 15, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
("(d) require details of section 17C arrangements to be published.").
31 Page 15, line 34, leave out from ("enforceable") to end of line 37 and insert ("in like manner as extract registered decrees arbitral bearing warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.").
32 Page 16, line 12, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State must—

(a) consider whether section 17C arrangements are likely to have an adverse effect on the distribution of medical practitioners providing general medical services or performing personal medical services in Scotland;

(b) if he thinks that the arrangements are likely to have that effect, consider whether it is necessary to include in the regulations provisions designed to secure that, so far as is possible, the arrangements do not have that effect; and

(c) if he thinks that it is necessary, include such provisions in the regulations.").

33 Page 16, line 12, at end insert—
("() Regulations which impose conditions on persons performing personal medical services or persons performing personal dental services (whether made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or otherwise) may, in particular, include provision of a kind that may be made by regulations under section 22.").
34 Page 16, line 19, after ("arrangements") insert ("or corresponding services under section 28C of the National Health Service Act 1977").
35 Clause 21, page 17, line 9, at beginning insert ("In particular,").
36 Page 17, line 10, leave out (", in particular,").
37 Page 17, line 27. at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section may also provide that the right to choose a medical practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may be specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
38 Page 17, line 41, at beginning insert ("In particular,").
39 Page 17, line 42, leave out (", in particular,").
40 Page 18, line 12. at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section may also provide that the right to choose a medical practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may he specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
41 Clause 22, page 18, line 24, at end insert—
("() The regulations may, in particular, provide that the right to choose a dental practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may be specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
42 Page 18, line 36, at end insert—
("() The regulations may, in particular, provide that the right to choose a dental practitioner conferred by the regulations shall, in the case of such persons as may be specified in the regulations, be exercised on their behalf by other persons so specified.").
43 Clause 23, page 19, line 31, leave out ("medical") and insert ("Part II").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 20 to 43 when I spoke to Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, 12 and 19. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 to 43.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
44 Clause 26, page 23, line 38, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 47 and 49. These amendments are drafting amendments which ensure that the correct article reference from the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 is used when referring to pharmaceutical lists in Northern Ireland.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.44.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
45 Clause 26, page 24, line 27, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 45. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
46 Insert the following new clause:
("Ophthalmic services
DUTY OF REGISTERED OPTICIANS TO REFER CERTAIN PERSONS TO REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER.
.—(1) Section 31 of the Opticians Act 1989 (matters with respect to which the General Optical Council may make rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5) (power to make rules requiring registered optician to refer persons to registered medical practitioners except in certain circumstances), for the words from "except" to "take the prescribed steps" substitute "except—

(a) in an emergency,

(b) where that person is consulting him for the purpose of being given treatment in accordance with rules under subsection (1)(d) above, or

(c) in such other cases as may be prescribed,

take the prescribed steps".
(3) After subsection (5), insert—
"(5A) Rules made by virtue of subsection (5)(c) may impose conditions which must be satisfied if the exception for which those rules provide is to apply." ").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in the new clause inserted by Amendment No. 46. This takes account of development in the role of ophthalmic opticians, who I know prefer to be known as optometrists. Thirty years ago they were primarily concerned with the testing of sight and correction of refraction errors through the prescription of glasses. Now, in addition, they undertake a clinical examination of the eye for signs of common eye diseases.
The General Optical Council's present rule requires that, otherwise than in an emergency, the optometrist should refer the patient to a registered medical practitioner. In practice, by local agreement with GPs and hospital ophthalmologists, they use discretion. For example, most elderly people acquire opacities in their lenses, but only a few progress to cataracts. Hence, an optometrist might advise a patient to attend annually for a sight test in the knowledge that he could still refer the patient in time for successful treatment if the opacity started to thicken.
That is accepted good practice but, under the present rules, could leave the optometrist exposed to sanction under the investigative and disciplinary procedures which the GOC is obliged to follow. That would clearly be unreasonable.
The new clause inserted by this amendment would enable the General Optical Council to submit a new rule for consideration by the Privy Council which would give the GOC virtually full discretion in prescribing when an optometrist should refer a patient with a disease or injury of the eye to a registered medical practitioner. I commend the new clause to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.46.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we very much welcome this additional amendment in the spirit

1083
of the Bill to make general practice in every area, whether it is general medical services, ophthalmology or the other areas under consideration by the Bill, more flexible. We hope therefore to offer a better service to patients.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
47 Clause 28, page 25, line 31, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)")
48 Page 26, line 2, leave out from second ("body") to end of line 3 and insert ("which is a health service body for the purposes of section 17A")
49 Page 26, line 17, leave out ("63(2)(a)") and insert ("63(2A)(a)")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
50 Clause 29, line 24, leave Out ("or approval")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50. Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 were tabled in response to concerns expressed by the profession and have the support of the BMA. They make clear that health authorities will nominate doctors to fill sole practitioner vacancies, and will approve doctors to fill partnership vacancies. This reflects the policy, to be enshrined in regulations, that candidates for appointment to GP partnerships should be selected by the practice. I hope that your Lordships will support the amendments. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.50.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we support these amendments. There has been concern in this area over the years. We are moving towards a situation whereby we shall be able to make better appointments and safeguard the quality of service being offered to patients in general practice. We therefore very much welcome these amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
51 Clause 29, page 27, line 26, at end insert ("as a sole practitioner:
(f) the approval by a Health Authority of a medical practitioner for appointment to fill a vacancy as a member of a partnership.")
52 Clause 30, page 29, line 28, leave out ("or approval")
53 Page 29, line 30, at end insert ("as a sole practitioner;
(f) the approval by a Health Board of a medical practitioner for appointment to fill a vacancy as a member of a partnership.")
54 After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
EMPLOYMENT OF PRE-REGISTRATION HOUSE OFFICERS IN MEDICAL PRACTICES
(" .—(1) The Medical Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) of section 10 (experience required for full registration as a medical practitioner), for "approved hospitals or approved institutions," substitute "—

(a) approved hospitals,

(b) approved institutions, or

(c) approved medical practices,".

(3) In subsection (3) of section 11 (construction of section 10, etc), after the first "where" insert "—
(a) in the case of an approved hospital or an approved institution,",
and at the end insert"; or
(b) in the case of an approved medical practice, the person employed satisfies such conditions as to residence as may be prescribed".
(4) In subsection (4) of section 11—
(a) insert in the appropriate place—
""medical practice" means a prescribed description of practice in which one or more medical practitioners—

(i) provide general medical services under Part II of the National Health Service Act 1977, Part II of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or Part VI of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972; or

(ii) perform personal medical services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the 1977 Act, section 17C of the 1978 Act or the corresponding provisions of the law in force in Northern Ireland,";

(b) in the definition of "prescribed", after "means" insert "—

(a) in subsection (3)(b) and in the definition of "medical practice", prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and

(b) in the other provisions of this Part,".

(5) After subsection (4) of section 11 insert—
"(4A) The Education Committee may by regulations provide that the period of employment in a medical practice which may he reckoned towards the completion of any of the periods mentioned in section 10(3)(a) above shall not exceed such period as may be specified in the regulations.
(6) In subsection (5) of section 11, after "under subsection (2) of section 10 above" insert "or under subsection (4A) of this section".
(7) After subsection (6) of section 11 insert—
"(7) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section must be made by statutory instrument; and such a statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").
55 Clause 35, Page 33, line 28, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue of')
55 Page 33, line 28, after ("under") insert ("or by virtue or')
56 Page 33, line 31, at end insert—
("() Subsection (2) applies in relation to any power of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of this Act to give directions as it applies in relation to any power of his to make regulations.")
57 Clause 36, page 33. line 38, at end insert—
(""authority" has the meaning given by section 1(7);")
58 Page 33, line 38, at end insert—
(""health service" means the health service in England and Wales and the health service in Scotland;")
59 Page 33, line 38, at end insert—
(""medical list" has the meaning given by section (Provision of personal medical services under a pilot scheme)(5);")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 59. I have already spoken to these amendments. I should like to move them en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos, 51 to 59 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
60 Clause 37, Page 34, line 18, after ("(9)") insert ("and (12A) and (12B)")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. With it, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 74 to 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97 to 100, and 108 to 110.
The purpose of most of these amendments is to ensure that various existing legislative provisions apply consistently to the general medical and dental services and to the new arrangements. In one or two cases the amendments modify the existing provisions to reflect the different characteristics of the new system.
Amendments Nos. 60, 62 and 63 confer a power on the Secretary of State to make consequential changes to Acts of Parliament passed before or in the same Session as the Bill by order subject to the negative resolution procedure. This will ensure that any purely consequential changes to other primary legislation (such as extending a provision to include personal medical or dental services) which we have not yet identified, can be made without needing further primary legislation. I commend these amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
61 Clause 37, page 34, line 28, after ("by") insert ("or under")
62 Page 34, line 35, leave out ("and (8)") and insert (", (8) and (12A)")
63 Page 34, line 41, at end insert—
("(12A) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments or repeals of any enactment passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act as appear to him necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision of this Act.
(12B) An order under subsection (12A)—

(a) may contain such supplemental, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions and savings as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

64 Page 34, line 42, leave out subsection (13)
65 Schedule 1, page 36, line 11, after ("fit") insert ("—(i)")
66 Page 36, line 12, at end insert ("; or
(ii) direct that his name is not to be included in any other specified medical list or lists kept under the appropriate Act.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) "appropriate Act" means—

(a) in a case where the medical list to which sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies is kept under the 1977 Act, that Act; and

(b) in a case where the medical list to which sub-paragraph (1)(a) applies is kept under the 1978 Act, that Act.")

67 Page 36, line 13, for ("(1)(b)") substitute ("(1)(b)(i)")
68 Page 36, line 15, at end insert ("(whether under the 1977 Act or the 1978 Act)")
69 Schedule 2, page 37, line 20, leave out ("Section 59 of")
70 Page 37, line 22, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section 59")
71 Page 37, line 25, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section 59")
72 Page 37, line 30, at end insert—
("() After section 63(2)(b) insert—
"(ba) the provision or performance of a service in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the 1977 Act or section 17C of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and an activity involved in or connected with the provision or performance of such a service;".")
73 Page 38, line 1, at end insert—
("() After subsection (1) insert—
"(1ZA) It is the duty of each Health Authority, in accordance with regulations, to perform such functions in relation to section 28C arrangements as may be prescribed.
(1ZB) Regulations under subsection (1ZA) may, in particular—

(a) prescribe functions in relation to training;

(b) provide for appeals to the Secretary of State or a prescribed body in relation to functions prescribed by the regulations."").

74 Page 38, line 21, leave out from ("means") to end of line 25 and insert ("—

(a) in relation to a medical practitioner who practises otherwise than in partnership, an individual who is on that practitioner's list of patients (or, if that practitioner and one or more other medical practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 28C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list);

(b) in relation to a medical practitioner who is one of two or more practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, an individual who is on the list of patients of any of those practitioners (or. if any of those practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 28C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list)." ")

COMMONS AMENDMENT
75 Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Section 26 is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) The Secretary of State may supply or make available to persons—

(a) providing general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services, or

(b) providing, in accordance with section 28C arrangements, personal medical services, personal dental services or other services of a kind that may be provided under this Part,
such goods, materials or other facilities as may be prescribed."

(3) In subsection (4), after the words "pharmaceutical services" at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) persons performing, in accordance with section 28C arrangements, personal medical services, personal dental services or other services of a kind that may be provided under this Part,".").
76 Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
(" . After section 28G insert—
"Immunisation.
28H. Where the Secretary of State arranges with medical practitioners for the vaccination or immunisation of persons against disease, he shall so far as reasonably practicable give every person providing, and every medical practitioner performing, personal medical services in accordance with section 28C arrangements an opportunity to participate in the arrangements for vaccination or immunisation."").
77 Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
(" . After section 28H insert—
"Use of accommodation.
281. If the Secretary of State considers that any accommodation provided by him by virtue of this Act is suitable for use in connection with the provision of personal medical services or personal dental services in accordance with section 28C arrangements, he may make the accommodation available on such terms as he thinks fit to persons providing those services."").
78 Page 39, line 2, at end insert—
(" . In section 50, after "whom" insert "general ophthalmic".")
79 Page 39, line 18, at end insert—
(" . In section 85(1), references to functions conferred or imposed by or under the 1977 Act are to be construed as including references to functions conferred or imposed in relation to pilot schemes by or under this Act; and references to regulations and directions are accordingly to be construed as including regulations or directions under this Act.")
80 Page 39, line 18, at end insert—
(" . In section 86, the reference to a function conferred by virtue of the 1977 Act is to be construed as including a reference to a function conferred in relation to pilot schemes by virtue of this Act.")
81 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 102(1)(a)(iii) and (2)(b), after "section 32 above" insert "or by regulations which make provision in relation to section 28C arrangements of a kind that may be made by regulations under section 32 above".")
82 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 103(1)(a) after "Act" insert "or in accordance with section 28C arrangements".")
83 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 105(2)(a) after "examined" insert "or as part of his duty to perform personal medical services for that person in accordance with section 28C arrangements".
85 Page 39, leave out line 27
84 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
(" . In section 126(3), after "under" insert "or by virtue of".")
86 Page 39, line 32, after ("services" ") insert ("(except in section 29)")
87 Page 39, line 33, at end insert—
(" .—(1) In Schedule 9, paragraph 5A is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2), after "sub-paragraph (1)(c) above" insert "as it has effect in relation to the functions mentioned below")
(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) above as it has effect in relation to functions of the Tribunal conferred by or under any enactment relating to the preferential treatment of medical practitioners on transferring to medical lists, the reference to the person concerned is a reference to the medical practitioner to whom the matter before the Tribunal relates." ").
88 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 3(1), omit from ", for the purpose of to the end.")
89 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 12A, after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) The functions of an NHS trust also include power to provide services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, and to do so as a member of a qualifying body (within the meaning of section 17CA)." ").
90 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 15(1)(a) —
(a) after "persons" insert "—
(i)"; and
(b) after "Part II" insert "; or
(ii) providing, in accordance with section 17C arrangements, personal medical services, personal dental services or other services of a kind that may be provided under this Part or Part III,".")
91 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . In section 17A(2), at the end insert "and in this Act "health service body" means any of those persons or bodies".")
92 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . After section 17G insert—
"Immunisation.
17H. Where the Secretary of State arranges with medical practitioners for the vaccination or immunisation of persons against any disease, he shall so far as reasonably practicable give every person providing, and every medical practitioner performing, personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements an opportunity to participate in the arrangements for vaccination or immunisation."").
93 Page 41, line 22, at end insert—
(" . After section 17H insert—
"Use of accommodation.
171. If the Secretary of State considers that any accommodation provided by him by virtue of this Act is suitable for use in connection with the provision of personal medical services or personal dental services in accordance with section 17C arrangements, he may make the accommodation available on such terms as he thinks fit to persons providing those services."").
94 Page 41, line 39, after ("17C(", insert ("arrangements")
95 Page 41, line 40, leave out from ("means") to end of line 44 and insert ("—

(a) in relation to a medical practitioner who practises otherwise than in partnership, an individual who is on that practitioner's list of

1089
patients (or, if that practitioner and one or more other medical practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 17C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list);

(b) in relation to a medical practitioner who is one of two or more practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, an individual who is on the list of patients of any of those practitioners (or, if any of those practitioners together have a single list of patients in connection with section 17C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list)." ")

96 Page 42, line 22, at end insert—
(". In section 34, after "whom" insert "general ophthalmic".")
97 Page 42, line 38, at end insert—
(". In section 77(1), references to functions conferred or imposed by or under the 1978 Act are to be construed as including references to functions conferred or imposed in relation to pilot schemes by or under this Act; and references to regulations, schemes, proposals and directions are accordingly to be construed as including regulations, schemes, proposals or directions under this Act.")
98 Page 42, line 38, at end insert—
(". In section 78, the reference to a function conferred by or under the 1978 Act is to be construed as including a reference to a function conferred in relation to pilot schemes by or under this Act.")
99 Page 43, line 12, leave out from (""practice patient"") to end of line 16 and insert (", in relation to a recognised fund-holding practice, means an individual who is on the list of patients of any of the members of the practice (or, if any of those members together have a single list of patients in connection with section 17C arrangements, an individual who is on that single list)." ")
100 Page 43, line 16, at end insert—
(" .—(1) Section 87D is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for "subsection (2)" substitute "subsections (2) and (8)".
(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "who" insert "is on the medical list of a Health Board and"; and

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) in the case of two or more medical practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, each medical practitioner who is on the medical list of a Health Board;".
(4) After subsection (7) insert—
"(8) This section does not apply in relation to the performance or provision of personal medical services in accordance with section 17C arrangements."").
101 Page 43, line 16, at end insert—
(" . In section 88(1)(d) and (2)(e), after "section 22" insert "or by regulations which make provision in relation to section 17C arrangements of a kind that may he made by regulations under section 22".")
102 Page 43, leave out line 18
103 Page 43, line 19, leave out ("within the meaning or) and insert ("specified in")
104 Page 43, line 23, after ("services" ") insert ("(except in section 19)")
105 Page 43, line 24, at end insert—
(" . —(1) In Schedule 8, paragraph 8 is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2), after "sub-paragraph (1)(c) above" insert "as it has effect in relation to the functions mentioned below")
(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) In sub-paragraph (1)(c) above as it has effect in relation to functions of the Tribunal conferred by or under any enactment relating to the preferential treatment of medical practitioners on transferring to medical lists, the reference to the person concerned is a reference to the medical practitioner to whom the matter before the Tribunal relates." ").
106 Page 45, line 8, at end insert—
("The Medical Act 1983 (c.54)
—(1) The Medical Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11(4), in the definition of "approved", for ", in relation to a hospital or institution," substitute "(except in subsection (5))".
(3) In section 13—

(a) in subsection (1), for "approved hospital or approved institution" substitute "approved hospital, approved institution or approved medical practice";

(b) in subsection (2), for "hospital or institution" substitute "hospital, institution or medical practice";

(c) in subsection (3)(a), for "an approved hospital or an approved institution" substitute "an approved hospital, an approved institution or an approved medical practice".

(4) In section 15(3), for "approved hospitals or approved institutions" substitute "approved hospitals, approved institutions or approved medical practices".

(5) In section 21(3), for "approved hospitals or approved institutions" substitute "approved hospitals, approved institutions or approved medical practices".")

107 Page 46, line 3, at end insert—
("() In section 5, after subsection (6) insert—
"(6A) The functions of an NHS trust also include power to provide services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the principal Act, and to do so as a member of a qualifying body (within the meaning of section 28CA of that Act)." ").
108 Page 46, line 24, leave out from (""practice patient"") to end of line 28 and insert (", in relation to a recognised fund-holding practice, means an individual who is on the list of patients of any of the members of the practice (or, if any of those members together have a single list of patients in connection with arrangements made under section 28C of the principal Act, an individual who is on that single list)." ")
109 Page 46, line 28, at end insert—
("() In section 18(1) for "subsection (2)" substitute "subsections (2) and (8)".
() In section 18(3)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "who" insert "is on the medical list of a Health Authority and"; and

(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

"(b) in the case of two or more medical practitioners who practise in partnership with each other, each medical practitioner who is on the medical list of a Health Authority;".
() After section 18(7) insert—
"(8) This section does not apply in relation to the performance or provision of personal medical services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C of the principal Act."").
110 Page 46, line 28, at end insert—
("() In section 62(7), after paragraph (a)(i) in the definition of "services" insert—
"(ia) arrangements made under section 28C of that Act;".")
111 Page 47, line 34, leave out ("1977") and insert ("1978")
112 Page 47, line 37, after ("Service") insert ("(Scotland)")
113 Schedule 3, page 49, line 34, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 3(1), the words from ", for the purpose of to the end.")

114 Page 50, line 12, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 12(1)(c).")
115 Page 50, line 15, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("6(c),")
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 115 en bloc. I have already spoken to these amendments. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 61 to 115 en bloc.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
116 In the Title, line 3, leave out ("ophthalmic,")
117 Line 6, after ("Authorities") insert ("and Health Boards; to make provision about ophthalmic services").
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 and 117. These amendments change the Long Title of the Bill to reflect two provisions added to the Bill since its original introduction in this House. At Report stage in this House we introduced an amendment to deal with the expenditure of health boards and in another place we added a provision which amended the Opticians Act 1989. These amendments ensure that the Long Title covers both of these and thus correctly reflects the contents of the Bill. I commend the amendments.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 116 and 117.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we welcome these amendments, which reflect changes made in the Bill. As this is the last group of amendments, I thank the Minister for her kindness in discussing this complicated process with those of us on these Benches in the past few days. Although I said at the beginning of consideration of Commons amendments that we were concerned about the speed with which this had to be done, the Minister did everything that she could to help us consider the amendments. They have improved the Bill and we welcome them.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Minister. She has, as usual, been always delightful in guiding us in the right direction—and has not been very "lengthy", which I appreciate. I believe that all of us are absolutely certain that the Bill has been improved by these amendments. Many of us feel that what has been said
1092
in this House has to some extent influenced amendments in the other place. We welcome the amendments and wish the Bill a good future.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have taken part in debates on the Bill. I thank them for their unfailing courtesy and, where necessary, the co-operation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her colleagues, and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. I thank my noble friends for the support that they gave. I also thank my outstanding Whip, who has kept me in order throughout the course of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill
4.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
Clause 12 [Inspectors appointed by authorities):
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 21, line 18, after second ("benefit") insert ("within the preceding 3 years").
The noble Baroness said: It is not my intention to speak on most of the amendments in my name. However, this is so simple and so straightforward an amendment that I thought I should take the opportunity to present it to the Committee.
The clause that it seeks to amend is the clause that provides for the inspection of private dwelling-houses by an inspector where he or she has cause to believe that trade or businesses are being carried out. It goes on in subsection (6) to define:
"For the purposes of this section—

(a) a benefit claimant is a person who has claimed housing benefit or council tax benefit; and

(b) a benefit recipient is a person to whom housing benefit or council tax benefit has been paid".

It does not define how long one has been a claimant. It is possible, I suppose, to have been a claimant some years ago and still qualify for inspection under the terms of this clause. The intention of Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 is to provide that:

"(a) a benefit claimant is a person who has claimed housing benefit or council tax benefit within the preceding 3 years: and

(b) a benefit recipient is a person to whom housing benefit or council tax benefit has been paid within the preceding 3 years".

It seems to us necessary to define precisely the length of period required to qualify as a benefit claimant under this clause of the Bill. Is the position "once a claimant, always a claimant", as was put to me by one of the organisations that wrote to me about the clause? It seems to me that we must have some sort of qualification, otherwise there is a lack of clarity about what a benefit claimant is and whether that person continues indefinitely to be subject to the inspections provided for in this clause. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Without more ado, I support this amendment. The Minister may not wish to accept it at this stage of proceedings, but would he consider incorporating the point in guidance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall certainly bear in mind the point that the noble Earl has made, but I hope that, once I have explained Clause 12 and put on record how we see it operating, both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will feel that that will be sufficient.
Clause 12 provides for an authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit to appoint inspectors who may enter business premises to make inquiries about any person believed to be a benefit claimant or recipient. This measure is needed because at present local authority investigators have no more power to make investigations than any ordinary citizen. Investigations can be halted by the refusal of a landlord or an employer to co-operate in providing details of their tenants or employees. This clause will provide those appointed as inspectors with the powers that they need to investigate fraud thoroughly.
The powers are broadly comparable with those already available to Department of Social Security staff. Local authority inspectors will have the right to enter a place of business, inspect records, copy records and interview anyone found there. The clause will allow an inspector to seek information or documents from or about anyone who has claimed or received housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The effect of the noble Baroness's amendments would be to limit this provision by allowing details to be sought in relation only to persons who had claimed or received those benefits within the previous three years. It may be argued—and indeed that is what the noble Baroness has done—that there should be a time limit beyond which someone suspected of fraud should be safe from investigation. I believe that that ignores the different types of benefit fraud with which investigators may need to deal. For example, in the case of an individual who years ago obtained small sums by fraud—perhaps by failing to report an increase in wages—it is extremely unlikely that authorities would go back several years with their inquiries.
But what about the large scale fraudster operating on an extensive scale, the crooked landlord whose frauds extend over a large number of properties and who has been operating for years? It may be that suspicion relating to a particular claim only surfaces some considerable time after the event. Possibly in the course
1094
of investigating one fraud, evidence may come to light of other frauds, maybe of a whole series of frauds, which occurred more than three years previously. There is nothing in law to prevent authorities taking such cases to court. I do not think that we would want to restrict the freedom of local authorities and inspectors to investigate such serious cases and allow those involved to escape the consequences of their actions solely because of an arbitrary time limit restricting the ability to gather the necessary evidence.
In the case of big-time fraudsters—possibly landlords, managing agents, collusive employers or even individual claimants who are organised or professional criminals—local authorities may well need to go back as far as is necessary to collect sufficient evidence to ensure that the large-scale cheats do not escape the consequences of their crimes.
I hope that, in the light of that explanation of how we believe the clause will operate when looking back a long time and of why I believe it is needed for the serious cases I referred to—which I know all Members of the Committee treat very seriously indeed—the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister very much for that explanation. It is quite true that we on this side of the Chamber—and indeed everybody in the Chamber—are very much against protection for crooked landlords. We have done our best during discussion of this Bill to ensure that provisions in relation to that sort of fraud are strengthened rather than weakened and we would not want to do anything that protected such people.
I am also glad of the Minister's assurance, given earlier in his statement, in regard to what one might call the poorer claimant who may have made a mistake many years ago. The Minister does not think that local authorities would go back that far in order to check on that kind of suspected fraud. It is that kind of individual that we most wanted to protect. In the light of what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 79:
Before Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
OVERPAYMENTS NOT DUE TO FRAUD
(" . In section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (overpayments), after subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) In a case where the misrepresentation or failure in question referred to in subsection (1) above was not fraudulent, this section shall entitle the Secretary of State to recover only the amount which is referable to the 12 months immediately preceding the determination.".").
Earl Russell: I had given the Minister notice that I intended to withdraw all my amendments from the Marshalled List. Through an administrative oversight,

1095
for which I take sole responsibility, that has not been done. With the leave of the Committee, if no Member objects, and if it is in order, I should like not to move my amendments en bloc.
The Deputy Chairman: Does the noble Earl assure the Committee that he will not wish to move any of his amendments?
Earl Russell: Yes.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Offence of dishonest representation for obtaining benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Penalty as alternative to prosecution]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 89 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Recovery of overpaid housing benefit]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 94 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Reviews initiated by Secretary of State]:
Baroness Gould of Potternewton Baroness Gould of Potternewton moved Amendment No. 95
Page 25, line 5, at beginning insert ("Where there is evidence to raise a question with a view to a review of entitlement under subsections (2) and (5) above.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 95 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 96 and 97. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that reviews can only be initiated where the Secretary of State has adequate reasons to question the validity of continuing claims for attendance allowance, disability living allowance and disability working allowance.
At the present time, there are two ways in which a review can be initiated: either by the claimant on the decision of the adjudication officer or by the adjudication officer where there has been ignorance of a material fact, a mistake or a change of circumstance.
There is, however, some confusion—and it is partly because I seek clarification that I move this amendment—on how broadly a Secretary of State, through the adjudication officer, can go in initiating a review. This clause clarifies that position, but the opportunity also seems to have been taken to give the Secretary of State substantial new powers to obtain information prior to instigating review.
Amendment No. 95 would ensure that such investigations are only carried out where there is some evidence which puts the claimant's entitlement in doubt, such as change of circumstance or other reason for review already stated in subsections (2) and (5). It would prevent the Benefits Agency from carrying out random fraud visits to vulnerable people without good reason.
Amendment No. 96 makes it explicit that there would have to be initial information available which throws doubt on the continued validity of the claim. Subsection
1096
(2) is deleted as the Benefits Agency already has the power to review a life award of DLA and AA, either because the person requests it or because the adjudication officer has information that the entitlement should not continue. Perhaps the Minister can indicate why that needs to be changed and what information he believes would be necessary to prompt a review.
I am grateful to both the RNIB and the Disability Alliance for providing me with evidence in support of the amendments. For instance, the RNIB evidence draws on work undertaken for its report, Seeing it our way, carried out to assess the attitudes of fully sighted people on visual impairment. The report reveals that there is substantial public ignorance about visual impairment and the need for aids such as a dog or a white stick. One must not assume that a lack of a visual sign of blindness means that blind and partially sighted people do not need assistance. Given that ignorance, it is possible for someone to ring the fraud hotline and initiate a review because they falsely believe that a visually impaired person is a bogus claimer because he does not have a guide dog.
As we have constantly said, there must be initiatives to tackle fraud, but we must be concerned that spurious allegations do not lead to unwarranted information-gathering exercises, causing considerable worry and distress to claimants whose claims are completely legitimate. These amendments would at least secure that the Secretary of State would have reasonable grounds to doubt the continued validity of the claims before seeking additional information.
In the Committee stage in the other place the Minister stated that disability is not a fraud issue; rather that this Bill is a convenient vehicle to clarify existing legislation. If that is the case one must ask why a Bill aimed at tackling fraud includes two clauses on disability benefits.
It can only relate to a reply given on 12th February to a parliamentary Answer which seems to suggest that, following a review into DLA, the Government perceive a link between claims for DLA and fraud based on an assumed overspend of around £250 million annually. Can the Minister say how he relates that to the Benefits Agency having met its 1995–96 accuracy targets of 96 per cent. for DLA?
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the whole text of the report on DLA and incorrectness is made available and that no decisions are taken on tackling that assumed incorrectness without full consultation with disability organisations. If the review focused on the lower and higher rate mobility components of DLA and the DLA and the "ability to walk", as we understand was the case, can the Minister deny the rumours about changes in interpreting "ability to walk" and give an assurance that no changes are planned which may diminish the right of blind and partially-sighted people to get the lower rate mobility component of DLA.
In conclusion, the Bill as it stands gives wide power to the Secretary of State to gather information which may be maliciously or spuriously activated and result in intrusive and unnecessary information gathering. These

1097
amendments would strike a balance between proper fraud investigation and the harassment of innocent individuals. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness and explain why this clause is included in the Bill and the reasons behind it. That may perhaps allay her worries.
Clause 17 is concerned with the Secretary of State's ability to investigate the correctness of existing awards of attendance allowance and disability living allowance and, if appropriate, to refer cases to an adjudication officer for review. The investigation concerns simply the power to obtain evidence. It carries no other implications. Clause 17 is not intended to confer a new power but to clarify an existing one.
It is right and proper that, in order to safeguard the public purse, the Secretary of State may take action to satisfy himself that benefit is being paid to an individual correctly. In DLA and AA, as in most others benefits, decisions and reviews of decisions are made by adjudication officers. Uniquely in the DLA and AA, the adjudication officer cannot initiate a review of the decision off his own bat but must rely on an application for a review being put to him. That position came about as a result of introducing a specific provision allowing the claimant to apply for review. That was intended to be helpful to the claimant, and indeed it is. However, it has had the unforeseen side effect of opening to question the Secretary of State's ability to apply for a review because it is not so specified.
The question concerning the Secretary of State's power to apply for a review has been posed by Mr. Mark Rowland, now Commissioner Rowland, in his book Medical and Disability Appeal Tribunals: the Legislation. It was always intended that the Secretary of State would apply for a review, and the Government have no doubt that the Secretary of State does have those powers. That necessarily includes the ability to investigate cases in order to establish whether a review is necessary, and, if so, why.
Where a question arises about a specific case, whether as a result of information received from a claimant or from a third party, obviously the Secretary of State will want to investigate. That is right and proper. Where a question arises in relation to a specific type of case—for example, as a result of management checks on individual cases or a survey such as the recently published benefit review of DLA—the Secretary of State needs to investigate. To do that he also needs to establish whether the benefit as a whole is being administered properly and, indeed, to identify those areas in which it is weak. That is a normal activity in benefit administration. It is necessary and right and within the Secretary of State's power.
The Secretary of State has a duty to taxpayers and to claimants to ensure that the benefit, which is worth £6.25 billion this year, is going to those who are entitled to it. The benefit review I mentioned, which has been published, identified 27 per cent. of current awards as
1098
being incorrect. The noble Baroness rightly points out that that is considerably above the target that we like to aim for in the Benefits Agency. Obviously, therefore, we are concerned about that situation.
The 27 per cent. of current awards which are incorrect includes some 10 per cent. of claimants who are being underpaid. That seems to arise largely as a result of unreported change. The incorrectness therefore is not just through bad calculations on the part of the Benefits Agency; it is also through unreported change of one kind or another. The important point is that, largely due to unreported change, something like 10 per cent. of claimants were being underpaid.
Amendment No. 95 would restrict the Secretary of State's ability to carry out investigations that would provide him with information about the correct level of benefit. As I outlined, it is unacceptable for that reason. There has been speculation that the department proposes wholesale investigations throughout the entire DLA caseload. The noble Baroness or those advising her seemed to fear that. I can assure her that that is not the intention. Our interest is in ensuring that the awards in payment are correct, which includes increasing them where appropriate, as well as reducing them.
Amendment No. 97 would remove Clause 17(2), which makes it explicit that the Secretary of State's power to investigate and apply for review includes cases where AA or DLA have not been awarded for a fixed period. Let me first make plain what the term "life award" refers to. It relates to awards in which it is expected that the person's condition will remain with him and will not improve throughout the remainder of his life, so removing the need for unnecessary periodic review. It was never intended to mean that such awards were immune from review. Indeed, review is provided for in legislation. For the care component of DLA, Section 72 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 provides that:
"a person shall be entitled to the care component of a disability living allowance for any period throughout which he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that",
and so forth. The legislation then lists the care needs which would entitle him to each of the three rates of the care component. Similarly, in Section 73, the legislation again provides that a person shall be entitled to the mobility component for any period throughout which he meets one of the list of qualifying conditions. The intention is plain. Regardless of the length of the initial award, entitlement exists only as long as the qualifying conditions relating to specified care and mobility needs are met.
The provisions in Section 32(4) of the Social Security Administration Act which relate to the circumstances in which a component awarded for life may be reviewed were designed to remove the need for a review when both components had been awarded but only one was a life award, the other being for a fixed period. That protection for the component awarded for life is unaffected by the amendment, which is itself aimed only at putting the Secretary of State's existing power to apply for review beyond doubt in this particular circumstance as in others.

1099
The amendment before us would prevent the Secretary of State from investigating these awards when it was appropriate to do so, but it would also prevent clarification of the law so far as those awards are concerned. As I think I indicated, we have no intention of going on some wholesale review of DLA. We had always believed, until Commissioner Rowland's book appeared, that the Secretary of State had the power to initiate a review and that it was not just a claimant who had the power to initiate a review.
I appreciate that these allowances go to people who are very often severely disabled and very much in need of help. I very much appreciate that a clause like this at least demands some explanation. I hope I have explained what we are doing. I hope the noble Baroness accepts that what we are doing is entirely above board and does not in any way represent an attack on DLA or the people who receive it.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the Minister for his reply and for his explanation of the power of the Secretary of State and of the incorrectness of levels of benefit. I thank him for his assurance that there will not be a wholesale review of DLA. I am not saying that I am absolutely convinced about the motivation behind introducing the clause. I still believe that adjudication officers can instigate reviews in particular circumstances. Nor am I completely reassured that there are adequate safeguards against these vague powers being abused at a later stage. Unless there are assurances on the face of the Bill a future Secretary of State might interpret them very differently. However, I would sincerely hope not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Medical examinations of persons awarded certain benefits]:
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 103 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Requirement to state national insurance number]:
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110A not moved.]
Clause 20 [Return of social security post]:
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Information about redirection of post]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 116 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
I just want to say one or two words, not about the Bill itself—I have discussed it in some detail and we have all gone through it—but to thank those who have participated in our debates. I thank the officials who have helped me with the Bill and who have worked so busily behind the scenes. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Whitty, for their contributions to our debates. I thank my noble friends who have supported me in the Division Lobby when it has come to it.
I wish to look wider than the Bill to the two-and-a-half years when I have answered social security questions at this Dispatch Box. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his excellent support as my Whip. There have been many occasions, as hour succeeded hour in debate, during which I am sure he must have realised that his official title of Lord in Waiting had more than one interpretation. Not only has he done a good job in looking after me, but I am sure he has impressed us all at the Dispatch Box in dealing with the very difficult issues which have fallen to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the past year or so.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has shown amazing stamina and knowledge and an inexhaustible supply of anecdotes and aphorisms.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: He has not finished yet.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am hoping that he may have finished. His story of the two men taking the barrel of beer to the races to sell it and drinking it themselves on the way, passing the same threepenny bit between them for payment, as an example of the internal market, will always be with me. In some ways he reminds me of the ancestor of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, whose military campaigns—the noble Earl is perhaps more of an expert on this subject than I am, so I am being cautious—involved him taking his army on long, seemingly impossible marches, often deep into the night—that will not surprise your Lordships—back and forward across the mountains and glens of Scotland, catching the then Earl of Argyll, the ancestor of my noble friend the Duke of Argyll (Campbell of Argyll), unawares on a number of occasions. I believe that Mackay of Ardbrecknish, also of Argyll, has managed a bit better than the ancestor of my noble friend the Duke of Argyll in not being caught unawares quite so often. I shall perhaps admit at this stage that my patience has been tried just a little by the noble Earl; but more often than not I have enjoyed crossing verbal swords with him and I thank him for his unfailing courtesy and good humour.
One of my problems is that I have been able to use only my left hand in order to fend off the noble Earl, keeping my right hand to fend off the noble Baroness,

1101
Lady Hollis of Heigham. I am very sorry that she cannot be here today. I fully understand why she cannot be here and I know that she, too, regrets that. We have debated against each other on six social security Bills and on parts of two others; on many pieces of secondary legislation and on innumerable Questions.
The noble Baroness has carried a formidable workload on the Front Bench opposite—perhaps the largest workload of anybody on that Front Bench. She has always been well briefed and well prepared. She has made good use of her distinctive debating style, her formidable intellect and her feminine charms to try to persuade your Lordships, especially those on the Cross-Benches and some of my noble friends, to unseat me. I believe that I can claim that we have been the lead players in some of the high drama debates of this Parliament. Indeed, on one or two of these occasions she has managed to weave her spell to such good effect that my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen of Arms has not carried the result of the Division to the Lord Chairman or to my noble and learned friend and fellow clansman, the Lord Chancellor. These battles and their results are now in the bound editions of Hansard. Your Lordships may be looking at the three of us and wondering, with Shakespeare and "Macbeth", when the three witches say,
"When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?".
The answer is there as well—
"When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won".
That battle will be a matter for others to decide, but for this moment suffice it to say that I would not have missed our many trysts around the cauldron in this House for the world.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, in replying to the Minister's remarks, I must first express the regrets of my noble friends Lady Hollis of Heigham and Lord Carter, that they are unable to be present today. My noble friend Lady Hollis has asked me to apologise to the House and to the Minister for her absence. She has been unavoidably called away on a temporary family problem. Lady Hollis and Lord Carter were responsible for presenting to your Lordships' House many amendments to improve the Bill, including amendments to provide adequate safeguards for data protection and that highly sensitive personal information is controlled; to give greater powers to local authorities to tackle organised landlord fraud and for the Bill to be a vehicle for benefit entitlement and not just for the elimination of fraud.
I know that my noble friend Lady Hollis would also wish me to thank on her behalf her colleagues on the Labour Benches, my noble friends Lord Carter, Lady Turner of Camden and Lord Whitty, who made notable contributions to this Bill.
1102
We on this side of the House welcome the overall thrust of this Bill to reduce the level of benefit fraud. Perhaps I may paraphrase the words of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham at Second Reading. She said that with this Bill the Government have finally accepted the argument that we have consistently put to them, that there is an unacceptably high level of error and fraud of benefit payments. As a consequence, in principle we welcome one of the main planks of the Bill in respect of data matching.
However, the Bill as it stands does not strike the necessary balance between the rights of the individual and the collection of information to check fraud. We were heartened, however, by the undertaking given by the Minister that the Department of Social Security will publish a code of practice on data matching and that data matching exercises under the new powers in the relevant clauses of the Bill will not be conducted until the code has been published. I am personally grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response on the question of appointees and the procedure by which they are appointed.
We do appreciate the good humour, which we have heard again today, and the courtesy and honesty with which the Minister has responded to the many amendments. I know that my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham will appreciate very much his kind words when she reads them in Hansard tomorrow. I am sure that she will read them with great pleasure. We are grateful, too, for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We are also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his erudite and, at times, extremely amusing contributions to the Bill.
We express our thanks to the team of advisers for their able assistance, which has been invaluable to us. In particular, we should like to thank representatives of the ALG, the ADC/AMA, the head of Lambeth's anti-fraud unit and the head of benefits at Westminster, including representatives of the offices of John Denham and Harry Cohen, Members in another place, for all their help with the amendments. We also thank the many organisations which have helped to provide briefings to us. That has been invaluable. Not least, we would like to thank our researcher, Robert McGeachy, who has always been there to give us support, both administratively and with background research and information.
In conclusion, there are a number of aspects of the Bill about which we still have reservations, but we believe that the assurances that we have received from the Minister will be honoured.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister most warmly for that most generous tribute. Whatever may happen in the next Parliament and whenever it may be that we three meet again, I will inevitably think of the Table over there as the cauldron. It is most appropriately provided with water for which I have been most grateful on many occasions. Both the Minister and I have very much enjoyed our numerous engagements. At times they have been inconclusive. I always think of speaking from this side of the House as being a little like bowling. I found the Minister's defence impregnable.

1103
Whatever I have come up with, the Minister's hat always seems to be there. Thinking of new ways of getting round it has been a wonderful challenge. But his defence! Well, I do not see how to get round it.
He knows the story of my dentist who used to bowl to his clansman, the Australian "Slasher" Mackay. He asked him whether there was any way of getting him out. He thought for a long time and replied, "Hand grenades". I do not propose to employ them on the Minister because I have found that not only have we developed that relationship of trust, which is essential for doing any business across the Chamber, but we have also come to look on each other with a good deal of warmth. I very much enjoyed our exchanges and our conversations inside the Chamber and out. He is a person with whom any day I am happy to do business.
I am also extremely sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is unable to be here today. I offer my sympathy for the reasons why she is not able to be here. I very much enjoyed working side by side with her—speed at one end and spin at the other. It is an ideal bowling combination. I am sure that the two of us have been far more successful than either of us could ever have hoped to be alone. I believe that the contrast of styles has been a very great asset. I have very much enjoyed working not only with the fire and the force with which her arguments are put forward, but also with the weight of academic knowledge and intelligence which is behind them. I have been proud to work beside her.
I too should like to offer thanks to all those who have helped us with this work; to the team behind me in our Whips' Office who have been rushed off their feet with amendments many times; to organisations which have advised us and to all those in the Chamber on both sides of the House and in all quarters of the House, who have enlivened the debates in which we have taken part.
Now a brief word about this Bill: it is not the Crime (Sentences) Bill. This is a Bill which has general agreement as to its object. We all support what it is trying to do. We all believe that this Bill should become law. My concern about it has been with misdemeanours and not with felonies.
As I see it, this is a "tea-break Bill", rather like the old "tea-break car" which is what an unlucky purchaser occasionally acquired. The Bill has been prepared in considerable haste. In my view, it could have done with rather more scrutiny than it has yet received. We all understand about the pressure caused by the unexpectedly early prorogation. Inevitably, there are deals in such circumstances. It takes two to make a deal: there must be give and take. On this Bill, I believe that the Opposition have sold themselves a little cheap in the deal that they have made. The Bill is to become law, but it could have been amended with considerable benefit before becoming law.
The Minister knows that there is great doubt about whether the Bill is legal under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. He knows, I believe, we are told that an action will begin immediately the Bill becomes law. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould—in case it falls to her honourable friends
1104
to implement the Bill—is well aware that her party and mine have agreed that the European Convention should be incorporated in British law. I warmly welcome that declaration. So, the Opposition might be wise, if they are in charge of the Bill in future, to make it their fairly urgent business in the next Parliament while the major Bills are being prepared to tidy up this Bill to bring it into line with the European Convention and to ensure that it is legal. I am sorry that we have not done that—amendments to achieve it could have been offered.
The Bill may risk doing damage to people who have been guilty of innocent misrepresentation. I have not moved my amendment that Clause 14 should not stand part of the Bill, but that is a symbolic point about an issue which whoever is in charge of this matter in the next Parliament should think about again. If there is tidying up legislation, I hope that point will be addressed.
The need to pursue fraud is urgent. The need for fairness is also vital. I am not sure that this Bill always achieves that balance. The Bill means well and I welcome it for that reason, but there is still more work to do—and somebody will have to do it. I wish them well with it, whoever they may be.
On Question, Bill passed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (88) as first printed by the Commons.]
5.42 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 21, page 9, line 34, leave out from second ("NCIS") to end of line 35.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 103 to 107, 122, 124 and 125. These are minor and technical amendments to tidy up the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad provisions in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 23, page 11, line 37, after ("subsection (1)") insert ("or (2)").
3 Page 11, line 39, after ("direct") insert ("the Director General of NCIS,").
4 Page 11, line 41, after ("Constabulary") insert ("or").
5 Page 11, line 42, leave out ("or the Director General of NCIS").
6 Clause 66, page 27, line 38, leave out from second ("Squad") to end of line 39.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
7 Leave out Clause 91
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 to Part III of the Bill. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 and 108 to 120. These amendments are of more substance.
I do not believe that there is any dispute about the need for the police and Customs to use intrusive surveillance techniques against serious and organised criminals. These techniques must be available to the police and Customs if they are to gain the vital intelligence necessary to disrupt and bring to book our most dangerous criminals.
A great deal has been said about the provisions of Part III of the Bill. Debate in this House confirmed the extent of the concerns evident at the Government's original proposals for chief officer authorisation and independent oversight by a surveillance commissioner. I have to say that some of the concerns were unfounded and I cannot agree with them. But the will of this House was made very apparent with the passing of contradictory amendments. We have therefore taken Part III away and applied detailed consideration to the most effective way of returning the Bill to a workable condition. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a number of modifications to Part III in advance of Second Reading in another place. These modifications have been discussed and approved. Part III has therefore been effectively rewritten. But I hope these modifications will serve to illustrate to this House our commitment to provide further safeguards to meet the concerns of this House, while ensuring a system which enables the police and Customs to be able to continue to get the benefit of these techniques so necessary to the fight against organised crime into the next millennium.
We could not accept the amendment approved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. This would have required all intrusive surveillance to have the prior authorisation of a circuit judge. We could not accept that judges can properly be expected to make these decisions. But there are other difficulties. Accountability would be reduced: judges cannot be called to account in the same way as chief officers. Furthermore, the absence of provisions for urgent cases would seriously inhibit the fight against serious crime. It could even endanger life, and I think particularly of hostage situations in which an immediate response can be vital.
1106
The amendment approved by this House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not present quite the same difficulties. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responded positively in another place by modifying this amendment to produce a system of authorisation which builds upon existing accountability arrangements, leaves operational decisions to those best qualified to take them and provides for effective independent scrutiny.
Amendment No. 36 builds upon the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and requires that the prior approval of a commissioner be obtained before an operation begins in the most sensitive categories of case. These circumstances will include cases in which there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the operation authorised under Part III could involve intrusion into dwellings, offices or hotel bedrooms or could affect legal privilege, confidential personal information (including spiritual counselling and medical consultations) and confidential journalistic material. The Government have added definitions of legal privilege and the other prescribed categories for the purposes of Part III in Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39. These definitions are based on those which exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Prior approval will not be necessary in urgent cases, but the commissioner would have to be notified as soon as reasonably practicable after the authorisation had been given. He will able to quash the authorisation if he is not satisfied with the reasons given for considering the case one of urgency.
Government amendments approved in another place also provide for authorising officers and complainants to appeal to the Chief Commissioner against decisions taken by commissioners. On reflection, we have taken the view that there should be avenues of appeal for authorising officers or complainants to challenge what they consider to be unreasonable decisions taken by commissioners. Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 provide the necessary mechanism for the making and consideration of these appeals which represent a further significant safeguard.
The addition of this appeals mechanism is one of the considerations which requires a clear demarcation to be drawn between the responsibilities of the chief and the other commissioners appointed for the purposes of Part III. Amendments to Clause 98 therefore clarify that the commissioner shall keep under review the performance of functions under Part III. This is a crucial point. The Chief Commissioner will not be responsible for day-to-day approval of authorisations or investigation of complaints. These are functions of the commissioners.
The Government have responded positively in another place to the concerns raised in this House. What has resulted is an effective system for the authorisation of these operations by those best qualified to make these operational decisions, with the addition of a number of effective safeguards. I commend these amendments to this House.

1107
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are all grateful to the Minister for the clarity with which she has introduced these complex amendments. As the House will know, they occupied a great deal of time when the Bill was before this House and a considerable amount of time when the Bill was considered in the Commons, and particularly when it was in Committee there.
The Minister was generous enough to acknowledge that it had been necessary to build upon rather than reverse the amendments in my name that had been carried by the House. She is right to point out the complexity of the issues. That is apparent from the complexity of the amendments that have been passed by the Commons. Indeed, when I compare the complexity of these amendments with the relevant simplicity of my own I acknowledge that the drafting of legislation from scratch is not one of my strengths.
There are still areas in which we can take exception to what is being done. Referring to the important Amendment No. 36, I regret that the restriction of the location of intrusive surveillance is as great as it is. I do not believe that it makes very good sense to include in judicial authorisation office premises without including other places of work. Our intention was to have a wider remit for judicial authorisation. I do not believe that the restriction relating to office premises will work very well.
I acknowledge that the amendments now spell out in very much greater detail than we did the enormously important issues of legal privilege, confidential personal information and confidential journalistic information. These are important changes to the Bill that bring it into line with international legislation, which I am still convinced the original Bill would not have achieved. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who played such a distinguished part in the deliberations of these amendments, is not in his place. I believe that we should all pay tribute to him for his persistence, clarity and grasp of the fundamental principles of civil liberty which infused his contribution. I believe—I hope he agrees—that they have resulted in a satisfactory outcome.
I turn to the amendments dealing with complaints and appeals. It is necessary that there should be an opportunity for appeals by authorising officers, and they are provided for in Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. I welcome the fact that Amendment No. 50, which introduces a new clause, allows for appeals by complainants on a much wider basis than the very limited judicial review procedures provided in the original Bill. At the time I believed that the least valid complaint about our amendments was that the commissioner who authorised surveillance in the first place would be in difficulty because he would also be responsible for review. I felt that that could be overcome by the provision of a body of commissioners. I tabled amendments comparable with those of the Government to ensure that there would be a body of commissioners,
1108
thus avoiding a potential conflict of interest. By their amendments to Clauses 96 and 98 the Government have ensured that the separation of responsibility between initial authorisation and overall review is secured by distinguishing between the role of the commissioner and that of the Chief Commissioner. That seems to us to be a satisfactory outcome.
All in all, without wanting to appear in any way triumphalist I believe that the concerns of the House, so overwhelmingly expressed on the vote on my amendments, as the Bill was originally before your Lordships have been fairly met by the Government. I thank them and congratulate them on producing a Bill which, in this respect, is a substantially better one than that originally put before us.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, on the eve of Prorogation we on these Benches would have most welcomed amendments that set aside Parts II and III, which we are now discussing, and Part V for further reflection and consultation in the knowledge that, when that had taken place, they could be brought back in a separate Bill before the end of the calendar year. That is not the case. We must therefore turn our minds to the amendments before us.
I too welcome the acceptance by the Government of the principle of judicial authorisation. Although the Government have chosen to substitute the word "approval" for "authorisation", I do not mind such a cosmetic change (which I believe to be semantic) if it enables them to do what this House judges to be right. I welcome the changes that have been made. I am glad that the Government recognised the force of opinion in this House and, more importantly, that the force of opinion reflected what was right.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to one matter of disagreement in terms of the amendments which were carried by this House: the role of the commissioners. I too welcome the change which I understand is embodied in some of the amendments that we are now discussing. But it remains to be seen whether the distinction between the Chief Commissioner and the remaining commissioners is sufficient to ensure that those who approve—which I understand means "authorise"—electronic surveillance will not be those who review it. Time will tell. We welcome the amendment, but that is one matter that we will want to monitor.
Equally, we shall want to watch very closely how Amendment No. 36 works. When the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was moved in this House I was concerned about whether the door was being left wide open for the emergence of provisions to enable the Police Service—I make no criticism—to decide to go ahead with electronic surveillance without turning to one of the commissioners or (as I would prefer) a High Court judge. If the amendment closes that gap, we should be delighted; but we shall want to watch very carefully how many of the authorisations go forward without judicial approval in the light of experience. We still believe that approval by a High Court judge is better. We regret that the proposals were not made in the original legislation.

1109
Having said that, we welcome the changes. I too am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the changes so specific and clear to the House this afternoon.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 38, to which the Minister has already spoken. The provision in the Commons amendment, which appears as subsection (2)(b) of the new clause, refers to spiritual counselling or assistance. This has given the Church of England serious cause for concern. I stress that it also affects other Christian churches and religions other than Christianity.
As I understand it, agreement has been reached with the Secretary of State and the police authorities that surveillance under the Bill should not breach the seal of the confessional and that that would be reflected in the code of practice. However, the Church of England and representatives of the Free Churches have pointed out that very much the same considerations apply to other cases where a person is receiving spiritual counselling from a priest or minister, even though that does not amount to the sacrament of confession in the strict sense.
Within the Church of England less use is made of the confessional than within the Roman Catholic Church and spiritual counselling is widely used. The same is true of the Free Churches. The Government were therefore asked to deal with cases of spiritual counselling in the code of practice along similar lines to the seal of the confessional in the narrow sense. We appreciate that the precise wording would need to be considered very carefully. We also appreciate that "spiritual counselling or assistance" is a very broad expression and that some cases which fall within it may qualify for a different degree of protection from surveillance than other cases.
The Minister has already referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under that Act, the police cannot require documentary material about spiritual counselling sessions to be handed over. With regard to the Bill, the Churches are deeply concerned about the possibility of spiritual counselling being subject to surveillance. What has been done in response to that concern, although it was not what the Churches asked for, is to include subsection(2)(b) in the Bill. That does not meet the Churches' concern because it merely requires surveillance which may yield information relating to spiritual counselling or assistance to be approved by a commissioner, unless the case is urgent. The commissioner cannot refuse approval just because the case involves spiritual counselling if the basic requirements for surveillance under the Bill are satisfied.
We are concerned also about the drafting of the provision which has been lifted from a different context in other legislation and which we believe is not appropriate, as it stands, in the Bill. For instance, it refers to information relating to spiritual counselling and not what is actually said during the spiritual counselling session. However, our chief concern is that it could be argued that the provision in the amendment is a clear indication that surveillance affecting matters covered by spiritual counselling can take place under the Bill,
1110
and thus that a provision in the code of practice of the kind that we are seeking would be inconsistent with what is provided in the amendment.
If that is the case, I have to express my opposition to subsection (2)(b). The assurance for which the Churches are looking is that the appearance in the amendment of that provision does not close off the option which we are seeking through the code of practice. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I await my noble friend's reply to that penetrating criticism with interest. I hope that it is as reassuring as I expect. I should like to join in the thanks that have been expressed to my noble friend the Minister not just for her explanation of what is involved here but for the way in which the Government have cleverly arrived at a satisfactory solution to almost all the concerns that have been expressed. In particular, given that individual judges while serving are not the proper source of the authority which is needed for a commissioner, the combination of having them recruited from among those who have held high judicial authority and, if it is not possible to take the appointment completely out of politics, then to restrict the grounds for which dismissal may take place as narrowly as has been done in the Bill, is a welcome and satisfactory solution. The only improvement beyond that for which one could ask would be an extension of an appointment beyond three years. But I, for one, am satisfied with what has been done.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for the way in which they have accepted these changes. That was due in large part to the initiating work done by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and my noble friend Lord Elton and my noble friend Lord Can, who is not with us today, and others who spoke so forcefully in this House. Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate that I thank the Church for giving me notice that this question was to be raised on the Floor of the House today. I am happy to confirm that Amendment No. 38 does not preclude fuller discussion of spiritual counselling in the code of practice.
The provision is deliberately drawn widely and protects a range of different circumstances, so I would expect the ensuing discussions to include many examples that were given by my noble friend—of course at this stage without prejudice to the outcome of those discussions.
The draft code of practice refers already to a specific undertaking by the police and Customs not to mount operations which would affect the seal of confession. It may be that other particular forms of spiritual counselling need to be addressed in particular ways, but we do not need to discuss the code in detail this afternoon. It remains a draft. There will be an opportunity for full discussions with interested parties before a revised version is laid before Parliament. It will not come into force unless approved by both Houses. The authorisation of intrusive surveillance operations

1111
under the Bill cannot begin until the code has been approved. There is therefore every opportunity for further discussion of what it should contain.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, perhaps may just express my thanks to the Minister for her reply. I am extremely grateful for what she has said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
8 After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
EFFECT OF AUTHORISATION UNDER PART III
(". No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall he unlawful if it is authorised by an authorisation having effect under this Part.")
9 Clause 92, page 34, leave out lines 34 to 36.
10 Page 34, line 37, leave out ("circuit judge") and insert ("officer").
11 Page 35, leave out lines 3 to 12 and insert—
("(3) This subsection applies where the authorising officer believes—

(a) that it is necessary for the action specified to be taken on the ground that it is likely to he of substantial value in the prevention or detection of serious crime, and

(b) that what the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means.").

12 Page 35, leave out lines 13 to 34 and insert—
("(4) An authorising officer shall not give an authorisation under this section except on an application made—

(a) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(a) to (e), by a member of his police force,

(b) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(f), by a member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service,

(c) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(g), by a member of the National Crime Squad, or

(d) if the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(h), by a customs officer.").

13 Page 35, line 43, at end insert (", and, where the authorising officer is within subsection (5A)(h), it relates to an assigned matter within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.").
14 Page 35, line 43, at end insert—
("(5A) In this section "authorising officer" means—

(a) the chief constable of a police force maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996 (maintenance of police forces for areas in England and Wales except London);

(b) the Commissioner, or an Assistant Commissioner, of Police of the Metropolis;

(c) the Commissioner of Police for the City of London;

(d) the chief constable of a police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (maintenance of police forces for areas in Scotland);

(e) the Chief Constable or a Deputy Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary;

(f) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;

(g) the Director General of the National Crime Squad; or

1112

(h) the customs officer designated by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the purposes of this paragraph.").

15 Page 35, line 46, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(5A)").
16 Clause 93, page 36, line 20, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
17 Page 36, line 24, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
18 Page 36, line 27, leave out ("subsection (2) or).
19 Page 36, line 29, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(5A)").
20 Page 37, line 12, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
21 Page 37, line 17, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
22 Page 37, line 20, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
23 Clause 94, page 37, line 22, leave out from ("except") to end of line 24 and insert ("that in an urgent case an authorisation (other than one given by virtue of section 93) may be given orally.").
24 Page 37, leave out line 28, and insert ("72 hours beginning with the time when it took effect").
25 Page 37, line 29, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
26 Page 37, line 30, leave out ("was given") and insert ("took effect").
27 Page 37, line 31, leave out ("the day on which").
28 Page 37, line 35, leave out ("six") and insert ("three").
29 Page 37, line 35, leave out ("that day") and insert ("the day on which it would cease to have effect.").
30 Page 37, leave out lines 40 to 42.
31 Page 37, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 8 on page 38.
32 Page 38, line 10, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
33 Page 38, line 15, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
34 Page 38, leave out lines 16 and 17.
35 After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORISATIONS ETC
(".—(1) Where a person gives, renews or cancels an authorisation, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable and in accordance with arrangements made by the Chief Commissioner, give notice in writing that he has done so to a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b).
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a notice under this section shall specify such matters as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.
(3) A notice under this section of the giving or renewal of an authorisation shall specify—

(a) whether section (Authorisations requiring approval) applies to the authorisation or renewal, and

(b) where that section does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) of that section, the grounds on which the case is believed to be one of urgency.

(4) Where a notice is given to a Commissioner under this section, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, scrutinise the notice.
(5) An order under subsection (2) shall be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument which contains an order under subsection (2) shall not he made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
36 Insert the following new clause—
("Authorisations requiring approval
AUTHORISATIONS REQUIRING APPROVAL
—(1) An authorisation to which this section applies shall not take effect until—

(a) it has been approved in accordance with this section by a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b), and

(b) the person who gave the authorisation has been notified under subsection (4).

(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to an authorisation if, at the time it is given, the person who gives it believes—
(a) that any of the property specified in the authorisation—

(i) is used wholly or mainly as a dwelling or as a bedroom in a hotel, or

(ii) constitutes office premises, or

(b) that the action authorised by it is likely to result in any person acquiring knowledge of—

(i) matters subject to legal privilege,

(ii) confidential personal information, or

(iii) confidential journalistic material.

(3) This section does not apply to an authorisation where the person who gives it believes that the case is one of urgency.
(4) Where a Commissioner receives a notice under section (Notification of authorisations etc) which specifies that this section applies to the authorisation, he shall as soon as is reasonably practicable—

(a) decide whether to approve the authorisation or refuse approval, and

(b) give written notice of his decision to the person who gave the authorisation.

(5) A Commissioner shall approve an authorisation if, and only if, he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(6) Where a Commissioner refuses to approve an authorisation, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, make a report of his findings to the authorising officer who gave it or in whose absence it was given (and paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule).
(7) This section shall apply in relation to a renewal of an authorisation as it applies in relation to an authorisation (the references in subsection (2)(a) and (b) to the authorisation being construed as references to the authorisation renewed).
(8) In this section—
"office premises" has the meaning given in section 1(2) of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963;
"hotel" means premises used for the reception of guests who desire to sleep in the premises.").
37 Insert the following new clause—
MATTERS SUBJECT TO LEGAL. PRIVILEGE
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (5) below, in section (Authorisations requiring approval) "matters subject to legal privilege" means matters to which subsection (2), (3) or (4) below applies.
(2) This subsection applies to communications between a professional legal adviser and—

(a) his client, or

(b) any person representing his client,

which are made in connection with the giving of legal advice to the client.
(3) This subsection applies to communications—

(a) between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client, or

(b) between a professional legal adviser or his client or any such representative and any other person,

which are made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings.
(4) This subsection applies to items enclosed with or referred to in communications of the kind mentioned in subsection (2) or (3) and made—

(a) in connection with the giving of legal advice, or

(b) in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purposes of such proceedings.

(5) For the purposes of section (Authorisations requiring approval)—

(a) communications and items are not matters subject to legal privilege when they are in the possession of a person who is not entitled to possession of them, and

(b) communications and items held, or oral communications made, with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose are not matters subject to legal privilege.").

38 Insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL INFORMATION
(".—(1) In section (Authorisations requiring approval) "confidential personal information" means—
(a) personal information which a person has acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purposes of any paid or unpaid office, and which he holds in confidence, and
(b) communications as a result of which personal information—

(i) is acquired or created as mentioned in paragraph (a), and

(ii) is held in confidence.

(2) For the purposes of this section "personal information" means information concerning an individual (whether living or dead) who can be identified from it and relating—

(a) to his physical or mental health, or

(b) to spiritual counselling or assistance given or to be given to him.

(3) A person holds information in confidence for the purposes of this section if he holds it subject—

(a) to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence, or

(b) to a restriction on disclosure or an obligation of secrecy contained in any enactment (including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act).").

39 Insert the following new clause—
CONFIDENTIAL. JOURNALISTIC MATERIAL
("—(1) In section (Authorisations requiring approval) "confidential journalistic material" means—
(a) material acquired or created for the purposes of journalism which—

(i) is in the possession of persons who acquired or created it for those purposes,

(ii) is held subject to an undertaking, restriction or obligation of the kind mentioned in section (Confidential personal information)(3), and

(iii) has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking,

1115
restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism, and

(b) communications as a result of which information is acquired for the purposes of journalism and held as mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who receives material, or acquires information, from someone who intends that the recipient shall use it for the purposes of journalism is to be taken to have acquired it for those purposes.").
40 Clause 95, page 38, line 20, leave out ("sections 92 and 94") and insert ("this Part by persons other than Commissioners appointed under section 96").
41 Page 38, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
("(5) A statutory instrument which contains an order under subsection (4) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
42 Page 38, leave out from beginning of line 41 to end of line 5 on page 39 and insert—
("(8) Persons, other than Commissioners appointed under section 96, shall have regard to any code of practice issued under this section in the performance of their functions under this Part.").
43 Page 39, line 6, leave out from ("of') to ("to ") in line 7 and insert ("any person").
44 Page 39, line 10, leave out ("In all criminal and civil proceedings").
45 Page 39, line 11, after ("evidence") insert ("in criminal and civil proceedings").
46 After Clause 95, insert the following new clause—
("Complaints etc.
COMPLAINTS
—(1) Where a complaint is made, in accordance with arrangements made by the Chief Commissioner, to a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b), the Commissioner shall investigate the complaint if and so far as it alleges that anything has been done in relation to any property of the complainant in pursuance of an authorisation under section 92(2)(a) or (b).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a place where the complainant works or resides shall be treated as property of the complainant.
(3) A Commissioner's duty under this section does not extend to a complaint if he considers that it is frivolous or vexatious.
(4) Schedule 7 makes further provision in relation to the investigation of complaints by a Commissioner.").
47 Insert the following new clause—
QUASHING OF AUTHORISATIONS ETC
(".—(1) Where, at any time, a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is satisfied that, at the time an authorisation was given or renewed, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3), he may quash the authorisation or, as the case may be, renewal.
(2) Where, in the case of an authorisation or renewal to which section (Authorisations requiring approval) does not apply, a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is at any time satisfied that, at the time the authorisation was given or, as the case may be, renewed,—

(a) there were reasonable grounds for believing any of the matters specified in subsection (2) of section (Authorisations requiring approval), and

(b) there were no reasonable grounds for believing the
1116
case to be one of urgency for the purposes of subsection (3) of that section,

he may quash the authorisation or, as the case may be, renewal.
(3) Where a Commissioner quashes an authorisation or renewal under subsection (1) or (2), he may order the destruction of any records relating to information obtained by virtue of the authorisation (or, in the case of a renewal, relating wholly or partly to information so obtained after the renewal) other than records required for pending criminal or civil proceedings.
(4) If a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is satisfied that, at any time after an authorisation was given or, in the case of an authorisation renewed under section 94, after it was renewed, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3), he may cancel the authorisation.
(5) Where—

(a) an authorisation has ceased to have effect (otherwise than by virtue of subsection (1) or (2)), and

(b) a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b) is satisfied that, at any time during the period of the authorisation, there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3),

he may order the destruction of any records relating, wholly or partly, to information which was obtained by virtue of the authorisation after that time (other than records required for pending criminal or civil proceedings).
(6) Where a Commissioner exercises his powers under subsection (1), (2) or (4), he shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, order that the authorisation shall be effective, for such period as he shall specify, so far as it authorises the taking of action to retrieve anything left on property in accordance with the authorisation.
(7) Where a Commissioner exercises a power conferred by this section, he shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, make a report of his findings—

(a) to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation or in whose absence it was given, and

(b) to the Chief Commissioner;

and paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule.
(8) Where—

(a) a decision is made under subsection (1) or (2) and an order for the destruction of records is made under subsection (3), or

(b) a decision to order the destruction of records is made under subsection (5),

the order shall not become operative until the period for appealing against the decision has expired and, where an appeal is made, a decision dismissing it has been made by the Chief Commissioner.
(9) A Commissioner may exercise any of the powers conferred by this section notwithstanding any approval given under section (Authorisations requiring approval).").
48 Insert the following new clause—
("Appeals
APPEALS BY AUTHORISING OFFICERS
.—(1) An authorising officer who gives an authorisation, or in whose absence it is given, may, within the prescribed period, appeal to the Chief Commissioner against—

(a) any refusal to approve the authorisation or any renewal of it under section (Authorisations requiring approval);

(b) any decision to quash the authorisation, or any

1117
renewal of it, under subsection (1) of section (Quashing of authorisations etc.);

(c) any decision to quash the authorisation, or any renewal of it, under subsection (2) of that section;

(d) any decision to cancel the authorisation under subsection (4) of that section;

(e) any decision to order the destruction of records under subsection (5) of that section;

(f) any refusal to make an order under subsection (6) of that section;

(g) any determination in favour of a complainant under Schedule 7.

(2) In subsection (1), "the prescribed period" means the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the refusal, decision or, as the case may be, determination appealed against is reported to the authorising officer.
(3) In determining an appeal within subsection (1)(a), the Chief Commissioner shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3), allow the appeal and direct the Commissioner to approve the authorisation or renewal under that section.
(4) In determining—

(a) an appeal within subsection (1)(b), or

(b) an appeal within subsection (1)(g), in a case where paragraph 1 A(2) of Schedule 7 applies,

the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal unless he is satisfied that, at the time the authorisation was given or, as the case may be, renewed there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(5) In determining—

(a) an appeal within subsection (1)(c), or

(b) an appeal within subsection (1)(g), in a case where paragraph 1A(3) of Schedule 7 applies,

the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal unless he is satisfied as mentioned in section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)(2).
(6) In determining—

(a) an appeal within subsection (1)(d) or (e), or

(b) an appeal within subsection (1)(g), in a case where paragraph 1A(4) of Schedule 7 applies,

the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal unless he is satisfied that at the time to which the decision relates there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(7) In determining an appeal within subsection (1)(f) the Chief Commissioner shall allow the appeal and order that the authorisation shall be effective to the extent mentioned in section (Quashing of authorisations etc)(6), for such period as he shall specify, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for making such an order.
(8) Where an appeal is allowed under this section, the Chief Commissioner shall—

(a) in the case of an appeal within subsection (1)(b) or (c), also quash any order made by the Commissioner to destroy records relating to information obtained by virtue of the authorisation concerned, and

(b) in the case of an appeal within subsection (1)(g), also quash any direction to pay compensation to the complainant.").

49 Insert the following new clause—
APPEALS BY AUTHORISING OFFICERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
(".—(1) Where the Chief Commissioner determines an appeal under section (Appeals by authorising officers)—
(a) he shall give notice of his determination—

(i) to the authorising officer concerned,

1118

(ii) to the Commissioner against whose refusal, decision or determination the appeal was made, and

(iii) in the case of an appeal within subsection (1)(g) of that section, to the complainant, and

(b) if he dismisses the appeal, he shall make a report of his findings—

(i) to the authorising officer concerned,

(ii) to the Commissioner against whose refusal, decision or determination the appeal was made, and

(iii) under section 98(1), to the Prime Minister.

(2) Subject to subsection (1)(b), the Chief Commissioner shall not give any reasons for a determination under section (Appeals by authorising officers).
(3) Nothing in section (Appeals by authorising officers) shall prevent a designated deputy from exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) of that section on an authorising officer within paragraph (a), (c), (d), (f) or (g) of section 92(5A).").
50 Insert the following new clause—
APPEALS BY COMPLAINANTS
(".—(1) Where a complainant is notified under paragraph 2A(2) of Schedule 7 that no determination in his favour has been made on a complaint, he may, within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which he receives the notice, appeal to the Chief Commissioner against the decision.
(2) Where a complainant appeals under this section, the Chief Commissioner shall have—

(a) all the powers and duties conferred by Schedule 7 on a Commissioner appointed under section 91(1) (b) who is required to investigate a complaint, and

(b) where the Chief Commissioner makes a determination in favour of the complainant by virtue of paragraph (a), all the powers and duties conferred by section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)

(3) Where, by virtue of subsection (2), the Chief Commissioner makes an order to destroy records under section (Quashing of authorisations etc.) or directs the payment of compensation under Schedule 7, subsection (8) of that section and paragraph 3(2) of that Schedule shall not apply.
(4) The Chief Commissioner shall make a report of his findings on an appeal under this section—

(a) to the Commissioner who made the decision appealed against, and

(b) where he allows the appeal, to the Prime Minister under section 98(1).").

51 Clause 96, page 39, line 16, at end insert ("for the purposes of this Part").
52 Page 39, leave out line 20.
53 Page 39, line 24, leave out ("Each Commissioner shall hold") and insert ("Subject to subsections (3A) to (3D), each Commissioner shall hold and vacate").
54 Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
("(3A) Each Commissioner shall be appointed for a term of three years.
(3B) A person who ceases to be a Commissioner (otherwise than under subsection (3D)) may be reappointed under this section.
(3C) Subject to subsection (3D), a Commissioner shall not be removed from office before the end of the term for which he is appointed unless a resolution approving his removal has been passed by each House of Parliament.
(3D) A Commissioner may be removed from office by the Prime Minister if after his appointment—

(a) a bankruptcy order is made against him or his estate

1119
is sequestrated or he makes a composition or arrangement with, or grants a trust deed for, his creditors;

(b) a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or Part II of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, or an order under section 429(2)(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (failure to pay under county court administration order), is made against him; or

(c) he is convicted in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man of an offence and has passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not).").

55 Page 39, line 30, leave out ("Commissioners think") and insert ("Secretary of State considers").
56 Page 39, line 30, at end insert—
("() The decisions of the Chief Commissioner or, subject to sections (Appeals by authorising officers) and (Appeals by complainants), any other Commissioner (including decisions as to his jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court.").
57 Page 39, leave out lines 31 to 35.
58 Page 39, transfer Clause 96 to end of line 22 on page 34.
59 Leave out Clause 97
60 Clause 98, page 40, line 35, at beginning insert—
("General
() The Chief Commissioner shall keep under review the performance of functions under this Part.").
61 Page 40, line 36, leave out ("his functions") and insert ("functions under this Part")
62 Page 40, line 37, leave Out ("his discharge of').
63 Page 41, line 1, leave out ("continued").
64 Page 41, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
("(4) Any person having functions under this Part, and any person taking action in relation to which an authorisation was given, shall comply with any request of a Commissioner for documents or information required by him for the purpose of enabling him to discharge his functions.").
65 Clause 99, page 41, line 13, at end insert—
(""authorization" means an authorisation under section 92;").
66 Page 41, line 14, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)").
67 Page 41, line 31, at end insert—
("() Where, under this Part, notice of any matter is required to be given in writing, the notice may be transmitted by electronic means.")
68 Page 41, line 31, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this Part, an authorisation (or renewal) given—

(a) by the designated deputy of an authorising officer, or

(b) by a person on whom an authorising officer's powers are conferred by section 94,

shall be treated as an authorisation (or renewal) given in the absence of the authorising officer concerned; and references to the authorising officer in whose absence an authorisation (or renewal) was given shall be construed accordingly.").
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 inclusive. I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 with Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 to 68.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
69 Clause 103, page 43, line 1, leave out ("the prescribed fee") and insert ("any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State").
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 70, 73, 74, 75, 80 and 81.
These amendments replace the provisions for free checks for volunteers which were passed by noble Lords during consideration of this Bill in Committee and provide instead a statutory power which will allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain groups, such as volunteers, from paying any fee.
During previous consideration of this Bill, both here and in another place, we have paid tribute to the enormous amount of good work that is done by volunteers in this country. I would like to do so again today. They selflessly give up their own time to help others and are a credit to their communities. This Government have a long-standing commitment to the voluntary sector which was encapsulated in the Make a Difference commitment. That commitment remains. Despite that commitment, the Government believe that the amendments passed by your Lordships' House for all checks to be provided free for all volunteers went too far.
During discussion of this issue, both within Parliament and outside, there has been much difference of opinion about what free checks for volunteers would actually cost. Many noble Lords have themselves given examples of the high costs which voluntary organisations believe they, or their volunteers, would have to meet. If free checks were to be provided that money would need to be found.
It is difficult to be precise, but available information suggests that between 8 million and 20 million people in this country act as volunteers. If we assume that checks were restricted to new volunteers, and that only those eligible for the higher level of checks—that is to say, enhanced criminal record certificates—were included, the minimum sum likely to be needed would be about £10 million a year.
Although we remain of the view that the provision of free checks for volunteers, or any other group, presents substantial difficulties, the Government recognise that there is a need to be flexible. We do not want entirely to rule out the prospect of free checks, should it prove possible to provide them to deserving groups at some point in the future. This is why we have amended the Bill so as to provide for a power which would allow certain groups, such as volunteers, to be exempted from paying fees for criminal record checks should it be possible at some time in the future.
I fully acknowledge that this is an important and sensitive issue, but I believe that the Government's approach is a sensible one. It balances our very real commitment to the voluntary sector with the realities of keeping down public expenditure.

1121
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, felt particularly strongly and led the fray, as it were, on this issue. I have no doubt that he will wish to respond to the Government's power to extend the possibility of free checks to categories of volunteers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 69.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I am naturally sorry that my amendment, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has failed and has been overturned in another place. I toyed with the idea of submitting a manuscript amendment this afternoon in same terms as that introduced yesterday in the other place by the right honourable gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. It failed to find favour by 38 votes to 267. It would therefore be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to do that today.
I must accept that the Government and the Minister have given a crumb of comfort to volunteering organisations, in essence, by saying that free checks on volunteers and other classes will be introduced when resources become available and that the matter will be kept under review. During many years in the other place, and fewer years here, I have heard those comfortable words on many occasions. I fear that in practice they do not add up to much.
In the meantime, volunteers will have to pay for themselves or, alternatively, the organisations to which they belong will have to pay. I shall not recount all the figures, but as I am so heavily involved with the Scouts and with St. John Ambulance, I must say that they estimate the cost to be in the region of £450,000. They do not believe that the volunteers who support them will pay for themselves.
There are many other organizations which are concerned with old and young people. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that I am actively involved with Help the Aged—people of my age certainly should help the aged—and with Abbeyfields, the National Trust and the Prince's Trust. All those organisations will be affected.
As the Minister correctly said, there are approximately 8 million to 20 million volunteers in this country on whom we greatly depend. I am the first to agree that those who work with vulnerable people, whether they be young or old, should be properly screened, especially after the tragedy at Dunblane. But did not Lord Cullen state in his report that the costs should be kept within the limits of what organisations can pay? Have not the Government, in their commendable bid to encourage volunteering, introduced the Make a Difference campaign? My concern is that this clause of the Police Bill may well make a difference, but, sadly, an adverse difference. That would be a very great shame.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I am sure that the House will agree that he has reached the age of sagacity and has a much better mind than those as young as myself.
1122
I declare an interest because I work for a charity which employs volunteers. I should have liked the Commons not to have rejected the amendment accepted by this House and so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I am sure that those who insure voluntary organisations and charities will insist that these checks are carried out, sometimes to enormous cost to charities or to smaller cost to masses of individuals.
The trustees of such organisations will have a legal duty to those who are looked after by the charities and voluntary organisations to have the checks undertaken. The officers of those organisations, for their own protection, will want to see that the checks are carried out. I believe that if something happens to a vulnerable person, no matter of what age, the nearest relation may well be advised to sue the charity, particularly where the check has not been undertaken. Therefore, I fear that there will be considerable cost to all charities as a result of this provision.
As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, Lord Cullen in his report advised, particularly when dealing with cases of children, that the costs should be kept to the minimum for charities and that government funds should be provided to assist. Perhaps in reply my noble friend the Minister can give a ray of hope that the organisations dealing with children, or even certain groups of children, will in the foreseeable future have the costs reduced or abolished entirely.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, noble Lords have been dignified in defeat. It is not a happy situation. The spirit behind the amendments which were carried by the House was that they are of great importance. At the same time, we must recognise their cost implications. I do not wish to appear too responsible; occasionally I enjoy being irresponsible about money, but perhaps this is not one of those occasions.
The balance will have to be struck in due course between the range of certificates which are provided by Part V and the problems which have been addressed by noble Lords in the amendments which we carried. The problem is that the charities to which they refer are covered by what are now Clauses 104 and 105. They are covered by the criminal records certificates rather than by the more general criminal conviction certificate in Clause 103. If there is a possibility of providing extra resources for Clauses 104 and 105, perhaps by delaying the implementation of Clause 103, that might go part of the way to solving the problem.
I note that in the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—the noble Lord has been kind enough to show it to me—he confirms that there is the possibility of providing free checks through an order-making power, which is provided for in an amendment. I recognise that it would be highly desirable when resources permit to use that order-making power. However, these are difficult areas. None of us knows the true cost. For example, none of us knows how many volunteers work for several organisations and therefore would require only a single

1123
certificate. Like the noble Lords, I do not believe that it is realistic to seek to overturn the amendment, but there must be great regret over the additional burdens which will be put on the voluntary movement.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I welcome the half conversion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the merits of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. I understand that when the amendment was proposed the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was properly concerned about the consequences in terms of costs. I fully understand that and make no criticism. He reminds me that he supported the amendment at that time. I am glad that he did so, despite the reservations that I knew he had about the burden which might fall on the Treasury. The amendment made by your Lordships' House was most worthwhile and, like the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I am sorry that it has been rejected.
Will the Minister remind your Lordships, because I have forgotten, of the intention with regard to the implementation of the separate parts of Part V? That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am not clear whether the Government have committed themselves to early implementation of the provisions in relation to criminal conviction certificates or whether that is to be phased in. That was referred to at the early stages of our debate, but I now cannot recall precisely what was said.
I agree that it is difficult to calculate what will be the cost. I make no criticism of the noble Baroness that she has found it possible on this and other occasions to speak more briefly to your Lordships than have her colleagues in another place. But in the rather fuller remarks made by her colleague, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Kirkhope, although he sought to describe equity, practicality and cost as the three reasons that the Government were unable to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in the final resort it amounted to the question of cost; who was to pay; and what the cost would be.
I hope that these provisions do not result in fewer people coming forward to volunteer, the organisations being able to have fewer volunteers, or the facilities provided in the Bill not being used. I should be very unhappy about any of those outcomes. But I believe a future government will have to return to the provisions of the Bill and bring forward amendments. It may well be that experience will show what amendments are acceptable not only to your Lordships' House but also to another place on a future occasion.
Therefore, while I regret the amendments and believe that the gesture made by the Government may well turn out to be cosmetic, there is widespread understanding on all sides of the House of the problem. We want the voluntary organisations to make the best use possible of the Bill but we do not want them to be penalised by the costs which may very well fall on that.
Lord Elton: I have the deepest sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and all those who
1124
supported his amendments. Being active in the voluntary sector, I am fully alive to the penalty which the voluntary sector may have to face in years to come.
However, we must strike a balance in relation to what is desirable. If it is agreed that this is a form of protection for young people which is needed, the question is how it is to be paid for. It is either put onto central taxation or onto the voluntary sector or the volunteer. The Government's response is much better than they have been given credit for. I am not at all sure that the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred will be necessary to bring about the state of affairs which he seeks.
The Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations when he wishes to exempt certain people from payment. That payment will then fall on the general taxpayer. No amendment is needed to bring that about but merely the stroke of a pen of an incoming Secretary of State. Therefore, the matter remains in the political arena and the next government will be able to decide who shall and who shall not have to pay. In doing so by means of regulation, I should point out, because it is not at the end of the Bill where one would expect to find it but in Clause 114, that the regulations will be by statutory instrument through the negative procedure and therefore available for debate by Parliament. That is a better solution than noble Lords have given credit for.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I share the regret that the amendment has not been accepted. The Government have lavished a great deal of praise on your Lordships' House in recent times and, while we are all grateful for praise, that praise does not appear to have been matched by any general readiness to accept your Lordships' amendments. I have occasionally entertained the perhaps uncharitable suspicion that their liking for your Lordships' House is in proportion to the ease with which they are able to reverse its amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is end of term and I am not going to bite too much on the words of the noble Earl. However, a great deal of time and serious consideration have been given to the amendments to the Bill by my right honourable friend—and I refer both to the surveillance amendments and the amendments on this matter. I have come to appreciate that when in government, one must consider some of the points made so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Elton. It is a question of balance and determining who pays. We have that indeterminate number of people out there in the voluntary sector—between 8 million and 20 million people. Therefore, it seems to us responsible to think about how the concern could be addressed while at the same time remembering that some difficult decisions would need to be faced as to who is to pay.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is disappointed. I accept and understand that. But I think he would be much more disappointed had the debates been cut off at this point. As my noble friend said, the matter is still alive and future parliaments will be able to consider the issue.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that it is not possible for me to be definitive about priorities at this stage. There is no question that children

1125
are a priority, but the category of people to be exempt will depend very much on the ability of that category to meet the payments and on the particular case that it is able to make. That will all be part of extremely extensive consultation. Therefore, without anticipating the outcome of that debate which would follow by prompting the use of the powers available to a future Secretary of State, I hope that noble Lords will accept that the Government's response was not wholly negative.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked when this is to be implemented. The intention would be to phase the criminal conviction certificate after the introduction of the criminal record and enhanced criminal certificate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
70 Clause 103, page 43, leave out lines 2 to 6
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70, which I spoke to when I moved Amendment No. 69.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 70.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
71 Clause 103, page 43, line 12, after ("means(", insert ("such")
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 71. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 72, 76 to 79, 82 to 96, 100, 101, 121, 123, 126 and 127. We have already considered a number of amendments relating to free checks for volunteers. These amendments deal with onward disclosure of criminal record information by regulatory bodies.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 71.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise because I have to leave before proceedings conclude. I wish to express a note of admiration of my noble friend for the astonishing way in which she has conducted not only this Bill but several other Bills simultaneously through this House in the face of reasoned and steady opposition. She has done so with great efficiency and aplomb. As one who has been at the Dispatch Box but never under such withering fire, I should like to give her my sympathy and congratulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
72 Clause 103, page 43, line 13, at end insert ("as may be prescribed")
73 Clause 104, page 43, line 22, after ("application(", insert ("under this section")
74 Page 43, line 24, leave out ("the prescribed fee") and insert ("any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State")
75 Page 43, leave out lines 25 to 28
76 Page 43, line 31, leave out ("asked by that person")
77 Page 43, line 39, after ("means(", insert ("such")
78 Page 43, line 40, at end insert ("as may be prescribed")
79 After Clause 104, insert the following new clause—
CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES: CROWN EMPLOYMENT
(.—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue a criminal record certificate to any individual who—

(a) makes an application under this section in the prescribed form, and

(b) pays any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) An application under this section must be accompanied by a statement by a Minister of the Crown that the certificate is required for the purposes of an exempted question asked in the course of considering the applicant's suitability for an appointment by or under the Crown.
(3) Section 104(3) to (5) shall apply in relation to this section with any necessary modifications.")
80 Clause 105, page 44, line 9, leave out ("the prescribed fee") and insert ("any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State")
81 Page 44, leave out lines 10 to 13
82 Page 44, line 16, leave out ("by that person")
83 Page 44, line 30, after ("consent(", insert (", or a licence,")
84 Page 44, line 36, at end insert—
("() registration under section 71 of the Children Act 1989 or Article 118 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (child minding and day care).")
85 Page 44, line 36, at end insert—
("() the placing of children with foster parents in accordance with any provision of, or made by virtue of, the Children Act 1989 or the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or the exercise of any duty under or by virtue of section 67 of that Act or Article 108 of that Order (welfare of privately fostered children);
() the approval of any person as a foster carer by virtue of section 5(2), (3) and (4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the exercise by a local authority of their functions under the Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984 or the placing of children with foster parents by virtue of section 70 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (disposal of referral by children's hearing).")
86 Page 44, line 42, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(7)")
87 After Clause 105, insert the following new clause—
ENHANCED CRIMINAL RECORD CERTIFICATES: JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND CROWN EMPLOYMENT
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall issue an enhanced criminal record certificate to any individual who—

(a) makes an application under this section in the prescribed form. and

(b) pays any fee that is payable in relation to the application under regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) An application under this section must be accompanied by a statement by a Minister of the Crown, or a person nominated by a Minister of the Crown, that the

1127
certificate is required for the purposes of an exempted question asked in the course of considering the applicant's suitability for—

(a) a judicial appointment, or

(b) an appointment by or under the Crown to a position to which subsection (3) or (4) of clause 105 applies.

(3) Section 105(6) to (10) shall apply in relation to this section with any necessary modifications.")
88 Leave out Clause 106
89 Clause 110, page 46, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to regulations under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State shall include in the register any person who applies to him in writing to be registered and satisfies the conditions in subsections (3) to (4A).
(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the maintenance of the register; and regulations may, in particular, provide for—

(a) the information to be included in the register,

(b) the removal from the register of persons who are, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, no longer likely to wish to countersign applications under section 104 or 105, and

(c) the payment of fees.")

90 Page 46, line 35, leave out second ("or")
91 Page 46, line 36, at end insert—
(", or
(c) an individual who employs others in the course of a business.")
92 Page 46, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) A body applying for registration under this section must satisfy the Secretary of State that it—

(a) is likely to ask exempted questions, or

(b) is likely to countersign applications under section 104 or 105 at the request of bodies or individuals asking exempted questions.

(4A) A person, other than a body, applying for registration under this section must satisfy the Secretary of State that he is likely to ask exempted questions.")
93 Clause 111, page 47, line 3, after ("section' insert ("(Criminal record certificates: Crown employment)(2),")
94 Page 47, line 3, at end insert ("(Enhanced criminal record certificates: judicial appointments and Crown employment)(2),")
95 Clause 112, page 47, line 12, leave out ("bodies") and insert ("persons")
96 Page 47, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may refuse to issue a certificate under section 104 or 105 if he believes that the registered person who countersigned the application—

(a) has failed to comply with the code of practice under this section, or

(b) countersigned at the request of a body which, or individual who, has failed to comply with the code of practice.")

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 96.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 72 to 96.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
97 Clause 113, leave out Clause 113
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97. At the same time, I should like to speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 98 and 99.
During our consideration of the Bill on Report, I gave the House notice that the Government intended to bring forward amendments along the lines of these Commons amendments in order to ensure that information now provided to regulatory bodies, and others who need it, can continue to be provided.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 97.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
98 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
OFFENCES: FALSIFICATION, &C
(".—(1) A person commits an offence if. with intent to deceive, he—

(a) makes a false certificate under this Part,

(b) alters a certificate under this Part,

(c) uses a certificate under this Part which relates to another person in a way which suggests that it relates to himself, or

(d) allows a certificate under this Part which relates to him to be used by another person in a way which suggests that it relates to that other person.

(2) A person commits an offence if he knowingly makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining, or enabling another person to obtain, a certificate under this Part.
(3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.")
99 After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
OFFENCES: DISCLOSURE
(".—(1) A member, officer or employee of a body registered under section 110 commits an offence if he discloses information provided following an application under section 104 or 105 unless he discloses it, in the course of his duties,—

(a) to another member, officer or employee of the registered body,

(b) to a member, officer or employee of a body at the request of which the registered body countersigned the application, or

(c) to an individual at whose request the registered body countersigned the relevant application.

(2) Where information is provided under section 104 or 105 following an application countersigned at the request of a body which is not registered under section 110, a member, officer or employee of the body commits an offence if he discloses the information unless he discloses it, in the course of his duties, to another member, officer or employee of that body.
(3) Where information is provided under section 104 or 105 following an application countersigned by or at the request of an individual—

(a) the individual commits an offence if he discloses the information unless he discloses it to an

1129
employee of his for the purpose of the employee's duties, and

(b) an employee of the individual commits an offence if he discloses the information unless he discloses it, in the course of his duties, to another employee of the individual.

(4) Where information provided under section 104 or 105 is disclosed to a person and the disclosure—

(a) is an offence under this section, or

(b) would be an offence under this section but for subsection (5) or (6)(a), (d), (e) or (f),

the person to whom the information is disclosed commits an offence (subject to subsections (5) and (6)) if he discloses it to any other person.
(5) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to a disclosure of information provided in accordance with section 105(8) which is made with the written consent of the chief officer who provided the information.
(6) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to a disclosure of information contained in a certificate under section 104 or 105 which is made—

(a) with the written consent of the applicant for the certificate, or

(b) to a government department, or

(c) to a person appointed to an office by virtue of any enactment, or

(d) in accordance with an obligation to provide information under or by virtue of any enactment, or

(e) for the purposes of answering an exempted question (within the meaning of section 104) of a kind specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or

(f) for some other purpose specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(7) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both.")
100 Clause 115, page 48, line 23, at end insert—
(""government department" includes a Northern Ireland department:
"Minister of the Crown" includes a Northern Ireland department;")
101 After Clause 115, insert the following new clause—
SAVING: DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND RECORDS
(". Nothing in sections 103 to 109 shall he taken to prejudice any power which exists apart from this Act to disclose information or to make records available.")
Baroness Blatch: My lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 101 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 98 to 101.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
102 Clause 117, page 49, line 18, at end insert—
("(aa) in the entry in the first column for "Humberside", there shall be substituted "Humber";")
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should tell the House that this is an amendment that I did not expect to be speaking to today. Nevertheless, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.
This amendment changes the name of the Humberside police area to Humber. Your Lordships will be aware that there was some debate in another place as to whether a change of name was desirable. The Government have no desire to oppose the wishes of the local community if there is widespread support, not just for a change of name, but for what the new name should be. The Government have made their views known on the timing and costs of any change. We envisage a gradual change to the new name. We would certainly not want to see this happen overnight, thereby diverting resources from policing activities. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 102.—(Baroness Blotch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House who is going to pay for the repainting?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the reason I said that I hoped it would be a gradual process is because it will have to be the police authority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
103 Clause 126, page 53, line 9, leave out subsection (2)
104 Schedule 1, page 57, line 33, at end insert ("who are members of any committee appointed under section 26 of the City of London Police Act 1839")
105 Schedule 2, page 59, line 28, after ("authority") insert ("eligible for appointment under the paragraph concerned")
106 Schedule 6, page 68, line 7, leave out ("and")
107 Page 68, line 9, at end insert (", and
(c) the word "not" shall be omitted.")
108 Schedule 7, page 71, line 10, leave out ("the Chief Commissioner") and insert ("a Commissioner appointed under section 96(1)(b)")
109 Page 71, line 10, leave out ("97(1)(b)") and insert ("(Complaints etc.)")
110 Page 71, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert—
("1A.—(1) In a case where the Commissioner determines that a relevant authorisation was given he shall, if sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) applies, make a determination in favour of the complainant.
(2) This sub-paragraph applies if the Commissioner is satisfied that there were, at the time the relevant authorisation was given or renewed, no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).
(3) This sub-paragraph applies where section (Authorisations requiring approval) did not apply to the relevant authorisation or its renewal, but the Commissioner is satisfied as mentioned in section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)(2).
(4) This sub-paragraph applies if the Commissioner is satisfied that anything has been done in relation to any property of the complainant in pursuance of the relevant authorisation (other than by virtue of section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)(6) or section (Appeals by authorising officers)(7)) at a time when there were no reasonable grounds for believing the matters specified in section 92(3).")
111 Page 71, leave out lines 19 to 30 and insert—
("2A.—(1) If the Commissioner makes a determination in favour of the complainant under paragraph 1A, he shall—

(a) give notice to the complainant that he has done so, and

(b) make a report of his findings to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation, or in whose absence it was given, and to the Chief Commissioner.

(2) In any other case, the Commissioner shall give notice to the complainant that no determination in his favour has been made on the complaint.
(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1)(b), the Commissioner shall not give any reasons for the making of, or any refusal to make, a determination in favour of the complainant.
2B. Where—

(a) the Chief Commissioner receives a report of the Commissioner's findings under paragraph 2A(1)(b), and

(b) no appeal is made against the determination in favour of the complainant,

the Chief Commissioner shall, under section 98(1), make a report of those findings to the Prime Minister.")
112 Page 71, line 32, leave out ("Chief")
113 Page 71, line 34, after ("exercise,") insert ("any of")
114 Page 71, line 34, leave out ("section 97(4)") and insert ("section (Quashing of authorisations etc.)")
115 Page 71, line 36, leave out ("by the Chief Commissioner") and insert ("in the direction")
116 Page 71, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) Where a direction to pay compensation has been made under sub-paragraph (1), it shall not become operative until—

(a) the period for appealing against the determination in favour of the complainant has expired, and

(b) where such an appeal is made, a decision dismissing it has been made by the Chief Commissioner.")

117 Page 71, line 38, leave out ("Chief")
118 Page 71, line 41, leave out ("subsection (6)") and insert ("subsection (5A)")
119 Page 72, line 4, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)")
120 Page 72, line 9, leave out ("92(6)") and insert ("92(5A)")
121 Schedule 9, page 81, line 16, at end insert—
("Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
. In each of sections 51 and 59 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles and hackney carriages), subsection (1A) shall be omitted.")
122 Page 83, line 46, at end insert—
("Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1)
.In section 842A of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "or the Service Authority for the National
1132
Criminal Intelligence Service or the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad",

(b) in paragraph (b), after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "or the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service", and

(c) in paragraph (c), after "paragraph" there shall be inserted "or the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service".")

123 Page 85, line 32, at end insert—
("Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40)
.Section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (applications for licences to drive hackney carriages etc.) shall cease to have effect.")
124 Page 91, line 20, at end insert—
("Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c.00)
. In section 66 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, in subsection (7), after paragraph (b) there shall he inserted—

"(ba) the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service:

(bb) the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad;".").

125 Schedule 10, page 91, column 3, line 31. at beginning insert—

("In section 146A(1A) the word "not".")

126 Page 91, line 34, at end insert—

("1976 c. 57.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Sections 51(1A) and 59(1A).")

127 Page 91, line 42, at end insert Provisions) Act 1976.—
("1991 c. 40. Road Traffic Act 1991. Section 47.")
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 127 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 103 to 127.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sex Offenders Bill
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Sex Offenders subject to notification requirements]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("7") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by reminding Members of the Committee, as one or two of them may have forgotten,

1133
that the Bill does not deal solely with paedophilia as normally understood. Now and again that fact has been overlooked.
On Second Reading, differences of opinion were expressed as to whether the notification requirements in Clause 1 constituted punishment. Speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested that they did, while the Government maintained that they did not. I believe that the truth lies somewhere in between. Whether or not notification/registration is actually meant to be punitive, it is bound to be so in practice to some degree.
As I said on Second Reading, while the information can doubtless be kept secret from the public in a large anonymous conurbation, in closely-knit rural areas the secret is more likely than not to leak out before very long. Even if that does not occur, the police are quite likely to make a habit of stopping the car of the individual on the register more often than they stop other people's cars, or to question him and require him to submit to DNA tests every time any sex crime occurs in the area, even if the sex crime for which the person was convicted is a trivial one.
If it was a matter of no more than a trivial offence, one does worry about the de facto punishment inherent in being placed on any black list being disproportionate to the crime. Let us take the case of an office Christmas party where men, and quite often women, traditionally end up behaving badly. After a few drinks a man—who may not necessarily be the boss but perhaps a relatively junior employee in his early twenties—approaches a 17 year-old typist from behind, puts an arm around her waist, squeezes it and plants an unwanted kiss upon her cheek. Her mother in a similar situation 25 years ago, and her grandmother in a similar situation 50 years ago, would almost certainly have shrugged off the whole thing. But today's 17 year-old may well feel, indignantly, that her "space had been invaded", or whatever transatlantic phrase happens to be in vogue at the time, and complain to the police. The latter would almost certainly feel that they had to charge the young man with indecent assault. If convicted, that young man might be fined no more than £30 or so or, more likely, given a conditional discharge. Nevertheless, under the Bill as it stands, he would remain on the register as a potential sex offender for a full five years. Is that necessary, and is it right?
Incidentally, I know of cases where the roles have been reversed; for example, where an older woman has blatantly made physical passes at a shy young man. Of course, in such a case men are usually too embarrassed to complain to the police. However, if they were to do so and a conviction were to result, I would feel exactly the same way about the woman being placed on the register.
However, let us take a slightly more serious case as reported in today's newspapers. A 35 year-old hospital doctor was used to indulging in horseplay with one or more nurses at the hospital where he worked. He claimed that the nurses normally entered fully into the spirit of the thing. But it appears that one day he misjudged the signals and went too far by placing a hand
1134
where the nurse did not want it placed. She yelled out and he immediately removed it. Nevertheless, the doctor was prosecuted for indecent assault, convicted and sentenced yesterday to three months' imprisonment, possibly jeopardising his future career.
It may be that a three-month sentence would be justified, especially if the lady in question happened to be a 17 year-old student nurse rather than the slightly older registered nurse involved in the case to which I referred. Nevertheless, is it really necessary for that doctor to remain on police files as a potentially dangerous sex maniac for six years and 10 months after he emerges from his token spell in prison? I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments seek to replace the current notification period with shorter periods for the three categories of offenders at the lower end of the scale. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, proposes to replace seven years with five years for those imprisoned for a term of six months or less or who had been admitted to hospital without being subject to a restriction order.
The noble Lord seeks to reduce the length of the notification requirement provided under the Bill. We take the view that, for registration to be of any value whatever, a minimum period of five years should apply. A period of registration for two years only would not provide the level of protection for children that people require from those who commit the type of offence caught under the provisions of the Bill. It is a well-known fact that paedophiles are cunning, they are deceptive and they can avoid coming to attention for long periods of time. That is why we are providing for a minimum period of notification of five years.
I should point out to the Committee that we are not talking about a particularly onerous requirement. After initial notification of his name and address, an offender is only required to notify any changes to those details. Indeed, I remember during the debates on the Crime (Sentences) Bill that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who is not now in his place, raised the question of someone arriving at a police station and being treated in a way that would be unacceptable in terms of what we come to expect from the police when dealing with such people. However, I am assured that this can be a matter of written notification to a police authority and that no more need happen unless there is a change of address. In those circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish that the Minister would not keep referring to paedophiles. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, the Bill is not restricted to paedophiles. Indeed, we discussed the issue previously and I thought that the Minister agreed with me that the Bill goes wider. It includes consensual sex acts and acts which do not relate to children,because it catches those who are affected by differential ages of consent. It is the

1135
only chance I shall have to say this; namely, that this is not a paedophile Bill. It is a Sex Offenders Bill in a broader sense.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Baroness that a minimum five-year registration period would be appropriate for a repeat offence, and it might even be appropriate for a single offence which involved paedophile activities. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, kindly confirmed, this Bill does not deal only with paedophilia. None of the examples I gave involved people who could remotely be described as paedophiles. If we had been allocated the correct amount of time in which to deliberate this Bill: the time which it deserved—as so many other Bills did—I suspect that it would have ended up as much less of a blunt instrument than it is at the moment. In my opinion it will go on to the statute book in a defective form. I do not believe that I am alone in that opinion. However, having made my point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading of this Bill because it came up at a time on a Friday when I was engaged in teaching. My overall position on the Bill remains that I stated in the debate on the humble Address; namely, that I am in favour in principle of such a Bill being on the statute book as I think it meets a real need, but that any such Bill must be brought in subject to a good deal of care, first, to make sure that it applies to the right offences, and, secondly, to make sure that the notification which results from it is handled with due caution and on a need to know basis.
Inevitably this Bill has been prepared in haste. It is a Bill on a rather complicated subject which is difficult to get right at any time. I am not quite certain that the Bill is yet in a form where we can leave it in peace. It will require some attention in the next Parliament. My misgivings relate to two distinct themes: one, the type of offences which are covered by the Bill, and, secondly, the use which may be made of the notification which it requires.
In general I think it ought to be the principle of this Bill that it does not apply to consensual offences. Because the age of consent, sadly, does not always command general confidence among people of the age to which it applies, there may be quite a lot of people involved in this. Some consenting offences are in the Bill, some are out of it.
1136
Indecent assault may take place with consent or without it. My argument would be that those cases should be distinguished. In cases where there is, say, a boy of 16 and a girl of 15, the required notification may perhaps sometimes be a little stringent.
For people who are gay, because of the unequal age of consent there will he an unequal impact resulting from the Bill. This is an area in which we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister who has opened up discussion of this subject since his meeting with Sir Ian McKellen. The majority in another place against an equal age of consent was a narrow one. It is therefore ironic that this Bill increases the practical effects of that unequal age of consent. That is something which may require attention in a future Parliament.
I also have misgivings about the use that is made of the notification. The Bill has practically nothing to say on that subject. Notification is to be made to the police. What happens to the notification thereafter is left wide open. I do not for a moment express any criticism of the police here. Indeed my views on this subject are extremely close to those of Mr. Butler, the chief constable of Gloucestershire constabulary, who reported on this subject on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers. That is an interesting report and well worth thought. The report discussed the possible advantages and disadvantages of a general warning system. It stated:
"Three police forces were not in favour of a warning system at all and without exception all the other forces agreed that it must only be used in extreme circumstances".
It was thought the warning might make the job of the police more difficult. The report further states that if an offender's,
"address and activities arc known the police are aware of his movements whereas displacement may occur making the most devious paedophile determined to achieve anonymity and further opportunity to offend".
The police believe that wide notification could be self-defeating. The report refers to one case where the police disclosed information from a warning list to an education department, which reported it to a school, which passed it to parents by newsletter. That brought in the media and meant that the probation department had to provide accommodation in a new force area. The report argues that,
"a warning scheme, if not used as a means of last resort, could be detrimental to public safety in the long term".
It argues that it could provide a threat to rehabilitation, which is, of course, the ultimate need. The report refers to a case in the West Midlands where revealing the identity of a sex offender led to an arson attack in which a 14 year-old girl—not the offender—died. Therefore there are risks here. Disclosure should be conducted subject to restrictions. I do not see any such restrictions in the Bill. It should be done on a need to know basis and with regard to public safety.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who spoke at Second Reading, recently received a letter on this subject from someone who in the usual way had been abused as a child, became an abuser as a result and had subsequently sought treatment. His offences are far in his past. He is a respectable citizen but his name reached his

1137
local newspaper, which published it. As a result, a man came after him with a gun and he has had to leave the area and look for another job.
There are risks. I do not think that it is enough to leave the matter to local discretion. The Bill should have sought to restrict the issue. I think that the measure will need attention in the next Parliament.
I expressed my thanks to the Minister on the Crime (Sentences) Bill for her conduct during the Session. In order not to prolong the sitting of the House, perhaps I may ask the Minister to take as read that my sentiments about her conduct are as they were then. I thank her warmly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was present at the Second Reading, as were a number of noble Lords. Some of us expressed concerns about various aspects of the Bill, including the fact that it would have to be taken rather more rapidly than would be desirable. But I do not think that it is appropriate for a noble Lord who was not present at Second Reading to make a seven-minute Second Reading speech. Some of us who are not able to be present at the proper time deny the House the benefit of our wisdom.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord makes me regret that I did not put down the amendments that I have here.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I rise only to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the Bill does not apply to a boy of 16 who has sexual relations with a girl of 15, as he will see if he examines Schedule 1 closely.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, perhaps I may accept the earlier rebuke by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I have used the word paedophilia on more than one occasion. The main reason that I used it was simply that that was where our concern began. Our concern was about sexually abusive behaviour, in particular to children.
However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is absolutely right. By these measures we seek to discourage sexually abusive behaviour to children and/or adults.
All I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is this. First, I thank him for his complimentary remarks. However, I have looked again at the offences set out in Schedules 1 and 2. We regard them as sufficiently serious for these measures; they justify this Bill. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed.

Police and Firemen's Pensions Bill
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill was introduced in another place in January as part of the Government's commitment to helping public service employees who may have suffered loss as a
1138
result of being mis-sold a personal pension to have that loss made good by the personal pension provider concerned. As the House may know, there has been concern that between mid-1988 and mid-1994 a number of members or potential members of occupational pension schemes may have been incorrectly advised by financial advisers or by personal pension providers to leave or not to join their occupational scheme and to opt instead for a personal pension.
In view of that, the public service pension schemes have agreed to restore current employees to the position they would have been in, had no mis-selling taken place and had they not left their occupational scheme, on receipt of an appropriate payment from those responsible for mis-selling. Unlike the other public service pension schemes, the police and fire pension schemes cannot be amended by means of secondary legislation alone to enable the police and fire authorities to participate in the review at no cost to the public purse or to reinstate pensionable service where mis-selling has taken place.
The Bill, which extends to England and Wales and to Scotland, amends the Police Pensions Act 1976 and the Fire Services Act 1947 to enable the relevant secondary legislation containing the provisions for police and fire pensions to be amended in two ways. First, the Bill enables provision to be made for police and fire authorities to reinstate in their occupational pension schemes police officers and firefighters who have been mis-sold personal pensions. This is to be done by means of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Secondly, the Bill paves the way for police and fire authorities to recover the reasonable administrative costs of dealing with inquiries made by personal pension providers when conducting their review of the pensions they have sold to police officers and firefighters. The Bill also enables police and fire authorities to recover the costs of reinstating a person's occupational pension rights where a personal pension was mis-sold. These measures are contained in Clause 2 in respect of police pensions and in Clause 3 in respect of fire pensions.
I also believe that the Bill will be equally welcomed by the insurance industry, since I know that a good number of personal pension providers are keen to get on with their reviews of the pensions sold to police officers and firefighters and to settle the cases where mis-selling is found to have taken place. This Bill will enable police and fire authorities to play their part in making progress with the review.
The Bill is not a controversial measure. It was welcomed in another place, and I commend it to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is clear that the Bill is necessary. As the Minister indicated, it had support from my friends in the House of Commons. Because it is necessary to put the issue on the statute book indicates that this is the tip of an iceberg. I am slightly surprised that the Minister says that this is welcomed by the insurance industry. The insurance

1139
industry seems to me to have been noticeable in its determination to delay the proper compensation to those who have been the victims of mis-selling of pensions over a very much wider range of occupations. That blame must be laid not only on the insurance industry but on the Government who provoked the industry into that action.
On Question, Bill read a second time: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  (The page and line refer to Bill 71 as first printed by the Commons]
  6.57 p.m.
  The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 1, leave out Clause 1.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. With the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 11.
There will be few in your Lordships' House who will not be familiar with the general principles of the original dangerous dogs legislation; and few noble Lords will not remember the powerful speeches made over a number of years in your Lordships' House by the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Sadly—I think that it would be a happy day for him—he is not here to see enacted at least part of what he sought to amend in the original legislation.
I do not intend this evening to be critical of that legislation. Many years have now passed. I am perfectly prepared to accept the findings of the Home Affairs Committee, which had a great influence on the noble Baroness's department—I hope that she will support that view—in bringing about the acceptance in principle that some amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act was required. The amendments introduced by the Government go at least two-thirds of the way to meet the concerns which prompted the introduction of the Bill which I had the honour to present to your Lordships.
The principal changes wrought by the Commons amendments fall into four groups. First, they limit the courts' discretion—we sought that total discretion should be given back to the courts—in relation to destruction to ensure a presumption in favour of destruction unless exceptional circumstances could be
1140
demonstrated. As I said, the Bill as originally drafted gave unlimited discretion. I believe that most noble Lords would agree that that is a fair compromise in the traditions of British parliamentary democracy. I am personally happy with that.
Secondly, the court needs to be satisfied that an owner of a pit bull terrier that was born before 30th November 1991 had good reason for not registering the dog originally. The Bill that I introduced in this House did not include a "good reason" test.
The third major amendment lifts the mandatory destruction provisions contained in Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act. The original Bill that I introduced left the mandatory destruction provision intact.
Finally, Clause 3 also provides for cases where a dog is in custody but no further proceedings are envisaged to be considered by the courts. Those cases could not have been addressed by the Bill as originally drafted.
To go into a little more detail, Clause 1 of the Bill as it now stands provides the courts with a limited discretion in favour of destroying a dog for a Section 1 offence—that is, an offence that involves a pit bull terrier to all intents and purposes—or a Section 3 offence, which involves aggravated attack by any dog, unless the court considers it safe not to order destruction. That reflects the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that the court shall order the destruction of the dog unless it is satisfied that in the circumstances it would he safe not to do so. Therefore there is a change of emphasis. However, I do not believe that any of us would quarrel with that change of emphasis.
The Bill requires owners of Section 1 dogs born before November 1991 to show that they had good reason for not complying with the registration scheme. In effect, there would be a judgment before they could be registered. The court would need to be satisfied that the dog would not be a danger to the public. For those dogs born before 30th November 1991 there would be a second test. The court would need to be satisfied that there was a good reason why the owner failed to register the dog in 1991. I should have thought that any court in our land, using its discretion, should be able to establish what was a good reason for an owner failing to register a dog.
Clause 2 is essentially a matter of tidying up the drafting of the original Bill. It addresses two unrelated issues concerning, first, unregistered pit bulls and, secondly, dogs of any type which are out of control. The first part of the clause amends the 1991 Act to allow a court to order that an owner of an unexempted pit bull terrier can register the dog. That is an important change.
At present, the Index of Exempted Dogs, as it is known, is closed, and has been since 30th November 1991. This clause is a consequence of Clause 1. Clause 1 allows a court in certain circumstances not to order the destruction of an unregistered pit bull. It follows, therefore, that if ownership of the dog is to be legitimised, the Index of Exempted Dogs must be re-opened in order to allow the dog to be registered.

1141
Owners will have two months to comply with the requirements of registration. They are: that a dog shall be neutered, tattooed and microchipped; that third party insurance shall be obtained; and that the appropriate fee shall be paid to the Index of Exempted Dogs.
Where an owner fails to comply with a court order to register the dog, the court has the power to order the destruction of the dog or, in its discretion, to extend the period of two months to complete the registration process. The second part of this clause relates to any type or breed of dog, not merely to pit bull terriers.
In cases where a person is convicted of an offence under Section 3 of the 1991 Act, which relates to any dog which is dangerously out of control, the court may specify the measures to be taken by the owner for keeping the dog under proper control, such as muzzling, keeping it on a lead or, in some cases, both. If the owner of the dog fails to keep it under control, the court may in future order the destruction of the dog. There is no change to the substance of proposals in the Bill that I introduced into this House. It is essentially a matter of tidying up the drafting.
Clause 3 amends the Bill to address two quite important issues. First, it lifts the mandatory destruction provisions contained in Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act; and, secondly, it provides an opportunity in certain cases where there is an impasse for dogs to be registered.
On the first point, Section 5(4) of the 1991 Act provides that where a Section 1 dog—perhaps I may remind noble Lords that that is a pit bull terrier to all intents and purposes—is seized by the police and no person has been, or is to be, prosecuted for an offence under the Act, either because he or she cannot be found or for any other reason, the court must order the destruction of the dog. The amendment gives the magistrate limited discretion as to whether to order the destruction of the dog, to be consistent with the proposed discretionary provisions contained elsewhere in the Bill.
The second matter that the clause seeks to address is that of cases where proceedings have been either dismissed or discontinued and the dogs have not been returned to the owners, either because a court has decided that the dog is a pit bull terrier or the police believe it to be an unregistered pit bull terrier. Ownership of such dogs is already an offence under the 1991 Act.
The amended Bill will ensure that where no person has been convicted of an offence under the 1991 Act but the dog cannot be released to the owner because it is in effect an unregistered pit bull terrier, the court can order, subject to certain safeguards regarding public safety, that the dog be registered. In the case of a dog born before 30th November 1991, the owner would also need to satisfy the court that he had good reason for the dog not being registered in 1991.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 essentially tidy up the original Bill and no changes of substance have been made. Clause 4 relates to providing a power to make regulations in connection with re-opening the register for pit bull terriers.
1142
I am personally very happy, and I hope that my colleagues who have assisted on the Bill are happy, now that we have improved the dangerous dogs legislation to the extent that it will be less onerous, cause less distress to owners and their pets and, quite importantly, result in less money being wasted unnecessarily in keeping pit bull terriers and other dogs in kennels for long periods of time awaiting appeals and other matters. I congratulate the Government on their prompt action after the findings of the Home Affairs Committee. I, at least, at the end of this Parliament end on a high note. I hope that Lord Houghton of Sowerby, although he might have spoken for somewhat longer than I have to your Lordships this evening, would be as satisfied as I am. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I wish to pay tribute to my friend in another place, Mr. Roger Gale, who has persevered with this Bill for a number of years. He has never lost faith. This morning, at 2.15, there he was on his feet pushing through these amendments. On that note, I also thank the Minister for her quiet encouragement and support over time and other noble Lords who have also lent us their support.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I merely wish to thank my noble friend Lord Falkland for having persevered with this measure, and for eventually, with Mr. Gale in the House of Commons, having brought it very near to the statute book. That reflects credit on a large number of people, including the Home Office—given the fact that it was faced with the undoubted embarrassment of this excessively foolish Bill, passed in 1991. Belatedly, we now have a significant improvement to the 1991 Act. As I say, that reflects great credit on all concerned.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if noble Lords, like me, believe in the life hereafter, then it is possible to believe that the doughty animal-lover, the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be looking down on our proceedings today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: I know that the noble Lord is not a believer in these matters. I speak personally; I did make that point. He may be looking down on our proceedings, perhaps—if I know him well enough—with a characteristic, impish scowl for me, perhaps even for my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and for my ministerial colleague, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, all of whom have represented the Government on this issue over the seven years.

1143
I understand, as a result of a whisper in my ear, that it was in fact my noble friend Lord Ferrers who introduced this Bill in the first place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the Minister leaves Lord Houghton of Sowerby, it is not my beliefs that matter; Lord Houghton was to his dying day a devoted atheist.
Baroness Blatch: You have spoilt my line, my Lord! He was too saintly to be that. I think something else will have happened since he passed from this House.
Perhaps I could say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that the Act was passed at that time in rather difficult circumstances with all-party support.
If I may continue my reference to Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I also think that he may be looking down with a rather warmer satisfaction on the Home Affairs Select Committee, on Mr. Roger Gale, of course, and on the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who have arrived at this happy position.
I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on all his work in relation to the Bill, which will amend the 1991 Act. He set out clearly what the Bill does. I should confirm that, in amending the Bill in another place, the Government sought to follow the key recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in giving the courts discretion on the outcome of the proceedings about individual dogs, allowing something other than a destruction order to be made. The discretion will apply only when it is clear that the dog would not give rise to a danger to public safety.
The Government have a responsibility for public safety and to take account of public concern about dangerous dogs and dogs that are out of control. Additionally, the Government introduced an amendment to address those cases where no proceedings are contemplated but the dog has not been returned to its owners under current law. The Bill as amended will allow the courts to consider such cases and to make a decision about whether a dog can be released under certain conditions or whether a destruction order should be made.
Those are the two main areas in which the new Bill before us differs from how it left your Lordships' House. Other changes take account of drafting problems, such as lack of a commencement date. With these amendments, the Bill now has the support of the Government and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill is improved by the changes.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 2, leave out Clause 2.
3 Clause 3, leave out Clause 3.
4 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
DESTRUCTION ORDERS
(" .—(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 4 (destruction and disqualification orders) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 ("the 1991 Act"), after the words "committed and" there shall he inserted the words", subject to subsection (1A) below.".
(2) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Nothing in subsection (1)(a) above shall require the court to order the destruction of a dog if the court is satisfied—

(a) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety:

and

(b) where the dog was born before 30th November 1991 and is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3) above, that there is a good reason why the dog has not been exempted from that prohibition."

(3) In subsection (2) of that section, the words "then, unless the order is one that the court is required to make" shall cease to have effect.
(4) In subsection (3)(a) of that section, the words ", where the order was not one that the court was required to make" shall cease to have effect.")
5 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
CONTINGENT DESTRUCTION ORDERS
(". After section 4 of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted the following section
"Contingent destruction orders.
4A.—(1) Where—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 above or an aggravated offence under section 3(1) or (3) above;

(b) the court does not order the destruction of the dog under section 4(1)(a) above; and

(c) in the case of an offence under section 1 above, the dog is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3) above,

the court shall order that, unless the dog is exempted from that prohibition within the requisite period, the dog shall be destroyed.
(2) Where an order is made under subsection (1) above in respect of a dog, and the dog is not exempted from the prohibition in section 1(3) above within the requisite period, the court may extend that period.
(3) Subject to subsection (2) above, the requisite period for the purposes of such an order is the period of two months beginning with the date of the order.
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 3(1) or (3) above, the court may order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed.
(5) An order under subsection (4) above—

(a) may specify the measures to he taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise; and

(b) if it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered, may require it to be neutered.

(6) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 4 above shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (1) or (4) above as they apply in relation to an order under subsection (1)(a) of that section." ")
6 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
DESTRUCTION ORDERS OTHERWISE THAN ON A CONVICTION
(". —(1) After section 4A of the 1991 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Destruction orders otherwise than on a conviction.
4B.—(1) Where a dog is seized under section 5(1) or (2) below and it appears to a justice of the peace, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff—

(a) that no person has been or is to be

1145
prosecuted for an offence under this Act or an order under section 2 above in respect of that dog (whether because the owner cannot be found or for any other reason); or

(b) the dog cannot be released into the custody or possession of its owner without the owner contravening the prohibition in section 1(3) above,

he may order the destruction of the dog and, subject to subsection (2) below, shall do so if it is one to which section 1 above applies.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) above shall require the justice or sheriff to order the destruction of a dog if he is satisfied—

(a) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety: and

(b) where the dog was born before 30th November 1991 and is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3) above, that there is a good reason why the dog has not been exempted from that prohibition.

(3) Where in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) above the justice or sheriff does not order the destruction of the dog, he shall order that, unless the dog is exempted from the prohibition in section 1(3) above within the requisite period, the dog shall he destroyed.
(4) Subsections (2) to (4) of section 4 above shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (1)(b) or (3) above as they apply in relation to an order under subsection (1)(a) of that section.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 4A above shall apply in relation to an order under subsection (3) above as they apply in relation to an order under subsection (1) of that section, except that the reference to the court in subsection (2) of that section shall be construed as a reference to the justice or sheriff."
(2) In section 5 of the 1991 Act (seizure, entry of premises and evidence), subsection (4) (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.")
7 Before Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
EXTENDED APPLICATION OF 1991 ORDER
(".—(1) Where an order is made under section 4A(1) or 4B(3) of the 1991 Act, Part III of the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Examption Schemes Order 1991 (exemption scheme) shall have effect as if—

(a) any reference to the appointed day were a reference to the end of the requisite period within the meaning of section 4A or, as the case may be, section 4B of the 1991 Act;

(b) paragraph (a) of Article 4 and Article 6 were omitted; and

(c) the fee payable to the Agency under Article 9 were a fee of such amount as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

(2) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall he subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
8 Clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement")
9 Page 3, line 17, leave out ("passing") and insert ("commencement")
10 Page 3, line 22, leave out from first ("shall") to end of line 25 and insert ("cease to have effect and the case shall be remitted to the court for reconsideration.
() Where a case is so remitted, the court may make any order in respect of the dog which it would have power to make if the person in question had been convicted of the offence after the commencement of this Act.")
11 Clause 5, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("() This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.")
The Viscount of Falkland: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 11 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 11.—(The Viscount of Falkland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Reduction Bill
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Burnham) in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Duty of principal councils to snake reports]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, after ("prepare") insert ("following consultation with neighbouring principal councils and the Highways Agency").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in my name. These amendments have a common purpose, that of requiring certain controls to be placed on the face of the Bill. It may be that the Committee would prefer it if I make one perhaps longer speech rather than four separate speeches which might, at the end of the day, turn out to be longer.
When we were discussing this matter at Second Reading, the principle of traffic reduction had widespread support in your Lordships' House. The matter before us tonight, however, is whether the Bill, as it now stands, is good legislation and in the best interests of the environment and the economy. The amendments that I have set down will, I believe, improve the Bill by creating clear duties on local authorities to carry out consultation with neighbouring authorities, the Highways Agency and representatives of local business. The amendments will also ensure that any traffic reduction plan is directly related to other land use plans and that, once decisions are made, they are communicated to those who may be affected.
The key issue in this short debate is the obvious tension between what is acceptable as a matter for government guidance and what needs to be included in primary legislation. I believe it is recognised that all the obligations in the Bill could already be covered if

1147
Government issued the relevant guidance through the local authorities' transportation policy and plans (TPP) system.
That begs the question: why do we need primary legislation if guidance is sufficient? The answer, according to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when we discussed this last is because,
"One … needs to legislate to bring those who are dragging their heels up to the mark of the best".
Placing these amendments on the face of the Bill will avoid confusion and ensure that all the local authorities that concern the noble Baroness have a duty to perform to a consistent level. As the Bill now stands, a local authority can drag its feet over matters of consultation and it will be the road users, businesses and residents who will face the inevitable disruption. Indeed, under Clause 5 of the Bill as it now stands those authorities may in fact do nothing whatsoever.
The amendment creates a duty on local highway authorities to consult with neighbouring authorities and the Highways Agency before preparing their reports to set local traffic reduction targets or curtailment of growth targets. That will ensure that any plans that might be developed take full account of circumstances on all parts of the road network. Decisions that affect traffic in one administrative area may well have implications for traffic conditions, business and economic development or indeed road safety in another administrative area.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith gave the example of the City of London's ring of steel, saying that, while it may have improved conditions for those working in the area, it raised concerns among neighbouring boroughs that their networks were having to cope with the additional diverted traffic.
The other amendments provide for similar duties in other subject areas.
If the Bill is to produce a coherent approach to managing traffic, I suggest that each local plan must be in accord with those being developed around it. The reality for far too many road users is that local authorities have difficulty in ensuring that their road works are adequately co-ordinated. The prospect that area-wide traffic reduction plans could be introduced with little or no consultation is, I suggest to the Committee, far too great a risk to take.
I do not believe that this is a controversial point. I am informed by Friends of the Earth, who have been advising the noble Baroness, that they share this concern and do not disagree with its sentiments or purpose.
The Bill in its various forms has been in existence for around three years. Since the introduction of this Bill, Parliament has spent only a very few hours scrutinising it. While in current circumstances that may not be unusual, I do not believe that it is in the best interests of sound legislation.
I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—with some diffidence but as courteously as I might—that both she and indeed her honourable friend in another place have played in some doubtful
1148
company when they rest on the advice of the Friends of the Earth. Friends of the Earth behaved extraordinarily badly. They wrote to one of my advisers and, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to read what the letter said:
"I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to use whatever influence you have to persuade Lord Lucas to withdraw his amendments. There are quite clearly enormous constitutional issues raised should a Peer frustrate the will of the House of Commons (and the House of Lords) by blocking such an important Bill on the eve of a General Election".
That is a comment which is neither correct in fact, nor complimentary to the manner in which your Lordships undertake their scrutiny role, which is at the heart of our work. However, that is what the letter said. I and others—the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders and the Freight Transport Association—contrary to what the Friends of the Earth say, remain concerned that, unamended, this legislation may not function well in practice. These amendments would ensure that the Bill could help to deliver the environmental and economic improvements we all seek. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the way in which he dealt with this matter. In my view the amendment is uncontentious, calling as it does for consultation by councils in drawing up plans of neighbouring councils, the Highways Agency, local businesses and so forth. I find nothing wrong with the spirit of the amendment.
I can give the noble Lord a clear undertaking that, in the event of the Labour Party coming to office after the election, we shall be happy to enter into consultations with him about his proposals. I cannot go further than that at this stage. It is necessary for a clear and new look to be taken, but I can give him that clear undertaking.
We say that the Bill is wholly consistent with Labour Party policy. We set it out last year in Consensus for Change. We call for an integrated, balanced, transport strategy and set out our commitment to work with local communities and businesses to find effective, equitable and environmentally sustainable solutions to congestion, pollution and traffic growth. As my noble friend Lord Graham said at Second Reading, we have made it clear that we support the principles of the Bill's aims within existing budgets; namely, to set local targets for traffic reduction or constraint on traffic growth; to consult local people, businesses and environmental and other organisations; to encourage cycling, walking, better public transport provision and speed reduction; and to take account of local plans in government assessment and local transport grant bids.
We believe that the Secretary of State for Transport should be involved in monitoring plans, furthering regional co-ordination and reporting to Parliament. The Bill in its present form advocates consultation with businesses and environmental organisations on drawing up local plans. It is therefore clear beyond peradventure that the Labour Party is supportive of the principle of consultation with regional and local bodies affected by the Bill. We are therefore supportive of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord.

1149
I want to make that absolutely plain so that there is no room for any doubt on that point. The detail of the matter is something about which we shall want to consult with the noble Lord and others concerned in the event of our being able to take office following the general election.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I support in principle the amendment moved by my noble friend and in particular Amendment No. 1. Those are precisely the points I raised at Second Reading; that is to say, consultation with neighbouring principal councils and the Highways Agency. In his reply at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister gave me a satisfactory answer in relation to principal councils consultation and has since written to me and given me a satisfactory reply also on the point relating to the Highways Agency. When he replies to this debate I should like him to place that on record, in Hansard.
I am encouraged to hear what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, though that is probably not binding and, any way, is unlikely to happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was also sympathetic to my concerns in relation to the consultation with those two specific bodies. Provided that I receive the reply I hope for, I shall be satisfied. I would not therefore support the amendment if it came to a Division.
My noble friend Lord Lucas showed me the letter sent by the Friends of the Earth. I was somewhat horrified that my noble friend was accused of acting unconstitutionally by tabling the amendments. I have heard it suggested in the past—and in this we have all co-operated—that by not pressing an amendment at Committee stage a Bill does not have to go back to the other place and can therefore go through. But to suggest that one should not even table an amendment because it might spoil the progress of a Bill is taking matters a bit far. If one was in another place—I have never been in the other place though some noble Lords have—the author of that letter might well be summoned to the Bar of the House of Commons to account for his actions. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will take note of what is being said and look into the letter.
Having said that, I support the principle of the amendment and hope to receive a satisfactory reply from my noble friend on the point.
Lord Chorley: I too spoke at Second Reading. I do not want to say any more than was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The amendments are not particularly pernicious though I would have thought guidance was sufficient in these circumstances.
The Earl of Courtown: Perhaps I can begin by making it clear that I fully understand the concerns that lie behind my noble friend's amendment. The Government agree that local traffic authorities will need to consult widely when undertaking reviews of existing and forecast traffic levels in their area and in taking a decision as to whether it would be appropriate to set targets for reducing those levels or rates of growth.
1150
However, we go further than my noble friend in identifying those bodies with which we expect local authorities to consult. We are clear that in addition to principal councils and the Highways Agency, as envisaged by his amendment, we would also expect other tiers of government such as district councils, as well as local residents and businesses to be consulted. Equally, we would expect local authorities to ensure that any targets they set, together with the measures they envisage implementing to achieve them, were compatible with the relevant structure and local plans for their areas.
However, we believe that it would be more appropriate to deal with these matters in subsequent guidance for local authorities to be issued by the Secretary of State rather than on the face of the Bill. As my honourable friend the Minister for Railways, Roads and Local Transport made clear in another place at an earlier stage in this Bill's parliamentary progress, the crucial advantage of dealing with these matters in guidance is that it allows time for us to consider with the Local Authority Associations and other relevant bodies the detailed mechanics of how all this might work. The Government's view is that it would be a mistake to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill only to discover subsequently that the drafting was defective and that we needed further primary legislation to implement its provision. Having said that, we believe that these matters are best dealt with in guidance.
Our legal advice is that there are several technical deficiencies in the drafting of the amendments. For example, the first amendment refers to the Highways Agency when in fact this agency has no legal existence or identity separate from the Secretary of State for Transport. Neither is it made clear what is meant by "neighbouring principal councils". Reference is also made in the third amendment to "other land use plans" when such plans have not previously been mentioned or defined in the Bill. Finally, the first two amendments, which specify the bodies with which principal councils must consult before preparing their reports, would introduce an unwelcome duplication in so far as subsection (6) of Clause 2 enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance to principal councils in regard to who should be consulted in connection with the preparation of reports.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara referred to the letter I wrote to him—I shall make it available to other noble Lords—concerning the points he raised at Second Reading. The Government agree that such consultation should be undertaken. Any targets and associated measures to achieve them, if not based on the widest possible consultation and broad local consensus, are unlikely to be implemented successfully. Indeed we would go further still and would expect local authorities to consult also with other tiers of local government, including district councils, as well as with local residents and businesses. That will be made absolutely clear in the guidance to be issued to local authorities in due course by the Secretary of State.
We shall, in turn, want to consult extensively with local authorities and with appropriate national organisations in drawing up this guidance. We believe

1151
that the crucial advantage of dealing in guidance with issues such as consultation, as well as the linking of targets to bids for capital funding, is that it will allow us time to consider with the local authority associations and with other interested bodies the detailed mechanics of how this might work. We believe that it would be a mistake at this stage to be too prescriptive on the face of the Bill only to discover subsequently that the drafting was defective and that we needed further primary legislation to implement its provisions.
As I made clear at Second Reading, the Government believe that this is a worthwhile Bill whose principles we support strongly. In turn, the guidance we intend issuing will ensure that local authorities take the views of relevant interested parties and local circumstances fully into account in drawing up their reports and, where appropriate, setting targets. However, we believe that the technical deficiencies which I have identified in the amendments would put the laudable aims behind the Bill, and indeed the Bill itself, at risk. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The amendments seek to provide for full consultation and to provide that the reports of local councils relate to land use plans. These are important matters. I very much agree with the substance of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. It is because I do so that I want to see these provisions in guidance. They will be in guidance, as we have heard this evening, assuming that the Bill reaches the statute book.
I said at Second Reading that I would not be supportive of guidance which did not include those points. The guidance has a place in the Bill in that Clause 2(6) allows for guidance and councils must have regard to that guidance.
With regard to consultation, your Lordships have heard the assurances given this evening. They echo assurances given by the Minister at the Committee stage in another place. At Second Reading I likened the consultation process to that of Local Agenda 21s where local authorities are successfully working with the bodies identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in drawing up those plans. That process should be replicated in connection with these traffic reports.
On consultation with neighbouring authorities, the point is well made that no traffic management can work if it merely shunts a problem across a boundary, whether it is to the next street, to the next ward, to the next borough or to the next county. I know that locally from my own experience extremely well. On consultation with the Highways Agency—in other words, the Department of Transport—one must of course relate to roads which are within departmental control. In London, for instance, the traffic director has to be consulted on certain matters. Wherever the roads are in the hierarchy, they are part of the same network. On consultation with local businesses—for instance, chambers of commerce—I have experience
1152
of the valuable job local chambers of commerce and local businesses individually have done in presenting the concerns of business.
The consultation that has been identified by the noble Lord seems to be part of the growing process of working in partnership, which so many sectors of society are now taking forward very successfully. "Partnership" has become something of a buzzword over the past few years, but partnerships are working well and are growing. I take no issue with the substance of the amendments because the points raised are necessary for the reporting process to work. The organisations and bodies referred to will often have similar aims, although they will sometimes have different priorities. Local business is likely to be concerned with the local economy, local employment and so on. Local councils and businesses are working together to increase regeneration in areas where that is required. They must be consulted, and, as I see it, they will be.
There is also the issue of land use planning. Planning is not about restricting development for the sake of restricting development. There are sometimes arguments about whether a proposed development is appropriate. Those are not necessarily—in fact, not that often—on traffic grounds. There are all kinds of reasons for traffic issues coming into the equation. Local land use plans, to be good plans, refer to environmental considerations, as do transport policies and programmes. Both are part of the responsibility of the same local authority, not of separate departments—again, a holistic approach, if I may put it that way. That is why the reports envisaged must relate to land use plans.
However, as has been said, it is not necessary to put these matters on the face of the Bill. They will be in guidance. If the list of consultees identified in the amendments is to be restricted to those proposed, it will be incomplete, as we have already heard. For instance, there is no reference to local residents or to other tiers of local authority. We have heard about drafting difficulties. I think it is a little tough for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to have been bowled that one at this late stage. However, it is an issue which we must take seriously.
Reference has been made to the letter from Friends of the Earth. I have not seen the letter. The noble Lord said it is a letter to his advisers; a letter from what I would describe as one campaigning organisation to—I do not know who the noble Lord's advisers are—possibly another campaigning organisation. Friends of the Earth is a campaigning organisation. I do not share that point with it. But that is not to say that I would in any way deny the valuable work it has done on the substance of this issue. If apology is required I hope the noble Lord will take from me that I mean quite straightforwardly that the amendments put forward and the value of the Bill are for your Lordships to assess. We shall do so.
I said at Second Reading that the Bill is not anti-car. It is about matching the car to the needs of the community. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of

1153
Chilworth, will accept my thanks for raising these important issues. But I hope he will also accept that his amendments are not necessary and, as they are drawn, contain some inherent problems. I hope he will be satisfied with the Government's assurances, which I was glad to hear because they were assurances I wanted too, and that on that basis he will feel able, following this debate and following the placing of all these points on the record, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his remarks. I am glad that he and all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate tonight have agreed that the amendments are not contentious. I was also glad to hear the noble Lord opposite give an undertaking to consult with me and others should he be in a position so to do. My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara stole the note that I had written down when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke. I wrote down,
"I hope I have no reason to take him up on that offer".
He would expect me to say that, would he not?
Perhaps I may address one or two remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom, I notice, is extraordinarily well supported on the Benches behind her on this occasion. I wonder why? Had she engaged me in some meaningful consultation, it might not even have been necessary for me to have kept the Committee this late tonight. I am glad that she emphasised the matter of partnership. We seem to be moving in that direction. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. I am also glad that she spoke about this Bill not being anti-car. We talk so glibly about being anti-car. It is not only the car, as part of the transport system, that does damage; it is the whole of the system, whether it is the private motor car, a truck, a bus, tram or train. In dealing with the matters in the Bill, we are dealing with the transport system—not just one element of it. I say to the noble Baroness so that all her friends can go home; that I shall not divide the Committee.
I now turn to my noble friend the Minister. I am grateful to him for agreeing that there will be full identification of consultees. I hear what he said about guidance being preferable. I do not agree with him, but there it is. He will not be surprised that I was not surprised that his legal advice was that there are technical deficiencies in the amendments. Were there more time, I would take these amendments and trim them for Report stage. I have had my say and I have heard the answers. I am not convinced. I have the feeling that the Committee is not minded to go through the Division Lobby at this time and in that case I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Report received.
1154
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time and passed.

Birds (Registration Charges) Bill
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill and will clarify the powers of the Department of the Environment to charge fees for registered sellers of dead wild birds under Section 6 and for the birds registration scheme under Section 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The charge was made on registered sellers and keepers by the department when administering both these schemes. However, following a review some doubts arose about the proper statutory basis for charging these fees. The Bill will simply clarify those powers.
The Bill has three main provisions. First, it will permit future charges to be made for the registration scheme and the registered sellers of the dead wild bird scheme should such a new scheme be reintroduced. Secondly, it will permit the recovery of charges for bird registrations which were made between 21st May 1996, which is the date on which the announcement was made in another place that the requirement for the payment of any fees were suspended, and the date when the Bill comes into force. Thirdly, it will validate all registration charges which have been made under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
The Bill will affect about 1,000 registered keepers of birds. The Bill is an uncontroversial measure. It will simply restore the situation to that which the department and the bird keepers had previously believed to be the case. It will not remove any rights which they expected it to have. The Bill makes no other changes to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 18th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Treasure Act 1996 Draft Code of Practice (England and Wales)
7.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood) rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would also like to speak to the Treasure Act 1996 (Northern Ireland) Draft Code of Practice. These codes mark the final stage in

1155
the procedure needed before the Treasure Act can be implemented. At this point I would like to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has fought so long and hard to reform the archaic law of treasure trove. I should like to explain that when the Treasure Bill was being debated last year we gave a commitment that the Act would not come into force until these codes of practice had been approved by both Houses.
The codes have three main aims. They describe the requirements of the Act; they provide guidance to finders of treasure; and they set out the guidelines on the payment of rewards. A separate code has been prepared for Northern Ireland to take into account the different legislative regime that exists in the Province. The codes have been revised and improved after extensive public consultation. They were approved by another place on Tuesday after debate and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence. He was greatly looking forward to being here and to expressing his thanks to those who have worked so hard to complete both codes of practice. He referred particularly to my noble friend Lord Inglewood and to Dr. Roger Bland of the British Museum. I think that we should all pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who has worked for seven years to get such provisions on to the statute book and to have the code of practice approved. This result is a great and patient achievement on his part.
The noble Earl asked me to make two other points. The first is that the Act and the code of practice combined will be of great value in bringing about a better understanding of our history through archaeology. Secondly, the noble Earl wished to point out that by regularly reporting their finds, metal detectorists have a great contribution to make. It is a contribution to our heritage that they are proud to make. We wish them well in doing so and we have good reason to believe that they will be conscientious.
This is a great moment in the fulfilment of a change in the law which has lasted for too many centuries. We can rejoice that the codes of practice are coming into force and we can be glad that in due course the whole of the Act will be implemented.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton succinctly encapsulated the raison d'être for what we are proposing in the combination of the Bill and the codes. I commend the draft code to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Treasure Act 1996 Draft Code of Practice (Northern Ireland)
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I spoke to this when referring to the code of practice for England and Wales. I beg to move.
1156
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 17th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act 1996 (Cessation of Section 3) Order 1997
7.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am conscious not only of the late hour of the day—although this is not necessarily an unusually late hour at which to take Northern Ireland business—but also of the fact that this is a late hour in the life of this Parliament. I shall attempt to be brief, but I stress that that does not mean that these are not important issues.
This order would withdraw from effect the statutory provisions that set up last year a forum for discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State is obliged, subject to parliamentary approval, to make such an order, if it appears to him that the multi-party talks that have been proceeding in Northern Ireland since last June are suspended. At the meeting of the open plenary session of the talks on 5th March there was a general recognition that further progress in the talks was impossible before the election. Accordingly, the plenary agreed to meet next on 3rd June. The Secretary of State has concluded that, in the terms of the Act, this constitutes suspension of the talks.
This order reflects the important principle that the two institutions—talks and forum—are parallel, and that the forum should not continue to meet when the talks are no longer in process. In any event, that accords with the realities: it is unlikely in an atmosphere increasingly dominated by electoral considerations that the forum could go properly about its remit of discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding. The practical difficulties of meeting during an election period have in any event now led the forum to adjourn itself over the period.
The work that the forum has undertaken, chaired with much effort and commitment by Mr. John Gorman, has been valued by some. Others have doubted that it has taken significant steps in the promotion of dialogue and understanding that were seen as the essence of the forum's remit. But evidently the parties at the forum have come to a greater understanding of one another's views. I should say that we firmly believe that the forum would have been a better institution had the Social Democratic and Labour Party continued to attend it rather than withdrawing from it as it did last summer. I hope that its position may be open to reconsideration.
Even without this order, the forum's initial lifespan would in any event have expired at the end of May this year. But the Secretary of State is empowered to revive it,

1157
with parliamentary approval, for a further period, or periods, until the end of May 1998. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that it would be the intention of a Conservative Government to revive the forum as early as practicable in the life of a new Parliament; and the Opposition have spoken in similar terms of the intentions of a future Labour Government.
The forum should, in conformity with the scheme which your Lordships approved last year, cease to meet because the talks have finished. That is right in principle and is a recognition of the practicalities as we approach a succession of elections. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the Act is entitled the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc.) Act. We know that "etc" can mean many things in Northern Ireland. I recall vividly that when the legislation to establish both the talks and the forum first went through the House, many of us had misgivings about the setting up of the forum and the conditions under which the election to that forum was held. There was the added impetus of a deliberately rigged set of election laws to ensure that certain people would get seats. Although 10 parties were represented, the rules ensured that some of those people who were originally to have a seat at the forum and at the peace talks got only a derisory number of votes in the election. That was the Government's intention.
I expressed reservations about the circumstances surrounding the election to the forum. Indeed, I recall that my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, expressed similar reservations and said that it would be hard to get those who had been elected to the forum to give up their seats at any given time. I think that our reservations have been proved correct. No sooner had the forum been elected, than the members of the SDLP—the party which I had the honour to bring into being and which I represented for many years—and of Sinn Fein said that, although they had been elected, they were not going to take their seats but would withdraw from the forum. That meant, in effect, that those members who remained in the forum could be charged with representing only one section of the community in Northern Ireland. As such, the forum was not guaranteed any success or longevity.
I bitterly regret the fact that the forum did not have more success. I have never believed in abstention. I believe that if you go to the electorate and receive their mandate in votes, you should use that mandate to take part in whatever institution or whatever forum may exist and that you should put forward your point of view. I do not believe—I have never believed—in abstention, but unfortunately the party which I formed and which I led for many years seems to have changed and, wherever it may not be in a winning position, now seems to absent itself.
I am sorry that the Forum has ceased to exist. I agree with the noble Baroness that John Gorman has proved to be an admirable chairman. He has done everything to
1158
prove that the Forum is an institution that would in time have gained the respect of the whole community in Northern Ireland. I only hope that whatever may be the next Parliament, the Forum will be re-created. I make a heartfelt plea that those who are elected to the Forum should attend it, sometimes in a minority. In a democratic society one cannot have a situation where at all times one's views are paramount. I appeal to the SDLP, if and when the Forum is reconstituted, to attend it. I do not appeal to Sinn Fein because I do not believe that it is amenable to any kind of reason.
The noble Baroness has said that this is the last occasion in this Parliament on which we shall be able to discuss Northern Ireland. As I have said many times before, I believe that she has carried out the functions of all her offices in Northern Ireland with admirable rectitude. She has gained the support and affection of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. It is on this issue that I should like to put a specific question. I understand that following a controversy that has arisen over the past few weeks in relation to employment activities within her department an inquiry has been set up into the circumstances.
I do not believe that an inquiry is necessary. I believe that the Northern Ireland Office was wrong to set it up. What is much more disturbing is that the person who is to chair the inquiry is a retired civil servant who has relations with those who are still civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office. I believe that he has been given the task of inquiring into an office which was within the remit of the noble Baroness.
I have heard very disquieting rumours circulating in Northern Ireland to the effect that, having been given this remit, he is to report back to a civil servant who has been central to the whole dispute in Northern Ireland. That appears to me to be a matter of "Ask my brother if I am a liar". I believe that if there is to be an inquiry it should report back, not to a civil servant, but to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It would be disgraceful if that inquiry took place—I do not believe that it should have been set up in the first place—and reported back to an ex-civil servant or anyone within the Civil Service in Northern Ireland who had been central to the whole dispute.
I ask the noble Baroness: with what terms of reference has this inquiry been set up? To whom and when will it report? I believe that it would be totally unconstitutional if the inquiry reported back to a civil servant who had been central to the whole dispute within her office.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has said about labour relations within the noble Baroness's office. It is causing great concern, upset and annoyance. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said in a debate last week, this matter has been misreported and misrepresented. It is total nonsense. The noble Baroness has done nothing at all to interfere in any way with good relations in her office. The way that this matter has been taken up is causing great annoyance throughout Northern Ireland. The investigation is quite unnecessary and, I believe, out of order. I also believe that it is out of order that £10,000 compensation has been paid to one complainant. I hope that the noble Baroness can

1159
soon forget about it. In no way is she at fault. I also hope that the Forum will be restored as soon as possible. Even without the SDLP it has performed a valuable function, in that boys and girls with no previous experience of politics have learnt to debate and discuss. I believe that this is the start of the education of young people to get them involved in politics. There has not been such an opportunity in Northern Ireland for 25 years.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I too should like to add my very strong support not only for this Order but for what has just been said by both noble Lords. My noble friend has played and is playing a vital part in the work of bringing inward investment and development to the Province, despite all the uncertainties arising from the end of the ceasefire. She has shown great courage, persistence and address in visiting many parts of the Province despite the dangers. She tirelessly advances the cause of the people of Northern Ireland in the US and elsewhere.
It would be disgraceful if Sinn Fein/IRA and certain others, who have not scrupled to undermine her as far as they can, were able to use an incident in which my noble friend had behaved with absolute propriety and thus deprive Northern Ireland of one of its best assets. I do not like to see assets wasted. I see from the Irish News that Mr. Mitchell McLoughlin intends to try to make capital of all this and continue the campaign of vilification with his friends in Congress when he visits the US. That shows how much Sinn Fein/IRA care about the future prosperity of Northern Ireland that my noble friend has done so much to advance. For us to allow that to happen would be disgraceful; and it would also demonstrate political ineptitude.
I still believe that the talks have a future, but sadly at present my noble friend represents the only area of our future strategy in a troubled land which can be seen to be working well. I know that she has been privately sustained and encouraged by many of her colleagues in Government; but what is needed urgently is strong public support of the kind that Ministers are usually quick to give their colleagues under attack. So far I hear a loud silence and, behind that, the rustlings in the local undergrowth—the unworthy manoeuvrings of certain small animals (perhaps weasels and ferrets) who wish that my noble friend would go away and leave them to run their comfortable sub-culture in their own way. Fortunately, my noble friend is brave as well as committed. I do not believe that she will go away.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I also support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The noble Baroness has gained great respect in Northern Ireland. She has worked extremely hard and produced very good results. It is outrageous that she should be attacked in this way. We support her in this House.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their very generous and kind comments. I believe that there are others who share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about the constitutional implications of the inquiry. I shall ensure that I draw these matters to the attention of my right honourable friend the
1160
Secretary of State. But we come here this evening to discuss the suspension of the Forum. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was right to say that abstention was not the way to move anything forward. I hope that people will not be elected to Westminster with the avowed intention of not taking their seats. I believe that participation in Westminster and Parliament is a great privilege and one that is not to be ignored.
The noble Lords, Lord Cooke and Lord Fitt, drew attention to the fact that dialogue in Northern Ireland was the way forward. Despite the abstentions, there has been successful dialogue and much understanding of, but not agreement with, alternative views. The committees of the Forum with which I have dealt on specific subject matters have been industrious and demonstrated a commitment that is to be admired.
My noble friend Lady Park shares my concerns that the personal attacks have been used by Sinn Fein in Washington to create hazards in relation to the bringing of jobs to Northern Ireland.
I should like to share with your Lordships the fact that yesterday I was able to announce that there are now more people in work in Northern Ireland than ever before. That is something in which we should take pride. It is something we have achieved. This is merely a suspension. I am pleased to say that with the commitment of both leading contenders in the election the Forum can look forward to doing more good work. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1997
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order before your Lordships' House this evening would continue in force for a further 12 months from 16th June the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996.
Since the first Emergency Provisions Act was passed in 1973 it has been an annual duty falling upon your Lordships' House to consider whether the provisions remain necessary and should be renewed.
Your Lordships are familiar with the issues which underlie this evening's debate. Each year we must consider the Act against the background of the prevailing security situation in Northern Ireland, and against the report of the independent reviewer of the Act, Mr. John Rowe QC.
I shall describe the change in the security situation since the predecessor Act, the 1991 Emergency Provisions Act, was last reviewed in June last year.
At that time we had already experienced the horror of the terrorists' renewed campaign; and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had introduced,

1161
and Parliament had passed, new powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act to give the police in England and Wales the same range of responses to terrorism as the police and the Army have under the Emergency Provisions Act in Northern Ireland. There has been no terrorist attack on the mainland since Manchester in June last year. There is no room for complacency, however, and we know that the absence of attacks on the mainland since June has in part been down to security force successes in tracking down the terrorists and their caches of arms, ammunition and explosives.
Tonight, however, we are concerned with Northern Ireland and the use of the Emergency Provisions Act to counter the renewed terrorist threat there.
Such has been the intensification of the Provisional IRA's campaign since the Lisburn bombs in October that, excluding attacks aborted or thwarted by security forces, serious terrorist attacks are currently occurring at the rate of one every three or four days. And it is with great sorrow that we are reminded of the cruel and untimely deaths of Warrant Officer James Bradwell and Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick. Those brave men have paid the ultimate sacrifice. They are representative of the courage and the dedication of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Armed Forces whose professionalism and effectiveness is reflected in the significant catalogue of successes achieved against the terrorists over recent months.
There can be little doubt that such successes have been assisted in some cases by the powers available to the security forces by virtue of the Emergency Provisions Act.
There is no doubt that the powers contained in the Act are still needed. Independent reports have shown that they have been used properly in the past year. Mr. John Rowe recommends the renewal of the powers. I urge your Lordships to renew them for a further year, thus ensuring that the range of measures available to combat terrorism is kept intact. In the meantime, I ask that we all work towards and pray for a peaceful solution. Until that arrives, the Act is important.
Moved, That the draft Order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
8.15 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I have spoken a few times on this Act, and so I intend to be brief on this occasion. I want merely to say that I still support it, because I believe that the vast majority of decent people in Northern Ireland deserve to be protected from terrorism. As the Minister told us, murder and intimidation continue. There is not just murder and maiming, but the kind of intimidation in which people are told that if they do not get out onto the streets and protest they will be dealt with. That is more insidious even than the straight terrorist attack.
I am pleased that the Minister referred to the Report of Mr. John Rowe QC who strongly recommended that:
"Undoubtedly the powers and provisions of the Act are required for another year. There is continued terrorist activity, and there is a real threat of more of it".
1162
So, as I have said, I support the Act. I congratulate the RUC and the military on the way in which they have stood up for the ordinary people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I wish that I could put my hand on my heart and oppose the order. I was a Member of another place when the Bill was put through. As one who believes in civil liberties, I resisted many of its proposals. But as the years have advanced and my understanding of the events in Northern Ireland has increased, it would be in total contradiction of my own conscience were I to register a vote against the order.
However, I want to put on record, and I am sure that the Minister will not object, that although she said the order was needed in Northern Ireland—she referred to the deaths of the warrant officer and the soldier—intimidation is taking place there from both sides of the community. All the intimidation, murders and mayhem that have taken place are not restricted to the IRA.
Only a few days ago, a father in Northern Ireland who was making up a bottle for his young child was murdered. We suspect it was by those engaged in Loyalist violence. Every effort must be used to try to apprehend the murderous criminals on both sides of the religious and political divide, because many people in Northern Ireland believe that there is too much concentration on the activities of the IRA. There are two murderous elements in Northern Ireland. Both of them should be treated with the same concern.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I support the order, because under the present conditions with IRA/Sinn Fein making every effort to bomb and murder people, it is absolutely necessary. I wish particularly to acknowledge the debt which all of us in Northern Ireland owe to the security forces, the police and the Armed Forces. Their expertise and devotion to duty in recent months have prevented or interfered with probably three out of four of the attempts of the IRA to kill and maim people.
The police have been greatly helped by the stream of timely information they have received from all quarters, often from people who put themselves at risk in passing the information. That support for the police is a hopeful sign for the future.
We spoke earlier of the Minister's problem in relation to employment, but I have not had an opportunity to acknowledge the remarkable work she has done in Northern Ireland in the past three or four years. She has been the Minister responsible for the economy and for agriculture. That was previously full-time work for two men. She has been responsible for almost all the wealth-creating sectors of the Province. In addition to demolishing a vast mountain of work, she has visited countless factories and farms throughout the Province. She has listened. She has explained. She has commended, and she has been helpful where appropriate. Community barriers have meant nothing to her during her visits. She has boosted morale and helped people to feel that government are not remote, which has generally been the case in recent years. The consistently improving employment figures, which are the lowest ever, show that she has not worked in vain. Whenever the noble Baroness

1163
leaves Northern Ireland—and I hope that it will not be for a very long time—she will be much missed and remembered with affection.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, again, your kindness excels. I believe that I almost heard the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, say that one woman can do the work of two men. That perhaps is not in dispute between my colleagues and I on the Front Bench.
There is no greater product than Northern Ireland to sell to the world. I am delighted that business—after all, government facilitates but business creates employment—has played a magnificent and increasing role during my years there. That has given us all much pleasure.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that killing people is wrong in any community. The death of the father of seven children is much to be condemned. Extreme sympathy is offered to the families. There will be no greater celebration than in your Lordships' House when we do not have to bring this order forward. I hope that one day the intellect of those indulging in violence will suddenly wake up to the fact that it will not work. In the meantime, we must again bring forward the emergency provisions order and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Property (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I do not disguise the fact that this is a complex order. However, it is aimed at simplifying complex titles to land in Northern Ireland. It can only be to the benefit of the economy. I say simply that if there are questions on the order I undoubtedly would have to write to your Lordships, and I shall be happy to do so.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will wish to take this opportunity to put on the record a reassurance to his colleagues in another place who wanted to be convinced that this is not another part of the lawyers' money-making machine, the major beneficiaries of which are lawyers rather than the public. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

Public Order (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th March be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to implement a number of recommendations of the report of the Independent Review of Parades and Marches. As your Lordships know, the Government have undertaken to establish an independent parades commission with an education, mediation and conciliation role. We expect very soon—I emphasis very soon—to announce a chairman and members of that commission. At the same time, the Government are consulting interested parties on wider decision-making and related powers which the report has recommended for a parades commission.
The measures which are being introduced now will implement recommendations which do not hinge on the outcome of the wider consultation. We consider it important that these measures should be in place for this year's main marching season.
The proposed order will make a number of amendments to the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. These include measures relating to the requirements to notify the police of a public procession or parade. The current seven days' notice has been clearly shown to be insufficient time to reach agreement at local level, particularly in respect of contentious marches. We are therefore increasing the period of notice from seven to 21 days in line with the review team's recommendation. Where it is not reasonably practicable for the organiser of a parade to give 21 days' notice—for example, a march arranged in support of an industrial dispute—the organisers will have to explain to the police the reason for the short notice.
The draft order will give the police power to confiscate alcohol where it is being consumed at or in the vicinity of any place along the route of a parade or in the possession of persons travelling to a parade. These measures will therefore apply to those taking part in a parade, to others not directly involved in a parade and to those demonstrating against a parade. The powers are discretionary and implementation of them by the RUC will depend on the situation at the time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th March be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is an elegiac tone to our discussions tonight. When the Minister and I were both young, which hardly seems a day ago, the Rolling Stones were in their full prime. I always thought that one of their better offerings was "This could be the last time".
There are familiar friends here tonight, not least the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lords, Lord McConnell, Lord Fitt and Lord Cooke of Islandreagh. We have been together on so many occasions discussing Northern Ireland business. We all agree that we have always been dealing with a Minister of very high quality. She has dealt with all the issues with candour and decency. She has the respect of all who deal with her and, rather more rare among political figures, liking and trust. She has another very great virtue. When she speaks of a draft order she pronounces it correctly as draft, and not in that rather effete, southern way of—dare I try it?—dra-aft. It is definitely draft, not dra-aft.

1165
She spoke about an appalling slur which appeared in Hansard in another place. I have to say that it is a corrupt Hansard because when the Member for Lewisham said that he thought it was a money-making scheme for lawyers, what he intended to say was that he was sure it was not a money-making scheme for lawyers. Curiously, the Hansard reporter omitted the word "not".
Noble Lords who spoke earlier mentioned the assertions made about the Minister's conduct. I do not know the ins and outs of those assertions, but I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, the belief that there are ignoble motives here and hidden hands at work. We cannot leave it there. I turn for the support of all noble Lords and the noble Baroness, and, for the purpose of the record, I see that I have the approval of all of them.
A report is being carried out. It would not be right, proper or fair if the Minister's position is not properly and scrupulously protected in the way that she is entitled, if necessary by the provision of legal representation and advice at public expense. That is the very least a Minister of the Crown is entitled to look to. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, spoke of the public support which might have been more vociferous. I note that and respectfully concur.
We cannot expect people to do difficult work if they are subject to what may be an insidious attempt at the assassination of a character which does not justify it. The Minister is entitled to the protection to which anyone else would reasonably look and which we would insist upon. I leave that matter there.
Your Lordships know that on this side of the House we have serious doubts about the speed of progress in relation to North. It is graceless and fruitless to repeat those doubts which I still have. But whatever happens in the election, I wish the Minister well in the future.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams. There is an enormous comfort in being a Member of your Lordships' House. I would like to take the opportunity to say that I have received enormous courtesy from all noble Lords involved with Northern Ireland business over the past three years. I have also welcomed and enjoyed the bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland issues which has been adopted on the basis that a solution is so necessary. I apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who cannot be here because he could not move the time of the last plane back to the Province, however influential he may now be as a Member of your Lordships' House.
On this side of the House, we have moved on from the Rolling Stones to the Spice Girls, but one's LSE tags always pull one back. In this House I have experienced unfailing concern for Northern Ireland and its future. I have indeed been fortunate in the past three years to work with noble Lords who have questioned, sometimes criticised and frequently expressed amazement at the length of time that legislation has been in coming. But noble Lords have always added much to the debate, and
1166
perhaps I may speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland when I say that they are exceedingly grateful. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice No. 4) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order will bring into operation a revised code of practice on the exercise of stop and search powers by police officers. The revised code makes a small number of changes to clarify police powers in relation to members of gangs who habitually carry knives. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th March be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I have a copy?
Baroness Blatch: Of course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (No. 2) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order brings into operation on 1st April the code of practice on criminal investigations which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary laid before Parliament on 27th February. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Data Protection (Regulation of Financial Services etc.) (Subject Access Exemption) (Amendment) Order 1997
8.33 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the Data Protection Act 1984 gives people a general right to know what information is held about them on computer. I am sure that we can all agree that this openness is very beneficial. There are though

1167
circumstances when it could be damaging, and possibly disastrous. I believe that we need to curb access to this data where it could aid unlawful behaviour. This is especially important when the interests of innocent people are put at risk. That need was recognised in the Data Protection Act. The Act includes, at Section 30, a power which allows the Secretary of State to exempt personal data from this general right of access if it is held for the purposes of discharging statutory functions.
Your Lordships will be aware that a number of regulators have been granted such an exemption to enable them to exercise their duties effectively. The draft order now before your Lordships' House seeks to include the new pensions regulator, called the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority but known for short as OPRA. OPRA was set up by the Pensions Act 1995. It has the prime responsibility for ensuring the security of the £500 billion worth of assets which back the rights of members of occupational pension schemes.
OPRA has been given substantial powers to help it carry out this task effectively. These include a power to fine individuals and organisations acting as trustees of schemes, as well as being able to prohibit unsuitable people from being trustees. So OPRA will acquire a great deal of sensitive information.
Your Lordships will recognise the use that "fraudsters" could make of a situation where OPRA was forced to allow anyone suspected of misusing assets to have full knowledge of the information held about them. This knowledge could be used to frustrate an investigation, either by the destruction of records or by suborning people.
The order now before your Lordships' House is designed to ensure that, from the outset, OPRA is able to protect information from premature and damaging subject access.
Your Lordships will wish to know that the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted about the terms of the order, as is required under Section 40 of the Act. She has pronounced herself satisfied with it.
I believe that this order is essential to enable OPRA to carry out its functions effectively. It forms a small but important part in the overall provisions designed to safeguard the pensions of millions of people. It will thus enable people to invest with confidence in funded pension provision for their retirement. That is something which I hope we can all support. I commend this order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Occasional Permissions) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order is to be laid under the powers provided in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It amends the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983 by increasing the number of occasional permissions available to community groups to sell alcohol and relaxing some of the associated restrictions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th February be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee.]—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Casinos and Bingo Clubs: Debit Cards) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order amends the Gaming Act 1968 to allow acceptance of debit cards in casinos and bingo clubs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [19th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Betting and Bingo Advertising etc.) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order amends the Gaming Act to remove restrictions on the advertising of bingo. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Football Pools) Order 1997
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order amends the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to facilitate mid-week football pools competitions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11st March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Blatch).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Non-Fossil Fuel) Order 1997
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order will amend Section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989 by means of an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The proposed amendment would enable renewable generators located on islands not connected with the rest of the electricity system on the mainland to be eligible for support from the fossil fuel levy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved [21st Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hedgerows Regulations 1997
8.40 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, where I come from in Norfolk, in the days when harvesting was done by binder and the last sheaf of corn was thrown onto the trailer, people used to say, "That is the one we have been looking for". As this Parliament draws to a close and as these regulations are the last of all the business to be transacted, not just in this Session but in this Parliament, one could say that, "This is the one we have been looking for".
Some of your Lordships may consider it slightly ironic that the distinction of being the last business of Parliament should fall to the Hedgerows Regulations and the distinction of being the last of all the government business which, over the years, I have had the privilege of presenting to your Lordships should be the Hedgerows Regulations. However, as they say, that is the way that the cookie has crumbled.
I should declare an interest in that I am, in the current departmental jargon a "land manager", which, in normal parlance, means a farmer. I should confess, without any regret, that over the years I have removed some hedges which have resulted in the farm for which I have some responsibility both looking and operating better.
Having made such a confession to your Lordships, I have the remarkable privilege of inviting the Houses to approve the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. In seeking the approval of the House for these draft regulations, I should acknowledge at the outset that there is a certain sensitivity on the subject matter of which I am only too well aware. Hedgerow protection is an issue which provokes strong emotions, and very different reactions. This was evident in the variety of views which we received in response to the public consultation which we carried out. We have considered carefully the views which have been expressed and have adjusted our proposals accordingly.
The changes which we have made do not alter the fundamental notification scheme on which we consulted. We have responded to the views which were expressed, increasing the time which was allowed for local planning authorities to give or to refuse consent to the removal of a hedgerow. Authorities will also be required to consult parish councils before giving consent. Moreover, we are requiring local authorities to take into account the reasons which are given for wishing to remove a hedge.
We have also taken some steps to try to simplify the criteria on which a hedge is considered to be important. That may surprise noble Lords when they look at the regulations; nevertheless, we have done so by removing some of the criteria which were generally considered to have been difficult to work. The regulations recognise the importance of hedgerows alongside public rights of way. We have also made clear that the regulations will be subject to review and that they may be amended in the light of practical experience.
There is clearly a difficult balance to keep between those who wish to see the countryside remain as they know it and those whose life and livelihood depends on the proper tending of the countryside. The countryside cannot be fossilised. It changes; indeed, it always will. It alters—the conditions in which it has to operate change.
The Government think that the draft Hedgerows Regulations now before the House strike a reasonable balance between the wishes of those in favour of widespread protection, and the concerns of those who have regard to some aspects of the tending of the countryside and who consider our proposals to be unnecessarily burdensome.
I shall conclude my introduction to the regulations by reminding your Lordships that among all the brouhaha surrounding hedgerows, some 400 miles more of hedgerows are planted each year than are removed.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we are grateful that, at long last, some regulations on hedgerows have been produced. This was a manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party back in 1992 and was a topic which we discussed extensively during the proceedings on the Environment Act. At this very late hour in this Parliament the regulations have been produced; but we are deeply disappointed by the content. It is not only my party that is deeply disappointed; English Nature, which is an emanation of the Government, has also expressed its disappointment at the weakness of the regulations. Moreover, the Council for the Protection of Rural England is also deeply disappointed with the content of the regulations and, indeed, has said that it is as bad as having no regulations at all.
One of the great problems about hedgerows—and under these regulations only 10 per cent. will be protected—is the deterioration in their quality. There is no support for farmers to keep hedgerows up and, as they decline, they no longer fall within the definition of

1171
important hedgerows. Similarly, there is no protection for young hedgerows. There is no opportunity for up-to-date research on hedgerows. The regulations only provide that their status at the time when the regulations are passed will count. Therefore, no future research can be allowed. Only four weeks is allowed for local authorities to designate hedges. Almost inevitably farmers will apply for planning permission to have their hedges rooted up during the winter when it is much harder to show the considerable bio- diversity of plants, birds, animals, and so on, which are preserved by hedgerows. As I said, we are deeply disappointed with the regulations. The Labour Party has a long standing commitment to give proper protection to hedgerows. We shall, therefore, bring forward at the earliest possible moment in the new Parliament effective measures to protect hedgerows in future.
Lord Stanley of Alderney: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Ferrers will remember it, but he was the government Minister when, on the 16th January 1974, he had to congratulate me on my maiden speech which dealt with fencing and hedgerows. I do not think that he will do the same this evening. Indeed, I am sorry to say that I cannot recall my noble friend ever congratulating me again since that time. Nevertheless, hope springs eternal.
I hope that I will not embarrass my noble friend and I also hope that he will not be too irate with me but, as your Lordships may realise, this is his last appearance on the Front Bench. After all these years—and, as noble Lords know, I have known him for quite a time—perhaps I may say how much I shall miss him. In fact, more than that, I should stress how much all of us will miss him. Apart from being an excellent Minister who listens, my noble friend has a very strong sense of humour; indeed, I have often cried with laughter at his replies to stupid questions, some of which I fear may have come from me.
I have but three questions to ask my noble friend the Minister before he giggles again. First, will the guidance notes which are to accompany the regulations be consulted on very soon and be in place by 1st June? Secondly, will those who apply to remove a hedgerow have to pay a fee? Thirdly, if a hedgerow becomes an important hedgerow, does it incur a land charge?
As my noble friend said, I know about the struggle that the Government experience when trying to get any form of agreement between the various parties. There is little love lost between certain so-called "countryside organisations", many farmers and landowners—that, of course, includes me. Therefore I congratulate the Government on managing to issue the regulations and for bringing the organisations, farmers and landowners together. I also congratulate them on meeting the guidelines laid down by Parliament in the Environment Act 1995, much as I wish they had not been laid down.
I take the view that we should have the absolute minimum of regulation in the countryside. I also take the view that those who live and work in the countryside should be allowed as free a hand as possible. However, these regulations do the opposite. Sadly the majority do not have the privilege of working in the country. As we
1172
are a democracy, I have to listen and obey the rules laid down by Parliament, although I may find some of them to be stupid. I believe and hope that paragraph 5(b) will enable a reasonable and rational discussion to take place that will allow the economic case for the removal of a hedgerow to be considered. I wish my noble friend well.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be relieved to know that I have no intention whatsoever of talking about hedgerows as there is no one less qualified than I to do so. However, it is my understanding that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is proposing to retire from the Front Bench, whatever the result of the election. As one who has faced him across the Table from the other Dispatch Box on many occasions, I wish to pay tribute to him for all the work he has done for his party but even more for the House as a whole.
I was going to say that the noble Earl has always been courteous, but he has not actually; he is quite capable of being very rude indeed, and indeed being personally rude on occasion. However, he gets away with it because he has a wonderful aura of authority which he carries around with him and which is the subject of great admiration on all sides of the House. He has been a most distinguished servant of the House and of his party. We wish him well in whatever he chooses to do.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I associate myself totally with everything that has been said about my noble friend, who is also almost my neighbour. However, I wish to say a few words about hedgerows. I declare two interests: one as chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, and, secondly, as a Suffolk fanner.
I suppose in declaring the second interest I should also say one or two things about hedgerows. First, in my early days of farming I behaved in rather a vandalistic way and took out hedgerows. I now much regret having done that. That was 25 years ago. Since that time I have tried to replace them. I have planted a large number of them and they have done extremely well. The only reason for saying that is that I think it shows that sinners can be brought to repentance in these matters.
I know the difficulties which my noble friend and my right honourable friend have had in bringing forward this legislation, which has been controversial. However, I believe that much of the controversy which inhibited my noble friend and our right honourable friend from bringing forward legislation which I should have liked to have been able to welcome wholeheartedly has been the idea that the conflicts between farming and the land-owning interests, on the one side, and the conservation interests, on the other, cannot be reconciled. I think that is a misapprehension. I believe that it is perfectly possible to farm economically, profitably, sensibly and in an environmentally acceptable way. Furthermore, I believe there are increasing numbers of farmers who are farming in that way, so the trend is in the right direction.
In fact most of the damage that has been done to our landscape in the past has not been done by ordinary working farmers. In the early 1970s it became

1173
fashionable for institutional investors to buy land for which they paid absurd prices. They did so because it was fashionable to have land in their portfolios. They would then set targets for a rate of return on the land which meant that the managers they employed to achieve the rate of return massacred the landscape. That was tragic and it is much regretted by all of us.
Of course I welcome the fact that there are some regulations because there is a big difference between having some and having none, but I cannot say that they make an awful lot of sense as they are drafted at the moment. They have some good aspects. I shall mention first the good aspects. The fact that parish councils are to be consulted is a big plus. I hope very much that active parish councils will take a close interest—using this legislation and their right to be consulted—in urging local authorities to scrutinise the applications, which in general there will have to be, for the destruction of hedgerows.
However, as has been pointed out by the noble Baroness opposite, unfortunately only a small proportion of hedgerows are covered by the legislation. It astonishes me that the regulations refer to hedgerows which have existed for 30 years or more. However, young hedgerows are every bit as important and often—as my own newly planted hedgerows have been—have been planted with public money. It seems to me quite wrong to frame regulations for the protection of hedgerows which do not prevent the destruction of hedgerows, for which the taxpayer has helped to pay. That does not make sense to me.
I do not understand the penalties for illegally pulling up hedgerows. The maximum fine for defying a pre-preservation order is £20,000. The maximum fine for illegally and wilfully taking out a hedgerow which is protected is only £5,000. I simply do not understand that. The important point is that hedgerows are a crucial part of the landscape of this country. We cannot afford to make the landscape less attractive for our children and our children's children. Although the intention behind these regulations is moving in the right direction—and I would even go as far as to say that my right honourable friend's heart is in the right place, although I suspect I risk a tremendous reproof for saying that, and perhaps my noble friend's heart is also in the right place—the regulations are disappointing. I hope that whoever wins the election—obviously I hope very much it will be my party—will have another look at these regulations and will ensure that they are made much more satisfactory in terms of achieving the objectives which I believe we all share.
Earl Peel: My Lords, at the outset I had no intention of making any comment on these regulations, which I welcome. However, having heard today that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will no longer speak from the Front Bench, I wish to add to the tribute which has already been paid to him. I describe myself as an ordinary Conservative Back-Bencher who has been involved with environmental matters, and thus I am closely connected with the interests of my noble friend. I wish to pay tribute to the enormous care he has taken in listening to
1174
what those on his Back-Benches have said to him over the years. I am sure he would be the first to agree that he has not always listened as closely as perhaps we would have liked, but he has always shown a great deal of interest in what we have had to say—sometimes that has been fruitful and sometimes it has not. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the considerable interest that he has shown in the concerns that have been expressed from these Benches.
I suppose I had to look for an excuse to comment on the regulations. My excuse runs something along these lines. Whereas I broadly welcome the regulations, hedgerows in themselves are not necessarily a conduit for wildlife. Hedgerows must be properly managed. I wonder whether there will be guidelines or some sort of encouragement for people to look after hedgerows in a constructive fashion. I hope this question is not a "fast ball" because I would not wish our relationship to end on that note. But what sort of assurances can he give the House that hedgerows will not only exist—I welcome that—but will be managed properly?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for what your Lordships have said about these regulations, and for the kind remarks by my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I crossed swords periodically on a number of occasions when I had the privilege of being in the Home Office. I always enjoyed those occasions. If I may say so, the noble Lord always treated me totally fairly, straightforwardly and courteously, even if at times it was savagely. I am grateful to him for that. I look forward to seeing him sitting on those Benches again—and having the same problems as he has had recently. I watched the noble Lord deal with my noble friend Lady Blatch. I have never forgotten the courtesy that he displayed to me. I am grateful to him for that and for his kind words.
The noble Lord said that I had an air of authority. I did not know that. One does not know these things. I sometimes think that if one brought a skunk into the room, everyone would know it because a skunk gives off an awful smell; but the skunk does not know that because it is natural to him. All I can say is that I am not aware of all these wonderful things that the noble Lord said. I think that it is a figment of his imagination. I am sure that he would not say it at two o'clock in the afternoon.
Dare I come to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton? The noble Baroness was deeply disappointed. My goodness, my Lords! She does not realise how lucky she is to have these regulations. They appeared like a whale out of the water yesterday afternoon. No one thought that they would appear. It was thought that they were lost down the pipe as a result of the forthcoming general election. But they have come. And what does the noble Baroness say? She says, "We are deeply disappointed. They only cover 10 per cent". The noble Baroness has not done her homework properly: the regulations will cover 20 per cent. She said, "There is no encouragement for maintaining the hedges". My goodness me, my Lords—what does the noble Baroness want? Does she want to pay people grants to maintain the hedges?

1175
The noble Baroness said that there is no support for young hedgerows. As I explained to her, 400 more miles of hedgerows are planted than are grubbed up. I do not see why we have to encourage that support. Then she said that there are only four weeks for the local authorities to give their views. The noble Baroness is wrong on that: there are six weeks. If she cared to read all 25 pages of the regulations she would understand a little more about them.
My noble friend Lord Stanley did not declare an interest! He is a farmer. I bet that he has grubbed out some hedges in his time; but he did not say anything about that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, he said that I had congratulated him on his maiden speech. But we all make errors of judgment. The noble Lord has never stopped talking since, and after some of the comments he has made subsequently, I might have been more modest in my congratulations. However, he has been a great and loyal supporter of the Conservative Party and in your Lordships' House that is a good thing. He, too, said some nice words to which I listened with pleasure. He said—I regarded it as a great compliment—that sometimes he had listened to my answers to some of the stupid questions that I was asked and cried with laughter. And then he asked me three stupid questions. He might just as well start crying with laughter now because I shall give him the answers to them.
The noble Lord kindly let me know the questions that he would ask. First, will the guidance notes accompany the regulations and will they be consulted on very soon? The answer is yes, that is the intention. Secondly, will those who apply to remove the hedgerow have to pay a fee? The answer is no. Thirdly, if a hedgerow becomes an important hedgerow does it incur a land charge? The answer to that is no.
My noble friend Lord Peel said that he did not wart to end a relationship on a sour note. But no relationship is ended. Nothing from my noble friend would ever be on a sour note. I have forgotten the question that he asked. All I have written down is "hedgerows". I presume that he asked a question on hedgerows. I shall read Hansard and ensure that he has a reply.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford is sitting there, the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I was not quite certain whether he welcomed the regulations. He said that my heart was in the right place. Of course it is in the right place—he should know that. He said that he had made some mistakes when he was young. The only trouble is that he continues to make them and he has no regrets. Then he made an absurd suggestion. He asked why on earth should hedgerows be allowed to be pulled out after having been planted only 30 years because they had been planted with public money. Of course they have not been planted with public money. Farmers who have planted hedgerows have had the benefit of grants, as they have had for a number of things. If my noble friend suggests that any hedge ever planted must stay there sacrosanct, he has much to consider and understand.
1176
But the thing that really distresses me about my noble friend is that there he is, the head of this great institution, badgering on that we must have hedgerow regulations. He has been running around like a headless chicken asking, "When are we going to have these regulations?" Now we have produced them. And what does the Council for the Protection of Rural England say? I shall tell your Lordships. The council issued a press release. And what was the press release headed? It is headed,
"CPRE slates hedgerows S.I.".
I quote the council's own press release. It states:
"CPRE has slammed the statutory instrument … for protecting 'important' hedgerows which the Government laid before Parliament today…Sir Angus Stirling, Chairman of CPRE's Policy Committee said:
'These regulations are almost worse than having no regulations at all'."
Yet my noble friend Lord Marlesford runs around saying, "We must have these regulations". And when we produce them that is all that his council can say. I just wish that his council and his chairman spoke with a single tongue. My noble friend has some odd ideas. He said that he would rather have nuclear reactors in the countryside than wind farms. Whether that represents the views of the CPRE, I do not know. But the CPRE and my noble friend seem to walk out of step with each other. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has gone out of his way to meet the views of the CPRE and others. I think that they might have given him more acclamation than that.
Having said that, my noble friend lives close to me. I know him well. I am delighted to see him smiling away. I hope that he will talk to me after this. But I think he talks a lot of rubbish sometimes and this evening was one such time.
I am grateful for the enthusiastic welcome that your Lordships have given to these hedgerow regulations. I commend the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adjournment
9.7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I wish to say the customary word of thanks to all those who have worked so hard to ensure the efficient running of your Lordships' House throughout this Session, and indeed throughout this Parliament. It has been only a few weeks since Christmas and this Session has been shorter than a normal Session. However, I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that everyone has worked extremely hard, particularly in the past few weeks, to ensure the orderly completion of business in this House.
As always, I do not wish to draw particular attention to any specific individuals or groups of staff since to do so would run the risk of failing to name some key individual or group. My thanks are to all the staff of this House. Seen and unseen, they do so much to make your Lordships' lives as bearable and pleasant as possible in

1177
and around the House. I am sure that the Whole House will join with me in wishing all of the staff a peaceful and happy Prorogation and Dissolution Recess.
I also wish to use this opportunity to thank the other members of the usual channels for the spirit of co-operation which has, almost without exception, been the rule throughout this Session. It is an extraordinary tribute to this House that we can, even under conditions of great political excitement, continue to proceed by way of agreement in arranging our business. The result is that your Lordships' House is able to scrutinise legislation in a calm and efficient atmosphere—and long may that continue!
Perhaps I may say just one word which may break all sorts of conventions and refer to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. The House will have seen that he has announced his retirement at the general election. On behalf of the Government at this Dispatch Box I should like to thank him for the tremendous years of service and for the hours that he has sat on the Woolsack, always patient, always clear in his instructions and always kind and generous to his colleagues on the Front Bench.
Tributes have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, while I am on my feet and seeing that they are in the Chamber, perhaps I may also mention my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord Goschen, who have also announced their retirement at the general election.
As for the Opposition, they have had plenty of practice over the course of the past 18 years to become good at it. I hope that the Whole House agrees that in the course of the past few years they have become extremely good at it. It is my wish that, when we return in May, they shall remain practising that art of Opposition while we remain in government.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, it falls to his very inadequate substitute to say that we on these Benches wish to associate ourselves most warmly with all the remarks made by the Government Chief Whip—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Except the last ones!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: —except the last ones! Like him, I should find it invidious to name any names because I, too, know from bitter experience that, however many individuals are thanked, there is always that one who is inadvertently omitted and who will never, ever forgive the omitter for the rest of his life.
Even though I am a substitute for the Government Chief Whip—
Noble Lords: Opposition Chief Whip!
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I must not anticipate matters!
1178
When I received the order that I should carry out this agreeable task, I did not realise that I was in for one of the greatest comic performances I have ever heard at the Dispatch Box by that master of comic performances, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I mean this quite sincerely. For a short time in my past I was a professional actor. However, I have never heard anybody time the remarks that he makes better than the noble Earl. I have sat in admiration on many occasions and wished that he could teach me how he does it.
I shall make one small change to what I just said about not mentioning anybody in particular. Perhaps I may thank and pay special tribute to all the attendants in your Lordships' Chamber, the Doorkeepers, who want your notes when you have finished with them and fail to see you waving vital communications when they are looking straight at you, and who rebuke with a terrible severity any noble Lord who trespasses unbeknown on some arcane rule, convention or practice of this House. They can be at times a terrifying group. John Donne, in one of his satires, refers to, "the great eight-foot high iron-bound serving men"—which fits nearly all of them since "Jumper" Collins retired. They all look like and resemble in so many ways regimental sergeant majors in the Brigade of Guards. However, as they get to know you, and if you behave yourself in a proper fashion and do pass their test, you become a sort of "persona grata", rather like the young second lieutenant who is looked on in a grandfatherly way by the regimental sergeant major as a young fellow who might one of these days make something of himself.
I agree with the Government Chief Whip that the usual channels have, fortunately, flowed unblocked in this Parliament. I say nothing of what has passed through those channels—but it has been of great assistance to organic farming and we should have a bumper crop next year!
Finally, and bearing in mind the verbal punch-up which seems to have taken place earlier today in another place and which surprised me, I thank all noble Lords on behalf of all of us on these Benches for the good relationships, good taste and good humour that xas almost always characterised our debates and deliberations.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, briefly, on behalf of these crowded Benches behind me, I wish to associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I know nothing about the usual channels, and never have, either in another place or here. They remain a total mystery to me. However, what I do know is that, mysterious as they are, they certainly have wonders to perform, and particularly in this House. We owe a great debt to the usual channels for the way in which on all sides of the House they manage to serve the House so well.
I join also in the tributes to all the servants of the House in every possible capacity.
Perhaps I might also be allowed a personal word of admiration and respect for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have perhaps some particular personal reasons to value his very high qualities. But

1179
what has impressed me about him is that, as a senior member of the Government, he has managed to steer some major legislation through from the Woolsack—sometimes rather controversial legislation—and has always managed to do it in a serene and calm way. I can only pay him what I always regard as the great Scottish compliment: in all the troubles of the work and the duties he has had to undertake, he has continually maintained a calm sough.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if my noble friend the Chief Whip can suspect himself of breaking the unwritten rules of your Lordships' House, surely I as a humble Back-Bencher can do the same. I believe that my fellow Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen would, like me, wish to pay a tribute, on this last occasion when it is possible for any of us to speak in this Parliament, to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Noble Lords will remember that the law is the true embodiment of everything that is excellent. He has embodied the law for a number of years, both in his distinguished position as Lord Chancellor and before that as Lord Advocate, when he will remember that he dug me out of a personal hole on an energy Bill, which I think was the first Bill that I had the honour to put before your Lordships. He has honoured us, the Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen, in an extremely generous way, from whichever party, or none, from which we have emerged, and we are all extremely grateful to him personally.
Baroness Wharton: We on these Benches also wish to be associated with the expressions of gratitude to the staff who look after us so well, not only those whom we see on a daily basis and who are so unfailingly helpful to us, but also those behind the scenes whom we seldom see and without whom the place would probably grind to a halt. On behalf of the Cross-Benchers, we thank them all.
1180
Finally, we should like to say thank you to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his courtesy to us from the Woolsack. We too wish him well in his retirement. We have an added suggestion: perhaps he would like to join us on these Benches!

Crime (Sentences) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Education Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Police (Insurance of Voluntary Assistants) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment agreed to.
Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Public Entertainments Licences (Drugs Misuse) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past nine o'clock.