Sitting of 11 June 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Orders of the Day
  Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered
  Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill
    New Clause 1

      AVAILABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL BANNING ORDER IN RESPECT OF UNCONVICTED PERSONS
      '(1)An application for an order under section 1 of this Act may be made by a relevant authority if it appears to the authority, in relation to any person, that making the order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with designated football matches.
      (2) In this section "relevant authority" means any chief officer of police.
      (3) Where an order is made under this section, the court may, if it thinks fit, impose such conditions in the order as may be imposed where an order is made in respect of a person who has been convicted of a relevant offence.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      9.34 am
      Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Availability of domestic football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons—
      '(1) An application for an order under section 6 of this Act may be made by a relevant authority if it appears to the authority, in relation to any person, that making the order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with prescribed football matches.
      (2) In this section "relevant authority" means any chief officer of police.'.
      Amendment No. 33, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, after `offence', insert
      `or to which an application has been made under section (Availability of international football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      Amendment No. 34, in page 1, line 18, after `accused', insert
      `or to the person who is the subject of an application under section (Availability of international football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      Amendment No. 35, in page 1, line 23, after `accused', insert
      `or to the person who is the subject of an application under section (Availability of international football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      886
      Amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 5, after `conditionally', insert '; or
      (c) following an application under section (Availability of international football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      Amendment No. 37, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
      '(1C) Subject to subsection (3) and section 17 below, an international football banning order has effect in relation to a person who is the subject of an application made under section (Availability of international football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons) for a period determined by the court making the order—
      (a) which begins with the date of the making of the order;
      (b) which is not longer than 3 years; and
      (c) which is not shorter than six months.'.
      Amendment No. 38, in clause 6, page 7, line 24, after `applies', insert
      `or to which an application has been made under section (Availability of domestic football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      Amendment No. 39, in page 7, line 34, after `accused', insert
      `or to the person who is the subject of an application under section (Availability of domestic football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      Amendment No. 40, in page 7, line 39, after `accused', insert
      `or to the person who is the subject of an application under section (Availability of domestic football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      Amendment No. 41, in page 8, line 2, after `conditionally', insert & or
      (c) following an application under section (Availability of domestic football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons).'.
      Amendment No. 42, in clause 8, page 9, line 12, after `years', insert
      `, except in respect of persons who are the subject of an application under section (Availability of domestic football banning order in respect of unconvicted persons), in which case the period shall be not less than six months nor more than two years.'.
      Mr. Maclean: This is an important group of new clauses and amendments. New clauses 1 and 2 seek to bring into legislative effect the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on Second Reading. The Bill has not been amended much in Committee. However, it relates entirely to those who have been convicted of offences. The clause concerning international football banning orders relates to those who have been convicted, as does the clause on domestic banning orders.
      As was said extensively on Second Reading, there might be a great many people whom football intelligence officers, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and chief police officers know to be dedicated troublemakers who can be violent, but who have not been convicted of an offence.
      I intend to explain why it is important to explore the possibility of including that group, and I am keen to hear the reaction of the Government. I do not intend to force the new clause to a vote, but it is worth exploring, as the Bill—which does some good things—could leave some serious gaps. With the Euro 2000 championships coming up, it is important that we do not have gaps in legislation.

      887
      I am conscious that making the changes that I am suggesting may unsettle or destabilise the Bill. I am conscious also that the new clause probably has not been thoroughly drafted, but it is not a bad attempt. However, certain technical amendments might be necessary if the new clause were to be accepted.
      The Bill deals with convicted people. Bolting on a new clause—even one which is in order—concerning unconvicted people may destabilise the thrust of the Bill. It may be better in due course for the Government to propose separate legislation—or, if they wish, to propose a series of new clauses in the other place to frame in legislation the intended purpose of the new clause.
      The amendments grouped with the new clauses are consequential. Both new clauses propose to do the same thing, essentially. New clause 1 relates to international banning orders, and refers to
      "any chief officer of police".
      I am happy to accept under that description chief constables, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police—who is not technically a chief police officer, but a civilian appointment—and the director-general of NCIS, who is a chief officer of police rank. It is important that the director-general of NCIS be included, as NCIS ran the football intelligence unit and is spearheading the effort against violence perpetrated by hooligans in this country and overseas. The new clause would include also the Commissioner of the City of London police.
      I want to give those officers the power to apply the measure in relation to "any person". I must use that phraseology, because I mean "any person"—including those who have not necessarily been convicted of a relevant offence. That would include all those whom the officers suspected, because of evidence or intelligence, of being involved in football hooliganism or violence, or indecent chanting or racist abuse at matches—the troublemakers whom they are currently monitoring—as well as those who had been taken to court but not convicted. I will say more later about the civil liberties implications, which may worry some people of a more sensitive disposition.
      The power would appear to be draconian, but an order would not be imposed merely on the say-so of a chief officer; he would have to apply to the court. The new clause does not specify what level of evidence would be necessary to satisfy the court. It may be difficult to determine what level of evidence would be appropriate to secure an order without jeopardising police operations.
      A similar proposal was in the Government's consultation paper on football-related legislation. The Minister said in Committee that she was interested in the concept, but that the Bill might not offer the right opportunity and the Government might want to explore the idea further at a later stage. The proposal was dropped after consultation because it aroused considerable controversy.
      Some of the respondents were concerned about what would constitute sufficient evidence and others were concerned that courts might be presented with hearsay evidence. I do not rate that point very highly because that danger exists at present and the court would always rule such evidence out of order. It is up to the court whether
      888
      it believes a police officer who says that he saw someone doing something. In the case of an unconvicted person, the evidence presented might not be enough to gain a conviction but it might satisfy the court that the person had committed some acts that merited the imposition of a domestic or international banning order.
      I am more concerned about the risk of intelligence information being compromised, although I am sure that we can get round that. We will not go into the details of how NCIS operates. I would not go further than its press release on its football intelligence unit and the operation of its local football intelligence officers in each force. All one can say is that it is highly effective.
      It was my experience during Euro 96 that the intelligence-run policing operation conducted by all police forces and co-ordinated by the Met was absolutely superb. Many people—some of them, sadly, from my own patch, north of Penrith, in Carlisle—got tooled up, got into their minibus, set off to have a good ruckus and were very much surprised when they were intercepted along the route by the police and the pickaxe handles, knives, chains and bottles were taken off them and they were locked up.
      The same expression of surprise was seen on the faces of miscellaneous foreign supporters who boarded planes, got to Heathrow, passed through customs and immigration and then were intercepted by the police because of the football intelligence work of overseas police officers attached to the co-ordination unit at the Met and NCIS. Intelligence-led policing works. We were able to deport those foreign hooligans immediately as well as prevent our domestic ones from getting to matches. The fact that they were detained in cells overnight and could not get to matches was highly effective.
      9.45 am
      Such intelligence-led policing depends on the knowledge of NCIS and local police officers of who the troublemakers are. The new clause is designed to build on that operation and allow us, rather than merely detaining the hooligans in a cell overnight or questioning them for a few hours so that they miss the match, to go one step further and present information to a court, perhaps with video evidence.
      I am conscious that presenting video evidence to a court could compromise intelligence, so it must be left to the police and NCIS to decide how much evidence to give, taking into account the risk that if they do not give the court sufficient information—if all they have are rumours, gut reaction or a bobby's instinct—they will not get the banning order. We do not need to prescribe too much detail in legislation.
      I do not see too great a risk of intelligence being compromised. I would leave it to the good sense of the police to keep their intelligence sources intact, as there are much more valuable gains to be had in the long run with convictions of some of the nastiest hooligans, which must be a more pressing concern than gaining a banning order against one individual.
      The new clause has aroused some concerns about the scope for civil actions against the police on the grounds of their presenting uncorroborated information to the court. Certainly, that is a risk. It is possible that people may claim to have been defamed by the police. If the police have laid information before the court about an innocent

      889
      member of the public–innocent in the sense both of the person being unconvicted and of the information being wrong–there would of course be scope for action, but it would not be any greater than the present scope for action against the police on a whole range of, in my opinion, bogus issues. The number of law suits against the police is rocketing. It has become the newest and juiciest racket for getting money from the state. A group of lawyers has no doubt moved on from medical negligence cases to action against the police.
      Probably the greatest concern is about civil liberties, and some of my more sensitive colleagues may want to speak about that. I have not had unanimous, wholehearted supported from them for the new clause, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford will want to support me this morning.
      Some of my hon. Friends may say that the new clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They may think that it is disproportionate to the mischief being created, and that we would be passing draconian measures in providing that some people who have not been convicted of an offence may be banned from travelling overseas, or may be subject to a whole host of sanctions imposed by the courts.
      Subsection (3) would allow those sanctions. It states:
      "Where an order is made under this section, the court may, if it thinks fit, impose such conditions in the order as may be imposed where an order is made in respect of a person who has been convicted of a relevant offence."
      My new clause would give the courts the right to impose the same range of penalties and restrictions—including passport removal—on those who have not been convicted as they may already impose on those who have been convicted.
      I appreciate the civil liberties concerns about such a provision, but we should remember that—thank goodness—we are not dealing with hundreds of thousands of people. Although I am not arguing that it is acceptable to remove the civil liberties of even one person, the fact is that we are dealing with a few hundred or—at the very most—a few thousand dangerous hooligans, whose civil liberties will not be removed on the whim of a police officer or a chief police officer. Their civil liberties would simply be restricted on the basis of evidence presented to the court that they would be a danger and might cause violence if they were to go to a football match. The courts would be able to decide whether to grant an order, and what conditions to impose. I do not think that such restrictions are extremely draconian.
      Restricting someone's freedom of movement and travel is, of course, a potentially severe measure. I should therefore be very keen to hear the Minister's views on whether my proposals—or an amended version of them—would satisfy the requirements of the European convention on human rights. I realise that—as the Government have not seriously contemplated including my new clause in the Bill today—the Minister may not have taken legal advice on its compliance with the ECHR. However, if she has a view on whether we may be on dangerous ground in relation to the ECHR, the House would be interested to hear it. Nevertheless, I think that it should be possible for a court to restrict someone's freedom of movement and travel within the European Union without falling foul of the ECHR.
      My proposals are not totally new or off the wall, as there are some precedents for imposing an order in cases in which an offence has not been committed. Anti-social
      890
      behaviour orders, for example—which were introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—allow a court to impose any prohibitions considered necessary to protect persons in the local area.
      Incidentally, during that Act's passage, the official Opposition tabled an amendment to introduce football behaviour orders in cases in which a person had acted in such a way as reasonably to give cause to believe that an order was necessary to prevent him from disturbing good order at any designated football match outside the United Kingdom, or during the period before or after any designated football match. The amendment was not pressed to a Division—as some of my colleagues were merely testing the water—and was withdrawn.
      I am, therefore, not on entirely new ground in suggesting that it is appropriate to go to a court to obtain an order restricting the freedom of movement of an individual who has not been convicted of an offence in cases in which there is evidence suggesting that the person is a troublemaker or likely to commit violence.
      As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not go on for too much longer. I merely wish to draw attention to some of the NCIS statistics on football violence and disorder, some of which were quoted on Second Reading. The NCIS view on the matter is very important. In its December 1998 press release, NCIS said:
      "The National Criminal Intelligence Service today warned that they were becoming increasingly concerned about the number of incidents of football hooliganism being reported by their football section and by the network of FIOs"—
      football intelligence officers.
      Bryan Drew went on to say:
      "Although it is too early to say that the overall downward trend for football-related arrest figures over the past five years is being reversed, the signs are not encouraging."
      He was referring to the fact that, although the overall figures for football-related offences and convictions had been dropping, he had noticed that there were more arrests for the more violent football-related offences of affray, violent disorder and missile throwing. He said that those had
      "shown a marked increase over the previous season."
      Bryan Drew continued:
      "This season, the ugly face of football hooliganism has continued to make its unwelcome presence felt. The numbers of people involved remain comparatively small, but it is hard core, well organised and hellbent on causing mayhem. It is using football matches as a cover for its criminal activities."
      Mr. Drew went on to talk about the fact that, although incidents of violence were declining inside the grounds, they were increasing outside or away from them.
      On Second Reading, when I stated that statistics showed about 1,000 arrests for football-related violence, Labour Members made the point that that number could be only the tip of the iceberg. I accept that, usually, the majority of those committing a crime are not arrested and convicted. So it is quite possible that many hardcore football hooligans have not been arrested by police, or that, if they have been, the evidence was not sufficient to obtain a conviction or—under clauses 1 or 6 of the Bill—a banning order.
      My new clause would permit police, in limited circumstances, to take action against those other well-known offenders—whom every Opposition Member

      891
      talks about; they know who they are—who regularly follow football matches and foment violence, but manage to be on the back line when police move in to make arrests. The police have information and video evidence on those people. In many cases, police may have sufficient evidence to convince a court—in the terms of my new clause, although they may not have enough evidence to obtain a conviction—that the liberty of those people should be restricted.
      New clause 1 is worthy of an airing, and I should be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford has to say about it. I was very interested in his comments, some time ago, on the potential for such a new clause. I should also be interested to hear why he has resiled from the tough stance that he proposed taking on such a provision. I am sure that he wants as many of these hooligans locked up—or at least prevented from causing trouble overseas, ruining the good name of Chelmsford and other parts of the United Kingdom—as I do.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford says:
      "For far too long, a small minority of mindless, moronic football hooligans have besmirched the reputation of football in this country and dragged the game into the gutter by their anti-social behaviour."
      My hon. Friend knows the rest of his press release. He was suggesting taking tough action to deal with those people.
      I hope that, today, my hon. Friend will tell me that tough action will indeed be taken. If he cannot accept my new clause, I hope that he will he go away and—as he has been working very closely with the Minister, as his press release states—perhaps by the time the Bill goes to another place, propose similar new clauses. As he is keen on Government legislation, perhaps next year he could even promote an entirely new Bill to implement similar measures. Nevertheless, I am keen to hear why he has decided that it is no longer appropriate to include such a provision in his Bill.
      Mr. Simon Burns: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on his new clauses and the way in which he spoke to them. I have much sympathy with many of his comments. He mentioned some earlier comments of mine and I make no bones about the fact that when I announced that I would introduce the Bill, in late December, I had hoped to be able to include provisions to give powers to the courts, in certain circumstances and under certain controls, to place international and domestic banning orders on people unconvicted in a British court but who the police and courts have reasonable grounds to believe would commit an offence if they travelled to a football match.
      10 am
      Clearly, such a power could not be used willy-nilly to settle scores, to undertake round-ups or to bring hundreds of people before the courts. It would have to be used with great responsibility, because—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said—it raises civil liberties issues. However, the police and NCIS know of a number of people who are determined to cause misery
      892
      and suffering to pursue their own agendas and to benefit from crime under cover of the crowds associated with football matches. In many ways, the organisers of such activities have escaped action in the courts and it is the thugs on the ground who have been charged with offences—the same problem arises with drug-related offences.
      In those circumstances, I thought it might be right to include a provision in the Bill to give the police an opportunity to make a case to the courts for them to determine whether there were reasonable grounds, in exceptional circumstances, to restrict the attendance of unconvicted individuals at football matches. The provision would have included opportunities for the individuals to attend the court and make the case for their innocence. If the courts were not convinced and believed that the authorities had presented a compelling case, the individuals would have a right of appeal. In that way, safeguards would have been in place.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, precedents exist in English law for such provisions, and he cited the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I mentioned on Second Reading the powers relating to individuals on bail and, in exceptional circumstances, to those involved in difficult child custody cases. The courts already have, and use, similar powers.
      In the past two years, the Conservative party has become a listening party, and I believe that that is commendable. It is time politicians were prepared to listen, because we do not always have all the answers to all the issues. I listened carefully on Second Reading to several speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. They were supportive of the Bill, but they expressed strong concerns about the powers we have been discussing. I have also met several outside organisations and listened to their concerns about those powers.
      Mr. Maclean: Am I right in thinking that the Football Association has said that the powers would be helpful?
      Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend is right, and I did not wish to give the impression that every organisation associated with or interested in football is against the powers. Indeed, I would like to see those powers on the statute book in some shape or form so that the police and the courts have another weapon in their armoury to combat the problem of football hooliganism. However, I am also a realist, and as I thought more about this highly contentious issue, I came to the conclusion that it would be more sensible not to pursue it via a private Member's Bill.
      In effect, the new clauses would give the courts the power to impose a penalty on unconvicted individuals if their background leads the courts to believe that they might commit acts of violence or other forms of hooliganism. Denying the right of freedom of movement to an individual is so serious that I believe that it should be done by Government legislation rather than through a private Member's Bill. It gives me no pleasure to say that, because I would like the authorities to have those powers alongside the other powers in the Bill.
      The Minister made it clear in Committee that she and her hon. Friends support the principle behind the powers in the new clauses and I hope that the Government will seek to include them in criminal justice legislation as soon

      893
      as possible. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said, last year the Opposition sought to introduce a similar proposal on Report to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, although we did not push the matter to a Division.
      I am afraid that I cannot support the new clauses today for the reasons that I have given, but I hope that the Government will introduce their own similar legislation when parliamentary time permits. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, in the light of my comments, will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Tony Clarke: I shall be brief. I welcome the acceptance by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) that the matter is complicated and that the proof of the Bill would be in its implementation, not in what is said about it here. I agree that the courts may find it difficult to decide whether an offence had been committed and, if so, whether it was football related. Such matters, and others, were discussed in Committee.
      However, I wish to challenge the assumption, made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), that there is an upsurge in hooliganism in the domestic game. He used the phrase "tip of the iceberg", and talked about the serious offences of affray, violence and missile throwing. The increase in arrests for those offences has nothing to do with a resurgence of football violence and hooliganism, but stems from our greater ability to deal with such problems.
      For example, the introduction of closed circuit television has been probably the most important step forward in combating hooliganism. The offences of affray, violence and missile throwing are readily detected on CCTV, which means that courts and authorities are able to take action.
      Mr. Maclean: In the pursuit of brevity, it is possible that I did not make myself clear. I accept that the number of arrests has fallen over the past five years and that there is not a great upsurge in violence. However, I was quoting a Labour Member who said on Second Reading that the people who are arrested are always the tip of the iceberg and that many others commit violence but are not arrested. That was the only point that I wanted to make. Bryan Drew of NCIS has said also that although the number of those arrested is declining, the proportion of more violent offences is rising.
      Mr. Clarke: I accept that explanation, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill is not about violence in the domestic game. It is a tidying-up measure, dealing with issues such as racism and the behaviour of English fans abroad. Legislation to tackle such problems is needed.

      I accept the view of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford that a private Member's Bill may not be the way forward. However, I hope that we can continue this debate in the spirit of trying to iron out the difficulties, so that when the Government propose measures, perhaps in a Criminal Justice Bill, there will be total support in the House for dealing with the few remaining hooligans who are responsible for the lingering disrespect for Britain in Europe. Those hooligans arouse nothing but disgust among true football fans.
      10.13 am
      Mr. Eric Forth: It is perhaps surprising that this debate has attracted so little attention among hon. Members. More than many others, it goes to the heart of the difficult balance that Parliament has to strike, in what we regard as a free society, between the powers given to the authorities and the historic freedoms for individuals that we guard so jealously.
      I regret that I part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) over the new clause. I do that rarely, but am obliged to do so on this occasion. New clause 1 would alter the balance that I have described in a completely unacceptable way. I cannot understand why so few hon. Members are in the Chamber this morning, given that it will be left to this thinly attended House to determine that balance, as it would be affected by the new clause and the associated amendments.
      One of the most fundamental rights of our citizenry over many centuries is that a person who has not been convicted of an offence is regarded as innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. That right is the subject of the new clause. It was implied in the comments made so far that the law and society are in a weak position with regard to wicked people seeking to act in a way that we find distressing or unacceptable.
      However, we already have legislation on the statute book such as the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc.) Act 1985, the Public Order Act 1986, the Football Spectators (No. 2) Act 1989, the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as well as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border have referred. Given that list, and the other provisions in this Bill, one would have thought that the cumulative effect would be that the authorities had sufficient powers to deal with people whose behaviour is deemed to be unacceptable. Yet my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is not content. He wants to alter, in a very significant way, the balance between the power given to the authorities and the rights of individuals. The new clause and the associated amendments go much further than I should have thought conscionable for anyone.
      With his typical openness and frankness, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford has told us that, even though some similar provision remained part of his thinking, he had accepted on Second Reading and in subsequent conversations and consultations that the proposal did not have the necessary support. I agree. I rather regret that my hon. Friend has urged the Government to introduce similar measures and I hope that the Government, too, will perform a listening exercise among their Back Benchers.
      10.15 am
      My hon. Friend stated in a press release that he was considering the approach embodied in the new clause and that he intended to raise the matter in Committee. On Second Reading, however, Government Back-Bench Members broadly in favour of the Bill and with a long-standing interest in such matters expressed their reservations and indicated that they would not be able to support this measure. Given that background, I was

      895
      surprised when my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border brought the new clause back for consideration today.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was in listening mode when he took account of those Labour Members who said that he should not include measures such as those embodied in the new clause. Similarly, on Second Reading I was persuaded by him that there was some merit in the proposal, which is why I decided to table the new clause for consideration today.
      Mr. Forth: I accept, of course, my right hon. Friend's explanation, which renders irrelevant my earlier suspicion that, having served with such distinction in the Home Office for so long, he had approached the matter with what I can only describe as a Home Office mentality. In other words, I was concerned that his instinct was that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the authorities rather than to the individual, rather than the other way around. That would not normally be typical of my right hon. Friend, but I assumed that his long and distinguished Home Office experience must have contributed to his tabling of the new clause, although that is a matter for him and not for me.
      However, the new clause is before us. I contend that it would affect one of our most fundamental and cherished rights for individuals, which we have guarded through the centuries. It is an irony that Britain, through organisations such as the United Nations and the Council of Europe, has hectored, lectured, guided and inspired other countries to adopt our approach to individual liberties and civil rights, which we have said have great importance for us. Those of us who travel to other legislatures, in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, know that legislators and members of the judiciary in those countries consider individual rights and civil liberties to be of key importance at the end of the 20th century. We can take much of the credit for that, although our American friends might say they had something to do with it, and I would not argue with that. It must surely be inappropriate to challenge our liberties as the new clause does.
      In his excellent exposition, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said that when he first decided, at the Committee stage, to add the new clause to the Bill, he wished to reassure us that the power would be used not willy-nilly, but responsibly. Such siren words are often used. We are told, "Don't worry, folks—these huge, draconian powers will be used responsibly. Trust the authorities and all will be well."
      We have heard that sort of thing time and again down the centuries and across the globe from people who wish to encroach on individual liberties, and my hon. Friend is at it again. Do not worry, he tells us: were there any such prospect of that—I was glad to hear that he accepts that there might be, even if he is urging the Government to consider the new clause—the authorities would use the power responsibly, and we could all sleep in our beds at night without being bothered.
      896
      I do not find that reassuring. That is not the likely outcome of my hon. Friend's exercise. Surely the onus must be on those who seek to alter the balance to reassure individual members of society that they will be protected. That is the whole point of our judiciary procedures, and I thought that it was also the point of the European convention on human rights. I do not support that convention, and I mention it only because I have to accept that it exists and that we have gone a long way towards incorporating it in our law. I regret that.
      Given, however, that the nation and the House of Commons are committed to the convention, I doubt whether the Bill would survive scrutiny by those who believe in the convention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border skipped over that point, and I can understand why. I should not use the convention as a principled argument against the Bill because I did not advocate its incorporation into our law, but incorporation has happened and the convention is therefore relevant.
      Mr. Maclean: I was not going to mention the convention, although I may return to it later. My right hon. Friend has cast doubt on some of the intelligence gathered by NCIS. May I persuade him in its favour by using the powerful words of Pierre Picone, the divisional commissioner in the Parisian football intelligence centre? Commenting on the world cup in 1998, he described British police intelligence as accurate, thorough and diligent. Georges Querry, the French security co-ordinator, said that the intelligence had been exceptional. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will find their words powerful and persuasive.
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend should know me better than to quote foreigners at me. I rarely find them persuasive. I shall certainly take no lessons on civil liberties and individual rights from anyone from France. Anyone who has seen the CRS in operation will know that French respect for individual liberties is, to say the least, scant. I am not impressed by my right hon. Friend when he tells me that some Frenchman in authority is trying to reassure me, him or anyone that things will be all right. If anything, my right hon. Friend reinforces my doubts. Yet again, we are hearing someone in uniform telling us not to worry because these enormous powers will be used with great discretion. It matters not whether that is said in French, English or any other language. I simply cannot accept it.
      I see the drift of where Bills such as this are taking us. I feel no happier about the new clause than, to be frank, I did about some of the things that my own Government did over the years. It is quite wrong for legislators to argue that it is increasingly justifiable to use the powers of the Executive to reassure the mass of people that individuals will be restricted. That easy and seductive argument has been used to justify many things, but our attitude historically has been that the individual should be given the benefit of the doubt until due process has demonstrated that he should not.

      That principle seems to be slipping away. Increasingly, we are told that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the authorities and to society rather than to individuals, and the reassurances that we have heard this morning are used to justify that drift. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford originally argued—and has only half

      897
      back-tracked from that argument today—that we should not worry because the Bill would be dealt with by the courts. We are supposed to be hugely reassured by that, but recent events in the judiciary lead me to doubt it.
      My hon. Friend also said that there would be a right of appeal, but I do not know whether he was right. I see no reference to a right of appeal in the new clause. Does he assume that there will be such a right, or is it to be provided in some other way? Even if it exists, a right of appeal will merely worsen the peculiar position in which someone who has not been convicted of any offence can be dragged before the courts and put through a distressing process. That person is supposed to be reassured because he or she will have a right of appeal, but I do not find that reassuring. I shall not go into all the ramifications of the availability of legal aid or proper defence representation.
      Mr. Maclean: I believe that my right hon. Friend supported the legislation on protection from harassment which I introduced. That twin-track legislation created a new criminal offence and provided new civil powers, under which someone alleged to be harassing anyone in any way could be dragged before the courts so that an injunction or banning order could be made. My right hon. Friend was an avid supporter of that legislation, and I was very grateful to him.
      Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is untypically wrong. He will recall that, as a member of the Government in which he and I served, I was bound by collective responsibility. I was faced with the classic dilemma of those who serve in the foothills of Government, as I did for many years. In considering a Bill such as that introduced by my right hon. Friend, I had to decide whether to be bound by collective responsibility and to support it or to resign from the Government. No doubt I struggled with my conscience, but it would appear that I decided, on reflection, to remain in the Government, to lend reluctant support to my right hon. Friend's Bill and to continue to play my modest role. That is my recollection of what happened. My right hon. Friend's characterisation of my avid support of his measure is not how I remember it.
      Mr. Maclean: Having listened to my right hon. Friend for all these years, I cannot believe that he would have put the prospect of advancement before the freedom of the individual.
      Mr. Forth: As it happens, I did not get much advancement. I would characterise my prospects as those of survival rather than advancement. Perhaps my right hon. Friend and I can meet later to reminisce over our period in the foothills of Government and the constraints that came with it.
      I am not persuaded by the argument that individuals are protected because the matter will be dealt with by the courts, although that does provide the reassurance of due process and judicial protection. Nor was I reassured when my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said that there would be a right of appeal. Individuals are to be pulled in by the authorities and put through a harrowing judicial process—I shall challenge the process later—with a rather undefined right of appeal, to which the Bill does not refer.
      898
      10.30 am
      Fortuitously, that brings us to one of the main thrusts of my right hon. Friend's argument. He went on and on about something called NCIS, in which he seems to have enormous faith. I do not know much about that body. The more I hear of it, the more it sounds like a shadowy, sinister body of people. I do not know whether they are in uniform, what constraints are on them, or within which statutory framework they operate; but the more I hear of them the more worried I become.
      I hear more and more about covert surveillance and people being picked up in car parks and whistled off here and there. My right hon. Friend seems to think that that is all good stuff. His period in the Home Office seems to have assured him that if such a body is prying into what is going on in citizens' lives and picking those individuals up and whisking them off into custody, we should all be reassured. I am not sure that I am. I would be even less reassured if I thought that if the new clause were accepted, that sinister group, which no doubt has the enormous resources that such groups always have these days, could pick up people who have not been convicted of any offence but are simply suspected or accused of doing something or being minded to do it. That is what my right hon. Friend seems to be saying.
      That brings us to another crucial part of what is being suggested. From what my right hon. Friend has said, it appears that people will not necessarily have had to do something. This sinister body, NCIS, has simply to believe or have reason to believe that people are minded to, or are going to, commit an offence. That would be sufficient to whistle them off, deprive them of their liberty and put them through some harrowing court procedure.
      Mr. Burns: I am a little concerned about my right hon. Friend's use of the word "sinister". The work that NCIS does to advance the cause of law and order is tremendous. Will he be reassured by the fact that it was the Government in which he, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and I all served that set the body up, presumably through primary legislation which he supported at the time?
      Mr. Forth: The more I hear, the more I worry about what went on in the Home Office over the past 18 years or so. It is funny that I should say this, but if I had been a Back Bencher between 1988 and 1997, I might well not have supported a lot of this nonsense that I now learn that Government were enacting. I was constrained by collective responsibility and therefore obliged to support the legislation.
      I am not at all certain whether I would have supported the creation of that body. In a gesture of friendship to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, I will not use the epithet "sinister"—I will think of a more appropriate one in the next few minutes. However, it is a fact that I am unaware of what it does, as are most people, and yet there it is, working away quietly and secretly, allegedly on our behalf. Nevertheless, it appears to have wide powers.
      My point, which is surely key to the new clause, is that my right hon. Friend seems to suggest that, having carried out its surveillance, gone to these car parks and done what it does there, all that NCIS needs to do is to satisfy itself that an individual member of society may be minded to

      899
      commit some act related to football. That will be sufficient for that person to be deprived of his or her liberty and whisked off to a judicial process in a court. I will refer to the other authorities mentioned in the new clause in a moment, as I accept that they have a role to play as well—this is a multi-stage process.
      How quickly or even whether the individual would have access to a court is another matter, as is the question of whether they would be held in custody for an undefined period before they had access to the judicial process. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has given that matter sufficient thought and whether he can provide any assurances that the individual, having been deprived of his or her liberties on more or less flimsy grounds, would at least have the reassurance of having the case considered promptly rather than having to wait, or what is worse, being incarcerated for any period of time. My right hon. Friend did not mention that and I do not know whether it is in his power, or even that of the Minister, to reassure me. At the least, there is an area of doubt about which we should be extremely concerned.
      My right hon. Friend said that we should not be too worried and he listed some extremely important people who would be involved and whom he obviously thought we could trust implicitly. He mentioned chief constables and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as coming within the definition of relevant authorities in the new clause. It states:
      "any chief officer of police".
      However, he spoiled the whole thing because he swept into his definition someone called the director-general of NCIS. The difficulty is that it is one thing for us to give a proper role—a discretionary role or role of judgment—to chief constables and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, as we traditionally do and have done for many years in statute, but it is quite another to go a stage further and to give such a role to this shadowy figure, the director-general of NCIS, of whom I had not heard until now, although obviously I should have done.
      I do not know where that person comes from, what his or her statutory authority is, or anything of the kind; nor do I know what constraints are on the director-general of the type that we are increasingly placing on chief constables—the new Greater London Assembly will have an important role in the part played by the police in Greater London, as the Minister well knows. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can reassure me.
      Mr. Maclean: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with his new computer facility, will soon be surfing on hyperspace. Then, he will find all the NCIS press releases and information about Mr. Bryan Drew, the director-general of NCIS. Nevertheless, the important point is that NCIS now has the same statutory basis as an ordinary police authority under the Police Act 1997—another wonderfully libertarian piece of legislation that I had the pleasure to put through the House. That Act created a service authority too. Therefore, the director-general is in the same position as a chief constable, with an elected service authority to give the democratic accountability element.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has set my mind at ease, but only within the limited terms
      900
      in which I asked the question. Perhaps he has slightly restored my confidence in the Home Office during the term of office of the Government in whom I served and in some of the legislation in which he played a distinguished part. He has given me some confidence.
      We have established, and it has usefully been placed on the record, which demonstrates the value of this little debate, that the director-general of NCIS—we now even know his name—is, slightly reassuringly, subject to the same accountabilities and constraints as are placed on the other authorities. However, the director-general is not mentioned in my right hon. Friend's new clause. Therefore, if we mistakenly agree to it, which I hope we will not, I am not sure that merely because my right hon. Friend has said so the director-general would be included in subsection (2), which states:
      "In this section, 'relevant authority' means any chief officer of police".
      I suspect not. That may be one of the defects to which my right hon. Friend, with his typical candour, referred during his opening remarks on his new clause.
      Were the House to accept new clause 1, that point may have to be reconsidered in another place. I do not want to quibble on technicalities—we try to avoid that and debate, as I am doing, the substance of issues—but we have already found a flaw. We have flushed out what may be a serious lacuna in the drafting which would have to be corrected were we, mistakenly, to proceed with it.
      The court access that may or may not be available in this encroachment on individual liberties must be considered. What if the relevant authority was not immediately available to make a judgment? The covert operations, following surveillance operations by NCIS, have swept people from the car park and whisked them off in a black van to some dank cell—but it is all right because a relevant authority will quickly consider the matter and decide whether to pass it to the courts. What if the relevant authority is not available?
      Mr. Maclean rose—
      Mr. Forth: I want my right hon. Friend to listen. I think that he is going to reassure me again, but I want to put this on record. What if the chief constable or director-general of NCIS were at an important conference on civil liberties? What if they were abroad boasting about how Britain had a sacred regard for civil liberties? If they were, I hope that they would admit to what NCIS was getting up to. I suspect that my right hon. Friend is going to bail me out again.
      Mr. Maclean: It will be a source of deep regret to my right hon. Friend, but we no longer have any dank cells. They are too warm and cosy for his liking. The term "chief officers" should encompass deputy and assistant chief constables, all of whom are of Association of Chief Police Officers rank.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is time for me to assist the House. The debate is going far too wide in dealing with the issues raised in new clause 1 on international banning orders. New clause 1 is about whether such orders should be extended to unconvicted persons.
      Mr. Forth: I was merely querying a term in the new clause, but I shall not trespass further on your good will, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      901
      Apparently not unreasonably, subsection (3) states:
      "the court may, if it thinks fit, impose such conditions in the order as may be imposed where an order is made in respect of a person who has been convicted of a relevant offence".
      This is the crux of the matter. I do not blame my right hon. Friend for this because it was how he had cleverly to construct new clause 1, but it is not obvious from the wording that unconvicted persons can have their freedoms and liberties restricted. We must consider carefully not only new clause 1, but new clause 2 and the consequential amendments Nos. 33 to 42 to get a full sense of what subsection (3) really means: someone who has not been convicted of any offence in our judicial process can nevertheless be made subject to an order restricting his liberties. Never mind all the objections that I have briefly outlined, this is where I part company from my right hon. Friend. I stand firmly by the view that unless someone has been properly convicted through our judicial process, we should not be able to take such measures.
      10.45 am
      Later, we will discuss other important provisions concerning the removal of passports, which I find equally threatening, but here we are discussing a simple principle. I cannot agree with my right hon. Friend's approach. I am unhappy with his mechanisms for dealing with the matter. I am unhappy about the role of NCIS and of the chief officers, whom we now learn can be almost anyone in the bizarre world of the Home Office. I am unhappy about the lack of reassurance in respect of court proceedings and the alleged right of appeal, which appears nowhere in the new clause.
      I am even more unhappy about my core objection. I was half relieved when my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said that he does not support new clause 1, but I was appalled when he went on to urge the Government to introduce a Bill of their own to do it, but we will leave the fight for another day. I hope that the Minister will be more reassuring and remember what her Back Benchers said on Second Reading. I hope that she will not be persuaded by my hon. Friend; we will find out soon. I vigorously oppose new clause 1, as I hope the Minister will.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will reconsider, cast to one side his distinguished service in the Home Office, and reflect on the matter in a fresh light as an even more distinguished Opposition Back Bencher. I hope that he is aware of the importance of individual liberties as against those authorities in whose company he moves so effortlessly. I hope that he will think again and that we do not have to divide the House on the matter.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who has previously dealt with this matter for the Opposition, unfortunately cannot be here, so I stand in his place.
      This debate is important because we are not merely debating the addition of a short new clause to a short Bill: we are considering a vital principle of the operation of the civil law. My right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) have highlighted the difficulty of achieving the right balance between the freedom of the individual and the necessity of protecting innocent bystanders. That is what the criminal law is all about.
      902
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on his carefully balanced presentation. I am delighted that he has been listening. I agree that the Bill is better as it is, without new clause 1.
      We had an excellent consideration of the principles in the debate between my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—a debate that was unusual as my right hon. Friends normally agree with each other. In taking the argument carefully to pieces and reconstructing it, they have quite properly—as is the duty of the House—given us the chance to consider the principle before us, as did the hon. Member for Northampton, South, who also spoke well.
      The Opposition do not disagree in principle about what we are all trying to achieve in the Bill. We are all trying to achieve a better regulation of football supporters' behaviour and to give the right amount of power to the police and other authorities so that they can deal with hooliganism in football grounds and in connection with football games. We all want to achieve the same thing for the great sport of football at which our countries—I stress the plural—are so good on the world and the European stage. It is such a shame that, often, the achievements on the pitch are diminished and besmirched by what happens off the pitch. The Opposition therefore have no disagreement with the measure in principle.
      There has been some confusion about the similarity between the provisions of this Bill and those in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 relating to ASBOs—for the uninitiated, ASBOs are antisocial behaviour orders and are a vital part of the 1998 Act. ASBOs restrict freedom without a criminal conviction, but they cannot be imposed without resort to the civil court. An ASBO can be imposed only after a legal hearing, whereas the provisions of the new clause would result in a much more summary administration of justice. It is not correct to argue that the effect of the new clause would be similar to the imposition of ASBOs. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister agrees with that point. ASBOs do not go quite so far in administering summary justice as the new clause would.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford that the Opposition would welcome further discussion of that matter, if the Government want to pursue it in a future Bill, as they have indicated that they might. I conclude by pointing out again that what we are trying to achieve is the important balance between the liberty of the individual and the protection of the public. That is a fine balance, but I strongly believe that it is the duty of the House always to protect first the freedom of the individual. The Opposition support the Bill as it stands.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): This has been a most interesting and enjoyable hour and a half. I thank the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for tabling the new clause. We spent much time on Second Reading discussing the issues that it raises, even though they were not specifically included in the Bill. Those issues were also discussed in Committee, although not in relation to a particular clause. We have now considered a specific clause and the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having given us that opportunity to discuss the important question of how we deal with

      903
      football hooliganism committed by people against whom it is not possible to use the normal court proceedings. On Second Reading and in Committee, we were aware that there were several serious concerns about such measures; they were also expressed in response to the football consultation document, "Review of Football Related Legislation", to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
      The document considered the introduction of tougher ways to deal with unconvicted hooligans. The response to the public consultation exercise was mixed and demonstrated serious concern about introducing bans without prior conviction. We have discussed the matter with the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and have taken into account the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House and of respondents to the public consultation exercise. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) pointed out, in all legislation we must strike a balance between the civil liberties of the individual and those of the general public.
      We must also take into account the practical and operational concerns about how the measures proposed in the new clause would work. The obtaining of such an order would rely exclusively on the quality of intelligence and information put before the court by the police and the prosecutor. In presenting that information, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border pointed out, the police may be required to compromise their intelligence-gathering mechanisms, including information on informants. We may not like informants, but in reality, they can sometimes play an important role in combating crime—especially organised crime.
      I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seems to know so little about the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It is an important organisation, which carries out a wide range of work combating criminal activity—especially organised crime. Its headquarters are in my constituency—a few minutes' walk from the House—and I am sure that, if John Abbott, the director-general, is fortunate enough to read the account of this debate, he will want to invite the right hon. Gentleman to visit NCIS. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said, anyone who sees what NCIS is doing will not fail to be impressed. The service operates in a statutory framework; it is accountable and is required to report to a service authority. It may further reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to know that the chairman of that service authority is a former Member of the House, Sir John Wheeler. I hope I have reassured the right hon. Gentleman that NCIS is not a sinister organisation, but a most important one.
      Clearly, it would be an operational decision for chief officers whether to acquire the evidence required to stop an unconvicted hooligan travelling abroad. We are also concerned that some overseas jurisdictions may look to this proposed new power as a means by which they can deport suspected offenders from their country without prosecution, on the basis that when such people returned to this country they would be liable to action in the courts here. The right hon. Gentleman will remember how annoying it was to see people behaving appallingly in European countries and being instantly sent back here. We wanted those countries to take people to court and we are
      904
      co-operating with other European countries so that that can be done. We want to continue to encourage the jurisdictions in which the offence has been committed to use the due process of law in that country to seek convictions. It was most disturbing to see footage of people behaving violently, and to know that the next day they would be sent back to this country—probably free—and that we could do nothing about it.
      We should also consider the position of information gathered in a foreign jurisdiction and the ability to make use of it in a court in this country. At present, the taking of video material is subject to privacy laws in some countries and those laws place restrictions on the use of such material. There are difficult, practical problems as to how we obtain the evidence in order to convict hooligans through the judicial system.
      The Bill, as it is constituted at present, would introduce a range of measures to strengthen and improve the existing banning process and its effective enforcement. If those measures are introduced, they will have a significant effect. They will make a difference, by increasing the number of banning orders while sending out a strong preventive message. We clearly have to monitor the effectiveness of the Bill—if it is passed—in terms of offences committed and the number of orders. We need to be in possession of that information before we can further consider the significant new powers proposed in the new clause.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst may well be right to say that we shall have to revisit this debate in future, and it is possible that we will need those extra powers. However, given that the Bill's existing provisions command the support of so many people, we must wait and see how they work in practice.
      11 am
      Mr. Forth: Does the Minister share my reservations about the speed of access to the court procedure that might be available, were the approach she has set out to be taken? She acknowledges that that question might have to be re-examined, so I am putting down a marker as much as anything else. However efficient NCIS may or may not be, and however accessible the chief constable and all the other people mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) may or may not be, unless access to the court process is quickly available, we run the risk of seriously encroaching on people's liberties without their ever having been convicted of anything.
      Kate Hoey: The right hon. Gentleman is right. If the Bill had been proposed as a Government measure, such assurances, checks and balances would have to be carefully considered and speed of access ensured. However, the Bill is not a Government Bill, although we are supporting it wholeheartedly, and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford has made his views known on the subject.
      We need time to monitor how the additional powers to deal with convicted hooligans that the Bill will give when enacted work in practice. There is cross-party concern that we should do all that we can to prevent known hooligans from going about their activities freely. There is support both within the House and outside for ensuring that such people cannot travel abroad, which is why we inserted

      905
      provisions dealing with the removal of passports. We do not want our country's name to be besmirched by the disgraceful incidents that have been witnessed over the past few years.
      I acknowledge the sentiment behind the amendments and have some sympathy with them. We shall discuss with the Opposition and all interested parties what further action can be taken in the light of monitoring the effectiveness of the Bill. However, the amendments do not command the universal support that the Bill's other provisions command, and to insert contentious provisions into a private Member's Bill presents greater difficulties. Although that is not in itself a reason not to proceed—sometimes it is necessary to do things that substantial numbers of people dislike—the success of football legislation relies on a vast range of factors, including policing, intelligence, effective stewarding, closed circuit television, safer and more comfortable grounds and effective ticketing policies. Most importantly, it also relies on the support of those who are affected—the football supporters.
      The provisions of the Bill as it stands have achieved widespread support. Including the amendments at this time, without the detailed consideration that I have mentioned, would be likely, at best, to reduce confidence in the legislation and, at worst, to alienate the very people whose support we need in order to combat hooliganism. For those reasons, and in the light of the assurance that we shall keep the legislation under review, I hope that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Maclean: This has been an important debate and it has been quite contentious at times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right: it is a pity that on such an occasion, when we are making important amendments to the criminal law, the House is not packed with some of our great parliamentarians from both sides indulging in a debate on the freedom of the individual and civil liberties.
      I have listened carefully to the speeches made. There are a few key points on which I wish to reassure my right hon. Friend and a few comments I wish to make on the Minister's speech before I decide whether to withdraw the new clause. For the sake of brevity, and so that I did not stray too far out of order, I did not explain fully what NCIS was and what it did. I apologise for my arrogance: having worked with NCIS when I was a Minister at the Home Office, I assumed that everybody knew what the acronym stood for. It stands for National Criminal Intelligence Service—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not need to explain that to the House—it has all been done before.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall give my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst a briefing on NCIS later, or he can tune in to its website and read the information there. As for an invitation to visit, if NCIS is as sinister as he believes it to be, I do not think that he will need to ask for an invitation, for the second he steps outside the door of the House, he will be swept off the street, taken to a dark cell and briefed by John Abbott himself. But NCIS is not a sinister organisation.
      906
      I did not specifically mention NCIS in the new clause, because I did not think that I had to. I took the view that the phrase "chief officer of police" includes the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police and the head of NCIS, who has to be of chief officer rank before taking that post.
      Mr. Forth: Can my right hon. Friend and the Minister guarantee that, were I to go anywhere near NCIS, I would have immunity?
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend has not committed any offence under the terms of this legislation and he is not suspected of being a violent hooligan or of causing disorder, nor do I believe him to be suspected of committing any of the other crimes with which NCIS concerns itself—drug dealing, terrorism and paedophilia. Therefore, I believe that he is safe.
      Kate Hoey: It might be worth clarifying the question of the term "chief officer of police". That category includes chief constables, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and the City Commissioner, but it does not include the director-general of NCIS, even though he is of similar status. In practice, NCIS passes intelligence to chief officers of police. It does not initiate prosecutions itself, so the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is quite safe.
      Mr. Maclean: That was an extremely helpful clarification of that part of my clause. Even though the term "chief officer of police" in my new clause does not include the director-general of NCIS, there would be no glaring lacuna in the law, because NCIS would pass on the information and act as an intelligence-gathering body for the whole British police service, and local chief officers would then use the powers designated in my new clause to go to the court. Unless my right hon. Friend has any other specific concerns about NCIS, I do not propose to make further reference to it.
      My right hon. Friend was concerned about balance. It is a serious matter to extend the criminal law to curtail the freedom of movement of individuals who have not been convicted of an offence, but similar powers already exist in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That Act allows people—men or women—to go to court to obtain an injunction to prevent someone from hanging around outside their flat, even though that person is doing nothing but hanging around, when they feel threatened or harassed by that person in those circumstances. The principle before us is similar.
      If we can build into our legislation the principle that someone can be prevented from phoning another person, sending that person flowers, or hanging around outside that person's flat, surely it is no greater step to provide that, when the police apprehend that there may be violence and disorder and the courts conclude that that is so, a person may be prevented from travelling to a venue to commit that violence or disorder.
      Mr. Forth: I am beginning to suspect my right hon. Friend of being a closet Marxist. He appears to be talking about irreversibility and inevitability, saying that, because we have done something before, we can do it again now. Has he not considered the possibility that what we did before can be proved to have been wrong, or that we got

      907
      the balance wrong on that occasion? Surely my right hon. Friend does not believe that it is adequate to argue that, because we have done something before, it must be all right to do it now?
      Mr. Maclean: I am not making that point. I am not following the Marxist supremacy of law point that I learned and forgot about 30 years ago. My point is simply that there is a precedent: the proposal does not break new ground. In fact, the measure is in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which refers to disorderly and disruptive children. I am not saying that we should extend the measure to this legislation because we have done so before.
      There is potential for extending the measure to deal with problems of violence and disorder. The figures are decreasing: the arrest rate has fallen to 13.4 per 100,000 spectators in the past year, compared with 15.7 in the previous season. In 1997–98, arrests totalled 3,307, compared with 3,577 in 1996–97. Although the total has decreased—there were 1,000 drink-related arrests, 500 arrests for disorderly behaviour and about 300 for threatening behaviour—the numbers of violent disorder and affray offences, at 65 and 52, is double those of the previous season. Although the number of offences overall continues to decrease—many of the offences are minor, including drink-related offences and breaches of exclusion orders—the nasty offences, such as violent disorder or racial or indecent chanting, have increased. The police have pointed out that the figures show that football hooliganism at home is continuing to decline. Criminal intelligence—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House extends to the proposer of a new clause the privilege to speak a second time in order to allow him to reply to the debate. The right hon. Gentleman should not make his arguments all over again.
      Mr. Maclean: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to respond to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I had better not try to respond to all of them. I clearly may not be able to persuade him to my point of view. I am not saying that, because few people will be affected, it does not matter if we deprive them of their civil liberties.
      Mr. Tony Clarke: 1 do not wish to get the right hon. Gentleman in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I refer him to his comments about the increasing number of arrests for racial and verbal abuse. Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the vast number of football supporters in this country who are responsible for bringing about those arrests? People are less tolerant of racism and fascism at our football grounds, and supporters are making stewards aware of unacceptable behaviour. That has led to an increase in the number of arrests.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Because the number of arrests has decreased and football grounds have become safer, people no longer expect to attend matches and have cans thrown at them. They expect to attend football matches with their families,
      908
      as rugby spectators have been able to do for 100 years. Football supporters are now less tolerant of that sort of behaviour.
      Nevertheless, there was a small increase, from 10 to 33, in the number of people arrested for racial or indecent chanting. The police have said vociferously in their press releases that, while they are concerned about that increase in hard core offences, the number of offences has declined in relation to the number of people attending football matches. That figure has increased dramatically, yet the overall arrest rate has fallen. That means that more decent, honest people and fewer hooligans are attending football matches.
      My new clause seeks to deal with the small number of hard core supporters to whom the police continually refer. As with any criminal activity—terrorism and so on—the hard core offenders hide behind those in the front line and foment violence and disorder, but they are not convicted.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now repeating himself. He is using almost exactly the same language as he used in his opening speech, and I am not prepared to accept that.
      Mr. Maclean: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led slightly astray by the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke).
      A further point relates to the European convention on human rights, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested the new clause could fall foul. I do not think that it will. As I suspect the Minister is not seriously contemplating enacting the measure, she will not yet have checked with the ECHR provisions. However, if something has judicial approval and is to go before a court, I think we may be satisfied on ECHR grounds.
      Kate Hoey: I mentioned this matter on Second Reading. We are satisfied at present that the measures outlined in the review document in respect of unconvicted persons would not, in principle, be in breach of the ECHR or the EC treaty, provided that sufficient safeguards were in place. However, if we were to pursue the measures, we would have to ensure that they complied fully with all our international obligations.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister. That is the best possible answer that my right hon. Friend could receive. I do not need to elaborate on it one iota as it responds fully to my right hon. Friend's concerns—
      Mr. Forth: Except that, if this measure were to be compatible with the ECHR, it would confirm my view that the ECHR is pretty useless.
      Mr. Maclean: I may agree with that point of view on many occasions—indeed, I may agree with it now. However, my right hon. Friend objected to my new clause on the basis that it could fall foul of the ECHR. The Minister says that it will not, and it is not adequate for my right hon. Friend to respond by saying, "Well, the ECHR is rubbish".
      The Minister touched on a crucial point concerning evidence. The police may not wish to go to the court and seek a banning order if they do not have sufficient

      909
      evidence, or if their evidence is based on information from informants or on the release of other information. However, that point does not work against my new clause because the police might be in that position at present. Because they can secure a conviction only by revealing a valuable source of information or intelligence, the police may decide in a variety of cases—including football-related cases—to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to drop the case. That happens on rare occasions—we may not know about them—and it will be no different in future. If the only way of persuading the court to grant a banning order—either domestically or internationally—is by revealing certain information to the court, and therefore to the accused, the police may decide that, because such evidence could not be provided in camera or in private, it is not worth the candle and they will not proceed. I do not think it destroys my new clause to acknowledge that the police will not pursue a conviction in some cases. That is a judgment for them.
      My right hon. Friend—who is not officially learned yet—referred to the speed of access to the court process. The police will be seeking banning orders. They will not sweep people off the streets, as my right hon. Friend suggested, and keep them in cells for days before taking them to court. Even if there were no other provisions in the criminal law, it would be in the interests of the chief officer of police to sweep a hooligan off the street, to take him to court as soon as possible and secure a banning order. The offender could then be released back into the public domain, but he would not be able to travel to a particular football match.
      Mr. Forth: Does the chief officer—whoever that may be—have control over the speed of the court process? I believe there are two separate issues. It is one thing for the chief officer to enforce the provisions of the new clause and quite another to give the individual who is subject to this measure any reassurances about the extent to which the judicial process will be readily available to him.
      Mr. Maclean: Of course the chief officer cannot dictate when people will get to court. Nevertheless, those people are not kept in police detention for the whole time.
      Mr. Forth: Where are they?
      Mr. Maclean: They are at liberty.
      Mr. Forth: Are they in the car park?
      Mr. Maclean: If people are arrested in the car park and they have weapons of violence, they could be committing an offence, so they could be arrested and charged appropriately. The point about my new clause is that it seeks a banning order to stop people travelling overseas to a football match. It is not necessary for the police to keep them in permanent custody to achieve that, but it is in their interests to get the banning order and release the people into the public domain. They must then report into a police station, hand over their passport or comply with any conditions imposed by the court. My right hon. Friend need not be worried that access to justice would be too slow and that it would therefore deny individuals their liberty.
      910
      I have tried, with the new clause, to extend criminal law. I appreciate that I have suggested moving into an area that causes deep concern to some of my hon. Friends. The Minister is also concerned that there are loose ends, and she wants the current legislation to bed down before taking the step of introducing banning orders for people who have not yet been convicted of a criminal offence. Clearly, if I were to pursue the new clause to a vote, I would not have the unanimous approval of the House and, in any case, I would lose my customary partner teller.
      Bearing it in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has been persuaded by the Government to do a U-turn and that the Minister advises me not to pursue my new clause now—I greatly respect her opinion on a range of issues—I shall not do so, although it has been worth while airing the arguments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL BANNING ORDERS
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'the duty of' and insert 'available to'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.
      No. 1, in page 1, line 26, at end insert—
      '(2B) Where a court makes an international football banning order, it shall state in open court that it is satisfied that there are such reasonable grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2) above and give reasons why it is so satisfied.'.
      No. 22, in clause 5, page 6, line 31, leave out
      shall be under a duty to'
      and insert 'may'.
      No. 6, in page 6, line 40, at end insert—
      `(5B) Where a court makes an international football banning order, it shall state in open court that it is satisfied that there are such reasonable grounds as are mentioned in subsection (5) above and give reasons why it is so satisfied.'.
      No. 23, in clause 6, page 7, line 32, leave out 'the duty of and insert 'available to'.
      No. 7, in page 7, line 42, at end insert—
      '(3A) Where a court makes a domestic football banning order, it shall state in open court that it is satisfied that there are such reasonable grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2) and give reasons why it is so satisfied.'.
      Mr. Forth: The amendments take us into new but not entirely unrelated territory because the wording that I seek to amend is another attempt to curtail the traditional freedoms of the courts and the judicial process. The Bill says:
      "Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be the duty of the court to make an international football banning order in relation to the accused if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making the order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with designated football matches."
      In other words, the Bill gives a statutory instruction to a court to do something. That strikes me as a step too far.
      I have always understood that traditionally, in this country, we prefer the court to be given the maximum discretion to make its judgment in the light of the full

      911
      circumstances known to it at the time. It is not even for this House to seek to pre-empt what might happen in a court. The whole point of our judicial process and court proceedings is that the court will listen carefully to the arguments of both sides. It must then make several decisions, the first of which is whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. The next is concerned with sentencing. In doing that, the court will have to take into account all the circumstances made known in the proceedings and, most obviously, decide whether there are any mitigating circumstances.
      The provision in the Bill therefore strikes me as peculiar, to say the least. I have always been uneasy about the Bill, but this sort of provision has made me even more uneasy. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) cannot be content with normal judicial proceedings. Instead, most uncharacteristically, he resorts to wording such as that in clause 1 and seeks to use his Bill as a vehicle to prescribe to the court what it will do. My hon. Friend cannot know what will happen in court.
      Mr. Tony Clarke: I do not want to destroy the right hon. Gentleman's argument so early in the debate, but does not he accept that all we are suggesting is that the court should have a duty—rather than a discretion, as at present—to consider imposing an international banning order? One of the problems in the game today is that many of our hooligans turn up at international fixtures abroad, irrespective of the fact that they have committed an offence and been charged and sentenced, but an international banning order was not imposed on them because the court failed to consider the possibility. All we are doing is requiring the court to consider those orders, rather than leaving that to its discretion.
      Mr. Forth: I can see the sense in what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I am interested in his argument. It might be worth reviewing the entire statute book to find out whether we can insert into every statute an obligation that the court should consider this, that or the other as an appropriate penalty. I am tempted by that prospect, although it is not a process that we would usually undertake.
      I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) catches your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because his experience is most apposite. He might be able to set this debate in the context of the efforts that I seem to recall the previous Government made to bring in minimum sentencing provisions. At that time, as a fellow member of the Government, I thought that the process was very dubious. Although I think that in many cases the actions of the courts are pretty weedy and wishy-washy, and I should be very tempted to bring back mandatory capital punishment for almost anything, I was constrained by another view, which prevailed on that occasion. I believe that, whether I like it or not, I have to respect the ability of the courts to use their proper discretion and judgment in the full knowledge of the circumstances at the time.
      Like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you must often meet constituents who have read a story in a newspaper and ask, "Why on earth did the court let the defendant off with such a ridiculously light sentence?" You may well
      912
      reply, as I do, "I do not know because I was not in the court at the time. I did not sit through the proceedings. I did not hear the evidence and I was unable to look at the accused and assess his or her demeanour. I was unable to take account of the full range of circumstances and regrettably, therefore, I cannot come to a judgment." I am always tempted to err on the side of harsh penalties, but I always resist that temptation. Clause 1 and amendment No. 10 take us into the same territory. We have to respect the court's judgment, given the knowledge that it has at the time.
      My next part of the argument is similar, and relates to our old friends "may" and "shall". Clause 1(2A) says:
      "Where the court has power to make an international football banning order in relation to the accused but does not do so, it shall state in open court that it is not satisfied that there are such reasonable grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2) above and give reasons why it is not satisfied."
      Again, a requirement in the Bill seeks to encroach on the discretion of the court. Surely such decisions must be left to the court's discretion, even if it is stated in open court that it is not satisfied. I can imagine circumstances in which the court might judge that it is not entirely appropriate, proper, fair or reasonable to state openly why it has reached one judgment or another.
      I should have thought that we should generally err on the side of openness. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford—typically, because he is an open sort of guy—has sought to include that openness in his Bill. All I am suggesting, however, is that my hon. Friend, in all his reasonableness, might accept that every now and then there might be circumstances in which such openness might not be appropriate. However, the Bill would not allow the courts to have that degree of discretion. That is why I am arguing that "shall" should be "may". I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford will see the sense in that, will return to his normal, reasonable demeanour in these matters and will allow the courts to have a degree of discretion.
      11.30 am
      The argument behind amendment No. 1 appears to go in the opposite direction. Interestingly, I might be about to argue against myself. The amendment reads:
      "Where a court makes an international football banning order, it shall state in open court that it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds as are mentioned in subsection (2) above and give reasons why it is so satisfied."
      I am beginning to have second thoughts. I am wondering whether I am breaching the principle that I have outlined. I do not want to spend excessive time on this matter, notwithstanding its importance, because there are many other important matters that we want to discuss. However, should we be introducing distinctions and saying that it would be justified to allow the courts discretion in one case but not in another? Against that background, I am inclined not to press amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend will recall that when we were drafting amendment No. 1 we took the view that we should copy the order set out in clause 1(2A). The clause contains "shall" and we used "shall" in the amendment. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) were willing to accept an amendment to clause 1(2A), to insert "may"

      913
      in place of "shall", it would be appropriate to have "may" in amendment No. 1. We were merely copying what was already in the Bill.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding me of why I did what I did. I am merely saying that we should be careful in this instance to ensure that we are as consistent as we can be. I am arguing, I hope consistently, that we should wherever possible give the courts—the judicial process—as much discretion and flexibility as possible. After all, the courts are fully aware of the circumstances at the time. The argument will have been advanced in the courts one way or the other.
      As I have said, we may not always agree with the courts, but we respect their judgment. I accept that, perhaps with some reluctance. However, I think that we should always respect the discretion of the courts and allow them to do what they think is appropriate. That is why I am puzzled—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford will be able to help us and so set my mind at rest—that the wording of the Bill is extremely prescriptive.
      I am anticipating what my hon. Friend might say, but we return to an earlier argument. It seems that the argument runs that we are dealing with such outrageous and heinous crimes and activities that we must take every possible action and make available every power to the courts, the authorities, chief officers of police and all those who are involved in the process, to reassure society that these matters will be dealt with properly. I understand that motivation.
      Anyone outside this place and any of our colleagues who are sadly not in their places today will read the title of the Bill, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, and think, "That is probably all right. It seems that it is a fairly minor measure." However, we have discovered that it is not a minor measure. In my hon. Friend's enthusiasm to deal with these matters in his apparently innocent and relatively restricted Bill, he has allowed to creep into it the sort of measures to which I have referred.
      I wonder whether my hon. Friend has consulted the representatives of the magistrates and those of the judiciary. Perhaps the Minister has taken the trouble to ask those to whom we give the responsibility to exercise their discretion in the judicial process whether they would welcome constraints being placed upon them, either now or in future.
      The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) made an interesting point to which we might return in future. He made the intriguing suggestion that perhaps whenever in future we are legislating in this way, we should outline in Bills the thoughts that we have collectively in this place on the sort of penalties that might be properly considered by the courts, or even provide them with a menu from which they could make selections. That would be breaking new ground but it might go part way to answering the problem to which I referred when constituents come to us to ask, "Why did not the courts do this, that or whatever?" We would be giving the courts a range of options. However, we are not in that business.
      I hope that I shall be given some explanations and reassurances, and some background that explains why my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford came up with the form of words that appears in the Bill, what he thought he would achieve, and whether he shares my
      914
      worry that we are doing something that we might live to regret, setting a precedent of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border seems suddenly to be so fond. I hope that we shall not hear, "We have done it before so it is all right." I would rather hear it said, if I may draft a speech for my right hon. Friend, that if we believe that the things done in the past were not correct or have had an adverse effect, we should have the openmindedness and flexibility to say, "That was not the proper way to do it. We have the balance wrong. We are encroaching too much on individual liberties and court discretion"—and on all the other areas of our tradition that I thought were sacrosanct and hallowed. It appears that they are no longer considered in that way.
      Some extremely important principles arise from this modest Bill, which contains some quite serious threats to the great traditions of our polity, our judicial process, our history and things in which we have taken such pride. I hope that I am not overstating the position, but I think that the amendment will give an opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, and perhaps the Minister, to tease out some of the arguments and to reassure me. I hope that I shall be reassured, and that is one of the objects of the amendment. If I am not, we may have to take a very serious look at these matters.
      Mr. Burns: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in ably speaking to this group of amendments, they fall broadly into two groups. If the House will allow me, I shall keep to those two groups. I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 23 and then deal with the points that arise from amendments Nos. 1, 6 and 7.
      In many ways, I am saddened to have to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that I am not attracted to the amendments. They go to the heart of the Bill and if they were to be accepted they would, to my mind, seriously undermine and undo what I consider is the good work of legislation in giving the authorities—the police and the courts—greater and enhanced powers to deal with those whom I have described before as a small, mindless group of moronic hooligans who cause such a problem.
      The effect of my right hon. Friend's first group of amendments within the group as a whole would be, as he rightly said, to remove the duty on courts to make an international and domestic banning order where a football-related offence has been committed, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the order would help to prevent violence and disorder at or in connection with future football matches.
      In effect, the amendments would give the courts a discretionary power to make such orders if the relevant conditions were fulfilled. I fear from the evidence that is available so far that the courts have been using their discretion in a wide way, in effect to dilute the laws that are currently in place, because of a reluctance to use a power that will have dramatic effects in preventing hooligans from attending matches and causing the problems from which this country and others have suffered far too much.
      For the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the latest figures that I have—I assume that they are still more or less correct because they go to 16 April—show that on 16 April, there were

      915
      113 international banning orders and about 400 domestic banning orders. If the amendments are used to reintroduce the discretionary power, that will seriously undermine the Bill's aim—which is to deal with the problem more effectively.
      Mr. Maclean: In my experience, if one tries to tie a court's hands in one area it will free them up in another. Even though clause 1(2) says that
      "it shall be the duty of the court to make an international football banning order",
      if the court does not like being tied to that, is there not a danger that it will conclude, "We were not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds"—thus giving itself an out in that sense?
      Mr. Burns: My right hon. Friend raises a valid point. It is difficult to give him a completely accurate and straightforward answer, because the matter is subjective. He may be correct in some circumstances, but I am not convinced that the courts would behave in that way.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst should not forget that although the courts have the freedom not to impose a banning order, if they do not use that power, they must give reasons why they have not done so. I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for a court to explain why it has decided not to exercise a power that it has under the law to impose a banning order.
      On amendments Nos. 1, 6 and 7, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that he might be arguing against himself. He was being slightly harsh on himself in that respect. However, it does seem contradictory—and unnecessary, over-regulatory and a burden on the courts—to impose on courts an obligation to state in open court why they are imposing a banning order. More often than not, when a person is sentenced, having been convicted of an offence, the judge or magistrate is more than ready to explain why they are imposing the sentence and why they consider it justified.
      My right hon. Friend hinted that he might not press these amendments, which suggests that I may be pushing at an open door. I believe that, on reflection, he of all people, given his excellent record of seeking to break down the over-burdensome regulation within the state, would feel that it would be unnecessary and unfair to burden courts, judges and magistrates with such an obligation.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is stretching it a bit too far. His Bill says that the court shall state in open court why it is not imposing an order. He then suggests that it is an over-burdensome new regulatory power to insert a similar power saying that the court shall state in open court why it is imposing an order. I do not think that that is as heavy a regulatory burden as he suggests. Judges are capable of giving their reasons very simply.
      Mr. Burns: In a way, my right hon. Friend is making my point, because I mentioned earlier that judges and magistrates, when imposing a punishment or sentencing someone who has been convicted, state their reasons for doing so. I consider that it would be burdensome and
      916
      nanny-statish to regularise into law something that is already common practice on, to all intents and purposes, a voluntary basis.
      I was seeking to explain to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that, given his reputation and his crusade to prevent individuals from being overburdened at the hands of the state, he may decide to follow his gut instinct not to press that set of amendments. I hope that, when he has had an opportunity to listen to the full debate, he will feel that, whereas it has been extremely useful and important to discuss the issue, it might be sensible not to press the amendments. I leave it in the capable hands of my right hon. Friend to take that decision at the appropriate time.
      11.45 am
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may have been persuaded by the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), but I have not been yet. This is a small but important group of amendments. As my right hon. Friend said, we are trying to restore the traditional discretion of the courts.
      I have a few years' experience of producing legislation in the Home Office, and any legislation that appeared to limit the discretion of the judiciary was always fought hard by it. I suspect that, unless we are willing to contemplate the amendments, when the Bill goes to another place later this afternoon, it may not be so satisfied with legislation that imposes a duty on a court to do something, and uses words such as
      "it shall state in open court"
      when it prefers discretion. I have not had a chance to consult the Magistrates Association yet, but usually, as a principle, it likes to ensure that any legislation imposing obligations on the court does not tie its hands, but gives it flexibility to impose whatever penalty it wishes beneath a maximum level. Usually, the association does not like minimum penalties. Magistrates like to have that freedom. It is a traditional freedom, and we have got into trouble when trying to limit that discretion.
      Clause 1(2) says:
      "Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be the duty of the court to make an international football banning order in relation to the accused if"
      the court
      "is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making the order would help to prevent violence"
      and so on. The danger is that when my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford has tied the court's hands in the first line,
      "it shall be the duty of the court"
      to make a banning order, in borderline cases where judges would have liked to have a discretion they will say, "We do not really want to make the order". Instead, they will rule that the evidence was not good enough and that they were not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for making an order. That is not a corruption of justice; it is an inevitable part of our human nature.
      Mr. Burns: May I put another scenario to my right hon. Friend? The courts may decide that the offence that the individual has committed is not serious enough to warrant a banning order, so, using their discretion,

      917
      they do not impose one. They then give their reasons and make the precise point that they do not consider that the offence was serious enough to warrant the issue of a banning order. Is not that the way around the problem that is exercising my right hon. Friend so much?
      Mr. Maclean: I do not think that it is. I take the subsection as it is presented in the Bill, and as my hon. Friend has proposed it. He needs to come up with a different form of words to ensure that, in all cases where the evidence is clear cut and any person in their right mind would impose a banning order, the courts would do so. He is trying to tie the courts' hands in a way that they will try to escape; they will use the second part of the clause to get out of imposing a banning order in those borderline cases. They will merely state that they were not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for imposing one.
      Mr. Burns: The proposal is that it should be the duty of the court to make an order if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making the order would help to prevent violence or disorder at designated football matches. If the court regards the offence of which the person has been convicted as relatively minor within that ambit, it may feel that the individual will not cause violence or disorder at a future match, and will not issue the order. The court will then give the reasons. That is perfectly reasonable.
      Mr. Maclean: It may be pedantic but my concern is that, by using the words "shall be the duty", my hon. Friend will increase the likelihood that the courts will use the excuse that the potential is negligible or that there are not reasonable grounds. Courts and magistrates do not like being tied strictly to an obligation to impose a particular sentence, because there will be borderline cases where they think that the sentence is not appropriate. The clause allows the court to deal with borderline cases, which cannot use a discretionary power, only by exaggerating the last part of the clause—by saying that it does not believe that the order will help to prevent violence or disorder, or that the grounds are not substantial.
      Mr. Tony Clarke: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we are simply trying to bring clarity to the decision-making process of the court? Does he further accept that the judiciary sometimes gets it wrong? Until December 1998, only three international banning orders had been made. That was in a year when we witnessed terrible scenes of trouble in France during the world cup, perpetrated by so-called England fans. Does not that prove that, so far, the judicial process has failed? The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is seeking to bring clarity by determining which offences would and would not warrant an international banning order.
      Mr. Maclean: I am always keen to have clarity in the law, and this House has, over the years, tried to bring clarity to the law. However, the proposal will not necessarily cause an increase in international banning orders, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If one wants to get a lot of people banned, there is no point in giving the court the power to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that making the order will prevent violence or disorder.
      918
      If a court decides that it is not entirely satisfied, it can say that although the individual concerned may have convictions for affray, hooliganism or violence, on this occasion it does not think that an order will help to prevent violence abroad. The court will not make the order because the person has not satisfied the reasonable grounds provision. Not all courts will behave like that in all circumstances, and the tightening of the law will mean that we can expect more banning orders.
      I am merely suggesting to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford that if one attempts to tie the hands of judges by putting in the words "shall be the duty", the judges—in an attempt to get the liberty not to impose orders—will extend the last half of the proposal and conclude that there are no reasonable grounds.
      Time and time again, I have heard the argument that if a sentence appears too severe, the court will not convict. We have heard the argument that if capital punishment were brought back, juries would not convict an obviously guilty person because they did not like the consequences. That applies to a whole range of sentences. If courts, juries and judges do not like the inevitable consequences of a guilty verdict because they do not like the compulsory sentence that they must impose, in borderline cases they will conclude that the person is not guilty after all.
      Also, we should not make it compulsory that reasons "shall be" given in open court. I would prefer to use the word "may", which would give the courts the traditional discretion for which they have fought for years—and for which they used to fight me when I, as a Minister, tried to take it away. In another place, more attention will be paid to that.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made most of the arguments for the amendments powerfully, and I need not bore the House by repeating them. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford was in danger of misleading himself when he said that he did not like amendment No. 1 because it says that where a court makes an international football banning order, it "shall state" the reasons for that decision in open court. The amendment was drafted in that way because we wanted it to be consistent with the preceding subsection as we were working on the assumption that my hon. Friend or the Government might not accept our amendment to change "shall" to "may".
      Amendment No. 1 would be a sensible addition to the Bill. I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, who suggested that it might be an awful burden to impose on the judiciary or the magistrates. In the past, we were dealing with three cases, and now we may be dealing with, at most, 100 cases per annum coming before the 30,000 or so magistrates in this country.
      There is already an obligation in the Bill that the court "shall state" in open court where it is not satisfied. I hardly think that it is a great burden if the court has to make a simple statement when it has imposed an international banning order. Courts must do that in a range of cases, particularly in terms of all offences concerning children and young people, in which they must state their reasons in much greater detail.

      919

      I strongly urge amendment No. 1 on the House, but if my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and the Minister continue to resist it, I would not wish to waste the time of the House by dividing on it. However, I hope that it will be considered seriously in another place.
      Mrs. Laing: It is comforting that the House is now back to normal and my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) are in harmonious agreement. I am not, however, in agreement with them. The Opposition support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
      We have before us a very important point of principle on the criminal law. It is important to give sufficient discretion to the courts and to the judiciary. There must be some discretion in the way in which judges or magistrates deal with the law in making a judgment after considering the particular circumstances of a case, but it is up to the House to make the laws for them to interpret. That important distinction is often overlooked when we are considering the extent to which the courts should be bound by the letter of the law.
      It is important to get the balance of discretion right in any Act of Parliament, and I feel strongly that the Bill as it stands allows sufficient discretion. The Opposition do not support the amendment.
      12 noon
      Kate Hoey: The Government feel that the amendment would weaken the Bill. It would be wrong to remove the duty placed on courts to make banning orders when a football-related offence has been committed and they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would help to prevent violence. It is very important to remember what happened when the courts had discretion: in December 1997, there were only nine restriction orders in force and it was clear that the courts were not using the discretion available to them. They did not even seem to realise that they could impose the orders.
      The Home Secretary had to write to the Magistrates Association and point out that such orders were available, and by the end of June 1998 the number in force went up to about 60; it is now about 150. Those may still be relatively low numbers, but it is important that we say that, when the evidence is there and the courts are satisfied that the person has been convicted of a football-related offence, an order should be imposed.
      The courts will still have discretion and I do not think that they will be so terrified of issuing banning orders that they will refuse to convict, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) seems to imply. Our magistrates are not like that and we would not expect them to act in that way.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will withdraw the amendment. If there is such strong feeling in the other place, presumably the matter will be discussed there, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. It would water down the Bill, and the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has clearly put the case why the provision should remain as it stands.
      Mr. Forth: The argument is about how far we in the legislature are prepared to trust the judiciary. The Minister
      920
      has made it clear that she believes that the judiciary can often fail properly to interpret Parliament's views. Interestingly, she said that, if given a bit of a nudge by the Home Secretary of the day, the courts may buck up their ideas and start to realise that penalties are available of which they were previously unaware. That provides a counter-argument, as it suggests that the wording in the Bill may not be necessary.
      For the sake of making progress—but reluctantly, I must admit—I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I want to put down a marker and say that we should all think about this matter very seriously.
      Mrs. Laing: Does my right hon. Friend agree, as a point of principle, that it is up to Parliament to make laws and that if too much discretion is given to the courts we will end up with judges making laws, which must be wrong?
      Mr. Forth: I am not sure about that. I understand exactly the point that my hon. Friend is making, but the principle may lead in directions which, to some people, seem very threatening. Some people may, for example, want to bring back mandatory hanging for sheep stealing—perhaps that is a good example of the point that she was making—although I suspect that, currently, the majority view is that that would be unwise, and that it is always better to leave the discretion at the point at which the knowledge exists: the court, which has had its proceedings and taken full account of the circumstances, mitigating or otherwise.
      I therefore remain to be convinced that it is proper for this place, and Parliament generally, to constrain the courts by stating in too much detail what they will or will not do. Hon. Members do not sit in the courts, on the jury or on the magistrates' bench. Now that I think of it, some of my hon. and learned Friends are on the bench, but most of us are not.
      I do not wish to delay the House, and I am sure that we shall return to the argument on another occasion. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'absolutely or'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 24, in clause 6, page 8, line 1, leave out 'absolutely or'.
      Mr. Forth: The House will be relieved to know that amendment No. 12 deals with only a narrow—but important—point and need not detain us for too long. I really am quite worried about the wording in this part of clause 1(3). My amendment is therefore a probing one, so that I may clarify and ensure that I—and, therefore, the House—fully understand what my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the Government understand to be thrust of the provision.
      Clause 1(3) states:
      "An international football banning order may only be made—
      (a) in addition to a sentence imposed in respect of the offence of which the accused is (or was) convicted".

      921
      In other words, a banning order may be in addition to a conviction. The clause goes on, however, to provide that an order may be made
      "(b) in addition to an order discharging him absolutely or conditionally."
      That is what worries me.
      I can certainly appreciate the point of imposing a banning order subsequent to a conviction. I can also fully appreciate—although I am less happy about it—imposing a banning order in addition to an order conditionally discharging someone. Although I am no legal expert, I assume that a conditional discharge entails an element of guilt, and that a banning order would therefore be related to an act containing at least an element of guilt.
      I part company with the Bill—this is the point of amendment No. 12—where it provides that a banning order may be made when someone has been discharged absolutely, as I really wonder whether that is the proper way to proceed. It seems to me—as a non-legal expert—that, if someone has been absolutely discharged, they have not been convicted and are not guilty of the offence.
      In those circumstances, I cannot for the life of me see how one can justify imposing an international banning order—unless we are back to where we started in the debate and are saying, "We haven't been able to convict you in this case, or even to impose a conditional discharge—we are discharging you absolutely. But we don't much like the look of you, or your friends. These NCIS people are telling us that there's something pretty flaky about you, and that your behaviour is peculiar. We therefore have some reason to restrict your freedom. So, under the powers given to us by the Bill, we shall impose an international banning order, although you have been absolutely discharged." That really would be too much.
      The provision would—as we have found time and again in the Bill, in provisions curtailing the court's discretion or dealing with people with or without convictions—tilt the balance too much. One of the traditions of our law is the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, but here we have a provision that would mean that even if a person had been absolutely discharged, the courts would still have the power to restrict his freedom. I hope that I have misunderstood the position, because I find it unacceptable.
      Mr. Maclean: I confess to the House that although I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on a range of his amendments, my name should not appear in the list of supporters of this amendment. I did not study this amendment carefully when my right hon. Friend showed it to me and I told the Clerks in the Table Office that I would happily sign all his amendments. I must part company from my right hon. Friend on this amendment.
      An absolute discharge is still a conviction. I have never considered absolute discharges a sensible sentence in English law. If someone is convicted, they should face some penalty, however slight. Nevertheless, while the concept of an absolute discharge remains, it is still a conviction. It is not a finding of not guilty or of innocence: it is a finding of guilt where the court, in its infinite stupidity, declines to impose a sentence. The only penalty is that the person still has the stigma of having been convicted by the court. The hope is that someone
      922
      who has been absolutely discharged will not repeat the offence because he will know that he will face a much heavier sentence next time.
      An absolute discharge is a conviction without a sentence, so it would be inconsistent to remove it from the Bill. If we were to do so, people who were convicted and given a £10 fine or a few hours' community service would be caught by the legislation, but someone given an absolute discharge for the same offence would not be caught. At the lower end, some of the penalties for the football-related offences are very slight. A few hours' community service or a £10 fine do not rank much higher than an absolute discharge.
      Mr. Forth: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument closely, as ever. Is he saying that if someone has been found technically guilty, but the court recognises that the offence is so minor that it does not require any penalties, such a severe restriction of freedom as an international banning order is still justified?
      Mr. Maclean: If there is a fault in the system, it is the existence of the absolute discharge. If my right hon. Friend is successful in the private Members' ballot next year and introduces a measure to abolish the absolute discharge, I shall be happy to support it. However, the absolute discharge currently exists and courts can and will impose it.
      By the way, this is not a matter of technical guilt: one is either innocent or guilty. Someone may be blatantly guilty but, for some good reason—personal circumstances or the feeling of the court that the person is highly unlikely to offend again, which is often the case when absolute discharges apply—the court may decide not to impose a financial or any other penalty. If the court wants the conviction to stand, it imposes an absolute discharge.
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Forth: If the court has been persuaded that an individual is highly unlikely to repeat an offence, how on earth can one justify an international banning order? The point of such an order is to ban someone who is likely to do something unpleasant, but my right hon. Friend has just said that absolute discharges are given to people who the court reckon will not do something unpleasant. We cannot have it both ways.
      Mr. Maclean: Different courts and time scales are involved. When a court gives a person an absolute discharge, it does so for one of many reasons. A court examines an offence, convicts the person who it is convinced committed it, and then disposes of that person in one of many ways—by means of a term of imprisonment, a fine, community sentence or custody. Alternatively, it may grant an absolute discharge. One of the dozens of possible reasons for that decision may be that, in the opinion of the court, that person is unlikely to commit another offence.
      Weeks, months or years later, that person may come before a different court because there is a possibility that he will be involved in football violence. That new court will have to consider whether the terms of clauses 1 or 6 are satisfied, and whether an international or domestic banning order is appropriate. In such circumstances, the new court may conclude that, as the earlier absolute

      923
      discharge is still a conviction, a banning order may be appropriate because the person has not behaved himself in the interim.
      I am conscious of the point that my right hon. Friend makes, which is that an absolute discharge feels like no penalty at all. The only penalty faced by a person given an absolute discharge is the fact that the discharge is still a conviction: that person has been convicted of an offence for which a financial penalty or a period in custody has not been imposed. Nevertheless, an absolute discharge remains a conviction and so has to be included if this part of the Bill is to be logical and consistent.
      My right hon. Friend may say that absolute discharges are a load of nonsense and should be reformed. I agree, but we cannot do that in this Bill. While the absolute discharge remains available to courts as a sentence and a penalty, we must include it in this Bill. I sincerely apologise to my right hon. Friend that I did not study the amendment carefully enough when I signed up to it. I studied it in more detail overnight, and I have to oppose it.
      Mr. Burns: I do not want to disappoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
      This is a narrow point, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly said, when moving the amendment, that this part of the Bill applies to international and domestic banning orders with regard to people who have been given absolute discharges. However, my right hon. Friend supported the Public Order Act 1986, which provided that exclusion orders—the old domestic banning orders—covered people who had received absolute discharges. This part of the Bill merely provides that people on whom international banning orders are imposed will be treated in the same way that the 1986 Act treats people in relation to domestic banning orders.
      I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the consistency of the proposal.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that, but I am a bit worried about the approach adopted by my hon. Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). The implication is that I must always and absolutely support measures that I have previously supported in the brief time since I entered the House in 1983. Nothing could be further from the truth. My hon. Friend has been in the House for a considerable period, and he will know that we can all look back and regret what we have done. All of us change our hearts or minds sometimes. Even as eminent a person as the Prime Minister has been known to change his mind on the odd occasion. If we look back at what the right hon. Gentleman thought in, for example, 1983, we can detect a few differences because he has since taken a more mature judgment. My hon. Friend may know that I thought something was a good idea in my impetuous youth, but now that I am a statesman, I may not necessarily agree with it any more.
      Mr. Burns: I fully accept that point. Let me try to reassure my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the
      924
      Member for Penrith and The Border made a cogent case, but I shall try to clarify matters further. If a court considers an absolute discharge to be the appropriate disposal, it may be satisfied that the person involved is unlikely to be involved in future disorder. The court would not necessarily issue a banning order in such a case, although, as a result of the amendments that we discussed earlier, the court would have to give a reason for not issuing an order.
      For that reason, the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not necessary, and it would not enhance the Bill. I urge him to withdraw it in the light of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has said.
      Mrs. Laing: Once again, we are in the uncomfortable position of hearing my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) disagree. Once again, we must consider how the amendment would work. It may be appropriate that no penalty should be imposed in some cases, even where a person is found guilty. However, the purpose of a banning order is to prevent future offences. It may therefore be appropriate, if an unconditional discharge is imposed, for the court to have the power to impose a banning order to prevent future offences. I agree, therefore, with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, West (Mr. Burns), and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Forth: The amendment offers a clear example of why a non-lawyer intervenes in these matters at his peril. I confess that I am not a lawyer and that I have no legal training or experience—in the lack of which I am in distinguished company. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is virtually a lawyer by dint of his long and distinguished service at the Home Office, and he knows much more about these matters than I can ever hope to. I wholeheartedly accept what he has said. He placed his trust in my wording of this modest amendment, but I had betrayed his trust because my assumptions were mistaken. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford for correcting me so courteously, and even more grateful to the Minister for not rubbing salt into the wound. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
      '(6) Any person placed under a duty to report to a police station as specified in an order under subsection (5) above shall have the right of appeal to the court within fourteen days of the imposition of the order.'.
      I have pleasure in moving the amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and myself. On this occasion, I can perhaps make amends for not managing to talk to my right hon. Friend properly in the past few days to advise him on the latent faults in the previous amendment. I have great pleasure in supporting him on this occasion because this amendment is on exactly the right track. It is consistent with the spirit of civil liberties that he has espoused this morning and, at last, it deals with a right of appeal, about which he is very keen.

      925
      The amendment would provide for a right of appeal within 14 days against the imposition of a requirement to report to a police station under a banning order. The House will be aware that the Bill as drafted places a duty on a person who is subject to a reporting requirement under such an order to report to a specified police station in England or Wales. At present, the person concerned can report to any police station without prior agreement or notice, which does not hinder travel.
      This little amendment is important. Its aim is to ensure that, should a police station be specified to which it is in practice unreasonable or difficult for the person to report, an appeal would be possible. In the vast generality of cases, there should be no problem. It is highly likely that the police station specified will be near the individual's home or work, or in many cases both as those will not be too far apart.
      One of the worrying aspects of football hooliganism is that some of the people convicted have, unfortunately, hailed from Carlisle. They were involved in some ghastly football violence. I said "unfortunately" because Carlisle is next door to my constituency and one likes to think that we do not do that sort of thing up there. However, there was a nasty pocket of football hooligans in Carlisle.
      One such hooligan, who was targeted at Euro 96 or the world cup, had a business. In fact, a few of the hooligans were business men. They travelled and had company cars. I cannot remember what business they were in, so I will not say whether it was insurance, banking or whatever, but it was a highly respectable business and they were apparently highly respectable and successful business men, which just goes to show that hooligans are not all the mindless morons about whom my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) talks. They are mindless morons when they get involved in violence, but some of them are not merely lager-swilling louts who sit in a pub all day doing nothing; they are successful business men and hooliganism is a dark and sinister side to their characters.
      I have no truck with such people. If they commit an offence, I am happy for them to be locked up for as long as the court thinks appropriate. However, if a reporting restriction is to be imposed, the last thing that I want is for those people to lose their jobs or find it impossible to continue in their work and to become a new burden on the state. If they are travellers or computer salesmen, or if their job is to travel throughout the country, I want to ensure that they can appeal to change the police station to which they report or to bring some flexibility into the system.
      Mr. Mark Oaten: Might not the fear of losing one's job act as an extra deterrent? In a sense, the amendment would make it easier for such people to offend without fear of losing their jobs.
      Mr. Maclean: I entirely disagree. That concept is not built into the amendment. Losing one's job is not a penalty in the Bill. If we want to build that into the legislation we should do so, but we should not make loss of employment an accidental facet of a requirement to report to a police station. That requirement is in the
      926
      Bill so that the police can keep tabs on hooligans. The police know that they are reporting to the station and not going overseas or somewhere else to commit violence. That measure is not built into the Bill as a threat to their employment, which is a different concept. If fear of losing one's job is to be the deterrent, I am happy with that. If we are going to make it part of the sanction that hooligans face a danger of losing their jobs, we should have the guts to build it into the legislation. If they go to prison or custody, they may lose them anyway. Depending on their business, people may be dismissed for certain offences. Companies will not want to employ people with convictions for violence.
      12.30 pm
      The provision is a simple, sensible, reporting requirement, and I am merely saying that while that is all right for most working people, many are now taken away by their work, such as salesmen or contract workers. It is not only building site workers but computer contract workers and electrical engineers. If their job means that they can be suddenly taken away, they should be able to get the police station to which they have to report changed to make it more convenient and avoid putting their employment at risk.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford will not say that my amendment will weaken the Bill, because it will not dilute it. It is not a wrecking amendment. If he rejects it, I will not press it to a vote and risk damaging the Bill, but it is sensible to give people whose work means that the police station may have to be changed a right of appeal. If he has a better way to build in such flexibility, I would be happy to accept it.
      Mr. Burns: I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am not going to say that his amendment seriously weakens the Bill. I hesitate to say this, because as Ministers we all too often said it; and now in opposition, I find that Ministers say it to me so often that it drives me to drink but, sadly, the amendment is defective. There is a right of appeal in respect of the issue of an order. I appreciate that that was not his point but I hope that he is reassured on that.
      On my right hon. Friend's narrow point about a right of appeal in respect of the police stations to which people are designated to report, unfortunately his amendment is defective, because the duty to report is within five days of making the order where as his amendment refers to 14 days. That is no big deal, because if we accepted the principle and its urgency we could adjust it.
      I wish to reassure my right hon. Friend about the nub of his argument. When an order is being imposed and the arrangements are being made about the police station to which a person has to report, there is an opportunity for that person to discuss them with the courts and the police to ensure that they are convenient and do not impose undue hardship. In making orders, the courts will not be giving additional punishment by imposing the most complicated arrangements to cause

      927
      problems for people but ensuring that they turn up at the right time and place to surrender their passports so that the law is implemented and effective.
      Mr. Maclean: Does my hon. Friend accept that the police and the person involved can discuss it until they are blue in the face and pick the best police station, but that that will not help if he is sent by his work to the north of Scotland for two weeks or told that his job will take him around the country? The work force are more mobile than ever before. How does the Bill tackle that?
      Mr. Burns: I appreciate that. The individual can ask for further consideration to be given to genuinely changing circumstances. However, my right hon. Friend will also have come across individuals who seek to avoid their responsibilities. The Child Support Agency is an example of some people having become highly skilled at abusing the law and the requirements imposed on them to the nth degree. If one is not careful, under this measure, individuals would abuse that position and would try to bring the law into disrepute and make it less effective than Parliament wants it to be. On those grounds, I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter and to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: I am now rather confused. Normally, our little debates help to clarify matters—as did the previous debate—but I am somewhat confused by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). To say—as has been said—that we should not worry too much about the measure, as it is not intended to be penal, and that we do not intend to make it difficult or inconvenient for the individual, but rather to make it as easy as possible, strikes me as slightly bizarre in the context of our debate.
      All morning, we have been told about individuals who have committed the most ghastly and heinous acts and are a threat to society. Now, we are told that we are trying to find the most convenient outcome for such people. That strikes me as somewhat odd. Perhaps it is typical of the court leniency that has been mentioned during the debate. However, that matter is for another day. The more I consider it, the more I am tempted by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean): that were I—God forbid—ever to come high enough in the ballot for private Members' Bills, that subject might merit my attention.
      Be that as it may, I am not clear about the object of the exercise. I guess that it is to prevent certain persons from going to football grounds—that is the most obvious' object—but I am distressed to hear that there is no intention to subject them to any penal element. I am even more confused by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford saying, in effect, "Don't worry, because the individual will be able to discuss the matter and make representations about it during the court proceedings". Of course, he will—or, at least, I hope so—because that is what judicial proceedings are all about. If the matter were so simple, we should never need the right of appeal in any case.
      According to what my hon. Friend said, we need only tell the accused individual that, during the court proceedings, he and his legal representative would be able
      928
      to make all the points they wanted; they could ask the court to take this or that into consideration and should trust the court because it would all turn out all right.
      Mr. Burns: I obviously made my point inadequately and it caused confusion. What is important is that a police station is designated to which an individual has to report. That individual will be able to ask the court to take certain factors into consideration in determining a police station at which attendance would not cause an undue penalty. On the other side of the coin, if a court convicts and sentences someone to a prison sentence, I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not expect the court to start discussing with the prisoner at which prison it would be convenient for him to serve his sentence.
      Mr. Forth: I thought that was not part of the penalty. We cannot have it both ways. If it is to be part of the penalty, I should build a large police station in Stornoway and insist that everyone reported there. That would have the required effect. However, that, apparently, is not what we are saying. We are saying, "Don't worry. You will be asked to report to a police station, but it will be very convenient and probably warm; you might even get a cup of tea when you go there." The way things are going, I should not even be surprised by that. It must be one thing or the other—either it is part of the penalty or it is not. If it is not part of the penalty, that is a different matter.
      If the idea is simply to make sure that individuals are where we want them to be at a particular time, to prevent them from going anywhere near a football match—although why anyone would want to go near a football match is quite beyond my comprehension, but apparently there are those who do—we are in different territory altogether.
      Mr. Burns: I hesitate to intervene as I do not want to delay the debate and talk out my Bill. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend realises that the measure refers to international football banning orders. If a court imposed such an order, an individual would have to turn up at a police station not less than five days before a match to hand in his passport, to prevent him from travelling overseas where he could cause problems at the football match or in the surrounding area. The provision merely states that the courts have to sort out a police station for the person to go to at a certain time. Of course the courts will try to find a police station that is convenient to the individual, so that it gives no further encouragement to the individual not to comply with the banning order.
      Mr. Forth: It is getting worse and worse—we have not got to the cup of tea yet, but I sense that it is imminent.
      However, we need not fall out over this matter. I was persuaded by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, whose knowledge of police stations is far greater than mine as a result of his having been in far more of them than I have, and I defer to him in this case. The more I hear from my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford the more worried I become, however, because it all seems very soft and easy going; but I shall not prolong my comments on amendment No. 2 because I am anxious to reach the amendment dealing with the surrender of passports, which will be another debate altogether. I shall be guided on this

      929
      occasion, as on so many others, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, but I am not entirely convinced.
      Mr. Maclean: I, too, am not convinced by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I am not convinced, although I am willing to be corrected by the Minister or anyone else, that handing in the passport is the sole purpose of specifying a police station. The court can impose any conditions it thinks fit, and I was under the impression that specifying the police station to which the person must report might involve more than a single visit to hand in a passport: for example, there could be a requirement that the person should report there regularly.
      However, I see from head movements in the Chamber that I am wrong and my hon. Friend is right, but even if he is right and the purpose of specifying the police station is solely to do with the handing in of the passport, it makes sense to introduce a degree of flexibility to deal with a small number of cases. For example, say it is decided for a person who lives and works in Penrith that Penrith will be the reporting station where he must hand in his passport five days before a football match. Say that person then discovers that he is being sent to work on a contract in the Devon and Cornwall police area. Surely it should be fairly simple to specify a police station in Devon or Cornwall.
      Such cases may constitute only a tiny minority, but I am not entirely convinced that there are powerful arguments against their being provided for. I am not in the business of diluting the Bill or making life inconvenient for the police; nor am I in the business of allowing people a right of appeal to change the police station where they must hand in their passport every other day and around every single police station in the country. I accept that there would be clever fly-boys who would try to make a mockery of the law by taking advantage of such flexibility.
      However, as I said, we would be dealing with only a small number of people, all of whom would be on the NCIS computer and that of their local police force. With the police national network up and running and all the digital communications that were installed under the previous Government, on which the current Government are no doubt building, it should be quite possible for the police services of the UK, which are all now in touch with each other, simply to effect a change—for example, that the reporting station for an individual has been moved from Penrith to Penzance.
      Nevertheless, today is not the day when I shall try to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford to deal with that point. I suspect that, when the Bill goes to the other place, their lordships in their infinite wisdom will conclude that the matter deserves their attention. At that time, my hon. Friend may have to table an amendment—one that is more correctly drafted than my own—to deal with this small but important point. It is the small but important improvements that give us the best criminal justice legislation in the world, which is why we should never be afraid to deal with the small issues as well as the mega-issues. However, since I do not intend to pursue the matter today, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      RELEVANT OFFENCES
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, leave out lines 20 to 25.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in page 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.
      Mr. Forth: These amendments have two quite different aspects that are important in their own right. One of them refers, coincidentally, to a comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who reminded the House that the more difficult it is to define an offence, the more difficult it is to obtain a conviction. We are well into that territory here.
      In his enthusiasm to make this Bill as all-embracing as possible and to ensure that individuals can be caught in several different ways, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has excelled himself. This clause contains a definition of offences, which includes
      "any attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offence"
      and references to
      "aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence."
      I have scant knowledge of the law, but I believe that it is well known that it is difficult to obtain a conviction for the offence of conspiracy—and rightly so. That is because one is involved in all sorts of areas that are rarely subject to the normal availability of evidence and so on. Cases are based much more on hearsay evidence, subjective judgment and the like.
      The Bill contains an even less easy definition, which is
      "any attempt, conspiracy or incitement"
      on the one hand, and
      "aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence"
      on the other. I am worried that, if that definition remains in the Bill, it may encourage the misuse of resources by the shady NCIS organisation, which has untrammelled surveillance and other powers about which I am becoming increasingly alarmed. I am sure that, if I were summoned to attend upon NCIS, I might never emerge from the building.
      I am concerned that if those words remain in the Bill, that will encourage the authorities—I am not keen on that word, but at least it is more neutral and less pejorative—to spend an enormous amount of time and energy pursuing those offences that are so poorly defined. One can imagine setting out to prove in a court of law that someone had attempted to conspire or incited to commit one of the related offences or, worse, aided and abetted, counselled or procured the commission of an offence.
      What does "counselling" the commission of an offence mean? I do not know whether it is a term of art in the law or whether it is a new provision dreamed up by someone. I think I understand "conspiracy" and "incitement"—if pushed, I might even understand "aiding and abetting", but I am not sure whether I will ever understand the legal

      931
      definition or implication of "counselling" the commission of an offence in the context of the individuals about whom we are talking.
      All morning, we have heard references to the kinds of odious individuals who are involved in football offences, including disorder. They are mean-minded and violent individuals, and it is a complete mystery to me how counselling the commission of an offence will apply to them.
      I might not usually be too worried about that, but we are legislating. If the House is to allow itself to be put in the position of endorsing such wording, the Bill's sponsor and the Minister must be prepared to set out—to satisfy me, if no one else—how they envisage a conviction could be obtained in a court of law for counselling the commission of an offence.
      As I have said, I have doubts about "aiding and abetting" and "procuring", to say nothing of "conspiracy" or "incitement". My worry is not only that the provision might encourage the authorities to occupy much of their time and effort in pursuing prosecutions of those offences, but, on the other side of the coin, that the wording could, at worst, draw into the net many individuals who are barely, if at all, involved in the commission of those offences.
      It is obvious that most of the right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in these debates have a clear idea of the people with whom they want the Bill to deal: those who commit, or allegedly commit, offences or cause disorder at football matches. When one start to talk about conspiracy, incitement and counselling, we potentially draw in a much wider group of people who have a much more tenuous connection with the offences, and subject them to all the processes that we have been discussing.
      I shall give an example. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is very fond of car parks, and he has been telling us with pride how the shady people of NCIS, with all their intrusive surveillance mechanisms, hang around in car parks and listen to people's conversations. They then finger their collars, whisk them off to a luxurious cell, give them a cup of tea and tell them that they have been nicked.
      That would be bad enough, but what worries me about the wording that my amendment seeks to remove is that somebody who may be having an innocent conversation with one of the aforesaid people might readily be drawn into that process. The NCIS man will be waving a copy of this legislation, if it ever becomes an Act, and will say, "Oi mate. I'm having you for counselling the commission of an offence. I saw you in the act of counselling. You were standing in the car park talking to an odious individual, and our high-powered, sensitive devices that intrude on individuals' privacy told me that the conversation that you thought you were conducting privately involved counselling the commission of an offence."
      I am slightly overstating the matter to emphasise my point, but I hope that I shall be reassured that what I have described will not happen. That, however, is my reading of the Bill. I suspect that in their enthusiasm for the Bill, its promoter and the Minister have allowed it to be drawn so widely that it has the potential to draw into the process
      932
      a large number of people. That increases the risk of miscarriages of justice and of court proceedings going wrong. It further strengthens the arguments about rights of appeal that have, rightly, been put forward during the proceedings. I hope that we shall take the issue very seriously and examine it closely.
      The Bill's promoter may want to argue that the provision is absolutely essential to the Bill's viability. The Minister may tell me that the provision about conspiracy, incitement, aiding and abetting and, in particular, counselling, is absolutely essential if the Bill is to have the intended effect. I remain sceptical. I should have thought that the panoply of existing law and the huge, shadowy organisation that moves mysteriously in society, trying to identify people of whom it disapproves and to drag them to court, would be quite sufficient, but it seems that we are going even further.
      We ought to know much more about that provision. Let me make it clear that I want to delete it. The burden of proof is on those who want to leave those words in the Bill, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect them, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, to explain clearly how they believe those words add to the Bill. That is my first concern.
      Amendment No. 4 deals with something equally worrying. Clause 2(2)(a) reads:
      "For the purposes of paragraphs…above—
      (a) a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a designated football match whether or not he attended or intended to attend the match".
      I think that I understand the purpose of that provision but it gives rise to misgivings on my part. It strikes me that certainties will exist if somebody is in attendance at a football match—presumably with CCTVs everywhere in our lives, he will be spotted. The Minister proudly said earlier that actions captured on video would be beyond doubt. It may be that if an individual attends a match and misbehaves in the way that is defined in the Bill, he can be dealt with legitimately. However, the Bill goes beyond that, obviously deliberately.
      I am asking my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and the Minister whether they are absolutely satisfied that the provisions of this part of the Bill are as they should be and that there is no possibility of serious miscarriages of justice. The subsection is drawn extremely widely:
      "a person may be regarded as having been on a journey to or from a designated football match whether or not he attended or intended to attend the match".
      That is throwing the net very wide.
      This part of the Bill worries me the more I think about it. We are no longer focusing on the people with tattoos who behave outrageously, carrying and using offensive weapons and so on; we are talking about another group. Earlier, we were talking about those who counsel others to do something. It is a bizarre thought that the sort of people who commit the offences with which we are concerned will be subject to counselling. As I have said, I want to hear more about that.
      We have moved on to talk about a different and much larger group of people who have not been on the journey to the match and who may or may not have attended it. There is scope within the Bill, if lines 27 to 29 remain in it, to draw into the process people who are entirely innocent, or who are involved only peripherally, or who

      933
      are drawn in inadvertently. For example, they may have been travelling with the alleged offenders and, therefore, may be drawn in. There is the potential greatly to complicate the processes that would follow the identification of the alleged offenders.
      I need many reassurances about this part of the Bill, which takes the matter much further than it need do or should do. The wording is dangerous and rather loose. I hope that having reflected on it, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and, perhaps, the Minister will say, "This is not necessary to the core purposes of the Bill. There are worries here and there are possibilities of things going badly wrong. Therefore, we are prepared to go along with the amendment and take out these parts of the Bill."
      Mr. Maclean: Once again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), with his customary rhetoric and lucidity, has clearly set out our concerns, as reflected in the amendment. That being so, I can be relatively brief.
      I could not hope to match my right hon. Friend's eloquence but I share his concerns, which are reflected in amendment No. 3. Clause 2(2) contains the words:
      "Any reference to an offence in paragraphs (a) to (q) above includes…a reference to any attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offence".
      It is a long time since I studied law, but as I have said to the House on numerous occasions, I got out before I was totally corrupted. I am not a qualified lawyer, although I took a law degree in Scotland about 30 years ago. I cannot remember whether a reference to an
      "attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit that offence"
      means that the person has been convicted for an attempted offence, an attempted conspiracy or whatever.
      1 pm
      The point that I am inadequately trying to make is, does the reference to "attempt" or "conspiracy" mean that it is enough for the police to be of the opinion that, whereas others have been charged with an offence of affray or violence or disorder, an individual has been involved in it, attempted to commit it, was conspiring to commit it or incited others to do it but has not been convicted of attempt or conspiracy or incitement? I presume that the references are to people convicted of attempt or conspiracy or incitement.
      Mr. Burns indicated assent.
      Mr. Maclean: Nevertheless, I am concerned that the wording brings a very indistinct category of individuals within the scope of the Bill. The category is not as clear cut as that of those who have been convicted of an offence, and I am not certain that it would be possible or feasible to prosecute an individual on such grounds. Specifically, such a prosecution might be over-dependent on police intelligence, which would be compromised as a result.
      Therefore, although the provision may seem to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) to be a good little catch-all—without it, one may get all those convicted of an offence, but miss someone who has been convicted of an attempt to commit the offence or of
      934
      conspiracy; and, naturally, my hon. Friend wants to catch those people—he may, by inserting that catch-all, produce an unenforceable piece of legislation.
      I do not feel too strongly about amendment No. 3, but the subject is worth exploring. I shall listen if my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford or the Minister say that the safeguard is essential and that many nasty hooligans have been convicted of attempt or conspiracy. I share the law's view that conspiracy and attempted violence are as important as actual violence. In fact, those behind the scenes who are conspiring to commit violence, or aiding and abetting or fomenting it, are often the most evil, and my new clauses 1 and 2 were designed to get at them. I am happy for them to be caught, if that is sensible; I simply want clarification that the provision does not go a stage too far, inserting an unenforceable passage or weakening a sensible and tough provision.
      Amendment No. 4 relates to those who are regarded as being on a journey to or from a football match even if they did not attend the match or did not intend to attend the match. It is the second part of that which worries me. Those who did not intend to attend a football match can be deemed to be on the journey to it even when they were not. That could catch innocent people.
      The law is obviously trying to catch those who buy tickets to a football match, intending to go to it and to have a punch-up, and those who intend to go into the vicinity of a match—although not attend it—and to have a punch-up nearby. Those people are fair game. I am happy for those football hooligans who have no intention of attending a football match, but intend to be outside the ground or in the pub nearby committing their violence, to be caught. However, I am worried that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst eloquently said—the provision could sweep in people who are not football hooligans, but are travelling to the same place at the same time on the same day, or who are in the company of some of those nasty people, but have been swept up in the violence.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford may say that if people travel in a minibus alongside violent hooligans, to get a free ride to the town where the football match is taking place, it serves the blighters right if they get swept up. I do not take that view. Sometimes, trains are hired for special outings or events, and the wives or families of those attending the event take advantage of the availability of the hired coach, bus or train to shop or do other activities while others attend the football match. There may be examples of people who are seen to be travelling with football hooligans and nasty scum being innocently swept into the provisions. I hope that my hon. Friend or the Minister can reassure me that that will not be the case.
      The amendments are probing, as there are doubts in my mind. I would be happy if my hon. Friend said that had I understood the Bill and the other legislation correctly, I would not have these doubts. However, I would seek an assurance before I am satisfied. I have no intention of weakening the Bill, but I do not wish it to be diminished or discredited by catching a few genuinely innocent people.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned counselling. I believe that we are referring to the old-fashioned counselling in the criminal law sense, meaning advising someone to commit an

      935
      offence. It is not the new-fangled, touchy-feely, "I feel your pain" or "Give me a cuddle" counselling with which the country is now awash. If legislation were proposed to deal with the million new counsellors who give everyone a cuddle every time it rains, I would support it if it meant that they were banned for life and sent to prison. That is the sort of counselling we need to outlaw.
      Mr. Forth: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but does he seriously imagine that the kind of people whom we are told repeatedly commit these offences will be the subject of what he has defined as counselling? I have a mental picture of someone with a shaven head, tattoos and other accoutrements who is about to commit ghastly crimes in the name of being a football supporter. Who will counsel—by whatever definition—that person to do something illegal?
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend has not seen some of the new members of the probation service. That will get me a few letters. My right hon. Friend has misled himself—he has counselled himself unwisely. We are talking not about sitting down and giving these scumbags a cuddle, but about the technical, legal sense of counselling, where someone aids, abets or advises someone to commit an offence. If the other form of counselling were one of the penalties appropriate to these people, I would be worried that the Government had gone really soft on crime.
      Kate Hoey: This part of the Bill does not create new offences—we must make that clear. Whether they have been confused with the new form of "counselling" or not, these criminal offences exist. The Bill merely proposes to enable the court to make a banning order if someone is convicted of one those offences.
      The amendments would significantly reduce the ability for action to be taken against those who use football as an excuse for their behaviour. Adding to the list of football-related offences the offences of conspiracy and incitement would provide the courts with the ability to take banning order action against those convicted of such offences.
      Everyone who knows anything about conspiracy will accept that it is difficult to obtain convictions for offences of that nature. The people most likely to be involved in committing those offences at football matches are those who plan and organise the activities of others. They tend to avoid being the subject of banning orders, for the simple reason that they themselves do not commit the acts of violence or disorder. That is why we can discuss "unconvicted football hooligans". These people will not be caught committing violence or disorder, but they are the motivators, instigators and planners who escape the powers at present available to the courts under existing legislation. The Bill is intended to bring those people within the ambit of the law.
      Our original document went out to wide consultation and we were especially interested in the response on this matter. Many respondents who understood what went on behind football violence supported our proposals. The Football Supporters Association, which, along with the National Federation of Football Supporters Clubs, tried to show people that a minority were responsible for
      936
      the violence, felt that it was important to add conspiracy. We have listened and we think that the provision is necessary.
      The Bill is designed to tackle the problem of those who use the environment around football matches to cause trouble and stir up violence. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not go to football matches, but if he did he would know that many people go without tickets, with no intention of going into the ground; they simply take the build-up of people and the organisation that goes into it as an opportunity to hide behind the vast majority of law-abiding supporters.
      Having no intention to attend the match does not, sadly, mean having no intention to cause or be involved in acts of hooliganism around the ground, or on the way to or from the match. By showing that the person's journey was principally in connection with a football match, the provisions will extend the banning order process to those who commit offences outside the ground without any intention of entering it.
      I understand why the right hon. Gentleman felt that he should explore the amendments, and in particular amendment No. 4, but I believe that they would weaken the Bill. The genuine, decent supporters prefer the Bill as it stands, so I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. She said that the offences are not necessarily new, and that, allied with the very helpful explanation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), gives me some reassurance that we are on fairly familiar and secure territory in terms of the definition of offences. I can now see, as a non-attender of football matches, that there may be a category of people who are not readily identifiable, but bear a large part of the responsibility for the offences.
      I am still not entirely satisfied that there is no danger that a wider group of innocent people might be drawn into the process by the very wide wording in the Bill, but on this occasion I am prepared to give my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the Minister the benefit of the doubt. They appear to be sure that the provisions are essential and would not give rise to the risks that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I outlined.
      I still have my doubts, but I am sufficiently reassured not to press the point. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      CONDITIONS AND DUTY TO REPORT
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 4, leave out lines 19 to 25.
      This is the amendment that I have been waiting for, although I will try not to make a meal of it. I well remember an impassioned speech on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who expressed grave reservations about this aspect of the Bill. I am only sorry that he is not with us today. I would have liked to hear the speech again, it was so good. I will try to make up for his absence by my own modest contribution.

      937
      I share my hon. Friend's reservations about the surrendering of passports. I know that we can get very misty-eyed about passports. There are those who believe that the British passport—in its excellent old form, as opposed to the dreadful little maroon thing that we are all now stuck with—goes back a long way into our history, but I do not think that it does. The Minister may correct me, but I think that the British passport in its magnificent previous form dated back only to about the 1920s. Be that as it may, the passport was and remains a powerful symbol of a number of different things.
      1.15 pm
      A passport is not merely something that we possess and are able to show—many authorities, of course, require it to be shown for various purposes—but is an expression of our sense of national pride and identity, which are very important to us. In the context of the Bill and the amendment, however, a passport is the symbol and statement of one's inalienable—at least I thought that it was inalienable—right to travel freely and untrammelled.
      Part of our consideration of the Bill should include the extent to which it is necessary to hold and produce a British passport to travel across the European Union. I should like to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and of the Minister on whether the compulsory surrender of one's passport would prevent one from travelling across the European Union. Although, in a sense, the point deals with an argument that is the reverse of the one that I want to make, it is relevant to our consideration.
      I have heard it argued that one can and should be able to—I have done it myself on one or two occasions—travel throughout the European Union without having to show a passport, and that any other method of identity should be adequate. Are my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and Ministers sure that, if someone's passport were to be confiscated, that person would be prevented from travelling? It is one important aspect of the argument, although, strictly, not germane to the amendment.
      I am much more worried—this is why I tabled amendment No. 16—that the authorities will be able to march in and compulsorily take away one's passport. As I said, I am no great fan of the European convention on human rights, but I know that there are those—not least Liberty—who argue that temporary removal of one's passport may well be a contravention of article 1 of the convention's first protocol. Allowing the authorities to take someone's passport may well be a worry for those who are fans of the convention.
      As interestingly, Liberty is also arguing that to require surrender of a passport might conflict directly with our international obligations to guarantee freedom of movement under article 12 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. I never thought that I would hear myself arguing that, as I am not a great fan of the covenant. I always regard that type of thing as international verbiage. I could use a much ruder word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you probably would not allow me, and the House will get the sense of what I mean. Nevertheless, hon. Members will need reassurances that, in so far as we think that those guarantees are important, the Bill will not contravene them.
      938
      I am really interested in a much more fundamental and British point. How content are we that our authorities should be in the business of taking away our passport and saying that what we always thought was one of our fundamental rights—the freedom of travel—is to be removed? Around the world, people take the view that their right to leave their country is one of their most important freedoms.
      I am sure that, internationally, over many decades, if not centuries, we have rather pompously taken that view, and said to people, "We are very proud that our citizens are free to escape from the authorities if they think that they are being unreasonable." Almost the entire United States is populated by the successors of those who sought freedom and escaped not only from countries on the continent—many of whom came to the United Kingdom for their freedom—but from the United Kingdom. Therefore, let us not underestimate the importance of the issue.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend has not alluded to the remarkable statistic that only 12 per cent. of Americans carry passports—which demonstrates that, having got there, they have no desire to return.
      Mr. Forth: Indeed. As someone who has recently returned from the United States—voluntarily, I should add—I appreciate exactly what my right hon. Friend is saying. Nevertheless, the fact remains—it is part of the case that I am trying to make—that, for a very long time, we have argued that the ability to leave the country freely and untrammelled is a very important element of individual and political freedoms and of civil liberties. The proposal in this case is that, as part of a penalty and as a guarantee that people will not travel abroad possibly to do things of which we disapprove, we will make them surrender their passports. That is a serious step to take.
      The point was made on Second Reading that there is a precedent for such a move. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) also made the argument, saying, "Don't worry, we've done it before, so it's all right now." I am not sure that it is all right now. The fact that, in a moment of weakness, the Government of whom I was apparently a member allowed the removal of passports does not mean that I can rest easy that we are to do it again. The fact that we have mistakenly done something before does not mean that we should compound the mistake by doing it again.
      I am not convinced that as serious a measure is the right step in the context of this Bill. It may be justifiable for offences such as treason or murder, although I would like to hear the arguments and I would not accept them readily. I do not know whether the offences we are contemplating, however awful they appear, justify the power to remove passports. We should not forget that the Bill is called the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, and yet we are talking about taking people's passports away. What is the world coming to? Have we lost all reason? Are we out of our minds? Are we suggesting that offences related to football should be dealt with through the compulsory removal of people's passports, which will mean the removal of one of our most sacred rights?
      I sense that the Minister will tell me that I should not worry because we can already remove people's passports for many other reasons. I am not convinced by that

      939
      argument. It seems to me that people are not aware that their passports could be removed. It is time that they were. Perhaps this debate will assist in the process and I can expect the streets to be filled tomorrow with angry people saying, "We didn't realise that this country had come to this." Perhaps this is the point at which we should start to reverse the process and say, "This is something up with which we will not put." We should say that we do not believe that the authorities are justified in taking passports away that easily and readily and denying people their freedom to travel and to leave the country, especially if we believe that the authorities are acting unreasonably.
      I have been surprised, just in our little debate this morning, by the extent to which the Bill has pushed out the frontiers of the powers of the authorities to encroach yet further on the freedom of individuals. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will tell me that we have already done it, so we can do it again. That argument is wearing increasingly thin with me and, I suspect, with others.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and, on occasions, he repeats his case. He makes his points effectively, but it is against the rules of the House to make the case twice in the same go.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The argument has obviously lost its effectiveness, so I had better not pursue it any further. I want to hear a positive and comprehensive case made for these provisions, because if it is not, we should remove them.
      Mr. Burns: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, this is a serious matter. His amendment would mean that the courts would not have the power to impose passport surrender as a condition of an international banning order. That goes to the heart of the purpose of this part of the Bill.
      I urge my right hon. Friend to think again. The amendment would destroy the Bill's purpose of tightening up international banning orders. My right hon. Friend is right to say that taking away people's right to travel abroad is a serious step, but we must see it in context. The people involved will have been convicted of serious crimes. On the authority of a court, banning orders are imposed to prevent people from travelling abroad, during limited periods, when there is reason to believe that they might repeat the trouble overseas that brought about their conviction in the first place.
      Current practice shows that there is no point in imposing a banning order if there is no effective way to enforce it. The only effective enforcement of international banning orders is the withdrawal of passports, albeit for a brief period. Although such orders may be imposed for a number of years, people are not prevented from going abroad on holiday or in pursuit of their personal business. The effect is simply that they are not allowed to have their passports for five days before a match is played abroad.
      Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the requirement to report to a police station is equally effective in preventing someone from travelling? In any
      940
      case, may not a person want to travel abroad legitimately, for urgent family or even business reasons that are quite separate from football?
      Mr. Burns: On the first point, in theory my right hon. Friend may have a case. However, current practice does not work, as people do not turn up at police stations when football matches take place. That is why we must tighten the law.
      On my right hon. Friend's second point—that genuine family or business reasons may exist that require travel abroad—my response is to say, "Tough." The decision to issue a person with an international banning order preventing him from going to a football match is not taken lightly, but follows a conviction in a court.
      It is odd that my right hon. Friend should argue, in effect, that the system should fit in with an individual's personal arrangements. Taking away a passport is a punishment as well as a way of preventing a repetition abroad of acts of violence. We should not roll over like little dogs wanting their tummies tickled to fit in with the arrangements of a person who has committed an offence but who then wants the state to bend over backwards to make it easier for him to travel abroad, even if the purpose is not to attend a football match.
      My right hon. Friend is, like me, a member of the party of law and order. I know that he has a genuine desire to protect the vast majority of people who are innocent. He has talked skilfully and reasonably about civil liberties, but I have heard nothing about the civil liberties of the vast majority of innocent people who go to football matches for an afternoon or evening of entertainment but who inadvertently get caught up in the behaviour of the mindless minority that causes so much misery.
      We must stiffen our resolve and take the actions that all responsible people, in football and the law, are urging us to take. They want us to give the authorities more powers to prevent the activities of the violent minority.
      Finally, I want to reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the legality of the proposals within European human rights legislation—a matter that came up on Second Reading. Like the Minister, I have sought advice from the Home Office, and can assure my right hon. Friend that the Bill is entirely compatible with European obligations and human rights considerations. I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
      1.30 pm
      Mr. Brooke: I have one question to put to the Minister, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) omitted to ask. I share my right hon. Friend's pride in holding a British passport. My first passport said that Ernest Bevin, His Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, "requests and requires" in the name of His Majesty, et cetera, and I was able to go bravely abroad holding that passport. I am out of date on the statistics relating to the issuing of passports but one felt greater pride having acquired one's passport from Peterborough, from which it took 40 days to arrive, than one did if it had come from Belfast, where the process took only four days.
      My question to the Minister is important. I do not wish to intrude on the Minister's private grief, but inner London Members have been communicating over the past

      941
      six months with the Home Office about the passports of constituents that the Home Office has lost. Some 80 per cent. of the passports of Thais—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps discussing business that might be more appropriately raised on another occasion. The loss of passports and difficulties with the Passport Agency are not entirely relevant to the amendment.
      Mr. Brooke: I hesitate to allow even a scintilla of controversy to enter into my relationship with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have always been extremely kind to me. However, the amendment seeks to remove the provision that the passport
      "should be returned … as soon as reasonably practicable after the match has taken place."
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not ask the Minister for a guarantee that the Home Office—whether through the police or in its own right—will in fact be able to find a passport when its holder comes to ask for its return, and that is the assurance that I seek.
      Kate Hoey: I shall respond first to the point made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). Clearly we will not be dealing with huge numbers of passports. The right hon. Gentleman may know that there have been only 150 international banning orders over the past two years. A small number of people will have to leave their passports at a police station, and I am confident that the police will not get themselves into the recent difficulties experienced by the Passport Agency.
      I strongly oppose the amendment, as must anyone who has sat through the Second Reading and the Committee debates. It relates to the most crucial part of the Bill. The constituents of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would be the first to tell him that if a court has ordered that someone should be prevented from travelling abroad, that person should be stopped from going. We have not been able to prevent people from travelling, and some of the disgraceful incidents that have occurred in Europe involved people who had been served with international restriction orders.
      Prevention has not been possible because of the way in which the orders have operated. The Bill will toughen up the law so that people will have to attend a named police station and hand in their passport five days before a match. If they do not do so, the police will know that they will travel, and something can be done to prevent it. That is the point of the Bill.
      Mr. Forth: Can the Minister advise me whether it is possible for someone to travel to other European Union countries without a passport? I am fairly certain that it is possible to move freely in and out of the United Kingdom and among the other countries that are parties to the Schengen agreement without a passport, but with some other satisfactory means of identification. If that were so, it would seriously undermine the effectiveness of the measure that the Minister described.
      Kate Hoey: The right hon. Gentleman should be absolutely clear that such people would not be able to get
      942
      back into the country without a passport. Therefore, they would be choosing to spend the rest of their lives in another country. I understand what he implies, but if we want the law to be upheld, it is important that we find ways to prevent people, as far as is possible, from getting around the law. If this measure is not enacted as drafted, they will be able to do so.
      The aim of the measure is not to prevent the individual going about his or her lawful business. That is why the passport must be returned as quickly as possible. Sometimes, it may be returned when the person turns up at the police station to meet the reporting requirement. The location and timing of the match may mean that the person could get the passport back quickly and not have to wait even until the end of the match. We do not envisage that the passport will be retained for any longer than is necessary. That guidance will obviously be issued to police forces.
      On the civil liberties aspect, article 12 of the international covenant on civil and political rights protects freedom of movement and the right to leave one's country, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said. However, that article also allows Governments to restrict the right in the interests of public order and a wide range of other things. Clearly, this Bill and measure relate to that provision. The Government are satisfied that the provisions of the Bill comply with all our obligations under the covenant. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister. Her last point simply reinforces the view that most international agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. If we can comply with some high-sounding, high-falutin', verbose international piece of nonsense and still remove people's passports, it does not say much for the protocol, covenant, convention—call it what you will.
      I am not sure that it is that impossible to get back into this country without a passport. I am pretty sure that I have done it myself. I think that if one pitches up at immigration control and can satisfy the officers that one is a bona fide Brit, they will tend to let one in—and so they damn well should, as opposed to some of the other people who are allowed into the country. I do not think that what the Minister said was true, but she may want to take advice on it. It is a matter for another occasion.
      This is not either the occasion or the opportunity to take this matter as far as it should be taken. It is prime territory for the other place while it is still fully functioning, fit and feisty. I hope that when Members of the other place consider this Bill, and I am sure that it will shortly proceed there, they will study the provision carefully and satisfy themselves that they would want it to remain in that form in the Bill. I can see some of the strength of what the Minister has said, but I am not totally convinced.
      This is not a matter on which I should properly divide the House at this stage. It is sufficient to express my reservations, to allow the provision to remain in the Bill for the time being, but to flag up the fact that it is disproportionate to the aims of the Bill and, therefore, should be seriously considered. On the basis of this short debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      DURATION AND TERMINATION OF ORDERS
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 6, line 6, leave out 'ten' and insert 'fifteen'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.
      No. 19, in page 6, line 11, leave out `six' and insert
      No. 20, in page 6, line 12, leave out `three' and insert `five'.
      No. 21, in page 6, line 16, leave out `two–thirds' and insert 'one–third'.
      No. 25, in clause 8, page 9, line 11, leave out 'one year' and insert 'six months'.
      No. 26, in page 9, line 11, leave out `three' and insert `five'.
      No. 27, in page 9, line 12, at end insert—
      `(1A) In section 33 of the 1986 Act (application to terminate order) for subsection (1) substitute—
      "(1) A person in relation to whom a domestic football banning order has had effect for at least one–third of the period determined under section 32(1) above may apply to the court which made the order to terminate it.".'.
      No. 28, in page 9, line 17, leave out 'six months' and insert 'three months'.
      No. 29, in page 9, line 18, leave out 'level 5' and insert `level 4'.
      Mr. Maclean: I shall be brief as we shall reach Third Reading shortly. I want to test the water with these amendments, which seek to increase the minimum and maximum periods for which banning orders can be imposed while allowing appeals for termination of orders to be made earlier. I am giving my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) a chance to toughen the Bill drastically while increasing the court's discretion in using the penalties.
      The amendments affect clauses 4 and 8. The Bill provides a maximum period of 10 years for a banning order for someone who has been imprisoned. The amendment suggests 15. In cases not involving imprisonment, the Bill suggests five years and the amendment seven. The minimum periods in the Bill are six years and three years; the amendment suggests nine and five. Clause 8 deals with the period of effect of orders under section 32 of the Public Order Act 1986. It is currently no less than one year and no more than three, whereas I suggest not less than six months and no more than five years. We are lowering one end of the scale while increasing the other.
      The other important change allows application for termination of orders to be made earlier, although that is coupled with the possibility of longer maximum sentences. That could be a better way of ensuring that the courts have the powers to impose stiff bans where necessary, but they can choose much longer or shorter periods. If the ban is longer, people will have the right to appeal against it after one third of the period rather than
      944
      two thirds. The provision increases flexibility while allowing the courts to thump those whom they wish to penalise.
      Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that he does not feel that I am a wimp. I am tempted, but I do not want to go down that route, however attractive it may be. We must take a balanced and acceptable approach to penalties so that they are not so harsh that people lose sympathy with the general aims of the mechanism. The Bill has the balance right. The penalties both fit the crime and will be seen as reasonable because they allow individuals to go back to the courts to ask, in respect of international banning orders, for the last third of the sentence to be rescinded on the ground of good behaviour. I think that that applies after a year of the sentence has been served in respect of a domestic banning order. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press the amendment.
      Mr. Forth: This is slightly bizarre. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was almost frothing at the mouth a moment ago about the need for the severest possible penalties. He came close to accusing me of being a wimp on law and order, to which I am unaccustomed. Now he says that we must not go too far or be too harsh and that the penalties are all right.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that we have to satisfy ourselves about proportionality and appropriateness. We are prepared to take the drastic step of removing someone's passport; we have just been told that that is essential to make the Bill work. However, we must also consider what will be left of the discretion of the courts. What will be available to them to ensure that appropriate penalties are applied? If nothing else, the maxima will give some guidance to the courts about what we had in mind in legislating.
      As I argued earlier, we should not tie the hands of the courts too much. If we were to set severe maximum penalties, that would show the courts that some of the offences that might be committed under the provisions of the Bill were so serious as to merit severe penalties. However, for some reason, the promoter of the Bill does not seem to think so. He seems to think that it is one thing casually to take away someone's passport, but another thing to send a person to prison for a long time. That does not show much consistency. However, I shall again defer to the superior experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and be guided by him, although I remain somewhat uneasy.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Maclean: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made those points in his customary lucid style. I too was uneasy about the response of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford to the amendments. It seems inconsistent to go to the extreme step of taking away a person's passport, but not to allow the courts the freedom to increase the period of the banning order from 10 to 15 years. I was not even proposing a compulsory maximum; I merely wanted to give the courts that extra flexibility in the cases of those vile hooligans to whom my hon. Friend is strongly opposed. In those cases, the court could determine that a 15-year ban might be appropriate.

      945
      I suspect that the House will have to deal with this matter again when the Bill returns from another place. In the interests of making progress, I shall not force the matter today, but I suspect that the noble Lords at the other end of the Corridor may take a different view. My hon. Friend has not persuaded me. He said that he was almost tempted to accept the amendment. I hope that, if he is presented with amendments to the Bill when it returns from the other place, he will be prepared to accept some of them—in order to give the courts greater flexibility and freedom to impose tougher sentences, if they want to do so.
      As I shall clearly not make further progress today and the House wants to move on to other matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.47 pm
      Mr. Burns: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am delighted to have had the opportunity to pilot this important measure through the House. I am proud to have been associated with it. After the obscene behaviour in France last year and because of the far too many occasions in this country when a small band of mindless hooligans have caused so much damage, not only to the reputation of football but to the enjoyment of other people—the vast majority of law-abiding football supporters—we need to take action to block loopholes in the law in respect of racist and indecent chanting. We also need to give the police, the courts and the authorities greater powers to bring to book and to punish those who indulge in that sort of unacceptable and illegal behaviour.
      I shall not detain the House for long, but I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for the way in which they have raised a series of important issues during Report. They gave the House the opportunity to debate matters of concern to them and to some other hon. Members.
      I am grateful that a large majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with the Bill—as do interested parties outside the House, ranging from the Football Association, the Football Supporters Association and others to the law enforcement agencies and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The Bill does not cause party political divisions, so I also pay tribute to, and thank, the Under–Secretary of State for the Home Department for the helpful way in which she has assisted me—as have her civil servants, led by Mr. Alan Brown. He has done tremendous work in helping to inform me on several highly technical and difficult issues. That has ensured the smooth running of the measure through its stages in the House, and its improvement in Committee. Shortly, my Bill will leave the House and go to another place. I trust that their lordships will give it swift passage, so that a badly needed measure that commands great support is on the statute book by the end of July, comes into force by September and is in place for most of the next football season, when it can do something positive to minimise the sort of behaviour that has become all too familiar, both in this country and, especially, overseas.
      1.50 pm
      Mr. Ivor Caplin: I want to say only a few words and concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I congratulate him on the way in which he piloted his Bill through Second Reading and in Committee. As a football fan, I am pleased that the Bill is now making speedy progress, as I hoped it would when I spoke on Second Reading. I shall focus my remarks on two clauses, 9 and 10, which deal with racist chanting and ticket touting, against both of which I have been campaigning for some time.
      I am pleased that, today, we as a House have an opportunity to say once and for all that we oppose the racist chanting that has bedevilled football for many years. We should be aware of its intrusion into cricket and other sports, which might be an issue that my hon. Friend the Minister will wish to discuss with colleagues, including our hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.
      On Second Reading, I said that ticket touting was not entrepreneurship, but robbery. I have no doubt that stronger regulations to stop ticket touting are welcome in this country. I hope that we shall be able to use that framework as the basis for discussions with our European partners about how to strengthen the framework for overseas football.
      1.52 pm
      Mr. Tony Clarke: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on introducing his Bill, which highlights and tackles the loopholes that have enabled football hooligans to continue to flourish.
      To a certain extent, the media have misrepresented the debate in such a way as to make us believe that we still have a problem in our domestic game. That is not true. In the main, football has cleaned up its own act, largely through the efforts of supporters working hard within their clubs. Now, we are addressing loopholes that enable hooligans to cause trouble abroad and to chant racist slogans at matches, and we are acting to rid ourselves of ticket touts.
      In the other place and when the Bill returns to this House, I hope that two fundamental points that still cause me concern are addressed. The first relates to football-related offences and my hope that we will find a way to give some protection to third parties who get caught up in violent events. People go to bars for many reasons—for a stag night, for a night out with friends or as regulars—but if they get caught up in violence that is construed as being football related, they might fall foul of the restriction orders that we impose.
      The second point relates to racist chanting. The Minister may be aware of concerns that I voiced in Committee, that although we have corrected one anomaly—that of a chorus being defined as at least two people before action could be taken; that has now been reduced to one person—we have not corrected the anomaly relating to repeated utterance. Although action might be possible under a breach of the peace, unless the offending comment is repeated, it might be difficult to obtain a conviction.
      If ever a reason was needed for legislation of this nature being on the statute book, it was provided this week in Four Four Two, in an article about a self-confessed hooligan and Chelsea fan by the name of Martin King. The article states:

      947
      "On one occasion, King, whose passport was recognised by a copper when he was off to watch Chelsea in the Cup Winners' Cup, told an officer he no longer followed football and was going wine-tasting in France—by sheer coincidence on the same day the Blues were playing in Europe. 'Sorry to bother you lads,' replied the policeman, who handed King back his passport."
      For that reason, we must not let this matter drop. I wish the legislation every success, in its present form or as a Government measure.
      1.55 pm
      Mrs. Laing: I wish briefly to commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for introducing this excellent Bill, which, as has been shown this morning, enjoys wide support throughout the House. It will have far-reaching consequences, so it is right that we have considered the arguments in depth today. I also commend my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for their assiduous examination of the Bill. However, as I appreciate that brevity is necessary to ensure that the Bill does not run out of time, I am happy simply to commend it to the House and to leave the rest to the Minister.
      1.56 pm
      Mr. Forth: It always makes me nervous when I hear hon. Members say, "This Bill has wide support on all sides of the House." My memory goes back to the Child Support Agency, which similarly enjoyed the support of both sides of the House, and which subsequent Conservative and Labour Governments attempted to put right many years later. My right hon. and hon. Friends will recall many measures that were introduced in a rush of enthusiasm and received widespread support throughout the House, and which almost invariably turned out to be some of the worst pieces of legislation ever inflicted on the voters and taxpayers. I hope that this will not be one of them.
      I have expressed my reservations about the Bill. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has introduced it and I accept that there is support for the measure. However, I add in parenthesis that the amount of support—visual, vocal and physical—has not been exactly overwhelming today. The House has its own peculiar reasons for working in this way and moving mysteriously its wonders to perform, so I shall leave that to one side.
      I remain somewhat uneasy about the extent to which in this Bill, as in others, we are shifting the balance—slowly but inexorably—away from the traditional rights enjoyed by individuals in this country to benefit "the authorities", whoever they are, and who take many forms in this country, as in others. They have ever greater powers and resources, and technology is widely available to them. I am sure that, in most cases, that is a force for good and reassures the majority of law-abiding people. However, we must acknowledge that, every now and then, there is a distinct danger that those huge mechanisms and enormous powers will go wrong and be abused—usually inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately. Above all, our prime responsibility in the House of Commons is to seek to protect the individual.

      948
      I hope that we have discharged that responsibility in this case and I hope that the Bill's wider powers will not go wrong in any way. I hope that I am proved wrong, but I must express that reservation. I accept that my hon. Friend's Bill will proceed, having received due process and proper debate in the House and in Committee. It received a good debate on Report—which is the only way I believe legislation should be able to proceed. My hon. Friend came high in the ballot and he has handled the Bill impeccably. I congratulate him on carrying the House with him. It now remains to be seen to what extent the other place will examine the matter. I support Third Reading.
      1.59 pm
      Kate Hoey: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on successfully getting his Bill through all its parliamentary stages. I am grateful for his co-operation during the Bill's drafting and its progress through the House, and for the skilful way in which he has approached that. I am grateful to other hon. Members for their informed, considered contributions to debates on these important measures, which aim to maintain and enhance the high quality of our national sport and the prominence that it enjoys. We must maintain that by looking after the interests of the decent, law-abiding supporter. The supporters' interests remain paramount, and I was pleased with the constructive contributions to the consultation process made by many of those who represent them.
      As we all know, the introduction of the Bill will add to our sophisticated legislative process for dealing with football-related offences. We all recognise, however, that legislation is only part of the solution to that problem. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford has said throughout the debate, the most important people who can help us, and whom the Bill is really about, are the decent supporters. They will benefit from the measures.
      I do not want to go into recent international results on the pitch which have, sadly, not gone too well for the home countries, but we continue to hope that we shall have representation at the Euro 2000 championship in Belgium and Holland. We have already entered into discussions with our colleagues to work out the details of policing and security for that competition.
      We want to ensure that all supporters travelling from this country are able to enjoy football in a safe, secure environment, as the vast, well-behaved majority do. They are just as sickened by the shameful antics of the tiny minority who, regrettably, tarnish the image of decent supporters as well as that of our country. That is why we shall continue to seek to introduce measures that prevent those who commit football-related offences from travelling abroad.
      The Bill will help to promote the positive aspects of good behaviour. It sends out a strong message that there are firm measures to deal with those who view football as a battleground, not a playing field. We do not want those people associated with our game, and we should all work together to get rid of them. The Bill takes a good step towards that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill
    Clause 14

      RESTRICTION ON BRINGING CHILDREN INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR ADOPTION
      2.3 pm
      Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 8, leave out lines 17 to 22.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 8, line 20, leave out from 'knowledge' to end of line 22.
      Mr. Maclean: The amendments are small but potentially important. Clause 14 is in the miscellaneous and supplemental part of the Bill and will insert into section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976 restrictions on people bringing children into the United Kingdom for adoption, contrary to any regulation that may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The amendments do not deal with those regulations. Leaving aside whatever requirements the Secretary of State may prescribe in those regulations, it is important to have penalties for anyone who breaches the restrictions in clause 14.
      My concern is with subsection (4), which says:
      "Proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the prosecutor to warrant the proceedings came to his knowledge; but no such proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this subsection more than three years after the commission of the offence."
      The amendments in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would have one of two effects. Amendment No. 9 would delete the whole of subsection (4), and as an alternative, amendment No. 10 would delete the last part, which is the bar on prosecution more than three years after the commission of the offence.
      It is worth while probing these matters to ascertain the views of the Minister and of the promoter, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), on the reasons for the provision of three years. I appreciate that there cannot be an indefinite period. Clearly that would be an injustice. However, when the Minister was last in his place on a Friday we were debating putting people on the so-called black list in the context of the Protection of Children Bill. I cannot remember the time limits for backdating offences in that Bill or for saying that people could be put on the register even if their paedophiliac activity or their abuse of children happened many years ago. I think that the time scale in that Bill was much longer than three years.
      Nevertheless, we are talking not about child abusers but those who have adopted a child, or who wish to do so, who have committed an offence by bringing somebody into the United Kingdom for adoption. They have done that not because they wish to abuse the child but possibly as a result of a misguided sense of loyalty or a misguided decision that they can help the child, or possibly for
      950
      wrong and selfish reasons. They may not wish to comply with the law or may not comply with it, but they wish to breach the law to adopt a child illegally.
      In those circumstances, we should be sending out a slightly stronger signal. A bar after three years perhaps sends too weak a signal. If an offence has gone undetected for three years, those concerned will know that they will get away with it. If we conclude that it is wrong in any event for people to commit such an act, we should not put a three-year bar on their being prosecuted for the offence.
      I cannot remember what the usual bar on criminal prosecutions is. Is there a limit of seven years? The period is different for many different offences. However, three years seems to be a highly restrictive period within which to bring a prosecution once there is evidence that a crime has been committed.
      Amendment No. 9 would remove the obligation on a prosecutor, on discovering that a crime has been committed, to act within six months of his feeling that there is sufficient evidence. That is slightly too restrictive. Do we need to have a time limit? I think that there is an obligation on the Crown Prosecution Service in any case to move as speedily as it can, and there may be good reasons for it taking slightly longer than six months to commence proceedings.
      Inevitably, in circumstances involving the illegal adoption of children or of bringing children into this country to adopt them improperly, people will have behaved deviously. The facts will possibly be difficult to ascertain. The prosecutor might need more time to put together a case that will stick in court. I cannot see that there will be a fundamental injustice to the accused person, or the person who may be accused, if proceedings are not commenced within six months.
      I agree, of course, that there should not be a ghastly sword of Damocles hanging over someone's head, where they are told that proceedings may be brought against them and it takes years and years before any prosecution is or is not brought. That is not appropriate. However, we either need a period that is longer than six months or we do not need a period to be prescribed; the matter can then be left to be dealt with under the normal rules and subject to the obligation that already applies to the CPS to bring prosecutions as speedily as it can provided that it has sufficient evidence.
      We must examine carefully the bar after three years. In many cases evidence may come to light only when the child has started school. In some cases it may come to light only when the child has come of age, has applied for a national insurance number, or has a health problem and is taken to a doctor when aged five, seven, nine or whatever. In those circumstances the doctor or the health centre may discover that the child was adopted improperly four, five or six years before. The authorities should then have the right to prosecute. If this is regarded as something for which there should be a penalty, I suggest to the Bill's promoter that we should not have too short a cut-off period, as that would prevent the prosecution taking action against people who should be punished but who committed an offence five, six or seven years earlier.
      Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate the opportunity to contribute at this late stage to the debate on this important Bill, especially on amendments Nos. 8 and 9. As I served as chairman of the

      951
      juvenile court for many years and then, in my capacity as a Minister, was involved in the early stages of consideration of this difficult issue, I am delighted that the Bill has reached a critical stage and looks as though it will pass successfully on to the statute book. Would that it had been a wider adoption Bill.
      Undoubtedly, amendments Nos. 8 and 9 relate to the area that has caused most pain and suffering. They concern a vexed and sensitive question, because introducing criminal offences in child care matters is always a serious step. Too often, families felt provoked into abusing the rules and the system because of the resistance and insults that they received from local authorities and adoption agencies. I was greatly perplexed that, at a time when so much effort was going into creating new fertility treatments with in vitro fertilisation and other such steps, there was so much resistance and prejudice against intercountry adoption.
      Of course it is a profoundly serious step for a child to leave its natural country and live in another land, but for those who saw the alternative—frequently, institutionalisation without health care, education, nurture or love—the opportunity to give a child a loving, caring home in this country proved irresistible. Too often, those families who tried to go through the proper channels found themselves rejected and resisted at every turn.
      No one could condone taking a child from one country to another without using the proper processes, but I ask the Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten)—the Bill's promoter—whether there will also be a countervailing power to take action against local authorities that simply refuse to co-operate with intercountry adoption. I accept that many have changed their tune. To hear the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Lady that we are considering a specific amendment, which is far narrower than the points that she is making at the moment.
      Mrs. Bottomley: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the House will understand the relevance to the amendments of what I am saying. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is discussing the issue of the six months and the three-year maximum. I believe that legislation should be passed only if it will be perceived as reasonable and will be acceptable to families and to those implementing it. The present unreasonable state of affairs has caused many people to feel affronted and provoked.
      I hope that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border can achieve reassurances on several points, he will not feel the need to press his amendment to a vote, because it seems to me that, after three years, a child and a family should be free of the background threat that a prosecution might be lodged. I do not believe that a family can conceal a child for more than three years, and after three years, the child has become part of that family. If difficulties were emerging, almost certainly they would have come to the notice of health visitors, schools or social workers. Six months is necessary because, regrettably, it is possible to conceal a
      952
      child for six months, and that child might well be at a particularly sensitive stage of development at which he or she needs the support of health visitors, teachers and other specialist providers.
      2.15 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border should not press this matter further, subject to reassurances from the Minister that the unreasonableness of the statutory agencies will be tackled and that there will be discretion over taking action against families. A criminal offence in such matters is extremely serious. The Campaign for Intercountry Adoption—which has members in my constituency—has made some important points about cases where it would be inappropriate to take a legalistic and persecutory approach. With a great deal of good will towards the Bill, I ask the Minister to offer some reassurance to help my right hon. Friend to withdraw his amendments.
      Mr. Mark Oaten: These important amendments hit at the heart of the Bill—the prevention of a practice that no hon. Member wants to see continue: the practice of bringing children into this country without reference to the proper procedures.
      The current procedures in this country are far too weak to deal with the problem as it stands. Existing legislation would not allow any mechanisms for the authorities to tackle a couple who had brought a child into this country and had sought to keep the child hidden here for six months. If that couple were successful and the authorities found out about the child after seven months, the authorities would have no powers to tackle them. That is wrong, and nonsensical.
      As the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said, we can all imagine circumstances where a child could be hidden for six months. The critical point in the Bill—and the reason why I hope that the right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) will withdraw his amendments, which would take away the power—is that it would provide the ability to extend the six-month period to three years. That would mean that we would not need to discover the event within six months, but that the provisions would kick in at the point at which the offence was discovered. If, after a year and a half, the authorities discovered that a child had been brought in, they would have the power to take action. That is what we all wish to see.
      I understand the concerns of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border about the three-year period, and his point that if individuals have broken the law, there should perhaps not be a limit at all. I thought that the right hon. Lady made the point very well that we can be satisfied that any problems or offences would have come to light in three years. Surely after three years it is reasonable that the family should be able to carry on without the threat of legal action. If abuse is discovered in the family after more than three years, other forms of law could kick in to tackle it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendments.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): The right hon. Member for South–West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) speaks with great knowledge and wisdom on child care matters, and she

      953
      raised a number of issues concerning the amendments. I assure her and the House that the Government will keep all aspects of adoption law and practice under active review. One of the purposes of the Bill is to create a new responsibility for local authorities to operate an intercountry adoption service. No one will be able to opt out of legislation passed by the House.
      The points made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) were dealt with effectively by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under the Magistrates Courts (Procedure) Act 1998, there is a six-month bar on prosecutions for summary offences.
      The Bill provides for a new summary offence, and to show the seriousness with which we will treat offences of bringing children into the United Kingdom outwith the regulations, we propose to extend to three years the period within which a prosecution can be made.
      The amendments are directly contradictory: amendment No. 9 would require that proceedings could be brought only within six months of the offence being committed, which is the present situation, but amendment No. 10 would contradict that by providing that proceedings could be brought with no time limit at all. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border had better make up his mind.
      Because of the current restrictions on bringing summary proceedings for these offences, no proceedings have ever been brought against a person for bringing in a child in breach of the adoption legislation. That situation is unacceptable and the Bill is designed to correct it.
      Mr. Maclean: This has been a useful debate. I tabled the amendments as probing amendments and I am very conscious of the wisdom of what my right hon. Friend the Member for South–West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and the Minister have said. I was in toughening-up mode this morning. We spent the whole morning trying to get draconian new provisions into the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill and perhaps I was being a bit too severe in trying to remove the three-year limit in this Bill.
      I accept that in prosecuting family cases we need to have a different yardstick and a more sensitive set of rules than in prosecuting football hooligans. Following the wise words of reassurance, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      2.21 pm
      Mr. Oaten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill has wide support from individuals and groups involved in adoption. I have been extremely encouraged by the cross-party support for the provisions throughout our proceedings, especially in the excellent Second Reading debate.
      Many of us have been concerned about the recent increase in the number of couples who, in seeking to adopt children from a foreign country, have not had the best quality of service from local authorities—the Bill is designed to tackle some of those issues—but we would all be more concerned about those individuals who have
      954
      gone down that route as a way of avoiding some of the controls that are in place for the adoption of children in the United Kingdom.
      The Bill is an attempt for the first time to deal with the grey areas by proper regulation. The most pleasing provision is the adoption of the Hague convention, allowing the House finally to ratify it, having signed up to it in 1993. It is an embarrassment to this country that we have taken so long to ratify the convention, which will institute an agreement on the recognition of various standards. Given that it is based on the fundamental rights of the child, I hope that its ratification will mean that we have enshrined clearly the principle that the child's interests must be paramount in the way in which adoption takes place.
      The Bill provides for ways in which we can stop the criminal activity of bringing children into this country by those couples who seek, by one means or another, to avoid going through the proper procedures. We have, rightly, good controls for adopting children within the United Kingdom, and it would be wrong to think that one can try to avoid those controls and get a second-hand or second-rate child from another country. That is why the Bill tightens the provisions on couples who may pay for private home study reports and bypass the social work system, as well as the provisions for individuals who bring children into the country.
      The Bill also reminds local authorities of what is required of them and of how they should respond to those who go to them for advice and approval for adopting. I hope that the provisions will mean that the quality of local authorities' performance matches that of my local authority, Hampshire, which has become expert in managing the process, and that a culture will develop in which authorities take a positive attitude towards the whole question of intercountry adoption. We should also, because of changed and improved practice, see far fewer individuals trying to bypass the law and bring in children, late at night, in the boot of a car.
      I believe that the Bill is both tough and tender, not only recognising intercountry adoption and trying to improve performance, but saying to those who want to hinder that performance that the strong hand of the law will stop them. Ultimately, the child's individual rights are more important than are those of people trying to adopt, for whatever reason. I hope that the House will pass the Bill, which I warmly endorse.
      2.25 pm
      Mr. Hutton: As the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said, the Bill aims to achieve two important objectives. The first is to introduce measures that protect children living abroad and who are to be adopted by people resident in the United Kingdom. The main instrument of achieving that objective is ratification of the 1993 Hague convention on intercountry adoption. Enactment of the Bill will enable the convention's articles to be subsumed within our own substantive law, and thereby to enhance the quality and effectiveness of adoption law.
      The second important objective is to place intercountry adoption within a clear statutory framework, thereby enabling regulations to be made to ensure that, within these islands, only those who are approved as suitable to become adoptive parents by a local authority or adoption

      955
      agency are able to proceed to complete the adoption process abroad. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, the Bill's provisions to introduce new offences are absolutely necessary if we are to protect the welfare of children, by preventing them being brought to the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption without authority.
      The Bill also reaffirms the Government's view that privately commissioned home study reports for the purposes of adoption—whether prepared in connection with the convention or not—are unacceptable. In future, only a local authority or approved adoption agency will be able to provide a home study assessment.
      The Bill also provides, for the first time, that intercountry adoption is put on a sound legal footing. I believe that that should make the procedures for convention adoptions, and the majority of other intercountry adoptions, more straightforward and effective and less bureaucratic. I should like to emphasise, however, that the last thing intended in the Bill's preparation was that it should place obstacles in the path of those who wish to adopt from abroad. That is not our intention.
      The Government support the Bill not only for its important measures, but because it will provide the facility by which people may be assessed and their application processed within a clearly understood and workable framework. I believe that the Bill will achieve all of that. I also believe that, ultimately, the provisions will enable us to deliver a better and more effective service to intercountry adopters.
      956
      I very warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on promoting his Bill. He has done the House a great service in giving us the opportunity to improve our regulations and law on the matter. I hope, as he does, that the House will now give the Bill a Third Reading.
      2.27 pm
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I think that it was evident on Second Reading that the Bill has the support of the whole House. Today, we all wish it on its way with good speed.
      Unfortunately, one or two comments that I made on Second Reading provoked a little confusion, particularly among Labour Members. It really does need to be made clear that—as the Minister has just said—the responsibility placed on local authorities by the Bill is very great. If the rights of the child are to be fully recognised, we must also develop an international standard by which the quality of those wishing to adopt is judged.
      I believe that such an international standard would also enlighten those of us in the United Kingdom. The policy of too many local authorities—on matters such as age and interracial adoption, for example—is too restrictive, because they are spoilt for choice. When it comes to international and intercountry adoption, a child who is refused a home in the United Kingdom may be subject to much looser rules in another country. I therefore believe that we must address the issue as soon as possible, preferably as part of a much more comprehensive adoption Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
    Clause 3

      EFFECT OF FORFEITURE ORDERS.
      Amendment proposed [14 May]: No. 36, in page 2, line 20, at the end to insert the words—
      `(c) in Northern Ireland, to the Crown Court'.—(Mr. Forth).
      2.29 pm
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 5, page 3, line 42, at end insert—
      `(c) in the case of businesses or parts of businesses carried on solely or primarily in Northern Ireland, the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.'.
      No. 38, in clause 6, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
      `(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State'.
      No. 35, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) had the Floor on 14 May.
      Mr. David Maclean: I was concerned about non-application of the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland, as the Bill applies them to northern Scotland—I mean to all of Scotland. If they applied only to northern Scotland, my relatives would not be so worried about them. I was trying to develop the argument that there is an inconsistency in this part of the Bill, as Scotland now has its own Parliament.
      It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 July.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    REFERENDUMS BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on new clause proposed [21 May] on consideration of Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate further adjourned till Friday 23 July.

  NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  PRESCRIPTION CHARGES (HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  RESTRAINING AND PROTECTION ORDERS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  COUNTRY LANES AND VILLAGES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [30 April].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 23 July.

  ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 23 July.

  PENSIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  REGULATIONS ON SMALL BUSINESSES (REDUCTION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  HARE COURSING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  LICENSING (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  AGE LIMITS ON HEALTH CARE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [23 April].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 23 July.

  ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  PLANNING APPEALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [12 March].
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate further adjourned till Friday 23 July.

  PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (GIBRALTAR) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION (CYCLE PARKING) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Objection taken. Debate to be resumed on which day?
  Mr. Stephen Pound: If we are not too busy, Friday 23 July suggests itself.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  WAITING TIMES (NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  STREETWORKS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  ROYAL PARKS (TRADING) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

  Planning (Use Classes)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: I am delighted to reach that part of the day's business normally described as the graveyard slot.
  The vexed issue of planning and funeral parlours is of great concern to my constituents. For many years, one of my constituents lived next to an excellent local newsagent and tobacconist shop, where sustenance for mind and body was available through a wide display of specialist magazines and tobaccos from many continents. To her horror, one day she found that a funeral parlour had appeared almost overnight in the small parade of shops.
  My constituent came from Northolt, and immediately contacted the council and demanded to know what it was going to do. The response from Peter Causer and Janet Thomas in the planning department was that nothing could be done, because of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Extraordinarily and bizarrely, that order places newsagents and many other retail outlets in the same use category as funeral parlours.
  I have no objection to funeral parlours and funeral directors operating in the high street. They provide an essential service with considerable sensitivity, which is greatly appreciated, and they are extremely supportive of the local community. I do not consider their presence in the high street in any way inappropriate. By and large, they make good neighbours—there are few complaints about loud music, for example.
  However, Mike Churchman, speaking for one of the larger groups of funeral directors in the country, has drawn attention to the fact that many people object to funeral directors operating in the high street. In many ways, that stems from English people's fear of death. We still believe that it will never happen to us, and that death is an awesome and frightening thing. I do not subscribe to that view. I have been told that there will be great rejoicing when news of my death sweeps west London. Death is not something to be especially sad about.
  The relevant planning regulations appear ludicrous. Elsewhere in my constituency, a funeral director's establishment is located between a barber and a balti shop. That may seem appropriate to some, who perhaps believe that all tastes are catered for in that parade of shops, but there is something about it that does not seem right.
  The deeper I looked into the 1987 order, the more I realised that the Government have failed people in the past because the use classes are so ill drawn. I had intended to confine myself to funeral directors and funeral parlours, but I have found it impossible to resist the temptation to wander slightly further afield—although remaining within the ambit of the use classes order.
  The old pie and mash shop next to the Methodist church in Greenford closed down and was reopened, on the following Monday, as Crikey O'Reilly's Irish pub. I take second place to no one in the respect in which I hold Greenford's teetotal Methodist community, and the placement of the pub was completely inappropriate.
  Fortunately, after several discussions with a small focus group at the pub, it was agreed that the name would be changed to the Belmullet Tavern, in honour of one of the
  962
  most delightful parts of County Mayo. I have been honoured to visit that tavern on many occasions since. However, the difficulty is that the A3 use categories permit a food retail outlet—in this case the pie and mash shop—to be changed into a pub.
  It gets worse. The categories are so badly drawn that the old unrestricted A3 uses have led to an over-concentration of pubs and, even more sinisterly, such things as super-pubs. I believe that the Minister is familiar with the concept of super-pubs and will discuss them later. Planning fails in these cases and it is left to licensing magistrates to resolve the difficulties, which is impossible.
  The distinction between the A3 use class, which covers super-pubs, and the D2 class, which covers dancehalls and nightclubs, is extremely blurred. It is ludicrous that a cinema can be converted into a late-night dancehall without permission. The primary use of a building can vary depending on the time of day, and enforcement is extremely difficult if sui generis use is not proven.
  The A1 use category—traditionally known as the coffee bar and sandwich bar category—and the A3 use category have a blurred distinction. In modern, fashionable outlets of a type completely unknown to me, but which those who live in more fashionable parts of London tell me are called Pret a Manger—does it mean ready to eat?—seating is a dominant feature. In many cases, on appeal, inspectors have used an extremely broad definition of primary use and allowed considerable change so that Al units have become A3 units by default. We clearly need a separate classification.
  As I delved deeper into planning law, I found out about business use classes B1, B2 and B8, and the situation is even worse. Permitted development rights to change units of 235 sq m to B8 use are being exercised in conjunction with amalgamation, which is causing extraordinary problems for local amenities and roads and the character of areas. The difficulties are significant, but nothing can be done.
  Finally, the position of museums, art galleries and libraries is worse still. I freely admit that Northolt is not over-blessed with those. In fact, to be perfectly honest, there is none. I have a large collection of old Fulham football club programmes that could form the basis of a library, and we have a lot of graffiti that could start off an art collection, but, within the D1 non-residential institution category, any museum, art gallery or public library—some hon. Members may have such things in their constituencies—could turn into a place of worship, a nursery or, worst of all, a private school. I wonder how any of my hon. Friends would like it if their cherished local art gallery suddenly became a private school or a place of worship without any need for public consultation or planning approval.
  There is a dichotomy in the regulations. In 1987, the Bromley and Chislehurst tendency ruled the roost, and the Government supported the idea that there should be no restrictions on business men and business women—probably just men in those days—so that they could ride rampant and roughshod. The idea was that life should be made easier for business people: if they were allowed to do what they liked, a thousand flowers would bloom. We have moved on since the days of that absurd, libertarian, laissez faire philosophy, recognising that regulations and restrictions in planning law provide sensible guidelines and parameters, and should involve public consultation and participation.

  963
  What most upset my constituent in Northolt was not the funeral parlour in the high street—she did not object to that, and nor would most sensible people—but the fact that the local authority planning department was not involved in any way and that there was no public consultation. The normal process of democratic accountability simply did not work. Her experience tells me that the categories are clearly wrongly drawn.
  I understand that there may possibly still be an instinct within the House to go against regulation—we have a Select Committee on Deregulation and, by and large, deregulation is a good thing. However, we must recognise that the amendments in 1987 to the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 drew the lines too widely and have created too many problems. Like all Londoners, I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction to resolve that and many other problems in his response.
  Many hon. Members come to the House with great and noble ambitions. Many come through these doors determined to bring world peace and amity by the end of their first term. Many of us seek to increase the sum total of human happiness by our activities. I am a modest man—many of my friends say that I have much to be modest about—and I do not immediately seek world peace and the happiness of all. I want a reclassification of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Is that too much to ask?
  Would it not be possible for the Minister to say—graciously, as ever—that among many other things it is the task of the Government to correct some of the wilder anomalies fuelled by the free market dogma of the previous Administration and to recognise that an important principle is involved? Planning officers are trying to do a job and to consult and work with the local community, but they are being prevented from doing so by the ways in which the use classes are drawn. The consequences for the local community, not merely in terms of democratic accountability, but of the changing nature of an area, are profound and, in many cases, to be regretted.
  I suppose that I should, but I make no apologies for taking the time of the House on this matter, which may seem of specialised interest to most people. It affects us all. I offer that to the House and I finish in earnest anticipation of the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.
  2.47 pm
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on securing this debate and giving us a subject that is of grave importance to his constituents and others who are concerned about the planning system.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for writing to me in advance with further details of his concerns, which as he said, wandered slightly wide of the designation, "Planning regulations for funeral parlours".
  Referring to one of the more memorable comments by the former Prime Minister, Lord Attlee, my hon. Friend described himself as a modest man. I am not sure that my
  964
  hon. Friend should be so modest. He has made a most significant contribution to the House in the two years or so in which he has been here, and he has certainly enhanced the sum of human happiness and amusement in this Chamber. I hope that in my response I will be able not merely to answer his questions, but to respond to some extent in kind.
  I noted the example with which he opened his speech. Some people who take an interest in health matters might well consider that the change of use from a tobacconist to a funeral parlour was a related use. I leave that thought with my hon. Friend.
  I disagree that there will be any cause for rejoicing in his constituency at the death of the Pound—a situation that none of us look forward to. I congratulate him in his success in securing the change of name from Crikey O'Reilly's to the Belmullet Tavern and I will not ask how long it took his focus groups to secure that happy outcome.
  Finally, before I come to the serious side of the debate, I suggest that the flexibility to allow a change of use from a museum or art gallery to a place of worship or a school, about which my hon. Friend expressed concern, might be to the benefit of Ealing, North because it can work in the opposite direction. The change of use to a museum or art gallery might be easier without the requirement for specific planning consent. The creation of the hon. Gentleman's museum of Fulham football club memorabilia might therefore be easier to achieve.
  It may helpful if I set out the legislative and policy background. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, which I will refer to as the UCO, sets out classes of land use. Changes within each of those classes do not require planning permission. In addition, the town and country planning general permitted development order grants a general permission for specified changes of use between some of these classes.
  Both the UCO and the permitted development order are well-established measures in the town and country planning system. The UCO was introduced on the ground that the changes of use that it permits will have a broadly similar impact, for instance, in terms of noise, traffic and visual appearance. The intention is to strike an appropriate balance between the need to facilitate development and to protect local amenity and the environment.
  The UCO plays an essential role in delivering a positive, proactive planning system that helps business and local communities to thrive. It removes from businesses and others the requirement to seek planning permission from the local planning authority for uses that are generally uncontroversial and do not adversely impact on local amenity. The UCO is kept under review so that problem areas can be addressed or particular matters clarified. Since 1987 only five amendments have been felt to be necessary.
  I shall now move on to the first specific area of the UCO about which my hon. Friend commented—funeral businesses. Funeral directors' premises are included in the Al shops class of the order, so a change to use by an undertaker from a shop does not require planning permission. That is on the basis that they have similar land use implications and provide a service to visiting members of the public. However, any works arising from the change of use may require a planning application to be submitted to the local planning authority.

  965
  Following a review of the UCO in 1991, the previous Government decided that funeral directors' premises should remain in the shops class. They felt that when people have to cope with bereavement, they should expect to be able to contact an undertaker in the locality. I agree with this view, and I think my hon. Friend does because he spoke warmly of the quality of service provided by funeral directors in meeting genuine needs. If such businesses had to be located well away from other shops and people's homes, it would only add unnecessary inconvenience to the distress of the bereaved.
  We know that some would like funeral uses to be removed from the shops class of the UCO. Difficulties have, on occasion, arisen when shops in residential areas have changed to that use. Clearly, the siting of such businesses close to neighbouring developments such as old people's homes can be a delicate matter and may cause disquiet. However, those are isolated instances and we have no evidence that there is a widespread problem that would justify removal of funeral directors' rights under the UCO.
  As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, funeral businesses traditionally conduct themselves with discretion and sensitivity appropriate to the nature of their work. They adhere to their trade associations' code of conduct, which sets standards to address the more delicate aspects of their work. Funeral directors are well aware of the need to minimise as far as possible the distressing connotations of the service. Funeral businesses are generally perceived in their communities as an uncontroversial and, indeed, valued presence in residential and shopping areas.
  While funeral directors' premises fall within the UCO, funeral directors' chapels of rest are generally treated separately. If I may lapse into Latin, the technical term is sui generis, that is, outside the use class system. Mortuaries would also be sui generis unless ancillary to some other use of land, such as a hospital or clinic. That is because such activities are more likely to have an impact on local amenity and generate concern. Sui generis uses require specific planning permission for any changes to or from that use. A planning application would, therefore, be required for a new chapel of rest or a mortuary. That gives the local planning authority the opportunity to assess the impact of the proposed change of use on amenity and on the environment, and to consider any representations from interested parties. Local authority environmental health officers also have responsibility for ensuring that the required public health and safety standards are in place in chapels of rest. In addition, Government guidance sets out recommended standards of siting and design for public mortuaries.
  In cases where a chapel of rest forms part of a funeral directors' premises and is ancillary to it, it is for the local planning authority to determine, on the particular facts of each case, whether the premises as a whole should fall within the shops class. That is very much a matter of fact and degree. Ultimately, of course, interpretation of the law is for the courts.
  Where a planning application is necessary, local authorities are required to determine the application in accordance with the development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Development plans must take account of central Government policies. Those policies may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications. The Government have
  966
  not issued specific planning guidance relating to funeral directors uses. However, planning policy guidance note 6, on town centres and retail developments—PPG6—promotes Al shop use in existing centres where they are easily reached by public transport and conveniently located for those without a car. PPG6 also promotes the retention of facilities in local centres and neighbourhood shops. The aim of the Government's planning policy is to contribute to the regeneration of existing town centres and high streets.
  Sustaining town centres depends on flexibility in the use of floor space. It is widely recognised that vacant properties can blight town and district centres. The presence of outlets that provide essential services, such as funeral parlours, may, therefore, actually have the effect of protecting, and enhancing the prospects of, other businesses.
  My hon. Friend also referred to changes of use within the A3 class. That class comprises uses for the sale of food and drink, and of hot food for consumption on the premises. Class A3 uses may include restaurants, cafes, wine bars, public houses and takeaway establishments. The class was introduced to reflect the loosening of the traditional boundaries between the different types of catering establishment. When my hon. Friend referred to Pret a Manger, in a sense he made my case by pointing out the difficulty of distinguishing between those premises where people may eat on the premises and those where they may take food away for consumption elsewhere. Those boundaries are increasingly blurred in the patterns of retailing that are becoming more familiar to us. The aim of the use class order is to enable the trade to adapt to changing trends and demands without making businesses operate in an unduly rigid framework.
  In general, the freedom to change use within the food and drink class has caused little difficulty. However, we have received a number of representations, including comments from the London Planning Advisory Committee and the Local Government Association. Their anxiety is that some changes of use within the class—for example, the change to use to a themed pub or super-pub, to which my hon. Friend referred, or from a pub to a drive-through takeaway—can lead to new, or more, intensive activity and give rise to concerns about such issues as parking, noise and public order.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged, there are extensive controls outside the planning system that local authorities can use to remedy problems such as those. For example, local authorities have wide-ranging powers to prevent or abate noise under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In addition, under sections 93 and 94 of that Act, local authorities can issue a street litter control notice, which requires the occupier to take steps to keep the area free of litter. That may involve sweeping, or providing and servicing litter bins. Failure to comply with the order could result in action through the magistrates court.
  Under the Licensing Act 1964, it is open to magistrates to revoke, or to refuse to renew, licences for public houses and to impose certain other remedies where local residents are suffering unreasonable noise and nuisance. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Office is currently undertaking a review of liquor licensing laws. Those controls are all part of the wider picture. Having said that, I know that there are concerns about the existing planning controls and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are

  967
  giving them very careful consideration. I hope that he will accept those assurances in the spirit in which he opened the debate.
  My hon. Friend is concerned about the change from light industrial to office use permitted by the B1 class. The 1987 UCO amalgamated those formerly separate classes. The change was, in part, prompted by the changing relationship between industrial and office uses, especially in the field of high technology, and because those uses appeared to have no significantly different environmental impact. The changes were designed to afford more flexibility in the use of premises and thus to foster enterprise in local communities.
  My hon. Friend is concerned that the freedom to change to office use might have had an adverse impact, and other hon. Members have made representations on the grounds that it might lead to a fall in light industrial premises and a decline in business diversity. In the past few years, we have received few representations about the issue, other than from the City of Westminster in respect of specific local problems. As with the issues relating to the A3 class, we are considering the points that have been made.
  The recent White Paper, "The Future of Transport" contained a commitment to look for ways of improving the planning system's delivery of an integrated transport
  968
  strategy, including a review of the UCO and relevant aspects of the permitted development order. Our intention is to examine the changes of use allowed under the UCO and part 3 of schedule 2 to the permitted development order to establish what transport implications they may have, in terms of traffic generation and car parking. That work might involve considering some of the use classes mentioned in today's debate.
  In conclusion, the Government are well aware that there are aspects of the UCO that have caused concern in some locations and in some particular cases. However, we would need evidence of more widespread and significant problems to justify amending the UCO, which currently affords valuable freedoms and flexibilities that enable businesses to respond appropriately to changing economic and market circumstances and trends. We shall continue to monitor closely the operation of the order.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to my attention today. I assure him that the debate will contribute significantly to the Government's continuing interest in those matters, and to the monitoring of the performance of the use class order and the general permitted development rights.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Coastguard
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in the period January to April 1999 staffing levels at the Coastguard stations at (i) Oban, (ii) Liverpool, (iii) Belfast and (iv) Stornoway were maintained by the use of unqualified or partly-qualified staff. [85838]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]

  Oban

  Liverpool

  Belfast

  Stornoway

  Unqualified

  12 hour watch

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Partly Qualified

  12 hour watch

  0

  93

  60

  116

  6 hour watch

  0

  6

  5

  0

  Recruits who have yet to qualify in their grade are able to perform certain tasks on watch almost immediately but under the supervision of a watch manager. Watch managers are encouraged to involve new recruits in watchkeeping tasks as much as possible.

  Partly Qualified Officers are those who after their initial training have demonstrated their ability to their line management to undertake certain tasks appropriate to their grade, thus enabling them to become part of a Watch. Initial training is followed by further on the job training which take place at their parent station. This on the job training as part of the Watch, or as a supernumerary, is essential preparation for an officer's final proficiency examinations for qualification to their grade.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the 17 municipally owned bus companies their(a) annual turnover, (b) passenger revenues, (c) pre-tax profit or loss, (d) numbers of staff and (e) numbers of vehicles operated. [86666]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Transport Act 1985 the local authority-owned bus companies were set up as Companies Act companies working at arms length from their owners. As the details required by the Companies Acts are lodged at Companies House, my Department does not collect the data requested.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change his departmental expenditure limits and running costs limits for 1999–2000. [86984]

  Mr. Prescott
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, my departmental expenditure limits will change as follows.

  The voted Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £3,900,000, increasing the overall limit from £34,207,667,000 to £34,211,567,000. This increase reflects revised estimates of the costs of preparing for the Greater London Authority. The increase will be offset by a corresponding reduction in the Department's Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit from £9,696,757,000 to £9,692,857,000.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to provide the Greater London Authority with accommodation and administrative support. [86985]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I announced on 26 February plans for a new building for the headquarters of the Greater London Authority (GLA) at London Bridge City. Design and contractual issues are being finalised, and I anticipate the building being ready for occupation towards the end of 2001.

  To house the GLA before the new building is ready, my Department is arranging temporary office accommodation at Romney House, Marsham Street, London SW1, which should be ready for occupation by staff preparing for the GLA by the end of 1999.

  The GLA will assume its responsibilities on 3 July 2000, eight weeks after the elections, and work therefore needs to be put in hand now to establish finance and other systems and to ensure that appropriate administrative machinery is in place. I announced on 31 March that Dr. Bob Chilton would be seconded from the Audit Commission to be Head of Transition: he took up his duties on 19 April, and will work closely with my officials to take this work forward.

  My Department has earmarked £30 million from within existing budgets over the four years 1998–99 to 2001–02 to meet GLA preparation costs. This will cover the anticipated cost of fitting out, furnishing and equipping the new building, including professional and other specialist advice; providing temporary accommodation for the GLA; accommodating and equipping the transition team; and setting up new financial, management and communication systems for the GLA. This compares to an initial provision of £20 million, which was largely to cover the cost of providing a new building. I will provide more detailed estimates when commercial negotiations have been completed, and will report actual expenditure totals periodically.

  Separate provision is being made to cover the cost of the first elections to the GLA, including publicity, and establishing Transport for London and the London Development Agency. A separate announcement is being

  399
  made about a loan from the Contingencies Fund in relation to some of these costs. The arrangements for establishing the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority are matters for the Home Secretary.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statutory authority exists for costs to be incurred by him in 1999–2000 in preparation for the establishment of the Greater London Authority and its functional and other associated bodies. [86986]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Further to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) on 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 568, pending Parliamentary approval, urgent expenditure on new services for the bodies other than the Greater London Authority in 1999–2000 estimated at £4.7 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his consideration of the draft decisions submitted to him by the Environment Agency on Sellafield MOX plant. [85629]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have looked very carefully at the recommendations made by the Environment Agency about the justification for the MOX plant. We have also examined the representations made to us about the plant. Our provisional conclusion is that the balance of the argument so far is in favour of justification. However, we have also come to the conclusion that there should be further consultations on the economic case for the plant. We were concerned that the version of the report by PA Consulting on the economic case for the plant, which had been published by the Agency in January last year, did not contain as much information as the public could reasonably expect to see. We have therefore decided to publish a fuller version of the report. We accept, however, that some material contained in the report is commercially confidential and cannot be published without potentially harming BNFL's commercial interests. This information has been omitted from the version we are publishing.

  In view of the time that has passed since PA Consulting completed their report, we decided to commission from BNFL an up-to-date assessment of the market for MOX fuel. This assessment is also being published. Comments are being invited on this material by 23 July after which we shall take a final decision on the full operation of the plant.

  While this consultation is under way, and given our view that the balance of the argument currently favours justification we have concluded that it would be right for BNFL to be allowed to proceed with the uranium commissioning of the plant. We concluded that it would be right to allow this before final conclusions are reached about whether to give the go-ahead for the full operation of the plant. This would enable BNFL to begin testing the plant before the introduction of plutonium. In this way, if the plant is eventually given the go-ahead, the delays in running the plant commercially would be minimised. If, after the consultation exercise we decide that full
  400
  operation is not justified, the process would be halted and uranium removed from the plant. The costs of removal, estimated at £2 million, would be met by BNFL.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  MOX Fuel Shipment (Japan)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the conclusions of the Environment Agency on plutonium extraction from MOX fuel were assessed by his Department when determining the security measures necessary for the shipping of MOX fuel to Japan. [86740]

  Mr. Battle
  The physical protection measures necessary for the shipping of MOX fuel to Japan are based on the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency concerned with the movement of all Category I nuclear materials.

  Telecoms Data Protection Directive
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be able to make available draft regulations implementing the EC Telecoms Data Protection Directive (97/66/EC). [87025]

  Mr. Wills
  I have placed copies of the draft regulations in the Library of the House and these are also available in the Vote office. I am also making the draft Regulations available on the DTI Website at: www.dti. gov.uk/cii/tdpd/regs2/index.htm

  Offer and Ofgas
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the cash and running costs limits for the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Office for Gas Regulation. [87026]

  Mr. Byers
  Offer: Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary revised Estimate, the running cost limit will be increased by £10,100,000 from £18,100,000 to £28,200,000.

  This increase reflects the additional resources required by the Director General of Electricity Supply for the funding of the Review of Electricity Trading Arrangements (RETA) project (£11,200,000) and an accounting adjustment in respect of VAT receipts for contracted out services (£1,100,000). The increase will be offset by additional receipts and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Ofgas: The running cost limit for Class IX Vote 9£the Office of Gas Regulation£will be decreased by £938,000 from £12,938,000 to £12,000,000. This decrease reflects an accounting adjustment in respect of VAT receipts for contracted out services.

  Small Business
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research his Department has conducted into the awareness of Business Support services among small business owners.[86668]

  Mr. Wills
  DTI commissioned MORI to undertake five surveys of tracking research between 1994 and 1997 on awareness of Business Support services, including
  401
  Business Link. The most recent survey was in September 1997. Each survey involved a national telephone survey of a random sample of directors of businesses with between 10 and 200 employees in England, with a smaller sample of businesses with between five and nine employees for comparison. Research on awareness of Business Support services has also been carried out before and after national marketing campaign exercises for Business Link.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the costs to small businesses of the change of telephone codes; and what related discussions he has had with Oftel. [86669]

  Mr. Wills
  The administration of the National Numbering Scheme is a matter for Oftel. Oftel has not carried out any specific research into the costs to small businesses relating to changes to telephone codes. The changes to geographic codes were made in response to the views of consumers and businesses following "Phoneday" in 1995 in order to meet additional demands for numbers. In order to minimise the costs to businesses Oftel has given long periods of notice of changes, put in place parallel running for old and new numbers and "changed number" announcements. This enables businesses to plan for the future. Oftel has consulted extensively on changes to numbering arrangements and Oftel has kept my officials fully informed.

  Business Links
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total expenditure of Business Links in each of the last three financial years; and what proportion of that was on(a) salaries and (b) administration. [86636]

  Mr. Wills
  Business Links are private, independent organisations and the Department does not collect statistics on the total expenditure of Business Links or individual elements of it.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was his Department's total expenditure on Business Links in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and what expenditure is planned for 1999–2000. [86638]

  Mr. Wills
  The total amount of funding provided for the Business Link programme by the Department in the periods 1997–98 and 1998–99 were £129.2 million and £121.1 million respectively. For 1999–2000 the Department has earmarked £139 million for Business Link programme funding, which includes an element of funding specifically for developing services of the new Small Business Service.

  Gas Suppliers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning customers complaining that their gas supplier has been changed without their consent; what gas suppliers have been disciplined by Ofgas owing to their conduct in transferring customer accounts; and if he will make a statement. [85714]
  402
  Mr. Battle
  The Department has received a number of representations from consumers complaining about the involuntary transfer of their gas supply. I have great sympathy for consumers who have experienced difficulties in this respect, and understand the worry and inconvenience that such occurrences can cause. I have asked my officials to work with Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council to root out the causes of the problems and identify areas for action to tackle them urgently.

  I am determined that the industry should have in place systems which work effectively and consistently to transfer customers from existing to new suppliers without error and that these should be properly regulated. The Office of Gas Supply continually monitors industry performance and should pursue rigorously any instances of failure with the companies concerned. Action has been taken by Ofgas under both the Competition Act 1980 and the Gas Act 1986 against a number of companies to secure a commitment to improve standards of performance. I have asked the Director General for an update on the situation and on the action he has in hand.

  Company Directors (Insolvencies)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what statutory provisions regulate the ability of directors of companies which have become insolvent starting up in a similar line of business with a new company; what changes he is planning to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [86414]

  Dr. Howells
  A Director's involvement with a company which has become insolvent does not, of itself, preclude his or her from being a Director of a new company unless:

  (a) contrary to the provisions of S216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, it has the same or a similar name to the company which failed;

  or

  (b) the director has been disqualified from so acting under the Companies Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  When Parliamentary time allows we plan to introduce legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the procedure for disqualifying unfit company directors. There are no plans to make any other change in this area.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice he has received about the use of genetically modified crops in the production of cosmetics and perfumes with respect to(a) skin allergies and (b) treatments of skin complaints by antibiotics. [86671]

  Dr. Howells
  We have not received advice in relation to genetically modified crops and the production of cosmetics and perfumes. The number of cosmetic ingredients which may be derived from GMOs is estimated to be less than 1 per cent. However, we are supportive of the moves proposed by the European Commission Scientific Steering Committee to develop harmonised guidelines for Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) risk assessments for cosmetic products.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will publish the latest figures showing the volume of correspondence received by Ministers and Agency Chief Executives from hon. Members, the targets set for reply, and the percentage of replies sent within targets. [87028]

  Correspondence from Members of Parliament to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives

  1997

  1998

  Department or Agency

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply (working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies with target

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  15

  7,423

  76

  15

  i8,058

  57

  Cabinet Office

  15

  341

  96

  15

  292

  96

  Crown Prosecution Service

  15

  39

  85

  15

  ii66

  88

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  18

  2,939

  78

  18

  3,387

  86

  HM Customs and Excise

  18

  4,291

  20

  18

  iii4,439

  16

  Ministry of Defence

  15

  4,719

  65

  15

  iv5,619

  53

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  –

  –

  –

  15

  11

  100

  Army Personnel Centre

  15

  19

  64

  15

  43

  96

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  12

  27

  93

  15

  42

  79

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  –

  –

  –

  15

  29

  100

  Department for International Development

  15

  2,994

  89

  15

  2,613

  91

  Department for Education and Employment

  15

  22,460

  71

  15

  iii19,766

  70

  Employment Service

  15

  1,837

  93

  15

  630

  92

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  15

  31,798

  58

  15 v38,059

  51

  DVLA

  7

  299

  96

  7

  453

  99

  Driving Standards Agency

  15

  194

  78

  15

  108

  85

  Highways Agency

  12

  468

  71

  15

  480

  83

  Marine and Coastguard Agency

  15

  25

  100

  15

  vi21

  100

  Planning Inspectorate

  8

  296

  94

  8

  vii286

  87

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  24

  96

  15

  20

  100

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  7

  8,735

  95

  7

  viii10,040

  85

  Department of Health

  20

  14,547

  76

  20

  ix10,648

  61

  NHS Pensions Agency

  15

  78

  76

  15

  42

  74

  Medicines Control Agency

  –

  –

  –

  10

  37

  73

  Home Office

  15

  16,831

  20

  15

  17,875

  32

  20

  1,175

  22

  20

  xii875

  52

  HM Prison Service

  15

  2,702

  61

  x20

  2,400

  69

  UK Passport Agency

  10

  101

  97

  xi10

  181

  96

  Inland Revenue

  18

  3,323

  40

  18

  xiii6,305

  20

  23

  375

  79

  23

  xiv193

  100

  Valuation Office

  23

  74

  31

  23

  47

  36

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  15

  301

  88

  15

  xv291

  80

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  1,884

  76

  20

  2,672

  78

  Court Service

  20

  1,391

  99

  20

  xvi1,230

  99

  HM Land Registry

  20

  37

  100

  20

  36

  100

  Public Trust Office

  15

  65

  98

  15

  63

  98

  Northern Ireland Office (including Northern Ireland Departments)

  10

  2,163

  59

  10

  2,001

  70

  Child Support Agency

  10

  144

  67

  10

  104

  87

  Compensation Agency

  –

  –

  –

  7

  25

  100

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  10

  48

  92

  10

  35

  66

  Planning Service

  15

  78

  77

  10

  62

  74

  Rate Collection Agency

  5

  12

  92

  5

  10

  90

  Rivers Agency

  15

  13

  85

  15

  32

  97

  Road Service

  15

  23

  87

  10

  35

  97

  Social Security Agency

  10

  94

  78

  10

  70

  93

  Water Service

  15

  37

  92

  10

  48

  85

  Office for National Statistics

  10

  269

  92

  10

  xvii679

  88

  President of the Council's Office

  15

  102

  91

  15

  230

  88

  The Scottish Office

  17

  4,722

  65

  17

  5,650

  60

  Historic Scotland

  17

  23

  91

  17

  36

  100

  Scottish Courts Service

  17

  11

  82

  17

  17

  97

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  17

  38

  97

  17

  45

  100

  Scottish Prison Service

  17

  145

  97

  17

  119

  95

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  17

  240

  70

  17

  112

  50

  Department of Social Security

  20

  17,585

  51

  20

  19,330

  31

  Benefits Agency

  20

  3,314

  89

  20

  2,797

  56

  Child Support Agency

  20

  8,182

  99

  20

  8,365

  100

  Contributions Agency

  20

  338

  89

  20

  280

  37

  War Pensions Agency

  20

  693

  99

  20

  529

  98

  404
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The 1998 correspondence figures are set out in the following table. The table also sets out the figures for 1997, first published on 31 July 1998,Official Report, columns 643–46. Members' attention is drawn to the footnotes which accompany the table and which provide general background information on how totals have been calculated.
  405
  Correspondence from Members of Parliament to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Target set for reply(working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Target set for reply(working days)

  Number of letters received

  Percentage of replies within target

  Department of Trade and Industry

  10

  19,459

  61

  10

  iii22,193

  50

  Companies House

  10

  41

  100

  10

  38

  100

  Employment Tribunal Service

  –

  –

  –

  10

  78

  90

  Insolvency Service

  10

  27

  100

  10

  19

  100

  Radiocommunications Agency

  10

  27

  96

  10

  15

  100

  HM Treasury

  15

  4,553

  54

  15

  iii7,086

  37

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  15

  39

  100

  15

  xviii44

  98

  Welsh Office

  15

  2,998

  75

  15

  3,913

  71

  CADW (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  12

  65

  83

  10

  38

  97

  Notes on 1998 Figures19

  iIncludes correspondence for the Intervention Board.

  iiIncludes those letters addressed to the Law Officers but subsequently replied to by the Director of Public Prosecutions, excluding letters addressed to the DPP.

  iiiIncludes all Ministerial replies, not only replies to Members of Parliament.

  ivIncludes 940 letters where Agency Chief Executives replied on Ministers' behalf. Interim replies are not included in the overall performance.

  v67 per cent. of letters were replied to within 20 working days.

  viFigures from 1 April 1998-31 December 1998.

  viiIncludes 56 cases relating to Wales.

  viiiIn addition, the FCO's migration and visa department received 9,453 letters direct from MP's in 1998, of which 47 per cent. were replied to within 15 working days.

  ix1997 and 1998 figures are not directly comparable, as a new data system now provides figures relating to letters received from MPs only

  xPrison Service Director General cases which includes correspondence that Ministers passed on to be answered under delegated arrangements.

  xiUKPA Chief Executive cases.

  xiiIncludes letters for HM Prison Service where Ministers replied.

  xiiHead Office figures.

  xviLocal Office and "delegated" figures (where local officials reply direct to MPs).

  xvThis figure excludes letters which were subsequently replied to by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  xviIncludes letters where correspondence has been received direct to the Chief Executive or transferred to the Chief Executive for reply.

  xviiIncludes 579 letters where the Chief Executive replied on Ministers' behalf.

  xviiiIncludes 13 letters where the Chief Executive replied on Ministers' behalf.

  19The 1997 figures are taken from the Official Report, 31 July 1998, columns 643–46. Please also refer to the notes given with that reply. Departments and Agencies which received a total of between 1 and 10 letters from MPs during 1998 are not shown in this table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Staff Pay Settlement
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the 1999 pay settlement for House of Commons staff will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [85971]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  There are four groups of House of Commons staff covered by separate pay settlements each year. They are the Senior Commons Staff (SCS), the Main Structure Staff (Pay Bands A to E), the Refreshment Department Catering Staff and the Works Directorate Craft Staff.

  The pay of the Senior Commons Staff is kept in line with that of the Senior Civil Service. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body in February and the recommended increases have been implemented with effect from 1 April 1999.

  The negotiations with the unions recognised to represent staff in Pay Bands A to E started in April 1999 and are continuing.

  The negotiations with the unions representing staff in the Craft and Catering pay bands are expected to start towards the end of June.

  The implementation date for all the settlements is 1 April 1999.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Personal Documents (Confiscation)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the powers he has to confiscate(a) passports, (b) national insurance cards and (c) driving licences. [86665]

  Mr. Timms
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has no express powers to confiscate passports, national insurance cards or driving licences. However, these documents remain the property of Her Majesty's Government. If the Secretary of State has concerns that such a document may be forged, altered or stolen, he may retain it. A receipt is issued and the appropriate authority notified.

PRIME MINISTER

  Debt Burden
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the likely progress at the forthcoming G7 Summit in reducing the debt burden of the poorest countries; and if he will make a statement. [85724]

  The Prime Minister
  At the G8 Summit in Cologne next weekend I will be taking forward the UK's proposals for faster, deeper and wider debt relief to the world's poorest countries.

  Kosovo and Serbia (Ground Invasion)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on a ground invasion of(a) Kosovo and (b) Serbia. [85897]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]There is now evidence that the Yugoslav authorities are complying with the demands of the international community. My hon. Friend will be aware that following confirmation of the start of the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo, the NATO Secretary General ordered the suspension of the bombing campaign. An international peacekeeping force in which British troops will be at the forefront will be deployed within the timescale agreed between General Jackson and Serb military commanders on 9 June. Until this withdrawal is complete, however, we must continue to exercise caution and to keep all other options under review.

  Ethnic Hungarians
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Prime Minister of Hungary in relation to the safety of the ethnic Hungarians living in northern Yugoslavia, and on the concerns of the Hungarian Prime Minister about the threat to ethnic Hungarians from Serbian military forces and paramilitaries positioned near their homes.[85900]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]I met the Hungarian Prime Minister in Downing Street on 15 April. We discussed the situation of the ethnic Hungarian community in Vojvodina. Mr. Orban said that a substantial number of ethnic Hungarians had left the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in recent years for Hungary. He expressed concern that the rights of the ethnic Hungarians in Vojvodina were inadequate and that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had deliberately resettled Serb refugees in areas which hitherto had an ethnic Hungarian majority.

  I reaffirmed the United Kingdom's support for the democratisation of the whole of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the best way to safeguard the rights of all its citizens.

  Quarantine
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the representations he received regarding the quarantine of the pet dog of William Dowell. [86630]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to letters from William Dowell and his family, my office has received four letters on this subject, all from France.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to abolish quarantine for animals entering the United Kingdom. [86631]

  The Prime Minister
  On 26 March, the Government announced that they were going to reform the quarantine laws in the UK. A pilot scheme is being developed for introduction as soon as possible and the main scheme will be in place by April 2001.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what the Government's policy is towards the development of the Council of Europe. [86645]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government support the development of the Council of Europe as a key institution for the promotion of the values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law throughout Europe, and for the strengthening of the political, legal, social and cultural cohesion of the continent.

  The enlargement of the Council of Europe's membership to include the new democracies of Eastern Europe has given it a central role in European unification. The Government believe that to take forward this role it is essential that the Council re-affirm its structures and redefine its priorities to be able to act more effectively as a force for democratic stability. The Government therefore strongly support the recommendations of the report adopted by Ministers in Budapest in May. We want to see a strong and energetic and effective Council of Europe ready to face the new millennium.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the reasons for the time taken in providing a full answer to the question of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) of 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 403. [86716]

  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Member' s question–which asked for the figures showing that the Labour Party represents more rural constituencies than any other party–was due for answer on Tuesday 18 May and I gave a full reply two days later. The delay was due to the fact that on Monday 17 and Tuesday 18 May, I was in Bulgaria and Albania visiting British troops and meeting Kosovar refugees and the leaders of these frontline states.

  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to introduce a Holocaust Remembrance day; and if he will make a statement. [86654]

  The Prime Minister
  I am determined to ensure that the horrendous crimes against humanity committed during the Holocaust are never forgotten. The ethnic cleansing and killing that has taken place in Europe in recent weeks are a stark example of the need for vigilance.

  The Government are considering a proposal for a Holocaust Remembrance Day and I have asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consult widely about this.

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Inland Revenue Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000. [87027]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to change the overall Departmental Expenditure Limit of the Inland Revenue. However, subject to Parliamentary approval of
  409
  the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 4, the Voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £46,319,000 from £1,836,316,000 to £1,882,635,000 to reflect the costs of administering working families tax credits and disabled persons tax credits from October 1999. The increase will be offset by a matching reduction in the non-voted element from £34,910,000 to -£11,409,000 reflecting the take-up of retained provision.

  The Supplementary Estimate is subject to the passage of the Tax Credits Bill which has been laid before Parliament. The provision will not be used until the enabling legislation has been enacted or, in the event of the legislation not passing into law, further authority has been obtained from Parliament.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. and Mrs. Adams
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to persuade the Florida State Prosecutor to drop all charges of child abuse against Mr. and Mrs. Adams of Harrogate and obtain an apology for the way they were treated at St. Petersburg Beach, Florida. [86678]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government do not intervene in the judicial process of another sovereign country. This is a matter for Mr. and Mrs. Adam's lawyer. The family should address any complaints that they have about their treatment to the US authorities. They have been provided with the contact details.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 27 April, ref. GU10051886.[86401]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs wrote to my hon. Friend today.

  MOX Fuel Shipments
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him by Caribbean states over the proposed shipment of MOX fuel to Japan. [86739]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am aware of the interest of Caribbean states on this issue, which the Government take very seriously.

  I have received a letter from the High Commissioner of the Bahamas on behalf of his Commonwealth Caribbean colleagues requesting a meeting to discuss this issue. Arrangements are in hand to hold such a meeting.

  China
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the membership and functions of the United Kingdom/China Forum. [85835]
  410
  Mr. Hoon
  The UK/China Forum is a nongovernmental organisation of senior British and Chinese individuals from the worlds of politics, business, administration, academia, the media and the arts, whose purpose is to promote contacts at all levels between Britain and China and develop initiatives to build stronger links in areas where better contact will bring mutual benefit to both sides. The Forum will meet yearly.

  The British members of the Forum are:

  Right hon. Michael Heseltine PC MP, Chairman; Dr. Chris Gamble (Director, Royal Institute of International Affairs), Executive Chair; Professor David Wall (Head, Asia Programme, Royal Institute of International Affairs), Secretary General; Mr. David Brewer (Chairman, Great Britain China Centre and Chairman, British Invisibles); Sir Charles Powell (President, China Britain Business Council); Sir Len Appleyard (Vice Chairman, Barclays Capital); Mr. Martin Broughton (Chairman, Chatham House China Task Force); Mr. Ben Chapman MP (Chairman, All-Party Parliamentary Group on China); Sir William Purves; Sir Patrick Gillam (Chairman, Standard Chartered Bank); Mr. Bob Mendelsohn (Group Chief Executive, Royal and Sun Alliance); Mr. Win Bischoff (Chairman, J. H. Schroder and Co. Ltd.); Sir John Jennings; Sir Ralph Robins (Chairman, Rolls Royce); Mr. Niall Fitzgerald (Chairman, Unilever); Mr. David John (Chairman, BOC); Baroness Kennedy (Chair, British Council); Lord Puttnam (Chairman, Enigma Productions); Sir Crispin Tickell; Mr. Giles Henderson (Senior Partner, Slaughter and May) and Mr. Richard Lambert (Editor, Financial Times).

  The Chinese members of the Forum are:

  Mr. Song Jian (Vice Chairman, Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference), Chairman; Mr. Mei Zhaorong (President, People's Institute of Foreign Affairs), Executive Chairman; Mr. Xin Futan (Vice President, People's Institute of Foreign Affairs), Secretary General; Mr. Yao Zhenyan (Chairman, China-UK Group, National People's Congress); Mr. Qu Geping (Chairman, Environmental Protection Committee, National People's Congress); Mr. Xie Anshan (Member, National People's Congress Standing Committee and Legal Committee); Mr. Chen Yuan (Governor, State Development Bank); Mr. Wang Xuebing (Governor, Bank of China); Mr. Wu Chunhe (Editor-in-Chief, Economic Daily); Mr. Wang Jiming (Vice President, China Petrochemical Group); Mr. Tu Guangshao (General Manager, Shanghai Stock Exchange); Mr. Chen Zhongbiao (Chairman, China Overseas Shipping Company Group); Mr. Feng Xiaozeng (Vice Chairman, State Insurance Regulatory Committee); Mr. An Chengxin (Vice President, Chinese Council for the Promotion of International Trade); Mr. Yao Jinrong (Deputy General Manager, China International Trust and Investment Corporation); Mr. Zhang Yanzhong (Deputy General Manager, China Aviation Industry Corporation); Mr. Wang Ren (Vice President, China Academy of Agriculture); Mr. Lin Jintong (President, Beijing Post and Telecommunications University); Mr. Wang Xuan (President, Research Institute of Founder Group of Peking University); Mr. Yang Qixian (Vice President, China Society of Economic Reform) and Mr. Li Gang (Director-General, Liaison Department, Ministry of Culture).

  Ambassadors (Engineering Qualifications)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to encourage men and women with engineering qualifications to enter the Diplomatic Service. [86163]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The FCO encourages a diverse range of candidates to apply to join the Diplomatic Service, so that the FCO is representative of the best of modern Britain. Applicants can have degrees in any discipline, so men and women with engineering degrees are encouraged
  411
  to apply. We aim to visit each UK University every 4 to 5 years, which brings us into contact with graduates studying the whole spectrum of subjects, including engineering.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ambassadors are chartered engineers. [86162]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Senior Management Structure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office includes one officer who has qualified as a Chartered Engineer. No current Ambassador has this qualification.

  Provisional Agendas (European Councils)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will account for the delay in replying to the questions from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, 19 May 1999,Official Report, columns 349–50, [84699 and 84697]; and if a provisional agenda was available at the time of the holding answers. [85631]

  Ms Quin
  Holding replies were given to these questions as the Minister was overseas. The substantive answers were given the following day.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing to make to the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Welsh Office and the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales for the current financial year. [87029]

  Mr. Michael
  Subject to Parliament's approval of the related Revised Estimate, the Welsh Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £30,800,000 from £7,061,717,000 to £7,092,517,000, including a transfer from the Department for Education and Employment Class I, Vote 1 to take account of the change to student support arrangements following the Dearing Review of higher education.

  The increase will be offset by a transfer and will not add to the overall level of planned total public expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  Fishing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations were undertaken with fishing organisations in advance of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999.[85527]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A press release was issued at the time the draft order was laid, on 8 March 1999. All fishing organisations were therefore able to comment on the draft Order between that date and the Order being approved by the Privy Council on 13 April 1999. None did so.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what rights in respect of consultation are available to Scottish fishermen operating in the areas of 412
  sea, responsibility for which is transferred by the Scottish Adjacent Water Boundaries Order 1999 with regard to oil, gas and other subsea operations. [85531]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Under the Petroleum Act 1998, the Department of Trade and Industry is required in considering various oil and gas activities to have regard to the implications for other users of the sea including the fishing industry. Historically there has been appropriate consultation with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry through the Scottish Office. These consultation arrangements will continue through the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact on activities of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999. [85529]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Officers of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA) remain British Sea Fisheries Officers and, as such, will be empowered to operate anywhere within British fisheries limits. In practice, SFPA vessels will patrol down to the new median line, but they will have powers of pursuit outwith the Scottish zone.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the reallocation of responsibilities between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Scottish Adjacent Water Boundaries Order 1999. [85528]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Order makes statutory provision for the first time for a Scottish zone of British fisheries limits. By doing so it helps define the functions of Scottish Ministers and the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. Responsibility for the regulation of sea fisheries issues, including measures implemented under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), will be devolved to the new Scottish Parliament within the zone, and in respect of Scottish boats outwith the zone.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement setting out the effects on the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts for waters in the area of sea transferred by the Scottish Adjacent Water Boundaries Order 1999. [85530]

  Mr. Macdonald
  It remains possible for prosecutions for most alleged offences to be taken anywhere in the UK. The current practice is normally to refer the prosecution case folder to the nearest court to where the offence took place. This is likely to continue to be the case.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and transfers to the Scottish consolidated fund departmental expenditure limits/running costs provision for 1999–2000. [87024]

  Dr. Reid
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Revised Estimates, the gross running costs provision for Class XIII, Vote 1 will be increased by £175,000 from £2,400,000 to £2,575,000. The increase is in respect of an increase in appropriations in aid from: VAT recoveries, fees and costs for legal work done by solicitors and receipts of rents and a transfer of £55,000 from Current Grants for the cost of Private Legislation
  413
  Procedure. The running costs limit and the Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £55,000 from £2,400,000 to £2,455,000. This will be offset by a corresponding reduction in expenditure by the Scottish Parliament within the Departmental Expenditure Limit from £13,807,018,000 to £13,806,963,000.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Balkans (Reconstruction)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what European Union support is being given for longer-term reconstruction in the Balkans; and if she will make a statement. [86478]

  Clare Short
  The EU has provided 4,185 million euros for the reconstruction of the region since the end of the Bosnian conflict. In 1999, 170 million euros were allocated for the reconstruction of the countries of the former Yugoslavia.

  The EU is reviewing its plans to take into account the consequences of the Kosovo crisis. The proposed Stability Pact for South East Europe will provide a framework for the regeneration of the Balkan region. The EU will play a key role in this process and in the financing of the international reconstruction effort in Kosovo.

  Tobacco
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much British aid money has been invested in agricultural projects in developing countries which include the growing of tobacco crops for each year over the last five years. [86212]

  Clare Short
  Our policy is that development funds must not be used for any purpose which supports the tobacco sector. In line with this requirement, no British development money has been invested in bilateral projects which include the growing of tobacco crops in developing countries in any of the past 5 years.

  Aid: GNP Ratio
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what official development assistance was provided by the UK in 1998 as a percentage of GNP; and what the performance was of other members of OECD's Development Assistance Committee. [86981]

  Clare Short
  As announced yesterday by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, the UK's expenditure on official development assistance (ODA) in 1998 is estimated at £2,315 million, representing 0.27 per cent. of GNP. This is an increase on the 1997 figure of 0.26 per cent. and reflects the Government's commitment to reverse the decline in UK development assistance. The average ODA/GNP ration for all OECD DAC Member Countries was 0.23 per cent. We will continue our strenuous efforts to also improve the effectiveness of international development programmes.

  The figures exclude financial flows to countries in transition in Central and Eastern Europe and more advanced developing countries as defined in the DAC List of Aid Recipients.

HEALTH

  Guild Community Trust, Preston
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with the North West Regional Health Authority on the appointment of independent investigators to report on administration of the Guild Community Trust Preston during 1998 and 1999; and if he will make a statement; [85139]

  (2) in what ways he involved the Chairman of the North West Regional Health Authority in seeking the resignations of the non-executive directors of the Guild Community Trust Preston;[85224]

  (3) if he will list the grounds on which he dismissed the Board of the Guild Community Trust Preston; [85223]

  (4) if he will list those occasions on which the non-executive directors of the Guild Community Trust Preston sought advice on the way the trust was being run from the North West Regional Health Authority; and what advice was given; [85136]

  (5) if he will publish the correspondence between his Department, the North West Regional Health Authority and the Chief Executive of the Guild Community Trust Preston during 1998 and 1999 on the Chief Executive's administration of the trust during this period; [85137]

  (6) if he will list the (a) meetings and (b) communications between his Department and the Chief Executive of the Guild Community Trust Preston during 1998 and 1999 and state the reasons for each of those meetings and communications; [85138]

  (7) what reports his Department has received on the administration of the Guild Community Trust Preston in its last two years; and what were their conclusions. [85140]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]: A mental health report which appeared in the summer of 1998 raised concerns about the management of Guild Community Healthcare NHS Trust and, specifically, its Chief Executive. The Trust Board, after consultation with the NHS Executive North West, took the decision to suspend the Chief Executive and commission an independent panel to investigate his management style.

  The independent Galbraith Report was presented to the non-executive team in December 1998. It concluded that there had been a clear and significant loss of confidence in the trust's Chief Executive and that his position had become untenable. Then the Chairman of the Trust resigned. I have received briefings from the North West Regional Office of the NHS about the investigation which was commissioned by, and reported to, the Guild Trust Board.

  The circumstances at the Guild Trust, Preston were the subject of letters, e-mails, telephone and face-to-face conversations involving non-executive directors of the trust, officials at the NHS North West Regional Office and officials in my Department over a lengthy period.

  In May the non-executive directors of the Guild Trust were asked to resign in the best interests of the NHS and the staff and patients of the trust because there had been an irreversible breakdown in relations with one another. Two agreed to resign and I dismissed the three who refused.
  415
  The Chairman of the North West Region of the NHS, who is my representative in these matters, was involved at all stages in my consideration of the situation at the Guild Trust and my decision to seek the resignations of the non-executive directors.

  The Department, including the NHS Executive North West, communicates on a regular basis with NHS Trusts about management issues. The extent and diversity of these contacts make it impractical to compile a definitive list.

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the impact of the use of computerised systems in respect of call-outs by Staffordshire Ambulance service is disseminated to other ambulance services in the United Kingdom; [85537]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the response rate times achieved by Staffordshire Ambulance service. [85536]

  Mr. Denham
  Staffordshire Ambulance service has reported impressive response times which we commend. Information about its work, including its use of computerised systems, has been widely disseminated through publication of its response times, presentation of its results to Ministers by the chief executive, and at a national meeting of health authority commissioners focusing on its methods.

  Other ambulance services in England have adopted the approaches promoted by Staffordshire.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted by, or on behalf of, his Department into the health risks of the use of bovine serum in the manufacture of MMR vaccines. [85534]

  Ms Jowell
  No research specific to bovine material and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine has been conducted by, or on behalf of, the Department of Health. All bovine blood products used in the manufacture of MMR vaccines comply with European guidelines on minimising the risk of transmitting agents causing spongiform encephalopathies via medicinal products, which address the sourcing and processing of bovine material used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals. The product used in the manufacture of MMR vaccine is not serum, but bovine albumin. This is not United Kingdom sourced.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital were referred for radiotherapy treatment in each year from 1989 to date; and if he will make a statement. [85695]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not collect information about numbers of patients referred for radiotherapy. The following information indicates first out-patient referrals for clinical oncology at Royal 416
  Shrewsbury Hospital (only available since 1994–95), a proportion of whom will have been referred for radiotherapy treatment.

  Consultant first outpatient attendance

  Year

  Seen

  Did not appear

  1994–95

  350

  3

  1995–96

  492

  5

  1996–97

  1,115

  27

  1997–98

  632

  21

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital will be informed of the outcome of its bid for a linear accelerator; and if he will make a statement; [85698]

  (2) pursuant to the letter of 12 April from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, if his officials have considered the financial terms of funding a second linear accelerator at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital; and if he will make a statement; [85696]

  (3) what reasons underlie the length of time taken by the NHS Executive, West Midlands Regional Office to consider the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital's business case for funding to replace its cobalt unit with a new linear accelerator; and if he will make a statement. [85716]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive–West Midlands Regional Office is carefully considering the business case and hopes to make a decision as soon as possible. The prime consideration will be establishing a safe and sustainable service. There are several factors underpinning this, and the Regional Office needs to satisfy itself that all the issues have been addressed before approving the business case. In particular, the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, which is not itself a cancer centre, will need to demonstrate that robust working links have been developed with the North Staffordshire cancer centre. In addition, work currently taking place on developing a national framework for radiotherapy services, as well as wider regional cancer strategy will inform the decision. The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital will be informed as soon as a decision has been reached.

  West Midlands Regional Office is currently exploring possible sources of funding to minimise delay should the business case be approved.

  Running Costs
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated combined annual running costs in the last financial year of the(a) Commission for Health Improvement and (b) National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and if he will make a statement. [85737]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commission for Health Improvement will be established by the Health Bill currently before Parliament, and incurred no running costs in the last financial year. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence was established on 1 April this year and did not incur any running costs in the last financial year.

  Viagra
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the guidelines are for the issue of Viagra on NHS prescription, with particular reference to the general practitioner's discretion. [86301]

  Mr. Denham
  Subject to Parliamentary approval, from 1 July changes will be incorporated in schedule 11 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 which will specify those categories of patients for whom general practitioners may prescribe drug treatments for impotence, including Viagra, on the NHS.

  Asthma
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department collects on childhood asthma; and if he will set out the figures for the last 10 years. [86407]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are no comprehensive data on the number of children with asthma. The Department's Central Health Monitoring Unit brought together a broad range of the best statistics on asthma in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview" (1995), copies of which are available in the Library. This report quotes an estimate, on the basis of all the information available, that"the prevalence of asthma sufficiently severe to require regular medical supervision is from 4–6 per cent. in children".

  The Department routinely collects data on hospital in-patient care for asthma. The numbers (in thousands) of hospital in-patient cases (ie finished consultant episodes—ordinary admissions and day cases) in which asthma was the main diagnosis (ICD 10 codes J45 and J46 from 1995–96; ICD 9 code 493 before that) in England for the last ten years for which figures are available, among children aged 0 to 4 years and 5 to 14 years, are given in the table:

  Age group

  0–4

  5—14

  1988–89

  38.8

  23.0

  1989–90

  32.7

  18.8

  1990–91

  32.3

  16.7

  1991–92

  32.1

  18.5

  1992–93

  31.9

  16.2

  1993–94

  32.5

  17.5

  1994–95

  28.6

  14.8

  1995–96

  28.7

  15.2

  1996–97

  25.7

  12.0

  1997–98

  20.4

  12.5

  Notes

  1. Figures for 1995–96 and earlier years are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data; 1996–97 and 1997-98 figures are provisional and ungrossed (no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data).

  2. A finished consultant episode (FCE) is defined as a period of patient care under the care of an individual consultant within one health care provider. FCE figures do not represent the number of patients as a person may have more than one episode of care during the year.

  Source

  Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  The Department also commissions the annual Health Survey for England, copies of the reports of which are also available in the Library. The surveys for 1995, 1996 and 1997 included questions on asthma. According to the
  418
  report of the 1997 Survey, 23 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls aged 2 to 15 years had been diagnosed at some time in the past as suffering from asthma.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out on asthma in young children; and what plans he has for further research. [86406]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Medical Research Council are jointly funding a major research initiative on the relationship between air pollution and respiratory disease. The National Asthma Campaign is managing, on behalf of the National Health Service Executive, the NHS National research and development programme on asthma management. Many of the research projects commissioned under these initiatives will be pertinent to asthma in children.

  The Medical Research Council which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry also spends about £2 million a year on research into prevention and treatment of asthma and related areas.

  Medical Equipment (Registration)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to require health authorities which produce or modify medical equipment to obtain a CE Mark registration before the equipment is issued. [86677]

  Ms Jowell
  Any health authority which places medical devices on the market must comply with the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations and CE mark their product accordingly.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies or Government organisations his Department has exempted from the requirement to obtain CE Marks for medical equipment. [86676]

  Ms Jowell
  None. All manufacturers or other organisations who place medical devices on the United Kingdom market must go through the appropriate conformity assessment procedure detailed in the Medical Devices Regulations and CE mark their products accordingly. Health care establishments who make a device for their own use in-house are not regarded as having placed a product on the market.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make the list of medical equipment which has obtained a CE Mark available for public inspection. [86674]

  Ms Jowell
  As required by the Medical Devices Regulations, the Medical Devices Agency maintains a register only of manufacturers of low risk and custom-made devices and assemblers who have a place of business in the United Kingdom. Article 20 of the Medical Devices Directive prevents data on this register being made publicly available.
  419
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to health authorities about the need to obtain CE Marks for medical equipment. [86675]

  Ms Jowell
  In January 1998 the National Health Service Executive issued an Executive Letter (EL(98)5) to all health authorities reminding them of their responsibilities under the Medical Devices Regulations. In addition the Medical Devices Agency has produced a Guide for Health Care Professionals on the CE marking of Medical Devices together with a leaflet on the CE mark plus a Bulletin on the application of the Regulations on the activities of health care establishments. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many water authorities fluoridate their water; what guidance he gives to water authorities on this practice; what plans he has to change the law regarding water fluoridation; and if he will make a statement.[86411]

  Mr. Denham
  In England six Water Undertakers provide fluoridated water to some of the populations they serve–Northumbria, North West, Severn Trent, South Staffordshire, Anglian and Thames.

  Under the Water Industry Act 1991 health authorities are required to consult:
  the appropriate local authorities
  the community health councils
  and any other local bodies the HA considers appropriate.

  In addition the HA must publicise its proposals for water fluoridation through the local press and invite public comment. It is important to ensure that the publicity covers all parts of the area to be fluoridated, and reaches as many people as possible. The HA must allow a period of at least three months for this consultation process before it makes its final decision. Once it has completed consultation and formally adopted a policy in favour of water fluoridation, the HA must then in writing request the water company to implement the scheme.

  The Government will make a policy statement on fluoridation in the Public Health White Paper, which will be published shortly.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will report to him on the use of beta interferon; and if he will make a statement. [86483]

  Mr. Denham
  The initial work programme and, therefore, the timing of guidance on any specific procedure for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not been finally determined, although it is likely that beta interferon will be referred to NICE.

  Homeopathy
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps are being taken to recognise at 420
  consultant level those practitioners with extensive experience in homeopathic medicine gained before 1 January 1997; [86326]

  (2) what provision there is for the training of orthodox physicians in their conventional path of accreditation in homeopathy and complementary medicine; [86329]

  (3) if homeopathic medicine is recognised as a specialty in the United Kingdom. [86327]

  Mr. Denham
  There is currently no statutory training path for doctors in homeopathy in the United Kingdom, although consultants in homeopathy have been appointed in the National Health Service. Since 1 January 1997 it has been a requirement to be on the General Medical Council's Specialist Register in order to be eligible for appointment as a substantive NHS consultant. Doctors holding substantive NHS consultant appointments in homeopathy before 31 December 1998 were able to apply for inclusion in the Register under transitional provisions in the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995 (as amended). New consultants in homeopathy would ordinarily expect to be trained in another medical specialty recognised for the purposes of specialist registration, as well as in the non-statutory requirements for homeopathy.

  The requirements for specialist medical education are governed by European Directive 93/16/EEC. The practice of homeopathy varies greatly across the European Economic Area, and there is no provision within the Directive to recognise homeopathy for the purposes of medical training. The Faculty of Homeopathy has previously indicated its intention to develop a nationally recognised training programme in homeopathy. In order to do so, the Faculty would need to satisfy the Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges (STA) that the training programme met the requirements of Directive 93/16/EEC. It would then be for the STA to apply to the Secretary of State for Health for inclusion of the specialty in the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995 (as amended).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 19 March, 23 March and 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. H. Eljack, 5 Oundle Close. [86409]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend, on 10 June 1999.
  Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 27 April, ref. 7518/99. [86400]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not yet received a reply to his letter of 27 April. I will be replying shortly setting out the full background to this case.

  Ford Open Prison
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to decide which prisoners should serve their sentence in Ford Open Prison. [86711]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Ford prison is an open prison and accepts adult male category D prisoners. The current arrangements for the categorisation and allocation of adult male prisoners are set out in chapter 7 of Prison Service Order 2200, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Allocation criteria for individual establishments are agreed between the area manager and the governor of the prison. They vary according to local circumstances. The criteria for acceptance at Ford prison are listed as follows:
  There is no maximum sentence length, but prisoners must be within three years of their parole eligibility date;
  prisoners serving a sentence for a sex offence or an offence of arson will not be accepted;
  prisoners serving sentences for violent offences will be accepted only on progressive moves from closed establishments, and where their conduct during their sentence has indicated their suitability;
  prisoners should have no history of escape or abscond, and no failure on temporary release in the previous three years; and
  prisoners will not be accepted if they require full time medical care. They should be fit for most forms of work.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact that advertisements implying a pleasure for women in male roughness have on his efforts to avert domestic violence; and if he will make a statement. [86477]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such assessment has been made but nobody should believe that violence against women is either acceptable or enjoyed by the victims. There can be no excuse for such conduct. It is so serious because it is so often committed in what should be the "safety" of the victim's home, even in front of children, by a partner to whom the victim should be able to look for support and protection.

  The "Break the Chain" campaign launched this year made clear the Government's determination to tackle domestic violence. The leaflet has been so much in demand that we are having to reprint it as a matter of urgency.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1999,Official Report, column 144, to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), what was the role of the fourth officer at the arrest of Senator Pinochet. [86752]

  Mr. Straw
  As indicated in the my reply of 9 February 1999 to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan),Official Report, column 144, only two officers were present. They were the head of the Metropolitan Police Extradition Squad and another member of the Squad.

  999 Calls
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 999 calls were received in each of the last three years by(a) police forces and (b) the Metropolitan Police; and if he will make a statement. [86653]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 19 March 1999,Official Report, columns 824–26.

  Targeted Policing Bids
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those areas which(a) have successfully bid for additional funding for the targeted policing initiative, and how much has been allocated in each case and (b) submitted unsuccessful bids; and if he will make a statement. [86124]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of the £250 million three year Crime Reduction Programme which we announced on 21 July 1998, £32 million has been earmarked for the targeted policing initiative. The aim of this initiative is to help police forces, in collaboration with local crime and disorder partnerships, to improve the way in which they tackle crime. Rather than only responding to crime and dealing with its immediate consequences, the challenge is to reduce it by analysing the real crime problem and tackling its underlying causes. To this end we will be funding some 20 developmental projects over the next three years with an emphasis on developing and testing our new, effective and cost effective targeted policing tactics.

  On 11 November last year, we wrote to all chief constables in England and Wales, copied to police authorities and local authority Chief Executives, inviting them to submit proposals under the first of two competitions in the targeted policing initiative. A total of 32 police forces submitted 73 outline proposals for funding a range of targeted policing initiatives in their areas. The bids contained a good mix of problems to be tackled and possible approaches to tackling them.

  The proposals were assessed against the published criteria by a specially convened panel comprising representatives from the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Local Government Association. The panel identified 11 proposals (table 1) as strong contenders for further development and which are currently undergoing validation and development with the help of independent consultants appointed by the Home Office. The development of the proposals is due to be completed shortly and I expect to be able to announce the final results by the end of June.

  The shortlisted proposals have an estimated bid cost to the crime reduction programme of £5.2 million, however the final allocation of funding will not be known until the development work is completed.

  The 62 bids not selected for further development at this stage are shown in table 2. Of these, four have been designated by the assessment panel as reserve projects in case any of the 11 projects are not selected.
  423

  Table 1: Crime reduction programme–Targeted policing initiative–Phase 1 Recommended Projects

  £000

  Partners:

  Police

  Region

  Topic

  Bid from CRP

  Resources levered in

  1 Rhondda Cynon Raff CBC

  South Wales

  Wales

  Partnership strategy to reduce crime and disorder problems associated with childrens homes

  500

  575

  2 Cardiff CC/Bro Taf Health Authority

  South Wales

  Wales

  Reduction of street violence within the City of Cardiff

  498

  305

  3 Kingston-upon-Hull CC

  Humberside

  York

  Reduction of anti-social behaviour and low level criminal behaviour

  406

  361

  4 Calderdale MBC and Community safety Partnership

  West Yorkshire

  York

  Reduction of Vehicle Crime

  138

  475

  5 Stoke-on-Trent UA/Community safety Partnership

  Staffordshire

  W Mid

  Reduction of acquisitive crime

  412

  645

  6 Islington/Camden/Southwark

  Metropolitan

  London

  Reducing youth disorder and auto crime in the boroughs

  542

  967

  7 Greenwich/Merton/Tower Hamlets/Hoimslow

  Metropolitan

  London

  Reduction on racially motivated crime

  1,002

  8,000

  8 Hackney

  Metropolitan

  London

  Reducing 'hot spots' in the borough generated by luse of crackk cocaine

  760

  1,380

  9 Tyndale Dc and Parish Councils

  Northumbria

  NE

  Tackling crime and disorder in rural locations

  40

  240

  10 Medway Council

  Kent

  SE

  Reduction of acquisitive crime by disruption of market

  450

  50

  11 Stockport MDC

  GMP

  NW

  Reduction of acquisitive crime by disruption of marketing using Crackdown Consolidation Cycle technique

  445

  447

  5,193

  13,445

  table 2: Crime reduction programme—Targeted policing initiative—Phase 1 Reserve projects

  £000

  Partners:

  Police

  Region

  Topic

  Bid from CRP

  Resources levered in

  Reading BC

  Thames Valley

  SE

  Youth crime, disorder, and educational disruption in South Reading

  544

  0

  Wide range of linked agencies

  Dyfed-Powys

  Welsh

  Using Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras to target police resources against travelling criminals and drug dealers

  789

  736

  Luton BC/Safer Luton Partnership

  Bedfordshire

  East

  Reduction of vehicle crime and associated issues

  469

  1,272

  Leeds CC and Community Safety Partnership

  West Yorkshire

  York

  Multi Agency approach to areas of high victimisation

  570

  726

  2,372

  2,734

  Table 2: Crime reduction programme–Targeted policing initiative–Phase 1 Non-selected proposals

  Partners

  Police

  Area

  Region

  British CC and Chamber of Commerce

  Avon and Somerset

  Bristol N, S and Central

  SW

  British City Council

  Avon and Somerset

  Bristol N, S and Central

  SW

  Luton BC

  Bedfordshire

  Luton

  East

  Warrington BC and others

  Cheshire

  Warrington

  NW

  Redcar/Cleveland

  Cleveland

  Cleveland Police force

  NE

  Cumbria CC and local

  Cumbria

  Cumbrian Police force area

  NW

  Derby CC/Other local

  Derbyshire

  Derby Division

  E Mid

  Devon CC Cornwall CC

  Devon and Cornwall

  Devon/Cornwall Police

  SW

  Poole Borough and County

  Dorset

  Poole

  SW

  DCs of Wear Valley

  Durham

  Wear and Tees Division

  NE

  424 425

  Table 2: Crime reduction programme—Targeted policing initiative—Phase 1 Non-selected proposals

  Partners

  Police

  Area

  Region

  DCs of Durham

  Durham

  Durham Police force area NE

  Force Area Agencies Dyfed-Powys

  Force Area

  Wales

  Manchester CC

  Greater Manchester

  N and s Manchester

  NW

  portsmouth City Council

  Hampshire

  Portsmouth South

  SE

  St. Albans CC/Herts CC

  Hertfordshire

  St. Albans

  East

  Herts CC Herts Probation

  Hertfordshire

  Hertfordshire Police force

  East

  S. Humber

  Humberside

  Scunthorpe

  East

  NE Lincolnshire Council

  Humberside

  Grimsby, Cleethorpes

  York

  Kingston-upon-Hull CC

  Humberside

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  York

  Kent CC/Youth Service

  Kent

  West Kent SE

  Kent CC/Thanet Dc

  Kent

  Thanet

  SE

  Kent CC/Canterbury

  Kent

  Canterbury

  SE

  Thanet DC/Canterbury

  Kent

  Canterbury/Thanet

  SE

  Blackburn BC

  Lancashire

  Blackburn with Darwen

  NW

  Blackpool BC

  Lancashire

  Blackpool Town Centre

  NW

  Lancaster CC/Lancashire

  Lancashire

  Lancaster

  Nw

  Lancashire CC/other

  Lancashire

  Pennine Police Division

  NW

  Leicester City Council

  Leicestershire

  Areas of Leicester

  E Mid

  Liverpool City Council

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  NW

  St. Helens

  Merseyside

  St.Helens

  NW

  St. Helens

  Merseyside

  St.Helens

  NW

  Lewisham/Redbridge

  Metropolitan

  LBs of Lewisham

  London

  York CC and Uni; safer

  North Yorkshire

  City of York

  York

  York Cc LEA; Safer

  North Yorkshire

  City of York

  York

  Sunderland City Council

  Northumbria

  Sunderland City

  NE

  N Tyneside Council

  Northumbria

  North Tyneside

  NE

  Gateshead MBC

  Northumbria

  Gateshead West

  NW

  S Tyneside Community

  Northumbria

  South Tyneside Area

  NE

  Gateshead MBC

  Northumbria

  Gateshead East

  NE

  Notts CC and local

  Nottinghamshire

  Nottinghamshire Police

  E Mid

  Local Country and Borough

  South wales

  S Wales Police force area

  Welsh

  Barnsley MBC/Chamber

  South Yorkshire

  S Yorkshie Police force

  York

  Rotherham MBC, Youth

  South Yorkshire

  Rotherham East and West

  York

  E staffs BC, Prob Ser

  Staffordshire

  Burton upon Trent

  W Mid

  Surrey CC/Surrey Health

  Surrey

  Guildfor/Waverley/East

  SE

  Various Sussex

  Sussex

  Eastbourne

  SE

  Reading BC

  Thames Valley

  Reading

  SE

  Aylesbury DC/Bucks CC

  Thames Valley

  Aylesbury

  SE

  ycombe/chiltern

  Thames Valley

  Chiltern Vale

  SE

  W Berkshire Council

  Thames Valley

  Newbury

  SE

  Slough Bc

  Thames Valley

  Slough

  SE

  Members of local

  Warwickshire

  Warwickshire Police force

  W Mid

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  Warwickshire

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  W Mid

  Nuneaton BC/N

  Warwickshire

  Northern Area Command

  W Mid

  Warwick District Safety

  Warwickshire

  N and S Warwick

  W Mid

  Wychavon/Worcester

  West Mercia

  Worcester

  WM

  Birmingham City Council

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  W Mid

  Sandwell MBC/Safer

  West Midlands

  Sandwell

  WM

  Birmingham LA,LEA

  West Midlands

  SW Birmingham

  W Mid

  Leeds City Council

  West Yorkshire

  Leeds

  york

  City of Bradford MDC

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford City Centre

  York

  Kirklees MC

  West Yorkshire

  Huddersfield/Dewsbury

  York

  Defendants
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and what percentage of, criminal prosecutions were completed in(a) magistrates' courts, and (b) higher courts, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [86122]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.
  426

  Number and percentage1 of defendants proceeded against for all offences where case was completed by type of court, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Thousand and percentage

  Year

  Defendants where proceeding completed in magistrats' court2

  Defendants tried in the Crown Court

  1993

  Number

  1,870.3

  83.1

  Percentage

  96

  4

  427

  Number and percentage1 of defendants proceeded against for all offences where case was completed by type of court, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Thousand and percentage

  year

  Defendants where proceeding completed in magistrate' courts2

  Defendants tried in the Crown Court

  1994

  Number

  1,858.5

  85.9

  Percentage

  96

  4

  1995

  Number

  1,757.3

  89.0

  Percentage

  95

  5

  1996

  Number

  1,838.2

  85.9

  Percentage

  96

  4

  1997

  Number

  1,76.7

  91.3

  Percentage

  95

  5

  1Rates as a proportion of those cases completed at both magistrates' courts and the Crown Court.

  2 Excluding defendants committed for trial.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many indictable offences have been dealt with by either magistrates courts or the Crown Court serving(a) Croydon, (b) Gloucester and (c) Liverpool since 30 September 1998. [85763]

  Number of persons convicted of offences involving the supply or possession of drugs at (a) Liverpool, (b) Croydon and (c) Gloucester magistrates' courts and Crown Court Centres by type of offence, October-December 19981, January-March 19991

  Court

  Period

  Possession of a controlled drug

  Supply of a controlled drug

  Possession with intent to supply a controlled drug

  Magistrates' courts

  (a) Liverpool

  October-December 1998

  240

  18

  27

  (b) Croydon

  October-December 1998

  78

  2

  8

  (c) Gloucester

  October-December 1998

  28

  1

  2

  Crown Court

  (a) Liverpool

  October-December 1998

  22

  26

  28

  January-March 1999

  18

  44

  28

  (b) Croydon

  October-December 1998

  5

  6

  15

  January-March 1999

  5

  12

  18

  (c) Gloucester

  October-December 1998

  —

  —

  4

  January-March 1999

  2

  1

  2

  1Provisional

  DNA Samples
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many DNA samples have been taken of people(a) charged and (b) cautioned, in each police area and in total in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [86125]

  Mr. Boateng
  The annual totals (Table A) are based upon the information submitted with each DNA sample sent by individual police forces to the Forensic Science Service. The information shows whether someone has been "cautioned" or "not cautioned". The term "not cautioned" can mean the individual has been suspected,
  428
  Mr. Boateng
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Mr. Boateng
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Table A: Number of defendants proceeded against for indictable offences at Croydon, Gloucester and Liverpool magistrates, courts, October-December 19981

  Magistrates' courts

  Number proceeded against

  (a) Croydon

  728

  (b) Gloucester

  413

  (c) Liverpool

  1,912

  Table B: Number of defendants tried for indictable offences at Croydon, Gloucester and Liverpool Crown Court Centres, October-December 19981, January-March 19991

  Crown Court Centres

  Period

  Total tried

  (a) Croydon

  October-December 1998

  315

  January-March 1999

  309

  (b) Gloucester

  October-December 1998

  78

  January-March 1999

  92

  (c)

  Liverpool

  October-December 1998

  831

  January-March 1999

  783

  1Provisional

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have been convicted of offences involving the supply or possession of drugs in either the magistrates court or the relevant Crown Court serving(a) Liverpool, (b) Croydon and (c) Gloucester since 30 September 1998. [85768]

  convicted, charged or informed that he will be reported for a recordable offence. It is, therefore, not possible to provide precise figures for (a).

  The cumulative totals for the past five years (Table B) are based upon the number of samples received by the Forensic Science Service from each force. As neither individual forces nor the Association of Chief Police Officers retain information about the number of samples actually taken, the information in the table is the most reliable indicator available of the number taken and submitted to the Forensic Science Service for analysis. The cumulative totals in (Table B) cover the period to March 1999 only and therefore, differ slightly from those in (Table A) which include additional months.
  429

  Table A: Samples submitted annually by police forces—1995 to 1999

  Samples per year

  First columns relates to 'cautioned', second to 'not cautioned'

  Force

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Avon and Somerset

  22

  1,728

  83

  1,957

  409

  3,587

  679

  5,500

  323

  2,536

  Bedfordshire

  3

  1,042

  24

  912

  124

  1,116

  0

  11

  2

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  1,540

  30

  1,890

  163

  1,895

  314

  1,873

  111

  1,604

  Cheshire

  5

  955

  54

  2,986

  196

  2,735

  195

  1,570

  1

  0

  Cleveland

  61

  1,929

  75

  1,757

  123

  1,664

  181

  1,093

  37

  449

  Cumbria

  2

  415

  19

  790

  76

  1,250

  218

  2,208

  60

  719

  Derbyshire

  11

  4,240

  24

  3,824

  390

  3,681

  498

  4,131

  195

  1,482

  Devon and Cornwall

  73

  2,676

  41

  3,125

  636

  3,442

  608

  3,667

  322

  1,676

  Dorset

  0

  671

  9

  724

  23

  795

  30

  831

  14

  265

  Durham

  13

  1,232

  13

  1,110

  224

  2,495

  646

  3,259

  11

  177

  Dyfed-Powys

  41

  1,860

  9

  2,407

  168

  2,604

  409

  2,190

  114

  819

  Essex

  8

  2,461

  20

  2,265

  565

  3,946

  758

  4,053

  279

  1,452

  Gloucestershire

  1

  885

  1

  861

  50

  1,024

  210

  1,484

  113

  542

  GMP

  58

  2,179

  335

  8,303

  712

  7,701

  293

  1,727

  0

  7

  Gwent

  4

  1,819

  8

  2,321

  116

  2,528

  368

  1,886

  140

  715

  Hampshire

  4

  2,837

  8

  3,454

  122

  4,320

  355

  4,155

  157

  1,426

  Hertfordshire

  42

  1,121

  73

  1,128

  52

  1,227

  85

  1,252

  27

  429

  Humberside

  7

  1,262

  310

  6,237

  1,919

  8,313

  2,230

  5,466

  716

  1,828

  Kent

  12

  2,363

  95

  3,161

  351

  2,807

  1

  12

  0

  3

  Lancashire

  100

  3,256

  242

  5,289

  366

  4,462

  195

  2,069

  1

  6

  Leicestershire

  3

  1,818

  19

  2,359

  70

  2,417

  184

  2,701

  140

  1,101

  Lincolnshire

  0

  418

  6

  1,404

  23

  1,583

  44

  1,464

  29

  456

  Metropolitan

  80

  15,796

  133

  16,387

  1,070

  19,456

  5,952

  29,152

  2,520

  11,809

  City of London

  297

  1,467

  400

  1,647

  710

  1,437

  633

  1,280

  232

  505

  Mersey

  1

  2,959

  59

  4,324

  109

  2,411

  446

  5,624

  164

  2,153

  Norfolk

  15

  1,010

  59

  3,504

  475

  4,081

  1,069

  3,791

  511

  1,604

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1,627

  0

  1,776

  170

  2,689

  269

  2,558

  117

  748

  Northumbria

  2

  3,321

  143

  5,701

  223

  3,361

  338

  3,533

  135

  1,469

  North Wales

  8

  1,751

  1

  1,936

  110

  1,979

  509

  2,484

  197

  989

  North Yorkshire

  29

  1,335

  16

  1,535

  50

  1,674

  112

  1,539

  31

  643

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  399

  18

  1,423

  268

  3,976

  25

  367

  0

  5

  South Wales

  9

  5,988

  238

  8,222

  769

  6,927

  130

  1,538

  17

  191

  South Yorkshire

  4

  2,841

  11

  2,894

  374

  5,833

  2,582

  9,440

  194

  1,177

  Staffordshire

  0

  1,196

  2

  1,048

  71

  1,868

  1,091

  7,484

  512

  3,294

  Suffolk

  2

  20

  43

  966

  181

  1,657

  67

  495

  0

  2

  Surrey

  4

  556

  2

  674

  68

  1,783

  76

  1,379

  12

  279

  Sussex

  14

  2,613

  29

  2,644

  93

  1,898

  93

  1,119

  84

  689

  Thames Valley

  18

  2,758

  52

  3,045

  81

  2,467

  197

  2,106

  272

  1,428

  Warwickshire

  0

  431

  0

  488

  71

  849

  130

  1,043

  42

  352

  West Mercia

  25

  2,313

  23

  1,907

  82

  1,807

  194

  1,849

  110

  855

  West Midlands

  36

  2,760

  770

  7,258

  1,208

  10,266

  2,746

  13,155

  1,333

  5,242

  West Yorkshire

  66

  5,662

  188

  7,389

  782

  8,534

  1,286

  9,191

  363

  3,143

  Wiltshire

  1

  1,271

  4

  1,145

  17

  1,401

  27

  786

  0

  1

  Table B: Cumulative figures by police force—April 1995 to March 1999

  Force

  Number of samples received

  Avon and Somerset

  15,854

  Bedfordshire

  3,279

  Cambridgeshire

  8,179

  Cheshire

  8,789

  Cleveland

  7,079

  Cumbria

  5,382

  Derbyshire

  17,842

  Devon and Cornwall

  15,563

  Dorset

  3,254

  Durham

  9,195

  Dyfed-Powys

  10,361

  Essex

  14,986

  Gloucestershire

  4,855

  GMP

  21,360

  Gwent

  9,657

  Hampshire

  16,298

  Hertfordshire

  5,264

  Humberside

  27,289

  Kent

  8,967

  Lancashrie

  15,997

  Leicestershire

  10,372

  Lincolnshire

  5,252

  430

  Table B: Cumulative figures by police force—April 1995 to March 1999

  Force

  Number of samples received

  Metropolitan

  96,88

  City of London

  8,334

  Mersey

  17,320

  Norfolk

  15,432

  Northampshire

  9,670

  Northumbria

  17,660

  North Wales

  9,446

  North Yorks

  6,753

  Nottinghamshire

  6,652

  South Wales

  24,153

  South Yorkshire

  25,392

  Staffordshire

  14,731

  Suffolk

  3,438

  Surrey

  4,729

  Sussex

  9,034

  Thames Valley

  11,743

  Warwickshire

  3,249

  West Mercia

  8,788

  West Midlands

  41,970

  West Yorkshire

  35,241

  Wiltshire

  4,662

  431

  Police Vehicles
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the need for and use of rapid response by police vehicles. [86200]

  Mr. Boateng
  No research on this precise subject has been commissioned. The only recent research in this area of police work was conducted by the Home Office Police Research Group who published in 1997 the results of a study of deaths and serious injuries resulting from police vehicle accidents. It found that three police activities accounted for 88 per cent. of fatal accidents—45 per cent. were during pursuit/follow situations; 23 per cent. arose during responses to emergency calls and 20 per cent. were routine patrol cases. This research was used by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in its recent report and recommendations on police pursuit training.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the average response times of police cars to emergency calls in the last year for which figures are available. [86201]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available centrally, but in 1997–98, in England and Wales, 88 per cent. of police immediate responses to incidents were within the targets set by forces.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the rules governing blue light police car responses. [86202]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is an operational matter for chief officers of police. There is a nationally agreed Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Pursuit Code of Practice and work is going forward to implement recommendations from the recent ACPO report on police pursuit driver training. One of the recommendations in the ACPO report is that all police vehicles that engage in pursuits and emergency response should be equipped with both sirens and emergency blue lights. Such equipment should be used in all but exceptional circumstances. It is already policy to consider continuously the consequences of a pursuit and whether to break it off.

  National Identification Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current applications process for police checks in the National Identification Service; and if he will make a statement. [86199]

  Kate Hoey
  The Metropolitan Police Service's Character Enquiries section, which is based in the National Identification Service, carries out pre-employment vetting checks in accordance with administrative arrangements agreed between the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). New arrangements for criminal record checks, which will address the limitations of the current system, were included in Part V of the Police Act 1997. The various checks provided for in the Act will be undertaken by the new Criminal Records Bureau which is in the process of being established.
  432

  Nottingham Prison
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 80, what factors underlay his decision to select Nottingham Prison for the location of accommodation for offenders previously convicted of offences against children; and what other prisons were considered. [85906]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]A wide range of factors were taken into account when considering the suitability of Her Majesty's Prison Nottingham for housing offenders and ex-offenders, including the need to ensure easy access to high quality local services such as the regular presence of experienced Probation and Social Services staff and a police force which is able to respond quickly and effectively. Such services are most easily available in towns and cities.

  In considering which prison would be appropriate, options across the prison estate were taken into account.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has further to publicise the decision to accommodate offenders previously convicted of offences involving children in Nottingham Prison. [86103]

  Mr. Boateng
  Consultation with the relevant local agencies and interested people continues. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams will be meeting representatives from Nottingham on Monday 14 June 1999.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations(a) he has carried out and (b) he proposes to carry out concerning his plan to accommodate offenders previously convicted of offences involving children in Nottingham Prison. [86104]

  Mr. Boateng
  The responsibility for managing the risk that ex-offenders present lies with local agencies. The plans in respect of Nottingham prison have been discussed with local Members of Parliament and they will be kept informed of progress. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams will be meeting representatives from Nottingham on Monday 14 June 1999.

  Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to local authorities on what constitutes anti-social behaviour under the behaviour orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; how he will monitor the(a) use and (b) effectiveness of (i) behaviour orders, (ii) curfews and (iii) parenting orders; and what action he will take to encourage the use of such orders by (1) the police and (2) local authorities. [85671]

  Mr. Boateng
  We published comprehensive guidance on the use of anti-social behaviour orders earlier this year "Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Anti-Social Behaviour Orders—Guidance". This included guidance on the types of case in which such orders might be considered. A review of the use and effectiveness of anti-social behaviour orders is planned during the first two years of their availability.
  433
  The local child curfew scheme will help address the problems of unsupervised children who are out on the streets late at night, and who may be involved in anti-social behaviour.

  We intend to carry out a monitoring exercise of the local child curfew scheme to assess how the practical arrangements work in those areas which decide to operate such a scheme. This will help identify good practice, particularly in the area of multi-agency working, which will be required for the enforcement arrangements.

  The parenting order is the subject of an 18-month pilot scheme, which began on 30 September 1993. This involves monitoring and evaluating the use made of the order. The results of the pilot project will inform the process of national implementation and help to identify good practice which can be reflected in guidance and national standards.

  The decision to apply for anti-social behaviour orders or local child curfew schemes is one which must be taken by the police or local authority as appropriate, but we shall continue to encourage their use whenever the

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom and decisions1, excluding dependents, by gender2 1991 to 1998

  Year of application

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Applications received

  Total

  44,840

  24,605

  22,370

  32,830

  43,965

  29,640

  32,500

  46,015

  Of which:

  Male (percentage)

  80

  70

  67

  69

  71

  71

  75

  78

  Female (percentage)

  20

  30

  33

  31

  29

  29

  25

  22

  Decisions in year3,4

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Year of decision

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total

  505

  1,115

  1,590

  825

  1,295

  2,240

  3,985

  5,345

  Of which:

  Male (percentage)

  71

  82

  80

  78

  72

  68

  73

  70

  Female (percentage)

  29

  18

  20

  22

  28

  32

  27

  30

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total

  2,190

  15,325

  11,125

  3,660

  4,410

  5,055

  3,115

  3,910

  Of Which:

  Male(Percentage)

  81

  76

  71

  57

  59

  60

  68

  78

  Female(Percentage)19

  24

  29

  43

  41

  40

  32

  22

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  Total

  3,380

  18,465

  10,690

  16,500

  21,300

  31,670

  28,945

  22,315

  Of Which:

  Male(Percentage)

  84

  84

  81

  75

  76

  75

  73

  76

  Female(Percentage)

  16

  16

  19

  25

  24

  25

  27

  24

  1 Numbers rounded to the nearest 5 and percentages to the nearest 1 per cent.

  2Estimates based on records for which this information is held centrally.

  3Decisions may not relate to applications made in the same period.

  4Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  Search and Detention Powers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers officers at the frontier of the common travel area of the United Kingdom and Ireland are entitled to(a) question, (b) examine the
  434
  opportunity to do so arises. Parenting orders are available to the courts and do not depend upon any application being made by either the police or the local authority.

  CCTV
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received relating to the reliability of CCTV cameras in providing evidence in speeding cases. [86027]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received no representations on this subject. No Closed Circuit Television systems have been granted type approval for police to use in the enforcement of speed limits.

  Asylum Seekers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people who were(a) recognised as refugees, (b) granted exceptional leave and (c) refused asylum, in each year from 1991, were (i) female and (ii) male; [86121]

  (2) how many asylum applicants in each year from 1991 were (a) female and (b) male. [86120]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  belongings of, (c) search the person of and (d) detain a citizen of the European Union or European Economic Area or their accompanying relatives. [86229]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  European Economic Area (EEA) nationals are normally admitted to the United Kingdom on production of a valid passport or identity card as
  435
  evidence of nationality and identity, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 and subject to Article 15(1) of the Order. Under Article 3(3) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, a family member of an EEA national who is not himself an EEA national may in addition be required to hold an EEA family permit issued abroad.

  Powers for immigration officers to question passengers arriving in the United Kingdom, whether they are citizens of the European Union, or European Economic Area, or their accompanying (third country) relatives, are contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. Schedule 2 applies to the examination of European Economic Area (EEA) nationals in accordance with Article 20(2)(e) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994. Under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, a person who is examined under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 may be searched, and his belongings examined, and that person may be detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  The operation of immigration controls in the Republic of Ireland is a matter for the Irish authorities.

  EU (Corruption)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a draft of the Convention on the Fight Against Corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of member states of the European Union, (Cm 4266) published in April was first published; and what scrutiny of it is planned to be conducted in either House of Parliament.[86234]

  Kate Hoey
  The Council of the European Union adopted the Convention on the Fight against Corruption Involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of Member States of the European Union on 26 May 1997. It was first published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 25 June 1997.

  Prior to its adoption by the Council, the Convention had been considered in draft and cleared from scrutiny by the House of Lords European Communities Committee.

  The Government published the Convention on 16 April 1999 with an Explanatory Memorandum, as a Command Paper in the European Communities Series, and laid it for 21 sitting days in both Houses in accordance with the Ponsonby rule. Arrangements are under way for the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention by September. We expect to be among the first Member States to do so.

  European Communities Financial Interests
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list in respect of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities Financial Interests and subsequent protocols (i) the dates of promulgation and signature, (ii) the dates of draft and final publication in the United Kingdom, (iii) any relevant parliamentary proceedings and (iv) the dates of coming into force; [85679]
  436
  (2) what plans he has to amend the criminal law and procedures in respect of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests relating to international criminal fraud, and its protocols. [85680]

  Kate Hoey
  The Council of the European Union adopted and signed the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities' Financial Interests (the Fraud Convention) on 26 July 1995. The three protocols were adopted and signed on 27 September 1996, 29 November 1996 and 19 June 1997.

  The Government published the Convention and its protocols on 16 May 1999 as Command Papers in the European Communities Series, and laid them for 21 sitting days in both Houses in accordance with the Ponsonby rule.

  Prior to adoption the Convention and its protocols had been submitted for, and cleared from, parliamentary scrutiny.

  The Convention will enter into force 90 days after the Secretary-General of the Council receives notice that it has been ratified by the last Member State of the European Union. The same rule applies to each of the protocols, except that they cannot enter into force before the Convention.

  Following the recent commencement of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which was brought into force on 1 June 1999, and of equivalent provisions of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which were brought into force on the same date, no further changes to criminal law are needed in the United Kingdom in order to satisfy the requirements of the Convention and protocols. Arrangements are under way for the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention and protocols by September.

  Witness Protection (Eltham)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers are currently deployed on witness protection duties in the Eltham Police Division. [86194]

  Kate Hoey
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He tells me that in his view the information requested should not be published, in order to help maintain operational effectiveness.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  "Youth and Europe—Our Future"
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place a copy of the European Presidency memorandum, Youth and Europe—Our Future, in the Library. [86365]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Copies of the German EU Presidency's memorandum have been placed in the Library.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he is making with the Sure Start programme; when(a) the application

  437
  for the second round of Sure Start bids will be announced and (b) the application brochures will be sent to local authorities; who can bid for Sure Start funding; and when the closing date is for the next round. [85670]

  Ms Jowell
  Guidance inviting 60 areas of the country to apply for funding was published on 19 January. It was sent to key players across the country including local authorities. On 9 April, the Government announced the first 21 of these Sure Start programmes to be given funding. A further announcement concerning the others will be made soon.

  The Government hope to announce the next round of applications in the autumn when Guidance will be sent to local authorities and other providers of services for young children.

  Funding
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, and place in the Library in machine-readable form, for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 the revenue grants falling within the aggregate external finance, other than revenue support grant, allocated by his Department to (i) each local authority, (ii) in aggregate, to each class of local authority and (iii) in aggregate to England; and in the case of each local authority the total of such grants. [85757]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the revenue grants within aggregate external finance other than revenue support grant for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, for each local education authority, each class of local authority and for England as a whole are given in tables that have been placed in the Library in both paper and machine-readable form. For Grants for Education Support and Training in 1997–98 and the Standards Fund in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 the figures shown in the tables include the grant made by the Department and the contribution made by the local education authority.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, and place in the Library in machine-readable form, for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 the support for capital expenditure allocated by his Department (i) to each local authority, (ii) in aggregate to each class of local authority and (iii) in aggregate to England, showing each capital grant and borrowing approval separately, and the total of that support. [85758]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is shown in three tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library in both paper and machine-readable form.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to reply to 438
  the letter dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. W. Jackson, 32 Westbourne Range. [86410]

  Mr. Mudie
  A reply will be issued today.

  Class Sizes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in reducing the size of infant classes in South Gloucestershire. [86983]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  During the debate on primary schools on 19 May 1999,Official Report, column 1035, I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) figures relating to infant class size reductions in South Gloucestershire. The correct figures show that the number of pupils in infant classes of over 30 fell from 3,391 in January 1998 to 1,387 in September 1998. The projected number of children in infant classes of over 30 for September 1999 is 326.

  Business Links
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total value of grants from TECs to Business Links in each of the last three financial years. [86667]

  Mr. Mudie
  The following table provides the total expenditure by TEC/CCTEs on Enterprise and Business support activities which includes, but is not solely, expenditure on Business Links.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Expenditure

  1995–96

  81

  1996–97

  111

  1997–98

  142

  1998–99

  Not yet available

  Employee Training (Government Grants)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the Government funds allocated to private sector companies for the provision of training for employees in the form of(a) capital grants and (b) infrastructure grants in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [78303]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not fund private sector companies for training employees through capital grants. The Government do support private sector companies through infrastructure grants, including the SRB, but it would involve a disproportionate cost to identify the amount of funds from this source used for training employees.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Protection of Children Bill
Lord Laming: 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.—(Lord Laming.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Duty of Secretary of State to keep list]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("or should no longer be included in it")
The noble Earl said: The Bill is quite rightly concerned with closing loopholes that have in the past enabled child molesters to move from one childcare job to another, sometimes with complete impunity, over a period of many years. There is an urgent need to ensure that such people are prevented permanently from working with children. I am the first to recognise how important that need is.
As a result of amendments passed in another place, the grounds for including someone on the Secretary of State's list are now confined, in Clause 2(7)(a), to,
"misconduct … which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm",
combined with the Secretary of State's opinion that the person concerned was unsuitable to work with children. "Misconduct" is a term that I take to mean several things. It includes the case of the child molester whose deliberate actions cause harm to a child, but it also includes the case of someone who has been relieved of his position within an organisation, perhaps transferred elsewhere within it, as a result of gross incompetence that harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm. In other words, it is quite possible to imagine circumstances where a person's name is included on the list as a result of an act of inadvertence, albeit a serious one, as opposed to an act involving deliberate predatory behaviour.
For example, we can well imagine a young person of, say, 18 or 19, working in a children's home who puts a child's life at risk by virtue of sheer thoughtlessness or even ignorance. The children's home decides that it cannot afford to take a risk again with that individual and therefore dismisses him for misconduct. Assuming that the Secretary of State shares that view and believes that the individual is unsuitable to work with children as a consequence of what he has done, his name will go
1662
on the list. There is then only one way that his name can be removed from the list; namely, following a successful appeal to the tribunal.
However, let us suppose that the tribunal dismisses an appeal. The young person grows up, becomes wiser and more experienced, perhaps has a family of his own, perhaps even persuades a voluntary group such as the Scouts to let him supervise a Scout group, and that person comes to be regarded as a thoroughly reliable and trustworthy individual in the supervision of children. The question we have to ask is whether in a case such as that there should be no mechanism whatever open to the individual to enable him to have his name removed from the list.
Under Clause 1(3) the Secretary of State is enabled to remove a person's name from the list if he is satisfied that it should not have been included in the first place. That is entirely reasonable and right. But it does not cover the case of someone such as I have described who has lost an early appeal to the tribunal but who has then convincingly redeemed himself of his past incompetence by virtue of a long and satisfactory track record looking after children.
I therefore need to ask the noble Lord, Lord Laming, via the amendment that I have tabled, whether he thinks that in the interests of natural justice there should be another means whereby someone is able to rid himself of the stigma of appearing on the list by having his name removed from it.
I do not suggest that there are many cases that ought to be eligible for such treatment—quite the contrary. I emphasise again that I am not talking about allowing wilful child molesters to apply to have the slate wiped clean after an apparently blameless few years. But as we debate the Bill we must all the time be mindful not only of the interests of children but also of what is fair and right. Blacklists are powerful tools. Including someone's name on a blacklist for the rest of his life may be further than we should want to go in certain exceptional cases. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to give me some satisfactory reassurances in response to the concerns that I have raised. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment, for all the reasons that have been given which the Committee may think are entirely logical, humane and right. I seek clarification on one matter that troubles me. It relates to this amendment and is not itself the subject of an amendment.
It appears that the individual concerned may not write to the Secretary of State directly and say, "Could you now remove me for these reasons?" That avenue seems to have been foreclosed upon by Clause 4(1) (b), which seems to ordain—this is the trouble—that a person has to go to the tribunal and seek leave in order to have his name removed from the list. That is a nonsense. A person whose name is on the list should be able to write a letter to the Secretary of State saying, "I am represented; the parson thinks I am all right". and one thing and another, and provide a few references. The Secretary of State can write back and say no; then the person can go to the tribunal. As I said, no

1663
amendment has been tabled to that effect. I merely ask that consideration be given to the point at some stage. It relates to a more orderly and proper system of administration.
Lord Meston: This amendment and the questions that have been asked are important. As I read the Bill, it provides an appeal mechanism. It appears to allow for only a single appeal; however, I may be wrong about that. It does not allow for a subsequent review. The intention may be that there will be some form of administrative review of the list, but that is not apparent on the face of the Bill.
Presumably there must be circumstances such as the noble Earl described in which an entry on the list ought to be reviewable. Indeed, there must be other circumstances in which entry on the list should be extinguished. Presumably some time limits will be allowed for; otherwise the lists will simply grow and grow. While I agree with the noble Earl that the circumstances in which a review should be allowed are likely to be extremely limited, perhaps we should be reassured that some such mechanism will be in place.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: First, I welcome the support that the noble Earl has given to the general intent of the Bill, which the Government, too, support. The noble Earl has raised an important issue and this has been a helpful debate. He has alerted us to the careful balance that needs to be drawn between the interests of children and the interests of the individual concerned.
The safeguards in the Bill—in terms of the procedures that have to be adopted in relation to the inclusion of a person on the list and the ability of that person to appeal to an independent tribunal—have been carefully drawn. The noble Earl's amendment strikes at one of the important principles of the Bill. I hope that I can reassure him that there are sufficient safeguards to meet the specific concerns that he raises.
Clause 1(3) is intended to enable the Secretary of State to remove an individual's name from the list if he is to avoid injustice and needless appeals and litigation in cases, for example, where fresh evidence has come to light and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the basis on which the original decision was taken was in some material way incorrect and for that reason the individual should not have been included in the list in the first place. For example, a relevant conviction could have been set aside, or evidence upon which the original decision had been based could subsequently have been discredited. In such circumstances the Secretary of State could act without the individual having formally to appeal to the tribunal as the only means of redress. However, it should be noted that that right may be exercised regardless of whether an individual has exercised his right of appeal to the tribunal.
The amendment proposed by the noble Earl would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State not only to consider responding to information of this kind,
1664
but also to undertake reviews to see whether names should remain on the list. The amendment runs against the whole principle behind listing; namely, that once a name is finally placed on the list, that decision is permanent. The whole intention is that, if individuals have shown themselves to be unsuitable to work with children, they should not be able to work with children again.
I very much appreciate the noble Earl's concern that this may appear heavy-handed. Should, as he described it, a youthful indiscretion or a momentary lapse of attention in the case of immature young people be held against people for the rest of their lives? If that were a danger, I am sure that the Committee would be likely to agree. However, I believe that I can remove any understandable doubts on that score. Certainly, this same point troubled the Committee's deliberations on the Bill in another place. At that time the Bill provided that individuals might be listed on grounds of incompetence as well as misconduct. The Bill was amended precisely to respond to similar concerns, for example, where a youthful care assistant had carelessly left a gate open and a child had, as a result, run out into a busy street. The removal of incompetence grounds has therefore raised the threshold for referral to the list.
On that basis, when deciding whether it would be appropriate to include the name in the list, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the employer has come to a reasonable conclusion that the individual has harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm and that he is unsuitable to work with children.
Furthermore, in connection with appeals against listing, the tribunal will go into all the circumstances of the case afresh and will review the alleged misconduct and any resulting harm to a child. At the same time, however, it is clear that gross incompetence should meet the definition of misconduct so that that area of behaviour will be subject to referral. But, of course, that would then be a matter, in relation to the tribunal, for it to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
It must be borne in mind that there are other important filters which would screen out trivial cases. In the first place, only those cases where a child has been harmed or placed at risk of harm are to be referred to the Secretary of State. Secondly, under Clause 2(4), cases are not entered automatically into the consideration procedure following reference from an organisation. On the contrary, for the process to carry on at all, the Secretary of State has to be satisfied from the information submitted, with the original reference, that it may be appropriate for the individual to be included on the list.
It is only then, after observing closely stipulated statutory procedures that include considering observations from the individual concerned, that the Secretary of State may make a determination.
As I have already pointed out, this is subject to appeal to the independent tribunal to be established by the Bill: a tribunal which does not merely review the procedure followed by the Secretary of State but which also looks again at the whole case from the beginning, quite separately from and uninfluenced by the Secretary of

1665
State's consideration. In all those circumstances, it is difficult to see that cases will slip through to listing which should not be so listed.
Lord Laming: I am also grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity to discuss the amendment. It raises an important matter. It is necessary to emphasise that this Bill introduces a number of safeguards which do not exist at present. I consider that it contains five safeguards which will improve the way in which these matters are handled and provide safeguards both for the person against whom allegations are made and children who have been put at risk.
With that in mind, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that there is a difference between Clause 3, which sets out the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, and Clause 4, which sets out the opportunity for the individual to go direct to the tribunal to appeal. That is quite an important measure.
Turning to the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, the Bill provides for the test of gross incompetence. The fact that "incompetence" was removed in the other place is of great significance. "Gross incompetence" is not a matter which can be used to refer to a trivial act. The way in which the procedures are set out in the Bill allows for consideration to be given not only to the allegations of behaviour but to such matters as the inexperience of the person concerned.
It would be erroneous to suggest that someone could be placed on the list, having gone through the procedures, either because of youthful indiscretion or because they have acted in a way which, in years to come, would be thought to be less than gross incompetence. It is not only gross incompetence but gross incompetence that has resulted either in children being exposed to undue risk or experiencing abuse in one way or another. So the Bill is designed not only to protect children but also to ensure that there are proper balances and safeguards for staff.
We need to take these matters seriously because, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said at Second Reading, at the end of the day the adults concerned can get another job not working with children, but children can have their lives ruined through abuse from powerful adults in positions of trust. I support those sentiments because we must keep our attention clearly focused on the fact that these are people in positions of trust and authority. Matters that would be considered as justifying someone being placed on the list are matters of sufficient seriousness as to make them be regarded as unsuitable to work with children.
This is not a Bill that would prevent people working. It is simply a measure which prevents them working with children. I emphasise that youthful indiscretions do not fall within the definition of gross incompetence. For that reason I hope, after the consideration that the Committee has given the matter, the noble Earl will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord for their explanatory comments. I recognize
1666
that the safeguards in the Bill are carefully drawn. As the noble Lord emphasised, we must be mindful of the need above all to protect children from those who represent a risk to them.
I accept that the term "misconduct" necessarily implies a serious act of commission or omission and that it would not be used to refer to a trivial act of any kind. However, I confess to remaining slightly worried. What the noble Lord said, helpful though it was, did not seem to me to cover the case of someone who in every way merits inclusion on the list at the time or shortly after the act was committed, but who after a lapse of time—perhaps many years—can demonstrate that his continued inclusion on the list is not in the interests of natural justice. That case remains in the air and unaccounted for.
The noble Lord is effectively suggesting that one cannot apply common sense to a situation. The logical conclusion of his position is that whatever someone does to prove that he is capable of being trusted with the care of children, he should nevertheless remain on the Secretary of State's list just in case he might do the same thing again. I find that proposition in the abstract difficult to accept. It runs counter to the best traditions of civil freedom that we are used to in this country.
I would appreciate an answer from the noble Lord or the Minister on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the possibility of an individual being able to put in a second and subsequent appeal, having already lost an initial appeal, perhaps many years down the road, if it becomes clear that it would be right to remove his name from the list in the light of a lifetime of unblemished work. I should appreciate some guidance on that point.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Laming: I believe that the noble Earl referred to misconduct. It is important to emphasise that the Bill is concerned now with gross misconduct. The term "misconduct" has been removed. "Gross misconduct' in these circumstances is intended to describe behaviour that exposes vulnerable children and young people to unacceptable risks or behaviour. It is important to note the difference between misconduct and gross misconduct.
Earl Howe: With the leave of the Committee, I am a little confused. The Bill makes reference to "misconduct", not "gross misconduct". The term is a simple one.
Lord Laming: The misconduct is concerned with the protection of children and is not something of a trivial nature. I can give examples but I do not want to delay the House. Something done in innocence would not be regarded as misconduct. Something done deliberately in the knowledge of the likely outcome would be the test of misconduct. This is the first time that people will be able to put their case to an independent tribunal, describe their inexperience and the supervision that they did or did not have. The tribunal will take into account all of these matters.

1667
I am sorry that earlier I used the wrong term. The term "incompetence" has been removed. Therefore, innocent activity due to incompetence is not now being considered. Misconduct is something that is deliberate and determined. It is right that there should be an appeal mechanism but only if there is new information. There is no procedure in the Bill to review decisions taken earlier simply because someone now wants to have his circumstances reviewed. To ensure that these procedures are regarded with great seriousness, no one should be put on the list without a necessary appeal mechanism and until the tribunal has considered all the circumstances and come to the conclusion that the person is unsuitable to work with children. That decision will not be reached if the matters are trivial or the person has a justifiable defence of one kind or another. Therefore, I urge the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but everything that the noble Lord has just said seems to me to justify the amendment. There must be some form of reconsideration at some time in some circumstances. To clear away one point raised by the noble Lord, he said that the Secretary of State would be required to keep these matters under continual review. No. It is only if a representation is, or could be, made that he is asked to consider it. I thought that I should clear that away. I hope that we come back to this very serious point about freedom of the subject. It seems to me that it is tied up a tiny bit too tightly.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord and to my noble friend. I was a little confused by one observation of the noble Lord. He said that the term "misconduct" necessarily implied a deliberate act. That was not my understanding. It seems to me that gross incompetence can include an act of omission, if you like, inadvertence, rather than an act of deliberate commission. Be that as it may, I shall reflect carefully on what has been said in this debate between now and the further stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Inclusion in list on reference to Secretary of State]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("considered dismissing") and insert ("been minded to dismiss")
The noble Earl said: This amendment, in common with Amendment No. 6 to which I shall also speak, addresses what seems to me to be vague, and therefore unsatisfactory, wording in Clause 2. Subsections (2) and (3) set out the circumstances in which a childcare organisation must refer someone's name to the Secretary of State for provisional listing. We all understand the kinds of situation that should merit such a referral. One situation that undoubtedly must be covered is that of a person who has resigned or retired before the employer is able to invoke any disciplinary procedures against
1668
him. Another is the situation in which the procedures are commenced but the person disappears before they can be completed. This type of situation arises all too commonly. The employer is left having to form a view of the alleged misconduct without the benefit of having the accused person on hand to question. Such cases need to come within the scope of Clause 2 to ensure that potential malefactors do not slip through the net merely because they have avoided being formally dismissed from their jobs.
I do not argue in the least with what the clause seeks to do but merely with the manner in which it is expressed. It seems to me that the second test set out in subsection (2)(b) is not at all precise. It requires an organisation to refer someone's name to the Secretary of State not only when it has concluded that it would definitely have dismissed him had he not resigned or retired but also when it would merely have considered dismissing him. I am not sure that I know what that means. I know what it should mean; namely, a situation in which, on the balance of probabilities, an employer forms the view that a person has been guilty of misconduct but has not been able to complete the formal disciplinary process because the individual concerned has disappeared.
But to consider dismissing someone could mean anything from having the fleeting thought of dismissal crossing one's mind to going through a proper deliberative process, the conclusion of which is that the person would probably have been dismissed. It is the situation at the latter end of that spectrum that the Bill should seek to describe. I believe that it fails to do so. There are two aspects to this defect. One is the general principle that legal language should be precise and not vague. The other is that the wording of the Bill should point to a clear test which an employer knows with certainty he has fulfilled. The alternative wording that I propose in these amendments attempts to do just that.
To say that an organisation would have been minded to dismiss someone carries, I hope, the much clearer connotation of a considered, deliberative process rather than simply saying that it would have considered dismissing the individual. It also points to a more precise test that an employer must meet. That is important if one believes, as I certainly do, that the law should be capable of being policed. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord and the Minister have to say. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl again raises an important issue. I hope to be able to clarify the views of the Government upon it and the reasons why the current wording of the Bill satisfies the needs. As drafted, the objective of including provisions for referral in circumstances where an employer would have considered dismissing is to cover the situation, as the noble Earl suggests, where, before the employer has had the opportunity to complete his investigation into the alleged misconduct or come to a firm conclusion that dismissal is appropriate, the individual retires or resigns. Until the employer completes that investigation, he

1669
cannot conclude with any degree of certainty that he would have dismissed the individual. To reach such a conclusion would be premature.
Although the employer should in principle undertake all necessary investigations, in practice it may not be possible for him always to conclude his inquiries. For example, if a child made an allegation of abuse, the employer would need to interview the child and seek any corroborative evidence available. He should also seek to obtain the individual's comments on the allegations. In circumstances where the employer has been able to obtain only one side of a story, it would be difficult for him to conclude that he would have dismissed the individual. He can only conclude that, as the present wording said, he would have considered dismissing the individual.
This does not give rise to an obligation to refer where only passing consideration was given to dismissal. Dismissal must be a real possibility or within a band of reasonable responses to the alleged misconduct. The obligation to refer does not arise where only fleeting consideration was given to whether dismissal was appropriate. If the present amendments seek to safeguard an individual from those eventualities, they therefore seem to be unnecessary, in particular taken with all the other safeguards in the Bill in relation to the procedures which have to be followed.
Lord Laming: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the law should be as clear as possible. It is for that reason that I believe that "to be minded" seems to have within it a presumption; whereas "would have considered" makes a claim that all the facts will be allowed before any decision is reached.
It should be remembered that the Secretary of State can commence the process of deciding whether someone should be listed only,
"if it appears from the information submitted with a reference … that it may be appropriate for the individual to be included in the list".
In other words, although the amendment might restrict the threshold for referral by an employer, it does not in any way restrict the position of the Secretary of State.
There is a further important consideration on the noble Earl's point on the law. The terminology in Clause 2, "would have considered," is used in a great deal of legislation including the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1982 in relation to the reporting of misconduct cases. It is still used in the current version of those regulations; namely, the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993. Section 15 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 also relies on those words.
There is consistency in the way the provision is framed. I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.
Earl Howe: The Minister and the noble Lord have gone some considerable way to assuage my concerns. I am most grateful. It is helpful to have on the record that the phrase "would have considered dismissing him" will in practice be interpreted strictly in the way I sought to define.
1670
However, I remain uneasy that the Bill contains terminology that at least in ordinary language seems inherently vague. Perhaps there is an argument from precedent, as the noble Lord said. But riot having considered that precedent, I wonder whether it is a proper parallel to the situation envisaged in the Bill. If the guidance to be issued by the department will spell out the whole issue, there is a good argument for it to be spelt out on the face of the Bill. If we do nor do so, in one breath we are inviting an employer to refer someone's name to the Secretary of State, even in a case where that would be manifestly inappropriate. For example, if an employer receives an allegation of child abuse, investigates it, and finds it to be wholly without foundation, he would be obliged, nevertheless, to refer the name of the alleged abuser to the Secretary of State because dismissal of the person had seemed a real possibility at the outset of the investigation. So the lack of clarity in the drafting of the Bill could lead to an absurdity, or worse, bearing in mind that having one' s name referred to the Secretary of State is mortifying to anyone who is innocent. Where we are dealing with civil liberties, as we are here, we should have no truck with imprecise terminology.
I am sorry to say to the Minister that I do riot find the answer entirely convincing. However, I am in large measure reassured. I shall reflect carefully on what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 a.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 8, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Earl said: In the previous amendment I highlighted my concern that the Bill. may unintentionally bring about a situation in which someone's name could be referred to the Secretary of State in quite inappropriate circumstances. However, we have here a paragraph which appears consciously to encourage the possibility of inappropriate referrals.
Clause 2(2)(d) provides that a childcare organisation must refer to the Secretary of State the name of someone whom it has suspended or provisionally transferred on the ground of misconduct before it has decided whether to transfer the person permanently or to dismiss him or her. As I have said, we are all in favour of closing as many loopholes as possible against those who might harm children. But the more I consider this paragraph the less desirable I think that it is; and the less I understand how it meshes in with the remainder of the Bill.
We can easily imagine the situation of an employee in a childcare organisation being subject to a malicious and wholly unfounded allegation of abuse. Nevertheless, the organisation feels duty bound to suspend that individual at the outset of the investigation as a precautionary measure. At the same time, it will be required under the Bill to refer the person's name to the Secretary of State. I fully accept that the Secretary of State will not proceed to a provisional listing of that person unless he is satisfied that there is at least a prima facie case, of misconduct

1671
presented to him. In the situation that I describe, there may well not be. I question whether it is good practice to create a situation in which there is a statutory duty to refer someone in circumstances where the Secretary of State would clearly determine that it was not appropriate for that person to be included in the list.
The organisation should not be encouraged to be trigger-happy as regards the referral process. If it refers someone's name to the Secretary of State, it should at least be persuaded at that juncture that, on the balance of the information available to it, there is a real case for that individual to answer. But that is not what paragraph (d) states. The threshold for referral is a great deal lower than elsewhere in the clause; and I am worried about that.
Before the noble Lord accuses me of not understanding the clause, I believe I know the reason that the paragraph has been included in the Bill. It is to cover the case of someone who, as soon as the shadow of suspicion falls on him in his place of work, applies for another job intending to do a runner from his present employer before he is brought to book. When that individual is suspended or provisionally transferred within the organisation, and before an internal investigation of the allegations against him commences, he knows that time is not on his side. I entirely understand why the noble Lord believes that one should minimise the risk of such a person slipping through the net and securing alternative employment. However, my question to him is this: what will constitute a prima facie case for the Secretary of State in these circumstances?
The suspension of an individual, and no more than that, is the trigger for a referral. The Secretary of State is unlikely to have anything more solid in front of him than an unsubstantiated allegation on which to make his judgment. If he tries to look beyond that, he will be prejudging the organisation's decision on whether the person's suspension should be upheld.
Some unsubstantiated allegations have a good deal of credence to them, as we all know. Much will depend on how and by whom they are made. However, in general, I do not believe that an unsubstantiated allegation, which might have led to an immediate and automatic suspension, should constitute sufficient grounds for the Secretary of State to decide to place someone's name on the provisional list. There should be more than that. The danger of having suspension as the trigger here is that we are encouraging referrals in circumstances where it is not obvious that there is a case to answer. Therefore, I wonder whether the wording in this part of the clause is appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I try to envisage the situation that is contemplated by Clause 2 (2)(d). The situation in which an individual jumps before he is pushed is covered by Clause 2(2)(b) and therefore one is left wondering what, in practical reality, will be covered by Clause 2(2)(d).
It may be the limited circumstances in which someone is suspended, but manages to draw out the suspension procedure such that he is still technically employed and
1672
therefore his employment has not come to an end by resignation, retirement or dismissal, and yet there are serious misgivings about his suitability. In those situations, it might be appropriate for the employer to take action, but I am by no means sure about that. I hope that the Minister or the noble Lord can enlighten us.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Again, the debate has shown the delicate balance which must be drawn between the overriding question of protecting children and the rights of the individual. Each amendment is testing the boundary between the two. Clause 2(2)(d) allows referrals to be made where the organisation has suspended an individual or moved him to a non-childcare post while investigating an allegation that a child has been harmed or placed at risk of harm.
The amendment would remove that provision and, as such, it would not be until a final decision was made by the employer that a referral could be made under subsections (a) to (c) of Clause 2. In answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, Members of the Committee will recognise that it will take some time to carry out a full investigation to decide whether an allegation can be substantiated. Witnesses will need to be interviewed and internal appeal procedures exhausted. During that period, if the amendment were accepted, that person's name would not be included in the list. As such, if the individual sought employment elsewhere in a childcare position and the check was carried out by a potential employer, the fact that an allegation was being investigated would not be revealed.
Although I accept the point that the individual would be concerned about inclusion on the list before a final decision on suitability had been taken, this clause is seen as the only way of providing the necessary protection to children and, as the noble Earl suggested, of ensuring that there are no loopholes in terms of someone trying to circumvent the overall safeguards in the Bill.
The noble Earl asked about a prima facie case against the individual for suspension. The name can go on the list only if there is an allegation of harm, or risk of harm, and if the Secretary of State believes that inclusion is appropriate. One grants that the Secretary of State would not know the individual's side of the story at that stage, but we turn to the other safeguards in the Bill. They are that a final decision on inclusion will not be taken until the employer has decided to dismiss, if that is the action that can be taken.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I begin by saying that I should be the last person to accuse him of not understanding the purpose of the Bill. I should not dream of having such temerity.
This is an important area of debate and I shall first answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Paragraph (b) deals with resignation, retirement or dismissal. Paragraph (d) deals with suspension. That is the justification for the provision. It is important to emphasise the two safeguards. First, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case. Everyone operating in the field will recognise that vexatious allegations can be made. The fact that an allegation has been made is not in itself grounds for

1673
suspension. Secondly, for the first time, the Bill allows for limits on how long the suspension can last. That is an important safeguard for someone in this situation.
It is also important to see suspension and the issues surrounding it within the wider employment legislation and guidance to social care and educational organisations about how they should deal with allegations. One recognises that allegations can be ill-founded and therefore—to quote the noble Earl, Lord Howe—one should not become trigger-happy. There is guidance to prevent authorities being trigger-happy, and for that reason the Secretary of State must be satisfied that these matters have been handled in an appropriate manner.
It is important to emphasise that it is only at the previous employment check stage that information can be made available to a prospective employer. Therefore, it is possible to envisage a situation where a prospective employer is considering offering a job to someone, makes a proper check, is given clearance as a result, and only after the offer of employment has been made learns that serious matters are being investigated elsewhere.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, sometimes such allegations need several months to be properly investigated. Therefore, it is most important that during that period, if someone is suspended, a prospective employer is informed that the person is the subject of investigation elsewhere. For that reason, I believe that this is an important and essential feature of the Bill and I urge Members of the Committee to reject the amendment.
Earl Howe: Once again I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. In tabling the amendment, it was not, of course, my intention to seek to delete those provisions from the Bill. That, 1 hope, was clear.
I have listened carefully to all the comments made, and I am entirely persuaded that the balance that the Minister referred to has been struck, in this instance, correctly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Noon
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No 4:
Page 2, line 47, after ("applies") insert ("and shall use his best endeavours to notify the individual accordingly")
The noble Earl said: This amendment reflects my deep concern that there could be circumstances in which the Secretary of State confirms someone's name on the list without that individual ever knowing that it has happened. Should such a thing be allowed to occur, it would he a profoundly damaging development for civil liberties.
I recognise that in many, if not most, cases an individual who has been provisionally listed and who has then submitted observations to the Secretary of State will be made aware in some way of the proceedings' outcome. But that will not always be the pattern. Let us reflect, for example, on what might happen under Clause 2(3). An organisation might uncover evidence about an individual's behaviour many years after he has left his job. It may not be possible to trace his whereabouts. The
1674
Secretary of State will determine the case on the basis of the evidence before him. Let us say that he decides to list the person. How is that individual supposed to know that this has occurred?
The question has particular relevance if, as we are led to understand, the Government intend to make it a criminal offence for a person to apply for a childcare position while on the list. In this context, it is instructive to look at the Home Office consultation paper, issued on 30th April. The paper puts forward proposals that would make it a criminal offence for a banned person to apply for, accept or be engaged in work with children, or to provide services to them.
Leaving aside the last element, which begs a whole host of questions, it is further proposed that there would need to be a defence of ignorance on the part of the individual, that he did not know that the position involved work with children. That is fair enough as far as it goes, but I see no mention of a defence of ignorance that the person did not know that he was on the list of proscribed individuals. If ignorance of one's inclusion on the list is not to be an excuse, this whole area of legislation begins to assume a somewhat Kafkaesque quality. I do not believe for one minute that that is the Minister's intention, but as the Bill stands he is implicitly allowing for that risk.
In debate in another place, quite a bit was made of the consequences that flow from Clause 2(3). The provision was, of course, inserted in the Bill because of concerns raised in Standing Committee. It is a useful subsection, but it brings with it certain risks. The longer the time that has elapsed since an act of wrongdoing was committed, the greater the scope for error, faulty memory and, therefore, miscarriages of justice. It is not for nothing that the Statute of Limitations, in its basic form, is one of the oldest statutes in the corpus of English law. Whenever we countenance a departure from the principle that it enshrines, we should do so only with the greatest caution. Here we do so in the context not of a judicial but of an administrative process.
We are saying that no matter how long ago an alleged misdeed took place, those who work with children must reckon on being in perpetual, open-ended jeopardy as regards the risk of being included, by an executive decision, on an employment blacklist. That is very serious. We may decide to take such a step in the interest of protecting children, but we certainly do not want to do so if the system that we put in place allows for the blacklisted person to remain in ignorance of the mark that society has placed upon him.
My amendment says that whenever the Secretary of State confirms someone's name on the list, he should use his best endeavours to notify him of the listing. 1 realise that the wording may not be precisely right in terms of legalese. However, it does recognise that in some cases an individual will prove to be untraceable. It does not impose a blanket duty on the Secretary of State to trace that individual and notify him no matter what, but a reasonable effort should be made to inform him regardless of the circumstances, and the procedure should be automatic. The Minister may tell me that that is what is intended as a matter of practice. However,

1675
when dealing with such a fundamental aspect of civil liberties there is an almost unassailable case for placing the requirement on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: Delayed disclosure of child abuse is a real problem with which the courts have to grapple. Occasionally, as has been said, it throws up quite acute difficulties in respect of limitation periods.
I sympathise entirely with the proposition that anyone included on one of these lists should be notified, if at all possible. It is right to say that in terms of legalese, "best endeavours" may no longer be the most favoured phrase. Perhaps something along the lines of "should use all reasonable endeavours" would be preferable. I hope that somehow the points raised will be taken on board in considering how the legislation will work in practice.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not think that there can be any argument with the thrust of the noble Earl's proposal. Clearly it is important that every effort should be made to ensure that the individual concerned is aware. However, we see problems with the amendment. I hope that I can convince the noble Earl that these matters can be covered by effective administrative procedures. The amendment would impose an explicit duty on the Secretary of State to try to inform an individual when confirming his inclusion on the Department of Health's list. While the instinct behind the amendment is entirely understandable, I cannot recommend proceeding in the way proposed.
The question is not whether to achieve the amendment's intention, but rather how best to secure it without inadvertently complicating an essentially administrative process. As I understand the position, there should normally be no difficulty about informing the individuals concerned because they will have participated in the careful procedures laid down in the earlier provisions of Clause 2. Their whereabouts, therefore, will be known, and in the normal way they will be informed, possibly through their advisers, what the outcome of the reference has been. In their case, making this a statutory requirement adds nothing to the situation.
I am glad to give the assurance that the Government will in all cases seek to inform all parties of decisions that are taken. There will, however, be other cases where matters might not be so straightforward. For example, it is possible that there will be instances where individuals break contact with their advisers, or otherwise choose to go to ground. Such actions may be intended deliberately to frustrate or protract proceedings. In such cases, the imposition of the requirement proposed, reasonably worded as it is, could be used against the Secretary of State; for example, it may be alleged that his best endeavours were not good enough and that they ensured that the whole procedure was at fault. The tribunal may be invited to go into all the detail of attempts made to notify. In that way, attempts may be made to abuse the process.
1676
Experience with the current consultancy list in the Department of Health and List 99, which is operated by the Department for Education and Employment, shows that there are only handful of cases in which it has not been possible to contact the person contacted.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of inclusion where the individual is not found or told that he is on the list. Although an individual who cannot be found may be included on the list, the time-limits relating to his right of appeal will not start to run until he is informed or finds out that he is not on the list. We shall deal with those matters in regulations concerning the tribunals.
The noble Earl referred to the new offence, following the work of the inter-departmental group and the Home Office report. I assure him that we shall consider that point.
Lord Laming: I am grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is important to see this amendment in the context of the procedures set out in the Bill; namely, to provide protection for both children and employees.
It is helpful that we are discussing this amendment immediately after we discussed the amendment on suspension because it is almost inconceivable—I would say that it is inconceivable—that a person could not know that allegations were being investigated which could lead him to have his name included on the list. Therefore, in normal circumstances, he would not only be invited to participate in the procedures envisaged by the Bill, which enables those matters to be explored properly and provides a right to go to an independent tribunal, but he would also know from the outset what possibilities will flow from the actions which have been investigated.
For that reason, it is important to recognise that individuals who fall within the purview of the Bill will be informed fully from the outset about possible outcomes. It may help to say that in the present arrangements the procedures followed by both the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health go to considerable lengths to ensure that people are informed of the outcome of any decision made.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, the department will produce guidance on the implementation of the legislation in due course. I feel sure that the department will be very happy to consult the noble Earl and the noble Lord to make sure that the point is covered adequately in the guidance. For that reason, I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer and for the comments which the Minister made. I am not sure that my concerns have really been covered fully. I welcome the assurance that notification of inclusion on the list will take place as a matter of course. But, if so, why can we not have this provision on the face of the Bill, although perhaps not as I have drafted it which is in a rather unprofessional layman's manner?

1677
The Minister raised valid objections to the form of words that I used but I am sure that there is a way round those objections if the will exists to find one.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, said that individuals who fall within the purview of the Bill will be informed fully from the outset of the procedures. That certainly will be so in the majority of cases, but not necessarily, I suggest, when an act of abuse comes to light in the circumstances envisaged under Clause 2(2)(d) where an employee may be long gone. He will not be involved at all from the outset of the procedures. It is in those circumstances that my worries really surface.
To say that the amendment which I propose will complicate the administrative processes is no reason whatever for dismissing the validity of the central point at issue. We are talking about an absolutely fundamental issue affecting civil liberties. I am far from clear that that should simply be relegated to departmental guidance. The Bill should make explicit provision in that regard.
However, I shall reflect carefully on what has been said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 2, leave out paragraph (a)
The noble Earl said: Clause 2(7) sets out the twin criteria upon which the Secretary of State's decision to confirm someone's name permanently on the list must be based. I have no difficulty with the thinking which underlies this subsection. But as drafted, it may give rise to some anomalies.
Let us suppose that an organisation refers a person following an allegation of misconduct; the case is investigated; and the allegation is not upheld. However, quite separately, the Secretary of State is made aware of details surrounding the individual, perhaps something in the domestic context, which make it quite clear that he is unsuitable to work with children.
As regards the organisation, the Secretary of State is obliged to reach the opinion that the verdict of misconduct was not reasonable. Therefore, he will be unable to confirm the person's inclusion on the list. But in every other way, it will be clear that that is a travesty of justice. Therefore, the word about which I am most concerned in this subsection is the word "and" right at the end of paragraph (a). Is the noble Lord happy for that word to be included?
In moving the amendment, perhaps I may ask a further question relating to the phrase "is of the opinion". What is the difference between the meaning of that phrase and the word "satisfied" in Clause 1(3) in the context of the Secretary of State's power to remove the name of someone from the list? The word "satisfied" appears also in Clause 4(3) in relation to the tribunal's determination of an appeal. Is there any significance in that? Does being "satisfied" about an issue represent a
1678
stiffer test in some way than being "of the opinion"? I hope that there is no substantive difference but if there is, I should like to know about it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This amendment would remove the first limb of the test which must be satisfied before the Secretary of State may confirm an individual's inclusion on the Department of Health list in the circumstances specified in Clause 2(6).
The test to be removed is the one requiring the Secretary of State to be of the opinion that the referring organisation reasonably considered the individual to be guilty of misconduct which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm. The sole test which would remain is whether the Secretary of State was of the opinion that the individual was unsuitable to work with children.
Rather than consider two matters before the test may be satisfied, the Secretary of State will be obliged to address only one because he would no longer have to consider whether the referring organisation had acted reasonably and addressed relevant criteria before deciding to refer. The Secretary of State would still have to decide whether the individual was unsuitable to work with children. The basis upon which he must do that is not clear. Either he would do that on a review of the papers before him, or he would be required to carry out a fact-finding exercise to decide whether the individual was guilty of the misconduct as alleged.
If the former were the case, the criteria for the Secretary of State's decision would be unspecified. Presumably, he would simply decide whether the person was suitable to work with children on the basis of information provided on the initial referral and any representations received from the parties. However, that is an insufficiently precise test, bearing in mind what turns upon that decision. For that reason, I believe that the amendment would not be welcome.
Alternatively, it is arguable that the amendment would mean that the only way in which the Secretary of State could discharge his function would be to carry out a fact-finding exercise, as he would need to be satisfied that the individual was guilty of a misconduct, as alleged, and would not be entitled to rely on the findings. of the employer. Of course, the Secretary of State would not be in a position to carry out such an exercise and I do not believe that it would be right to expect him to do so. Among other things, the standard of proof that he would be required to apply would be wholly unclear.
When read together with Clause 4, the effect would be one of duplication, as the Bill would then contain provisions for two fact-finding exercises in place of the one already available in the case of a tribunal. That is because under Clause 4, in determining appeals from decisions of the Secretary of State, the tribunal undertakes a fact-finding role to determine whether the person is guilty of a misconduct that harmed a child, or placed a child at risk of harm, and whether the person is unsuitable to work with children. Not only 'would there be wasteful duplication of effort, but there would also be significant cost implications.
Lord Laming: This provision is one of the safeguards to which I referred earlier. The Secretary of

1679
State needs to be of the opinion that the way in which the organisation has considered the issues of misconduct has been reasonable and—it is important that there is this second arm—that the evidence means that someone is unsuitable to work with children.
Earlier the noble Earl referred to what I call vexatious allegations being made. It is important that the Secretary of State forms the opinion that the way in which such matters have been handled has been reasonable and that the proper tests have been applied.
The Secretary of State needs to form an opinion about the procedures. He does not consider the merits of the case. He does not provide a rehearing. Therefore, the significance of the opinion is that he is not expressing satisfaction at the outcome because that matter will be considered by the tribunal with all the safeguards that are built into the tribunal. He will form an opinion about the way in which the matter has been handled and whether the person is, therefore, unsuitable to work with children.
There is significance in the words of the opinion in this paragraph. For that reason, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment because I believe that subsection (7)(a) provides an important safeguard in the Bill.
Earl Howe: As so often happens when one tables an amendment in Committee, which is expressed in a form that suggests that a deletion of a certain part of the Bill should be considered, a literal interpretation is placed upon it. I tabled this amendment as a standard device to enable the Committee to debate this part of the Bill.
I have listened carefully to what has been said. Of course, I entirely understand why this part of the clause has been framed as it is. I do not dissent from it. In the remarks that I made earlier, I was merely suggesting that the double hurdle represented by subsections (7)(a) and (7)(b) may, in some circumstances, be too stiff a test and that someone could slip through the net as a result of the double hurdle.
If that is a risk that the noble Lord is willing to carry, I am the last person to dissent from his opinion on that. As he, rather than I, has been instrumental in carrying out the work on this Bill, I simply raise it as a possibility—a not altogether unreasonable possibility.
I am grateful to him for the explanation that he gave of the difference between the words "is of the opinion" and "is satisfied". I understand that the tribunal will sit in a quasi-judicial role and, therefore, the opinion that it reaches will necessarily be of a different kind, in terms of the way in which it is reached, from the initial decision taken by the Secretary of State.
That begs the question as to why the word "satisfied" is included in Clause 1(3) which states that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the individual should not have been included in the list prior to a decision to remove him from it. That implies that the Secretary of State will, in certain circumstances, be sitting in a quasi-judicial role. I do not know whether there is any
1680
significance in that. If there is, perhaps either the noble Lord or the Minister will write to me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved amendment No. 7:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFICATION OF INCLUSION BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(" . Where the Secretary of State—

(a) provisionally includes an individual in the list in accordance with section 2(4)(b) above;

(b) confirms the inclusion of an individual in the list in accordance with section 2(6) above; or

(c) includes an individual in the list in accordance with section 3(3) above, he may, if he thinks fit for the purpose of protecting a child from harm or the risk of harm—

(i) notify the Social Services Department responsible for the area in which the individual resides, or

(ii) notify an organisation employing the individual, of such inclusion or confirmation.")

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 7 reflects a further concern of mine that a malefactor, whose name is included permanently on the list, nevertheless may escape the notice of his current employer and the social services department in the area where he lives as being a risk to children. The list kept by the Secretary of State will be, of course, confidential and subject to a considerable degree of privileged access. If that is so, what authority does the Secretary of State possess to disclose its contents, other than in response to an inquiry initiated by a recognised organisation? The amendment attempts to put it beyond doubt that, where circumstances dictate, for the purpose of protecting children from the risk of harm, he make take the initiative and notify those with a clear interest in the matter.
The noble Lord will doubtless tell me that the amendment is unnecessary, or perhaps even that it attempts to move outside the strict ambit of the Bill which is concerned with employment. I do not take that view. One can easily imagine a case falling under the scope of Clause 2(3), once again, in which a person's abusive behaviour (as a result of which he is listed) comes to light long after he has left an organisation. His new employer may be completely unaware that there is a shadow hanging over that person, yet the employer clearly needs to be informed about that if the person's job involves working with children. Furthermore, such disclosure should not lay the Secretary of State open to a charge of breach of confidentiality.
Similar considerations apply to the person's domestic circumstances. The social services department involved in an individual's place of work may not be the same social services department responsible for the area in which he resides. Yet it is clearly appropriate that that department should be informed. That is not a case of wanting to widen the scope of the Bill, but of saying that a particular statutory organisation should be notified

1681
as a consequence of wrong-doing in the workplace. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would reassure me on those points. I beg to move.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: I certainly support the intention behind Amendment No. 7, as long as the power for which it provides is exercised with extreme caution. Like the noble Earl, I am a little uncomfortable that this Bill is so confined to the employment sphere. That is something I shall address in a later amendment standing in my name.
Recently I read a decision of the Court of Appeal, reported in Family Law Reports, Volume 1, 1999, page 267, called Re V (Sexual Abuse: Disclosure). On the facts of that case the Court of Appeal felt that,
"it was inappropriate to direct disclosure of findings of abuse in Children Act cases",
in the circumstances of the two cases there under consideration. But the court did go on to say that,
"nothing in the judgment was intended to inhibit the necessary exchange of relevant information between agencies; local authorities were under a duty to respond to inquiries from other local authorities and to pass on information where children moved into a different area".
Applying that reasoning to the slightly different situation envisaged by this amendment, I suggest that the same general duty to pass on information ought to apply to those who are to be responsible for keeping these lists so that they pass on information, in appropriate circumstances and with appropriate caution, to employers or to social services departments as is suggested. That is not when the specific children move around, but rather when the individual concerned is moving around or is likely to be moving around in the sort of situation described by the noble Earl.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will wish to respond in detail to this important consideration. But perhaps I can say that, although I am entirely sympathetic to the principles behind the proposed amendment, discussion on these matters in another place demonstrated that it is an unnecessary additional provision. Moreover, it seeks to tie the Minister's hands; for example, it limits the grounds upon which notification might be made and specifies that there should be a choice only between two possible destinations for notifications.
Although the intention is to encourage discretionary activity for a scrupulously designated purpose, the amendment's effect may be restrictive since specifying actions in statute are normally considered to imply that those actions alone may be lawful. It follows that his ability to pass on this information to other relevant parties such as the police may be called into question if the amendment is accepted.
I turn to the matter of notifying a person's current employer. That matter was also fully debated in another place and the real difficulties of such a provision were considered. The amendment could be taken to assume that the Secretary of State knows where the person is employed, which may not always be the case. The Government, in another place, gave a firm assurance that if the employer is known, the Secretary of State will
1682
notify him or her that the person has been included on the list. As a matter of good practice, that would always be done if the information came to the Government's attention.
Lord Laming: Taking first the issue of notifying the social services department where the individual now resides, the Secretary of State does not require specific statutory authority to pass on this information, provided he is satisfied that it is necessary in all the circumstances and having weighed the relevant issues of confidentiality and proportionality.
It is also helpful to mention the Department of Health working document, Working Together. That provides guidance on the way in which these matters should he dealt with, not just for social services departments, but for all the relevant agencies involved in the protection of children and which have responsibilities under the provisions of the Children Act 1989.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for mentioning the recent judgment because the Working Together document is currently being revised and it will address issues raised in a number of recent cases. In particular, it will be giving guidance to area child protection committees on the way in which all such matters should be handled at a local level. This guidance will be issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also indicated, where the Secretary of State is aware of a person being employed in situations that give rise to concern, the Government have given an indication of how they intend to handle that. For that reason, I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord and the Minister for those explanatory comments. I am entirely content and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
LIABILITY FOR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ON GROUNDS OF DISMISSAL
(" . Where a child care organisation, or any other organisation, is made aware that an individual who is employed in a child care position is included (otherwise than provisionally) on the list and by reason of that discovery either dismisses him or transfers him to a position within the organisation which is not a child care position, that organisation shall not thereby be rendered liable to civil proceedings on the grounds of unfair or constructive dismissal (as the case may be).")
The noble Earl said: This amendment, I hope, is self-explanatory. An organisation may be made aware that someone working for it has had his name included on the Secretary of State's list as a result of an incident that occurred sometime earlier with a previous employer. If that person is working with children, the current employer may, quite reasonably, take the view after making appropriate inquiries that it cannot continue employing that individual.
On the other hand, the person concerned may have an unblemished track record with the current employer. What is the employer able to do? If he dismisses the person, he lays himself open to an action for unfair dismissal. If he transfers the person to a job that has no contact with children, that may not be to the employee's liking and he may resign to pursue a claim for constructive dismissal. That is why it should be a matter at least for discussion that an employer who takes a well-considered decision to dispense with someone's services, purely on the grounds of their inclusion on the list, should not thereby be rendered liable to an action in the courts under the employment laws.
The Minister in another place said that case law existed to show that an employer may act in response to evidence of previous misconduct that directly relates to a person's ability to perform his or her current employment. But is that good enough? I am thinking particularly of the sort of case I mentioned. An employee placed on the list as a result of a misdemeanour committed many years in the past, but with an otherwise unblemished track record with his current employer, might feel that he has been unjustly treated were he to be dismissed simply on the grounds of being on the list. But this is surely an issue for the employer to determine. A responsible employer will look at each such case on its merits and take the action he thinks appropriate. We ought to give the employer the benefit of any doubt and explicitly free him from the threat of legal action in cases where an employee refuses to go quietly.
I hope that the noble Lord will be sympathetic to my central point in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I take a purely technical objection. The amendment does not in fact cover wrongful dismissal; it covers unfair and constructive dismissal. That is purely technical. As a matter of principle, I do not support the suggested immunity which this amendment proposes. The question of whether or not a dismissal was unfair or wrongful surely has to be looked at on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, and, if necessary, be assessed by the court or employment tribunal which is considering the problem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Again, I understand the reasons why the noble Earl tabled this amendment. I sympathise with what he is seeking to do. But in principle what he is proposing is wrong—on very much the grounds put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. However, I hope that I can provide some words of comfort to the noble Earl in this matter. Essentially, the amendment seems designed to give employers immunity from proceedings before the employment tribunal for unfair or constructive dismissal, where the dismissal or transfer to a non-childcare position was made as a result of the employer discovering that the individual is included on the Department of Health list.
While it is doubtful whether the amendment, as drafted, could in fact have the intended effect, perhaps I may address the merits rather than the technicalities of it. There is undoubtedly a sense in which it may seem
1684
onerous for referring organisations to be left open to possible proceedings before an employment tribunal when they consider that they have acted in good faith in accordance with the spirit of this legislation. However, I am unable to advise Members of the Committee to accept the amendment, even in principle. It would be wrong to confer such a sweeping immunity with such indiscriminate disregard for the many circumstances in which it would have effect.
It is precisely the function of the employment tribunal to discriminate between cases and to weigh each according to its particular merits. Effectively removing access to the tribunal in this way would benefit not only those employers who have acted properly and in good faith and who would, therefore, have nothing to fear from tribunal proceedings, but also others who might have taken advantage of the immunity to disregard the normal obligations imposed by Parliament under employment law.
The employment tribunal will look at a wide range of issues when considering whether a dismissal was fair. The fact that an individual is included in the list will be but one of those issues, and other relevant issues might arise. As such, it would be inappropriate to remove the individual's right to have his case heard by the employment tribunal.
In seeking to improve child protection, it is not the intention of the promoters of this Bill, as I understand it, to remove or diminish the reasonable protections already available to relevant parties. What we are seeing here is another indication of the very careful balance to be drawn between, on the one hand, the need to protect children and, on the other, the rights of the individuals concerned who may be placed on the list.
I did say that I hoped to be able to offer some comfort to the noble Earl. Despite the strong view that I expressed in relation to the principle, I believe that there is some comfort to be drawn in relation to the practice as the crucial question is whether an employer who dismissed someone from the childcare position, because the individual was found to be on the list, would be likely to lose before an employment tribunal on the grounds that he dismissed the person unfairly. Although the noble Earl was perhaps a little dismissive of the comments made by the Minister in another place concerning case law, I think that there is some comfort in that regard.
Lord Laming: In the presence of distinguished lawyers, I hesitate to rely upon the law in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. However, it is my understanding that if an employer needs to defend a claim of unfair dismissal of an employee he has five possible statutory grounds on which to do so. The one I would expect an employer in these circumstances to rely upon is as follows:
"He would state some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify dismissal of an employee holding the position which that employee had".

1685
In other words, the position which the employee held at the time justified the action of the employer. Where decisions have been made in good faith, following the proper procedures, experience shows that this has provided proper protection for the employer.
However, it would seem entirely wrong to seek to remove rights from an employee to go to a tribunal because there are circumstances where the employee may have legitimate complaints about the way in which he or she has been dealt with by the employer. I believe that this amendment strikes at the heart of employment law. It would deprive people of what I think are essential rights in respect of which, as the Minister indicated, the Bill before us attempts to strike a balance. Although I have considerable sympathy with the noble Earl, having been in a similar situation myself in the past, I hope that he will agree that the existing employment law should remain undisturbed.
Earl Howe: We have had a helpful short debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have commented on the amendment. I realise that it has severe drawbacks. The question I seek to pose is simply this: should a person's inclusion on the list be sufficient ground in itself for dismissing him from a post? The answer seems to be that in some cases it may and in some cases it may not; and that each case will be decided on its merits in the normal way. I have no argument at all with that. My concern was to establish that the opposite would not apply—namely, that a business dismissing someone on those grounds would automatically find that it did not have a leg to stand on. That would worry me greatly. However, from the comments made by the Minister and the noble Lord, that does not seem to be the case. Therefore, I am entirely happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
12.4.5 p.m.
Clause 6 [Appeals against prohibition or restriction of employment]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. These amendments are prompted directly by comments made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House in its recent report on the Bill. I hope and believe that the point at issue can be dealt with relatively easily. In Clause 6(2) and (3) we see a provision for regulations to be made under Section 218 of the 1988 Act in relation to an appeal to the tribunal against a decision to prohibit or restrict a person's employment.
The wording of the clause is permissive rather than mandatory. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill and, one understands, the Department of Health memorandum to the committee present the provision in Clause 6(3) as directly mirroring that in Clause 4(4). However, as the committee points out, the prohibition contained in
1686
Clause 4(4) is an absolute provision on the face of the Bill and not, as here, a permissive power to be introduced by regulation. Therefore, the two powers do not mirror each other. I believe that my question on this occasion needs to be addressed to the Minister. Can he give me an assurance that, if this Bill is enacted, the Government will bring forward regulations in pursuit of the powers granted in Clause 6(2) and (3). I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand the noble Earl's desire to ensure that the matters mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 6 are included in the regulations to be made by virtue of the clause. However, it is not necessary to make these amendments to achieve that aim. Those matters will have to be addressed in regulations in any event.
The reason that the word "may" is used in the subsections and not "shall" is to ensure consistency with the wording of Section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988, which is expressed as a discretionary power to make regulations. The intention is to provide that the arrangements for appeals under regulations made by virtue of Clause 6 should be the same in all essential respects as the arrangements set out in Clause 4 of the Bill for appeals against inclusion on the new Department of Health list.
I am assured that the regulations will make provision for anyone who is included on List 99 in the future to ask the tribunal to consider whether there were grounds for barring him and, if so, whether barring was the appropriate sanction. If the tribunal is satisfied that there were not sufficient grounds to bar, or that barring was not appropriate in all the circumstances of a particular case, it will be able to remove the bar. The regulations will also ensure that appellants will not be able to challenge any facts on which a criminal conviction is based in an appeal to the tribunal. I hope I have given the assurance to the noble Earl that regulations will be made.
Lord Laming: I am tempted to respond. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will not think that I am in this respect a leopard which is not able to change its spots. For many years I have advised Ministers on the virtues of the word "may" rather than "shall". I remain absolutely convinced of those virtues. I hope that the noble Earl will feel that these matters are best dealt with in the regulations.
Earl Howe: If the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is convinced of the virtues of the word "may" rather than "shall" I shall follow him down that path immediately. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
SEARCHES OF BOTH LISTS IN CERTAIN CASES
(" . Where—

(a) in any family proceedings within the meaning of section 8 of the Children Act 1989 a welfare officer or guardian or litigation friend appointed by the court, or a local authority enquiring into the circumstances of a child, is directed by the court or otherwise reasonably requires to investigate the suitability of any individual in a child care position; or

(b) a local authority exercising its duties under sections 17, 22 or 47 of that Act reasonably requires to investigate the suitability of any such individual,

the person or authority so directed or requiring to investigate shall ascertain whether the individual is included in the lists referred to in section 7 above.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment proposes that those who are directly and properly concerned in the welfare and safety of children within the family justice system and in local authorities exercising statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 should have the ability to check the lists. Court welfare officers, social workers and those who represent children in proceedings need access to information about people who are or may become associated with the care and upbringing of the children concerned. At present they have access to criminal records, but not to the existing list or index. I believe, subject to correction, that local authorities may have access at least to the existing consultancy index when they are preparing reports for adoption agencies under the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983. If that is correct, it is anomalous; if it is incorrect, surely local authorities should have such access when inquiring about potential adopters and their families and in all other situations which they have to investigate.
The wider point is that these are situations in which responsible people are required to carry out actual investigations to discover whether there is an identifiable risk to a specific child. At present the Bill is confined to inquiries by employers and potential employers, but clearly there are others who need to know as much as possible about people coming into contact with children in a domestic or non-employment context. Section 47 of the Children Act, for example, imposes a duty on local authorities who have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm to make such inquiries as they consider necessary to enable them to decide whether they should take action to safeguard the child. How can they properly discharge that duty if they cannot in appropriate cases have access to the lists?
Information available in the area of child abuse is partial enough. Far from all offences or suspected offences are reported; fewer still result in convictions or cautions. The best available information should be available to all with responsibilities for children from a properly integrated database. The childcare system is based on the philosophy of Working Together, to which the noble Lord, Lord Laming, referred a short while ago. The objective of this Bill is in its title, the protection of children. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, brings a particular expertise to the
1688
Committee's deliberations on this Bill. However, notwithstanding the title of the Bill, which the noble Lord has pointed out, the Bill does not claim to be comprehensive. It is best seen as one plank in a whole series of efforts to try to ensure that we provide as much protection to children as possible. As the noble Lord explained, he is concerned to ensure that investigations undertaken either in connection with family proceedings in the courts, or otherwise by a local authority in the exercise of certain functions under the Children Act 1989, should include checking the names of individuals under investigation against the departmental list dealt with under this Bill.
The proposed new clause seeks to achieve its object by specifying that checks should be carried out in respect of individuals being investigated for the purposes of family proceedings listed in Section 8 of the Children Act 1989. It also provides that checks should be carried out by local authorities when carrying out the duties imposed on them under Sections 17, 22 and 47 of the Act when investigating the suitability of such individuals. Section 17 deals with the provision of services for children in need, their families and others. Section 22 concerns the general duty of local authorities in relation to children looked after by them. Section 47 concerns the duty of local authorities to investigate in certain circumstances whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, as it stands the current Bill's provisions are confined to the actions of organisations in respect of employment in childcare positions. The present amendment would extend the Bill to cover checks on individuals where there is no employment relationship with the organisation concerned; for example, checks on the partner of a parent where a residence order is being sought. This is an area which was considered to be outside the scope of the present proposals. I do not think this is surprising because, as I said at the beginning, this Bill, which has never been claimed to be the last word on the subject of child protection, has to be seen as a building block for a more complete situation and is concerned only with employment situations. That is, it is aimed at protecting children from harm where they are being provided with care for whatever reason.
Before I sit down I shall respond to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about access to the current list. Local authorities now have access to the list, and under the Bill will have access to the one-stop-shop provisions for checks on prospective adoptive parents when Clause 8 is enacted.
Lord Laming: I fully understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who has great experience in this field. I support what the Minister has said in that this amendment would take this Bill into a whole new area of family proceedings which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would agree is a complicated area, at least for a layman such as myself. I emphasise that this Bill is a Private Member's Bill which can address only the narrow but important field of employment. I hope that there will be opportunities elsewhere for the

1689
noble Lord, Lord Meston, to pursue his legitimate concerns. I hope that the Committee will not feel that this is the place to pursue them.
Lord Meston: I am grateful for that predictable response from both noble Lords. I am sorry that this situation is outside the scope of the Bill, which I believe is unfortunately and indeed unnecessarily confined in respect of the points which I have sought to raise. At Second Reading I gave the example of individuals who deliberately insinuate themselves into families, particularly single-parent families, where they know there is a child or children. If proceedings result, in whatever context, the welfare officer or the social services department will reasonably want to know all there is to know about that individual before approving him—usually it is "him" but sometimes it is "her"—as someone suitable to be involved in the upbringing of the child concerned.
It seems an anomaly that a welfare officer can check a criminal record to establish whether an individual has a conviction or caution recorded against him but cannot check his other record—we all know that it exists and its details will, no doubt, be greatly improved when the Bill comes into force—which shows that the person has been sacked for gross sexual impropriety. It is an omission which will, in years to come, be seen as a deliberate omission.
I understand the constraints of time and the limitations of the Bill and I shall not press the amendment. However, I suggest that it is a matter that needs urgent consideration. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
1 p.m.
Clause 10 [Power to extend protection of Act]:
On Question, whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bin?
Earl Howe: Perhaps I should make clear straightaway that I have no intention of trying to remove the clause from the Bill or of suggesting that that might be desirable. I seek merely to probe the noble Lord and the Minister as to the intentions behind it.
It is quite clear that the position of adults suffering from mental impairment has a close parallel with that of children in terms of their vulnerability, particularly their vulnerability to all forms of abuse. How does the clause fit in with the Government's wider intentions to introduce legislation to protect vulnerable people in society, both young and old? When might we expect to see the Government bringing forward regulations in pursuit of Clause 10? Can the Minister say what practical issues, over and above those raised by the main body of the Bill, need to be addressed before such regulations can be implemented?
The problem with the clause—if I can call it a "problem"—is that it does not go quite far enough. It seems to me that in focusing on adults with what is
1690
called a "mental impairment", it draws an arbitrary dividing line between one group of vulnerable adults and another; for example, it excludes adults suffering from dementia or a degenerative illness such as Alzheimer's disease. The disability suffered by the latter group in terms of loss of social functions and capacity of expression is, for all practical purposes, exactly the same as that suffered by the former.
If the starting point for the clause is to extend the scope of the Bill to those adults to whom society owes a duty of care similar to the duty it owes to children, then I do not understand why the clause does not go further. If it is the case that the Government are currently addressing the needs of vulnerable individuals across the board, young and old, are we likely to see Clause 10 being implemented in isolation from any measures that may be brought forward in that wider context?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand that the noble Earl has chosen this device not only to probe the Government's intentions in respect of using the power in Clause 10 to extend the protection in the Bill to mentally impaired adults, but also to establish our intentions on a number of other matters, particularly with regard to the way in which protection may be strengthened for other categories of vulnerable adults. I shall try my best to respond, although I fear that I may not be able to give as great a clarification as the noble Earl may seek.
On the point about when the power in the clause might be exercised, the position is as follows. As the noble Earl will realise, a great deal of work needs to be undertaken before the main provisions of the Bill can come into force. Subordinate regulations, some of which we have discussed already, and regulations relating to the tribunal and to the education Acts, will be of some complexity. Setting up the tribunal will be a substantial task. Although no final decisions have been taken on the matter, at the moment we consider that it would be. unwise to seek to use the powers in this clause until such time as the main architecture of the scheme is in place and operating satisfactorily.
On the point about why the Bill should not contain a power similar to that contained in Clause 10 in relation to mentally impaired adults, the short answer is that they are very different issues. The point has already been made that it would be too much to expect that a Private Member's Bill would be an appropriate vehicle to extend the protection that it affords to children to all other vulnerable members of the community.
We have to be clear that the Bill is targeted on improving our child protection system. It would not be practical to expect that that system could satisfactorily encompass the needs of quite distinct groups beyond those already set out in the Bill. The position of mentally impaired adults is most similar to that of children.
Clearly it will be a considerable challenge to resolve the many and varied problems concerning vulnerable adults. We have to examine different groups individually and to produce the right solutions according

1691
to the circumstances. I am given to understand that the interdepartmental working group is studying these matters at present. I hope that the noble Earl agrees that the best course of action is to await the group's recommendations. I assure him that his comments will be fed into its deliberations.
I accept that my response may have been less precise than the noble Earl wished, but I assure the Committee that the Government have no intention of dragging their feet. Returning to the point I made earlier in relation to the operation of the Bill if enacted, it is very important to ensure that we get the main scheme in place and operating satisfactorily.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I was not suggesting that the scope of the Bill should be extended to all vulnerable individuals, but merely that the dividing line created by Clause 10 in terms of who is and who is not included in the clause is somewhat artificial. I was pleasantly surprised to see Clause 10 in the Bill at all. Given that it is there, I wished to ask whether perhaps it is too narrowly drawn. However, I am grateful to the Minister for the pointers he has been able to give, such as they are. I understand entirely that, inevitably, there is still much work to do and much uncertainty ahead.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Clearly the points made about clarification of the definition are matters which will need to be taken on board as we move forward, both in terms of the implementation of the Bill and in terms of the work of the interdepartmental group.
Earl Howe: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. I had assumed on reading Clause 10 that the phrase "mental impairment" would not necessarily prohibit the inclusion of those suffering from dementia or a degenerative illness. They would normally not be included in the definition of "mental impairment". Nevertheless, I am grateful for what the Minister said. I look forward with interest to the way in which the provisions are implemented and lay open the way for Clause 10 to come into full operation.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—
PERSON SEARCHING LIST TO BE INFORMED OF COMPARABLE LISTS
(" . The Secretary of State shall by regulation make provision for a person searching the list kept under section 1 above or the list kept for the purpose of regulations made under section 218(6) of the 1988 Act, or applying under subsection (3A) of section 113 of the Police Act 1997, to be informed if an individual is included on any comparable list held elsewhere in the British Islands.")
The noble Lord said: This is a geographical amendment. As drafted, the Bill applies to England and Wales. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, told us that a parallel system may well be brought into force in Scotland. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the system in Scotland and indeed any other systems which exist or may come to
1692
exist elsewhere are joined up. In that way, employers who seek information will truly be provided with a single point of reference.
We have reminded ourselves several times today that child abusers exploit the gaps in any system. They move around. It certainly must be likely that a conscientious employer, faced with an applicant for a job whose accent or name suggests that he comes from other than England and Wales, would wish to be assured that in checking the list, as he is obliged to do, he is getting information that is as comprehensive as possible. Indeed, I would hope that it could work both ways so that the prospective employer in England, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or wherever it may be, could likewise feel confident that when he checks the point of reference available to him he is getting comprehensive information throughout the British Isles. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has chosen a term which is variously interpreted in the north and the south of Ireland. I wonder whether it was his intention, which would not be a bad one, to include some form of communication between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom or whether the term was intended to sweep up the Isle of Man and Jersey and was not intended to set a quite considerable flutter in the political dovecotes of the Republic.
Lord Meston: No, it was not intended to cover the Republic. The phrase "the British Islands" comes from the Interpretation Act. I did in fact take the trouble to look it up before drafting the amendment and it is on that basis that I used the phrase.
Lord Elton: My intention was not entirely frivolous. There seems to be a whole area here where we ought to be moving closer to the government of the Republic of Ireland because there is such a massive interchange of personnel working in these fields between the two states. It would be extremely helpful on both sides of the Irish Sea if some such links could be established.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Although I cannot recommend that the Committee accepts the amendment, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points raised. particularly the noble Lord's concern that individuals might seek to exploit the gaps. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, also raised an important question, not just in relation to Ireland but also to other European countries. As part of what I described earlier as the building block towards greater child protection, these matters, while not necessarily ones for the Bill, must clearly be taken into account and considered carefully.
Neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland yet has statutory lists comparable to those proposed in the Bill. However, my understanding is that putting Northern Ireland's pre-employment consultancy service on such a basis is under consideration and that it is anticipated that proposals for a list in Scotland will be put forward in due course. Until such times as these lists are available, it would not be possible for comprehensive reciprocal checks to be carried out, although I gather that

1693
reciprocal criminal record checks between Scottish and English authorities take place via the respective police forces and the Scottish Criminal Records Office.
My understanding is that the question of a system for arranging cross-border checks at UK level is, and continues to be, one of the very important issues under discussion by the inter-departmental working group under the chairmanship of the Home Office. Both the Northern Ireland authorities and the Scottish Office are full participants in the inter-departmental working group. Additionally, Part V of the Police Act 1997 provides for different levels of criminal record checks. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland are already included within the UK provisions of that Act. Similarly, the names of people struck off the register of teachers by the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the names of people barred from teaching in Northern Ireland by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland are included in the appendices of List 99 covering education staff in England and Wales.
In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord would recognise that we take very much to heart the points he raised and that the matters are under urgent consideration in the inter-departmental working group and elsewhere. But that is as far as I can go today on that.
Lord Laming: For the reasons clearly set out by the Minister, I am satisfied that the Government are addressing these matters urgently and seriously. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: The word "urgent" has been used, I am not sure how advisedly. It is now more than 20 years since the Maria Caldwell case caused us all in horror to look at the risk that children were at. It was then quite clear that a lack of communication between the voluntary agencies, the statutory agencies and the local authority lay behind the difficulty. At the same time the importance of keeping the local authority children at risk list up to date to follow the movement of the children was a priority. I add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in saying that the cross-border updating of this information—it is the same issue, but on a larger scale—should be treated as a matter of urgency. Otherwise the whole system will fall to the ground when someone crosses a line on the map.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I shall ensure that the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Meston, are taken on board.
Lord Meston: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for reinforcing the points I was seeking to make. The amendment is not meant to be prescriptive. It is simply to enable the Secretary of State, wherever and whenever comparable lists are established elsewhere, to ensure that people seeking information can seek it in one go with a single point of reference. It is not dependent on there already being similar lists elsewhere. Therefore, I find it difficult to see why this enabling provision
1694
cannot fit into the Bill as presently drafted. I had the impression—perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that whenever the new system is set up in Scotland, Northern Ireland or wherever else, further primary English legislation will be necessary to bring into force regulations such as those I suggest in the amendment. If further primary legislation will be needed, it is perhaps unfortunate that that has to be so when an opportunity is provided for an enabling measure in this Bill. However, I do not intend to press the point at this stage. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill
1.20 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The primary aim of the Bill is to improve the welfare of dogs kept and puppies bred in commercial breeding establishments. The Bill should be read in conjunction with the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and 1991 and the Pet Animals Act 1951.
For several years, a number of bodies—for example, the RSPCA; the British Veterinary Association; the British Small Animal Veterinary Association; the Kennel Club; and the National Canine Defence League—have been concerned about indiscriminate dog breeding and dealing and have suggested ways in which the welfare of dogs at breeding establishments might be improved and "puppy farming" brought under control.
In 1995, the All-Party Group on Animal Welfare commissioned a working party to identify defects in existing legislation and to indicate where changes in the law were required. The resulting report was objective and balanced. The descriptions of some of the conditions under which dogs are bred and puppies reared were quite appalling, situations to which I can attest. The term "puppy farming" now implies an abuse of breeding bitches and their offspring. That report has helped significantly in the construction of this Bil1.
There is, of course, no good reason why large-scale breeding should in any way compromise the conditions under which dogs are kept, the way in which they are looked after, or the quality and health of the stock produced. Unfortunately, however, that is all too frequently not the case, and in a determined effort to get rid of much of the bad practice once and for all a group of 11 organisations representing animal welfare, dog breeders, local authorities, the veterinary profession and the pet industry have worked together over many months to prepare this much-needed Bill. Those organisations are: the Blue Cross; the British Dog Breeders Council; the British Veterinary Association; the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health: Justice for Dogs; the Kennel Club; the National Canine Defence

1695
League; the National Dog Wardens Association; the Pet Care Trust; ProDogs; and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
It would be totally remiss of me if I did not particularly mention how much I, this House, another place, and indeed all the organisations I have mentioned are in the debt of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, who not only chaired the group meetings so competently, but also consulted widely and closely with the Home Office officials at all stages of the drafting process. We are also indebted to Home Office officials and lawyers for the immense amount of help and advice they have given us over the past few months.
The Bill addresses a number of key issues which have been identified over the years. As I indicated, it should be read in conjunction with the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. The key issues are as follows. There are new rules for the inspection of premises. Bitches are not to be mated until they are at least 12 months old. No bitch will be allowed to have more than six litters in her lifetime. Accurate breeding records must be kept and be made available for inspection. The provisions also include: stiffer penalties for offenders, including imprisonment; flexibility of licence fee charges to reflect local authority inspection costs; exemption from licensing for most hobby breeders; new rules for pet shops and dealers; new penalties for misrepresentation; and individual identification for puppies sold through third parties. These new measures will not only improve welfare standards for dogs and puppies; they will also provide import and new protection for puppy buyers.
The various clauses and the reasons for them are as follows. Clause 1 deals with the licensing and inspection of premises. Before granting a breeding licence for the first time a local authority has to consider both welfare and environmental issues. Clause 1 provides that, before considering the grant of a licence, the premises must be inspected by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner and a local authority officer. The clause provides that the local authority shall consider the report prepared by those persons before determining to grant a licence. For subsequent inspections, the local authority is given the flexibility of sending a veterinary surgeon or practitioner or an officer of the local authority, or both. That will in many cases save on costs but will not weaken the inspection process.
Clause 2 deals with licence conditions. This provision greatly strengthens the 1973 Act by including a number of new conditions in addition to those set out in that Act dealing with accommodation, food and drink, bedding, the control of disease, protection against fire and the transportation of dogs.
Subsection 2(f) is based on the fact that experience shows that far too many bitches are mated at too early an age. The clause makes it an offence for a bitch to be mated if she is less than one year old—which is the time when she is fully physiologically mature to become pregnant.
Sub-paragraph (g) is based on the fact that Kennel Club records indicate that many bitches produce litters every time they come into season. The sub-paragraph
1696
will remedy that by including a restriction on breeding to a maximum of six litters in a bitch's lifetime—in other words, allowing a rest period. To allow for that rest period, the clause contains the provision that bitches do not give birth to puppies within 12 months of producing a previous litter.
Sub-paragraph (i) is intended to regulate breeding programmes. It will ensure that accurate records are kept at every licensed establishment and made available for inspection.
Clause 3 deals with the commencement and duration of the licence. In the past, probably because of pressure of work, some local authorities have been slow in processing initial licence applications, which has resulted in some breeders technically breaking the law. This clause puts a duty on local authorities to process all applications within three months of receipt. The licence shall come into force on the day stated in the application and be valid for one year. At present, pet animal licences run from 1st January for one year. Local authorities are obliged to carry out all inspections of pet shops, dog breeders, boarding kennels and catteries during a busy period around Christmas and the New Year. The clause gives them extra flexibility as each licence under this legislation will run for a 12-month period and not from 1st January as at present.
Clause 4 deals with the increased penalties, including imprisonment for keeping an unlicensed establishment. In the interests of animal welfare and to highlight the seriousness of the offence, the Bill includes new provisions to include as a penalty a term of imprisonment of up to three months for operating an unlicensed dog breeding establishment. In addition, a fine may also be levied.
Clause 5 deals with disqualifications. In addition to the preceding fine or imprisonment clause, this allows a court to make an order which will cancel a licence held under the 1973 Act and will disqualify the offender from keeping any dog breeding establishment. It also provides that a court may make an order to have any dog in the custody of an offender at the time of the offence delivered to a specified person and for the offender to pay specified amounts for that dog's care until permanent arrangements are made for its long-term care. It will be a punishable offence for the offender not to do so.
If the offender is not the owner of the dog, this clause gives the owner the opportunity to appeal to the Crown Court in England and Wales or to the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland.
The clause also provides that a court may make an order disqualifying a person who contravenes the Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 by obstructing an inspector of premises not covered by a licence under the 1973 Act and to disqualify the person from keeping an establishment under that Act or from having custody of a dog of a description specified in the order.
Clause 6 deals with fees. Where local authorities are responsible for inspecting dog breeding premises and granting licences, they are given powers to charge fees for this work. The Bill enables them to set a level of fees to recover their reasonable costs in this respect. In

1697
the past, most local authorities have charged a standard fee, regardless of the size of breeding establishment, the amount of work involved and the number of visits they have considered to be necessary during any licence period.
The clause enables them to charge a range of fees based on the amount of time and cost involved in dealing with the different licence holders and premises.
Clause 7 deals with the definition of establishments. Under the current legislation, the 1973 Act, the need for licensing has been based on the number of bitches kept at an establishment, whether or not the bitches are bred from. Clearly, this is an anomaly. The Bill sets out to redress the situation and to apply a business test to dog breeders.
Most dog breeders are essentially hobby breeders whose only interest is to breed a line of puppies in order to improve their bloodlines and to compete at dog shows. For the vast majority, the breeding of dogs is not for financial gain and is usually a loss-making exercise, rather than anything else.
For the purpose of the Bill a distinction is made between the hobby breeder and the person who is breeding for profit by defining the term
"carying on a business of breeding dogs for sale".
That is, in terms of numbers, breeding for sale five or more litters. In order to circumvent the law, a number of commercial breeders have been in the habit of spreading the ownership of breeding bitches between members of their family or people with whom they live at the same premises or elsewhere. They also make deals, known as breeding contracts or breeding arrangements, with other persons. Under these breeding arrangements they give, sell or lend bitches to third parties and agree, either verbally or in writing, that in return they will be handed back one or more puppies from one or more litters produced or will be handed the proceeds of sale of those puppies. This clause overcomes the problem of evasion of their responsibility to be licensed.
Clause 8 deals with the sale of dogs. This supports the terms of the Pet Animals Act 1991 and the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order. Currently many puppies are sold through unlicensed third parties, the puppies being shipped to dealers and retailers for sale to the general public. Other puppies are bought in by licensed breeders from unlicensed breeders for resale. Many puppies are also sold to private purchasers at too early an age. This clause sets out to overcome those problems.
First, it will be an offence for a licensed breeder to sell a puppy to its final home until it is at least eight weeks old. This period is important because imprinting with its mother will take place during that time. It will be an offence for a licensed breeder to sell a puppy to an unlicensed dealer or retailer, as these already need to be licensed under the Pet Animals Act, or to sell puppies acquired from an unlicensed breeder.
It is essential that all puppies sold to dealers and retailers are clearly identifiable, usually by a collar bearing an identifying tag or badge.
1698
Clause 9 deals with penalties and refers to Clause 8 of the Bill. It includes a penalty of imprisonment and fines not exceeding level 4 or both.
Clause 10 deals with repeals. It makes provision for certain repeals of provisions of certain enactments.
Following the Short Title, commencement and enactment, the Act will come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it is passed. Finally, the Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior.)
1.37 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, who has presented the Bill in detail and will have regard to his considerable professional experience which lends authority to which we should pay heed. I join the noble Lord in expressing thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, who has worked indefatigably on this matter for a long time.
The Bill has quite a long history and it is to be hoped that this time it will reach the statute book without further delay. It is certainly needed. It will be of no disadvantage to responsible dog owners and dog breeders. Any responsible dog owner—I hope that I am one—will rejoice if the Bill goes on to the statute book.
There are too many irresponsible profit-seeking people involved in an unseemly trade. That position did not improve when, unfortunately, some years ago when farmers were facing difficulty, under the previous administration the Ministry of Agriculture advised farmers who needed to make money to take up dog breeding for profit. Some of us protested and I think the advice was quickly withdrawn, but one or two people may have acted upon it. There have been some rather distressing cases.
My conviction about the need for the Bill goes back a long time to the days when I was a schoolmaster. One of my colleagues and his wife, who were childless, went to get a puppy. They did not seek advice, but went to one of the puppy farmers. The puppy came into their home and brought a great deal of joy, but shortly afterwards a great deal of distress. It had never had a chance because the conditions in which it had been nurtured were so unsatisfactory. The House has an opportunity to prevent that kind of distress.
I should declare an interest. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, referred to the Kennel Club. I have an interest in the sense that I am an honorary member of that club. I have no financial interest, but a great personal one. I have been involved in dogs throughout my life and from time to time I judge them. Quite often, I judge for charity at the rather enjoyable exemption shows to which people bring their family pets. There are four classes for pedigree dogs. Some of the dogs do not appear to be particularly good representatives of the breed that they purport to be. Occasionally, one sees among those dogs evidence of lack of nutrition early in

1699
life. If one talks to the exhibitor after the show and asks where the dog came from, one finds that it came from establishments of the kind at which this Bill is aimed.
I never want the breeds with which I have been involved to become popular. If they do, they attract the attention of puppy farmers. At the moment, the West Highland white is the most popular of the terrier breeds. There are some very odd West Highland white terriers about these days. Norwich terriers are not quite so popular. They remain typical of the breed in both character and conformation. But not long ago I was horrified to see an Irish wolfhound at a show. I had some difficulty in identifying it as such, but it seemed to me to send out danger signals that that breed was popular.
The Bill provides that people should not sell puppies until they are eight weeks-old. That is a necessary provision. But the responsible Irish wolfhound or deerhound breeder, or anyone concerned with the larger breeds, would not dream of selling a puppy as early as eight weeks-old. If they want a puppy to bring credit to their kennels and to their own record of responsibility, they will wait until 12 weeks. That should certainly apply to novice breeders. They will also ask questions about the circumstances, capacity and understanding of those who seek to acquire such a dog.
I recall that on one occasion when my noble friend Lord Cocks applied a very long Whip—we were in the other place from Monday morning until Friday evening—I got home on Friday and said to my wife that I could see a difference in our Irish wolfhound since I had left home on Monday. He appeared to have put on about four pounds. That breed is not easily or cheaply raised. Breeding dogs of that size for profit provides some people with an enormous temptation to cut corners with regard to nourishment and care. I believe that that is another reason why the welfare organisations, the Kennel Club and other organisations to which the noble Lord referred, are united in their view that this Bill needs to be enacted as soon as possible.
The Bill will not disadvantage responsible breeders. For most people engaged in activities controlled by the Kennel Club, the dogs are part of the family and have a great deal of human contact. If one wants to see a dog succeeding in the show ring, in obedience or any of the other activities at the annual exhibition at Crufts, that dog must have had contact with people and be part of the family. For a bitch to be incarcerated in a squalid shed and treated as if she is a breeding machine providing stock for supermarket shelves is a monstrously horrible approach, and the sooner it is outlawed the better. I am therefore convinced of the necessity for the Bill.
I am aware that the people who are responsible for the 957 breed rescue schemes within the ambit of the Kennel Club will welcome this Bill, especially where the breed is a popular one which receives the attentions of puppy farmers. The people who run those schemes are the ones who have to pick up the pieces left by those who see dogs purely as an instrument for gain. Those responsible for that essential and valuable work will,
1700
with all the other welfare organisations in the country, share the hope that this Bill is enacted and implemented at the earliest possible date.
1.45 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I start with an apology. As the debate began somewhat later than I expected I must leave before the end. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, for the way that he introduced the Bill. It has had Second Readings before in a somewhat chequered career.
The first of a long line of tributes must be paid to those of my honourable friends in another place who were lucky enough to win a place in the ballot in order to introduce the Bill, first unsuccessfully but then successfully. I pay tribute also to all those who made possible a quick passage of the Bill to your Lordships' House. It involved a great deal of very good management for which everyone who wants to see the Bill enacted as soon as possible must be grateful.
I join in all the tributes paid to the various welfare organisations, my pet one being the National Canine Defence League. I am a grandmother and I am told that I can have a favourite. I turn to the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. Perhaps the greatest accolade she received was in the Standing Committee in another place where one of the Labour Members said that she had almost converted him to supporting the hereditary peerage. I believe that that was a bit churlish; he could have gone the whole way and omitted the word "almost".
However, the kinds of cases that have led to the need for this Bill are so terrible that it is almost impossible to contemplate that any of the penalties will be sufficient to stop the puppy farmers who have gained such an unscrupulous reputation. Bitches are kept in cages, have their food thrown at them, and have never eaten from a bowl. They are made to breed over and over again and never see a human face near them. Eventually, if they have not died from natural causes they are not put down but often thrown onto the scrap heap and found dying.
This is a terrible state of affairs. I am very sad that it has taken so long—it is no one's fault—to introduce the legislation. I pay tribute, like the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, to the carers and re-homers of these poor dogs. As many noble Lords will be aware, when first rescued the poor creatures are like zombies. They have never had any human contact and have no idea of how to socialise with either humans or other dogs. One sees them at the corners of a room in their baskets and beds—which they never had before—and their eyes are absolutely blank; they are zombies. Bit by bit, wonderful people with patience and devotion can bring some of these creatures—many cannot be saved because they are too ill—to a stage where they can be offered to re-homers who will look after them and for the first time give them a decent life.
I wish to pay tribute to those people who re-home these dogs after the carers. They have to give them a great deal of love, commitment and devotion to restore them, if possible, to the normal happy life that a dog should have; and they do that. Those thousands of people should be mentioned in the tributes paid.

1701
Finally, I find myself for the first time in my life without a dog, our last darling Jack Russells having died last year. My husband and I decided that we were too old to have another dog because it would probably outlive us—and what would happen then? The idea of adopting an older dog and re-homing one of these poor creatures crossed one's mind. A new vista of dog ownership opened up which we are now pursuing.
I again express thanks to all those who have made the Bill possible, to all who will help it to pass speedily, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, in particular.
1.51 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Soulsby has chosen to pick up this Bill on behalf of James Clappison—he is here today—who so skilfully piloted this Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill through all stages in another place. As chairman of the working party group—it has been mentioned by the noble Lord—I think that I can speak for all of us when I say that we are grateful for the help and assistance we have received from all quarters within the Palace of Westminster.
I should like to tell noble Lords something of the history of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, went into it a little. The first Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, when a Member of another place. It did not complete the course. It ran out of time, which is one of the hazards facing a Private Member's Bill. A second attempt was made in another place last year with a Bill sponsored by Mike Hall. It underwent considerable change in Standing Committee. It then became apparent that most of the canine and welfare organisations could not support it, so David Maclean blocked it because he believed that the Bill was flawed.
Several organisations, such as the Kennel Club, the Pet Care Trust and the National Canine Defence League, to name but a few, wrote to David Maclean asking for a meeting with a view to drafting a new Bill. He suggested that they elect an independent chairman. Since July of last year, it has been an honour and a privilege for me to act on their behalf.
Roger Gale, myself and others have long wanted to see such a Bill become law. The noble Lord has mentioned that the All-Party Parliamentary Animal Welfare Group commissioned a report with recommendations on what is known as "puppy farming". Much of that document makes grim reading. On re-reading the report, I still find it hard to believe that breeding bitches could have been kept in such appalling conditions. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said, apart from filthy, cramped pens, the state of the animals' health was dreadful; and inadequate feeding was not uncommon. Although Wales was highlighted then as an area causing deep concern, similar problems also existed in other parts of Great Britain, so nothing much has changed in that there is still scant regard for the welfare of the dogs. They are simply breeding machines—nothing else.
1702
Clearly, many breeding establishments are well run, but far too many come to the attention of the RSPCA inspectors who never cease to be sickened by the way in which these bitches are kept. Regulations are blatantly ignored. Hence the derogatory term "puppy farming". The Bill is designed to improve substantially the conditions in all commercial breeding establishments by tightening the regulations under which they will be able to operate in the future.
At the first meeting of the working group, it was agreed that welfare should be the emphasis of the new Bill. With the word "welfare" in the title, it would be clear that the welfare of the breeding dogs was paramount. It was agreed that I should consult Home Office officials as we progressed through the Bill, clause by clause. I talked to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, outlining our agenda. He suggested that I, and ultimately Barry Huckle of the Pet Care Trust, meet regularly with Rick Evans, Bernard Diver and Ashley Marks, the Home Office officials dealing with animal welfare, as was the noble Lord at that time. I am extremely grateful to them, in particular Bernard Diver, who has always been at the other end of the telephone, including last night.
Home Office lawyers regularly monitored our changes. I was assured that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, George Howarth, was made aware of every change we made. I also sought Roger Gale's advice from time to time. The Bill gradually took shape. Barry Huckle took care of all the paperwork and presented us with revised drafts of the Bill at each meeting that we held at the offices of the National Canine Defence League.
The input of so many specialists in their various fields was invaluable. Bernard Diver said that he could not recall a Bill being drafted by so many people representing so many organisations.
We had a draft Bill ready by November. Now we needed some luck. We eagerly awaited the results of the Private Members' ballot in another place. A copy of the draft was sent to each of the 20 winners and we waited. We knew we would be lucky and our luck came on 15th December, two days before the House rose for the Christmas Recess. James Clappison introduced himself and said, "My daughter Charlotte says that I should adopt this Bill because she is very keen on animals". He said that he would look at it and let me know. I said, "Please don't take too long because you will ruin my Christmas if you do". Our sponsor rang me the next day and said, "Yes, I'll take it".
James Clappison was 15th on the Private Members' ballot list. He is a Home Office Front-Bench spokesman for the Opposition and as such has a heavy parliamentary load. I thought: no matter; he has a good Bill and we are fortunate to have an experienced MP I told the noble Lord, Lord Carter—he is sitting in his place—the good news. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, he had also been kept up to date on our progress throughout the summer. The exact words of the noble Lord were, "Only the first five or six stand any chance of getting a hearing, let alone getting through all the stages". However, he offered help and support which I gratefully accepted.

1703
The Bill was scrutinised by parliamentary counsel and 18 amendments were tabled in Standing Committee. Those amendments did not change the essence of the Bill; rather they strengthened it. Our tired sponsor had been up all night on another committee and had to return to it when this stage was finished. Again, all went well because the Committee accepted all his amendments. The Members of the Committee were drawn from all sides of the House and all had a strong interest in animal welfare. They included the current chairman of the Associate Party for Animal Welfare, Ian Cawsey; vice-chairman, Angela Smith; and past chairman Roger Gale. Again Members spoke of the need to improve the health and welfare of dogs in breeding establishments. Finally, the Bill returned to the Floor of the House on 7th May. David Maclean had tabled several amendments for Report stage. Three were needed, so the name of James Clappison was added to those.
The Minister, George Howarth, accepted them and again gave the Bill his full support. David Maclean said that he was delighted to have played a small part in improving the Bill. The Bill was read a third time and passed.
The process of drafting any Bill is lengthy and consensus has played its part. But it has not weakened the Bill. We all wanted the Bill to succeed because we knew that the opportunity would not come our way again. Failure was never an option. James Clappison allowed us to help him wherever we could; and I took that as a sign of confidence. At the same time, he had to cope with many other duties as an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. Private Members' Bills are a minefield. Not many get through; but with the right ingredients, 15th on the ballot list is not so bad after all.
The noble Lord has already outlined all the clauses, but significant improvements have been made and existing loopholes closed. I echo him in saying that now bitches will not be mated under a year. They will have no more than six litters in their lifetime and there must be a gap of 12 months before another litter is born. That is a major welfare improvement in the quality of their lives. The physical damage done by constant breeding with no let-up is most distressing to see.
This Bill has gone a long way to improve the welfare standards of both adult dogs and their puppies while at the same time giving protection to the buyers. I firmly believe that prospective buyers should visit breeding establishments to see the conditions under which the puppies are reared. Furthermore, they should take a look at the parents before making a decision to buy.
This is the third time that a Bill of this kind has come before Parliament and I believe that this time all those who have contributed to it, both inside Parliament and outside, have got it right. As I said earlier, it has been thoroughly scrutinised by Home Office lawyers and parliamentary counsel, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that James Clappison's Bill deserves to find its way on to the statute book.
2 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. Knowing what I do of the processes in the other place, it is a virtual miracle that it has reached this stage. I nearly lost a Private Member's Bill when I was No. 2, let alone No. 15. The warmest congratulations are to be bestowed on all those who have played such a fine part. I add my tribute to James Clappison, my former colleague, to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, and to those organisations which have come together in order to produce a consensus on what is needed. I have been a long time in the animal world and that, too, is a minor miracle.
I say that the Bill is overdue because my memory goes back to the "parent" Act of 1973. Even then the RSPCA was dismayed by the loopholes it saw in the new Bill. That is not in any way to criticise the sponsors of that Bill. Such Bills, privately introduced, are notoriously difficult to get through without being weakened. They have to come in a weakened state in order to get through at all. But it has meant that over the years we have seen all the horrors described by various speakers today. I add to that by reading from a report of an inspector of the RSPCA about a particular visit on a particular day. It is written in plain, factual language, but it sets out clearly the typical situation which has caused us all to think of puppy farms as places of disrepute. He wrote in 1996:
"On Monday 15th April I visited three different premises … The first visit was to the house of an elderly woman who kept and bred Airedale terriers. The building was at the end of a dirt track and comprised a farm cottage with land at the rear. The woman had approximately 15 Airedale terriers on the premises and about the same number of mongrels. A number of the dogs were emaciated and most were in a filthily condition as a result of having nowhere clean and dry to rest. The house was littered with dog mess. In one corner of the kitchen a hitch was weaning her puppies in a small box under a bright spotlight. The backyard contained various sheds and barns. On inspection, we found that the sheds had within them a number of pens, some of which contained bitches weaning puppies. The conditions inside the pens were filthy, with excrement and mould covering the floor, and no adequate sleeping provision for the dogs. Some of the empty pens had obviously not been cleaned since the last occupant had been moved out."
Worse still—I shall not continue to quote—they found one dog very seriously ill and clearly the woman was not intending to call in a vet. They took it away and it died within 24 hours.
That is a cameo of the kind of situations we have seen all too clearly. In my capacity as a member of the council of the RSPCA for many years, and of the National Canine Defence League, and now a vice-president of the RSPCA, I have seen over and over again appalling incidents illustrating the fact that the law simply has not been tough enough to deal with people who engage in puppy farming. So I warmly welcome the Bill.
I am particularly pleased that in order to obtain a licence for the first time a veterinary surgeon will have to be accompanied by an officer of the council. That was one of the weaknesses of the original Act. Often, the person going with the best will in the world did not know what ought to be the conditions for the welfare of the animals as opposed to the physical lay-out of buildings or land. That redresses a great weakness. I am

1705
pleased to see that when licences must be renewed it will be possible, although not obligatory, for a vet to visit again to see how things are going.
I welcome in particular the arrangements for ensuring that bitches do not become "breeding machines." That is a most distressing sight. I am pleased that the Bill makes very clear and unambiguous the requirements for resting periods and the total number of litters (six) that a bitch may have. However, I am slightly concerned about what may happen to the bitches after they have completed their total breeding cycle. I hope that those who are responsible for ensuring that the premises are maintained will inspect the bitches after they have completed their breeding cycle. Otherwise, I foresee problems with unwanted bitches being cast out and adding to the enormous number of dogs.
I hope that those matters will be considered by the authorities when they look at breeding establishments and how they are run. Apart from the benefits for dogs and puppies, there will be an added bonus. Many owners have been distressed to find that they have unhealthy animals, no doubt as a result of overbreeding. That, in itself, brings distress and concern to those who buy dogs in good faith, unaware of the intensive breeding that has gone on. There is, then, that added bonus, although that is not my primary reason for supporting the Bill.
I turn to a matter that looks very ordinary and dull. I refer to local authorities' ability to charge their own fees to meet the cost of inspections, and so on. Many local authorities find themselves a bit strapped for cash. If they found that they had an extra expense for which there was not sufficient income, they would be tempted—and have been in the past—not to carry out their duties fully. Boring though this looks as a provision, it is an important part of the Bill. I am pleased that variable and reasonable fees can be charged by local authorities. They will then have no excuse for not acting thoroughly and promptly in carrying out the duties imposed by the Act, as I hope this Bill will shortly become.
The other point that pleases me is the reference to the clear identification by means of a tag of puppies as they leave the breeding establishment. Ideally, I had hoped for a microchip, as that is the best way of ensuring that there is no jiggery-pokery and that the purchaser really has the animal in question. But I would not want to hold up the Bill for any reason. I hope, however, that even if microchips are not required by the Bill, they will become the usual way of ensuring that an animal is properly identified. That point is extremely important. If a dog cannot be traced back to its source, one means of keeping an eye on breeding establishments will be lost. I compare it with the ease with which money is laundered from drugs. Once it gets into the system, it is almost impossible to see where it has come from.
All in all, the Bill is a vast improvement on existing legislation. I wish it a fair passage, and I hope shortly to see it on the statute book.
2.12 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, there are a number of animals which give much pleasure to the human
1706
species—none more so than the dog. Dogs are adored by youngsters, mature and very mature people, whether owned as house pets, as working dogs or as therapy dogs visiting hospital patients.
It has been said that we are a nation of dog lovers, and I would be the last to disagree with that. My wife and I have had a number of pet dogs over the years, and in order to avoid two of our dogs becoming big headed, we refused to tell one that she was the progeny of the supreme champion of Crufts and the other that she was from the supreme champion of America and Canada. I cannot imagine life without a dog forming part of our family.
But the Bill does not seek to protect those dogs which are brought into this world by conscientious breeders. It seeks to make further provision for regulating the commercial breeding and subsequent sale of dogs, due to the fact that some breeding establishments seem to exist solely for the purpose of making large profits at the expense of the poor animals. Both puppies and their mothers are suffering in the interest of big business.
It is my intention to mention briefly a few cases of puppy farms in order to underline the need for this Bill. There is the case of a gentleman who lives next-door to a puppy farm where there are about 50 breeding bitches, together with another 50 other dogs. They are kept in pig sties, cattle pens, a caravan and a car—none of which has been converted from its previous use. They are poorly fed, sometimes receiving only bread, and at least 70 per cent never get any exercise. The gentleman has also witnessed older dogs killing younger ones.
Then there is the case of a disabled lady who purchased an underweight puppy with mange from a Kennel Club registered breeder. The puppy developed hip dysplasia in both legs, and it turned out that the breeders had some problematic litters—spastic puppies which had to be destroyed. She eventually got her money back.
There is also the case of a Scottish lady who purchased a dog which immediately needed treatment as it had diarrhoea. It subsequently needed further treatment for a wide range of problems, and eventually died of congenital liver failure, which the vet believed was due to interbreeding.
Honey, a nine week-old Labrador puppy, was bought by the Creswell family. Six days after getting her home, she died. Parvovirus was revealed by post-mortem as being the most likely cause of death. This fatal disease is acquired through unhygienic breeding conditions, which are, tragically, rife in many puppy farms.
I have been told of many other tragic cases of dogs purchased from puppy farms and breeders which have caused much distress. I could tell your Lordships about them all but I shall not do so because it is too distressing. Suffice it to say that this Bill is to be welcomed by all who care about the welfare of animals. If it results in less suffering, then it is to be commended.
2.15 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a sad reflection of the times in which we live that it is necessary to introduce and seek to pass into legislation

1707
this Bill before your Lordships today, but necessary it is. I congratulate all those who have worked so tirelessly on getting it this far.
I join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the many charitable and other organisations involved; in particular, the RSPCA, the National Canine Defence League, the BSAVA, the Kennel Club, the Pet Care Trust and others too numerous to mention. I join with other noble Lords who have singled out the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, who has probably worked harder than anyone else to improve the lot of dogs.
The objectives of the Bill were set out very clearly by my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior. The harrowing stories which abound—some of which we have heard today—convince me that, although this legislation may create an additional cost burden on breeders, that is a price well worth paying because it is hoped that it will bring to an end those unkind and cruel practices.
There is something deeply distasteful about the unscrupulous exploitation of dogs for breeding purposes and the cruelty and ill health which follow from it. Not all breeding establishments are guilty of malpractice and, indeed, many go to great lengths to ensure that high standards are maintained and that the health of the puppies and bitches is their primary concern. Those establishments will have nothing to fear from this legislation and, indeed, should be relieved that at long last the law will have some teeth to deal with those who are giving the industry a bad name.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 refers to inspections and reports before the granting of a licence. The puppy farming working group, in its excellent and thorough report completed in 1996, recommended that any inspection should be carried out by a veterinary surgeon who is fully independent and not connected with the breeding establishment in question. That is a very important safeguard which, unfortunately, has not been included in the Bill. I do not wish in any way to impede the progress of the Bill but I wonder whether it is possible somehow to incorporate that particular safeguard.
In the same report concern was expressed about the long-distance transportation of puppies, which causes stress and ill health. I understand that an EC directive has been issued and it may be that the matter is covered in other legislation. However, it is not on the face of the Bill. When the Minister replies, he may be able to reassure me that the long-distance transportation of puppies is covered in other legislation.
On a very small point of detail, my noble friend Lord Soulsby said that Clause 7 referred to five or more litters. In fact, the Bill refers to four or more litters. I may have misheard him on that and, if I did so, I apologise.
This Bill was introduced under the 10-minute rule in another place. I understand it has full government support and backing. That is excellent news which should ensure its swift passage onto the statute book. I join other noble Lords in wishing it well on its journey.
2.18 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I too am delighted to support the Bill. It has two extremely noble aims: first, to outlaw illegal puppy farms; and secondly, to improve the welfare standards of registered commercial breeders.
Only a few weeks ago, we had a debate on animal cruelty. Behind the respectable veneer of our love for animals, there are still practices which are cruel and of which we should all be ashamed. Puppy farming for crude commercial gain is one such practice which all decent people should condemn. This Bill is designed to outlaw such practices.
In many debates in your Lordships' House, we express different views and opinions. This debate is different. This is one Bill which I believe will command the support of all sides of the House. We shall support it in the full knowledge that the existing provisions are insufficient, ineffective and have not lessened the cruelty which it is designed to stop.
The Bill before us is designed to close the loopholes which, at present, allow the barbaric trade of pups bred in horrific conditions to continue. We are indebted to noble Lords who have supported the Bill today and we are grateful to James Clappison MP for tabling this Private Member's Bill in the other place.
The Bill has the support of key welfare organisations involved with animals. A good many people with detailed knowledge would never dream of going to a breeder who, effectively, exploits animals. The breeders are in business to make money, irrespective of the pain and suffering caused to pups and bitches.
When my two daughters were growing up, we went through the normal pattern of pet ownership, as most families do. We started with guinea pigs, gerbils and rabbits. We had no doubt at all that the next request would be for a puppy. We saw a big advertisement in a local newspaper for dogs for sale. When we visited the establishment, we did not realise that the puppies were obtained from various puppy farms. Families were picking up little furry things, with no knowledge of where the pups had come from. We then saw a number of people confronting the owner because the pups that they had bought were either ill or had died. We retreated quickly and, eventually, the place was closed, leaving many youngster in tears.
We then searched for a reliable and reputable breeder. One was recommended to us by an animal welfare organisation. The breeder would not sell us a dog. We had to wait to be interviewed to see whether we were fit and proper people to have a dog, and rightly so. We were given a couple of weeks to reflect on our decision. That was a cooling-off period in case our decision to buy was taken on impulse. We were invited to visit the pups when they were born and we saw them growing up and being properly weaned. Eventually, we took a puppy home. I suspect I am probably the only person of Indian dissent who has owned an Old English Sheepdog, named Popadum.
My point is that there are reputable breeders who care about their animals and who would never tolerate cruelty. The Bill would not only outlaw unscrupulous traders, but indirectly help the genuine breeders. Good

1709
breeders have nothing to fear. Many of them prevent impulse buying and they educate people on how to care for the pet that they are introducing as a family member.
The primary aim of the Bill is to amend and extend certain enactments relating to the commercial breeding and sale of dogs. We need this legislation to ensure that we ban the horrible conditions in which puppies are bred. We should never tolerate the dark, dingy and damp conditions in which bitches are forced to breed excessively. We must ensure that the puppies and bitches are disease-free and that no animal is deprived of exercise and affection. That is the minimum for which the RSPCA is asking—and that organisation should receive our support.
We should not hesitate to close down puppy farms. We should ensure that local authorities have effective enforcement powers. We do not object to selective breeding, but we must make it clear that the interests of the dogs must be put first. That includes having social contact with human beings and making sure that they are properly exercised and have the opportunity to play. That is the minimum that the National Canine Defence League is seeking. That organisation also should receive our support.
What started 10 years ago as a small cottage industry has turned into a multimillion pound puppy business. The National Canine Defence League estimates that the largest farms have up to 150 breeding bitches on their premises. Of course, in the end such farms depend on customers buying their animals. If the customers knew the conditions under which such pups were bred, they would stop buying them.
The Bill will help to set standards. With imaginative publicity by animal welfare organisations, customers would think twice before being "conned" into buying such pups. Children are often too young to understand the issues and often their love and affections are cruelly exploited by bad breeders. The Bill will help to put a stop to that.
Clause 1 of the Bill is the first step in improving the present legislation. It relates to,
"the inspection of the premises by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner and by an officer of the authority".
I ask the Minister whether it is possible also for local authorities to designate animal welfare experts for such inspection. There are a growing number of scientifically trained people involved in animal welfare these days. RSPCA inspectors are very good at that sort of work and there is no reason why they too should not be designated for such purposes. We should also encourage local authorities to publish lists of breeding establishments.
Licence conditions are important. They set the minimum standards which breeders must observe. It is right that bitches should not be mated if they are less than one year-old. It is right that records should be kept and monitoring inspections carried out. It is right that bitches should not be overbred and made to produce more than six litters of pups; and it is right that there should be a gap of 12 months between matings.
1710
No legislation can be effective unless there are adequate enforcement provisions and penalties for non-compliance. The cancellation of the licence and the disqualification prescribed by the court could serve as a salutary lesson to those whose greed knows no bounds. But let me add a word of caution. How often when someone is disqualified do we see others stepping in to continue the practice by by-passing the legal process?
I also welcome the provisions in Clause 8 relating to the sale of dogs. Again, it is right that dogs should be sold at licensed breeding establishments or licensed pet shops and that puppies under eight weeks-old should not be sold to the public. Also, I support the provision which makes it clear that it will be an offence to sell to licensed establishments dogs bred at unlicensed establishments. Using an identity tag or a badge is a good suggestion, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, when she says that implants would serve a better purpose. They would go a long way to identify the licensed breeding establishments.
The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 has been ineffective. It does not focus sufficiently on welfare and health and it does not involve vets or animal welfare organisations. The Bill before us rectifies many of those anomalies. More importantly, those who flout the law will know what to expect. There must also be a message for those who use dogs for advertising purposes. Using dogs to sell a specific brand of paint or toilet rolls may sound an attractive proposition, but it often results in generating a demand for pups which look cuddly and exciting in the television adverts.
Let me conclude. The plight of extensively farmed puppies is a cause for concern for all of us. Enshrined in this Bill is a message that we shall not allow our animals to be subjected to cruelty for the purpose of financial gain. We should support and enact this legislation because we wish to be judged by our compassion and caring attitude for those who are the least able to speak or fend for themselves.
2.29 p.m.
Viscount Bridgemdan: My Lords, I hope that the knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, called his dog "Popadum" does not spoil my next Indian meal!
We are all extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Soulsby for initiating this debate. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. James Clappison for succeeding with this Bill where others have failed, and I add my congratulations to the compliments from all parts of the House paid so effusively to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, both here and in another place during the passage of this measure on the indefatigable work she has put in to enable the Bill to reach its present stage.
The Bill has been rightly welcomed from all sides of the House. It seeks inter alia to put right a defect in the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, which had the deficiency in particular that, although anyone breeding from two or more bitches was required to have a licence, that licence could be granted by a local authority without any reference to a veterinary surgeon. But this Bill is a tightly drawn and effective measure.

1711
My noble friend Lord Soulsby took us with admirable clarity through the detail of the Bill, and referred to the control now to be exercised by local authorities, from the licensing and supervision of breeders, through the inspection of their premises, the welfare of the animals therein and the requirements for the involvement of vets at every stage, to regulation of the sale of puppies and the curtailment of activities of unlicensed dealers and pet shops. Most crucially, the Bill will give local authorities effective power to take prompt action against breeders or dealers who infringe the law and will also provide for fees commensurate with the obligations so that they can carry out their obligations conscientiously and properly. I particularly welcome the fact that the legislation will not inhibit hobby breeding or, indeed, legitimate multiple breeding of puppies.
This country has always prided itself on its humane treatment of animals—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—and particularly of pets. I am sure that that is true in the vast majority of cases, but the horrific cases outlined by many noble Lords today show that there are, sadly, exceptions.
Reference was made to the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, a few weeks ago which called attention to cruelty to animals. In that debate several noble Lords gave disturbing instances of cruelty to both domestic and wild animals which was sometimes negligent, in many cases premeditated and occasionally with the particularly unpleasant overtones of ritual maiming associated with Satanism.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, also drew attention to the disturbing increase in dog fighting and the suspicion that this is a practice which has attracted the attention of organised crime. The noble Lord tabled a Question shortly after that debate on the importation of American bull terriers. All one can say is that the Bill now before us is likely to be of use both directly and indirectly in inhibiting and, it is to be hoped, stopping the breeding of dogs for this thoroughly distasteful practice of dog fighting. In this connection, I should particularly like to welcome the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Fookes for electronic tagging by microchip where such clandestine breeding is clearly involved.
This Bill is an admirable one. Many noble Lords have given graphic illustrations as to why it is necessary and why the 1973 Act has to be improved. In addressing this problem, I very much hope that it will receive a Second Reading.
2.33 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, perhaps I may join other noble Lords in thanking those people who have worked extremely hard to bring this Bill to the Floor of the House today. I believe that all the contributions have been made with sincerity and, indeed, with deep warmth towards dogs. I know that each and every one of the contributors cares about the welfare of his or her dogs. I should also like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, on introducing the Bill. The noble Lord has a long and distinguished career in veterinary
1712
medicine and it is particularly fitting that he should be introducing this measure. Our congratulations are also due to the honourable Member for Hertsmere, to whom reference has been made, who successfully piloted the Bill through its stages in the other place.
I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, who has throughout been the principal driving force behind the Bill. She has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to maintain the necessary consensus among the Bill's sponsors, which—as noble Lords have said—comprise animal welfare bodies and other interested parties, including dog breeders, the veterinary profession and local authorities. Indeed, the fact that the Bill has progressed to the point of being debated by your Lordships today is due in large measure to the efforts of the noble Baroness. Her contribution cannot be overstated.
I must confess to being the owner of dogs and indeed a dog lover. I do not have to remind your Lordships' House that the two do not necessarily go together. I have listened to the debate carefully and I know that every speaker in this House who has contributed to this debate is committed to the welfare of dogs.
We are all aware of concerns about establishments where, notwithstanding the controls in existing legislation, dog breeding is undertaken for commercial gain with apparently inadequate provision for the comfort and welfare of the animals involved. These activities can cause suffering and distress, not only to the mature dogs kept in such establishments, but also to the puppies which are bred there. This in turn increases the likelihood of unhealthy puppies being sold down the line to an unsuspecting public.
Furthermore, the practices of unscrupulous dog breeders unfairly taint the many legitimate breeders who maintain high standards of care for the animals in their charge. The Bill seeks primarily to tighten controls over breeders' activities so as to ensure more effectively that high standards of animal care are observed at all commercial dog breeding establishments through to points of sale.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, asked whether the welfare of dogs will be safeguarded during their transportation. The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 contains many safeguards on the welfare of animals during transportation. I hope that we shall not have to amend the Bill to any great extent as it passes through its various stages.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the inspection of breeding establishments by RSPCA inspectors. I shall need to discuss this matter with the sponsors of the Bill. I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.
My role today is, I hope, straightforward. The Government support the aims of the Bill. Any measures that seek to improve animal welfare are to be applauded. Accordingly, the Government support the aims of the Bill in this respect. It has been evident from the debate that noble Lords on all sides of the House support the Bill. Therefore there are grounds for believing that it will pass through the House and on to the statute book, as it clearly deserves to do.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I greatly welcome the support for this Bill that has clearly been given from all sides of the House, including from the Front Benches. I especially welcome the contributions of those noble Lords who have deep interest, knowledge and experience of dogs and dog breeding, especially the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, who speaks with great knowledge and conviction on many aspects of dogs, dog breeding and puppy farming. He mentioned the problems associated with what happens at the rescue centres after dogs are discarded.
My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who is no longer in her place, spoke with fervour and passion in support of the Bill. I greatly welcome her support.
My noble friend Lady Fookes has great experience of matters of animal welfare both here and in the other place. She, too, spoke passionately of the need for the Bill. She raised two points which I hope will be taken into consideration in due course. Her first point was that adequate arrangements should be made post-breeding for bitches when they have had their six litters. That is a matter about which local authorities should assure themselves when granting licences. Secondly, she mentioned the matter of micro-chipping for puppies. I agree that in due course micro-chipping will become the most effective means of identification. However, some work still needs to be done on this.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, raised the point that not all breeders can be accused of bad practice. They, too, should welcome the Bill so that the disrepute of dog breeding does not fall unfairly on them. He also raised the question of whether it is five or more or four or more breeding bitches. The five or more comes from the fact that four or more other litters in addition to the breeding bitch mentioned in Clause 7(3) would make up five.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, for her determination and efforts—and, indeed, luck with a Private Member's Bill in another place—in bringing forward the Bill. She had the help of many other people but, nevertheless, it was a major effort on her part.
We have seen today a remarkable tidal wave of support from both Houses, from Ministers and from officials. In view of the universal support for the Bill, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Academic and Academic-related Staff Pay and Conditions Bill. [H.L.]
2.42 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am not certain whether I should declare an interest as a member for some 36 years of the Association of University Teachers which, after all, favours the establishment of a separate pay
1714
review, except in so far as the AUT affects my emoluments, as the Oxford University insists on calling them. They are related to what the AUT did or failed to do in the past as against what the AUT may succeed in doing if we have a system of pay review. I certainly express a great personal interest in the Bill. Perhaps I may put forward the arguments in favour of it.
The purpose of the Bill is quite simple: it is to establish a system of independent pay review for academics and academic-related jobs in universities and colleges of higher education. The Bill recommends the establishment by the Secretary of State of a pay review board or body which would make appropriate recommendations on pay and conditions of employment and take appropriate action, if the Secretary of State thought it advisable, on other similar issues such as the recruitment and retention of staff. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to choose sorne five to nine people, one of whom will be the chairman. That will be entirely a matter for the Secretary of State. They will make recommendations and it will be entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State to decide what is to be done with those recommendations. Indeed, the Bill proposes a system very similar to that which exists for doctors and dentists, nursing professionals, the police, the armed services, school teachers and those covered by the Senior Salaries Review Body.
The system is largely modelled on the successful pay review body established for school teachers in 1992. We would argue that virtually all comparable professions covered in the public sector have pay review. The one significant group of professionals in the public sector that does not have pay review are academics and those in academically related posts.
Four main reasons can be advanced as to why this is a most appropriate moment to introduce a system of pay review for academics. First, it is very much in line with the underlying proposals and assumptions of the Dearing report, which the Government have welcomed and have taken as the central thrust of their analysis of higher education and its future needs. The Dearing report made three important points which are particularly relevant to what I am arguing today. First, the report said that the current arrangements for pay had produced "chaos"—the report's word—and had failed to determine effectively and efficiently pay and conditions in the academic profession.
Secondly, it said that, as a result, the existing system had caused or presided over a substantial decline in the relative position of academics and related grades in comparison with almost anyone else with whom one might reasonably compare their pay and conditions. The report then gave some figures to illustrate that point. Thirdly, the report said that there was an immediate need for an independent review of current levels of pay and conditions in the profession. After that came the independent review under Sir Michael Bea which was established by the employers. We are all waiting for the report of Sir Michael. It is expected in the very near future, perhaps towards the end of this month.
I do not intend to speculate on what is in the Bett report but I do know what I read in the newspapers. How accurate those reports are and to what extent the

1715
information has leaked to the newspapers and, in particular, to The Times Higher Education Supplement, I do not know. I merely report what I have read. It is said that Sir Michael will recommend a 9 per cent increase in the pay bill over a period of three years. It is said that he will recommend an inter-related national negotiating body. It is said that he will recommend that, whatever system of negotiation of collective bargaining is established, it should deal with a number of important problems; for example, the problem of equal opportunities and the sex imbalance in pay and promotion. But I understand—no one has suggested that I am wrong—that Sir Michael is doing a one-off job. He is recommending a relatively short-term solution. He does not intend to deal with the long-term problem of maintaining a reasonable relationship between pay and performance and productivity in the academic profession. I submit that the only way that can be done is by the establishment of a system of pay review.
I come to my second argument, the almost unbelievable reduction in the relative position of academics and academically related trades and professions during the 1980s and 1990s. In a period when academics have been expected to deal with almost twice as many students, when the conditions of their work have deteriorated in a number of ways, when they have lost tenure and when their profession has become to a significant extent casual, they have received no significant increase in real pay. The increase has been only 1.1 per cent over 20 years. I do not know of another group remotely comparable. One would have to go to the poorest paid in the public sector who have not received any real increase in pay over the past 20 years. At least it can be said that those in that group are still slightly better paid than people doing comparable jobs in the private sector. That cannot be said for academics. There is no other group of similarly qualified people in the public sector, or indeed the private sector, whose remuneration has been chained, whose conditions of work have deteriorated and whose security has declined in this way in the whole of the British labour market.
There is an abundance of figures in broad terms to support that argument. The public sector as a whole has, over the period since the early 1980s, received 50 per cent more in money rates of increase than academics. Nurses, the police, doctors, teachers—those who have been favoured by pay reviews over this period—have received real increases, not merely money increases, of between 30 and 35 per cent. So have most private sector non-manual workers. If we look at the many groups with whom academics might think to compare themselves in terms of qualifications and with whom they compared themselves in the past, the relative disparity in the pay of academics is even more remarkable. If we think of business economists, consultants, investment analysts, solicitors, barristers and MPs, the relativities have declined much more markedly within the public sector.
The only group among academics—one might say "pseudo-academics"—who have significantly improved their position over the past 20 years are vice-chancellors. They have done so because they have
1716
broken out of the system. Historically, vice-chancellors received much the same as professors and heads of houses. They now receive more than twice as much. Why? Because, by and large, they pay themselves out of their own system. That is why they stand for local bargaining—because they would be in charge of it. So there is an evident disbalance. There are inverse relativities between academics and anyone else with whom they might be compared. They should be put in a special category.
My third argument relates to pay review. Anyone who looks objectively at pay review must concede that in general terms over the past 15 or 20 years it has been an outstanding success from the point of view of all involved: workers, employers and companies. In the past, it was pay review which averted a pseudo-revolution among doctors. Without pay review we would not have any doctors in the health service; it would have broken up. We remember the problems with the police. The police were almost at the stage of introducing forms of industrial action until they had pay review.
The most recent examples of the success of pay review have been the nurses and teachers. The teachers are an example of an outstanding—and recent—success. Anyone in the House who goes back in industrial relations as far as I do—and few people can—will remember what happened to teachers. Before the interim advisory committee in 1998 and the establishment of pay review in 1992, morale and conditions of service in the teaching profession appeared to be in a hopeless state. Yet pay review, which first came in a shadow form and then in a real form in 1992, has made possible the transformation of industrial relationships in employment in the teaching profession. It has made it possible for this Government and to some extent the previous one to put in radical changes in the workload and systems in the teaching profession without significant resistance because the pay problem had been solved, put on one side. The issues were about what teachers did, not about what they were paid.
The significant point I am trying to make to the Minister is that it was done without runaway wage inflation. The real wage rise of the teachers as a result of their pay review, year by year, is about 1.5 per cent. The teachers' pay review body recommended something slightly or significantly above the level of inflation. The Government accepted it in principle, then staged it and cut 1 per cent. off the cost. For a real income improvement of 1.5 per cent. per year, we had peace in the teaching profession. Whether or not one agrees with them, radical changes were able to be introduced. What was done for the teachers, doctors and police can be done for the academic profession at a relatively small cost.
My fourth argument is that the existence of pay review enables all kinds of other reforms to be introduced, as in the pay review boards. For example, the Dearing Committee said, and I am sure the subsequent committees will say, that one of the great scandals is equal opportunities in the academic profession. Pay review has presided over the virtual solution of the problem of equal opportunities in the

1717
teaching profession. Women teachers now get 88.4 per cent. of what male teachers get. It has been done by pay review. Nurses and midwives now receive 95 per cent. of what male nurses and midwives receive and it has been done under a system of pay review. However, in the poor old administrative and clerical grades in the NHS, the situation is probably getting worse. There remains a 37 per cent. or 40 per cent. gap between men and women because they do not have a flexible system of pay review. Whether we are talking about greater flexibility by subjects or local labour markets, it can be introduced via a system of pay review.
I turn to my penultimate point. There is always a case against everything and there is a case against pay review. There is a case against it among academics, not because it would cost a lot or would not bring benefits, but because, in a sense, it is said that they do not deserve it. If academics are prepared to put up with that and with 20 years during which their real income has not increased, if they are prepared to put up with a situation in which despite the doubling in the number of students and growth in quality appraisal form filling, the ending of tenure and decasualisation and there is no general observable shortage of academics, there is a case for saying. "If they have put up with it, why shouldn't they go on putting up with it?" But it is a very short-sighted view, especially for this Government.
If one looks closely one finds that things are happening in the academic world which no one who is concerned with higher education can possibly disregard. I take one small fact which I find very illustrative. There has been a 400 per cent increase in the past four years in the number of health-based retirements among academics. Academics are retiring like mad, particularly at the end of the scales. One wonders why. One may say that they have fairly good retirement provisions, but there has been a very significant increase in the number. One may say, "Well, these old fellows and girls might as well go. What do they have to give us?" I understand that some 2,000 academics under 35 were recruited to permanent posts last year, and there has been a 65 per cent loss in turnover in 12 months. That cannot go on for very long.
I am aware from personal experience—no working academic would deny it, although there are no statistics to support it—that there are real shortages in the number of first-class degree graduates coming forward to fill academic posts. In some posts in fields such as law, accountancy, IT and so on, there are very real shortages. Finally, there is growth in a kind of self-defeating militancy among academics which takes the form of recent industrial action. It reminds me most depressingly of what happened to teachers before they got forms of pay review.
We all know that when the Government were elected and the Prime Minister was asked what he believed epitomised and summarised the essence of their endeavour, he replied, "Education, education, education". Can it really be sensible to stand by and allow this decline in the quality, commitment and morale of those who are supposed, at least formally, to be engaged in the highest levels of education?
1718
I am aware that, more than anyone else, the Minister knows the truth of what I say. I also know that as a Minister she is limited in what she can say today. But I am also aware that, because she has been an academic all her life, she appreciates this crisis and dilemma. I hope that she can say something which will be helpful.
I conclude on a personal note. One of the most rewarding aspects of my career as an academic—I am sure that this is true also of the Minister—is the moment when I can encourage young students who are hovering on the brink of becoming academics to take up that life because I believe that it suits them. I have long since stopped feeling that I can do it with enthusiasm. One must tell young people who like the academic life that it may need more than commitment, intelligence and a sprit of adventure; it may also require a very highly developed penchant for self-sacrifice. It is in the hope that we can do something better than that that I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McCarthy.)
3.4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I hope to make a brief speech on this useful but modest Bill. I must declare an interest as a member of the academic staff of the London School of Economics. To come here today I rearranged my normal Friday teaching, so this morning I managed to fill in only four of the forms which the Government now require us to complete. I drafted and signed two references; saw two anxious research students; and have 10 more examination papers to mark before I finish this evening—because as noble Lords know, academics do not really do much work!
There are two aspects to the Bill, the content and the procedure, which interrelate. I shall concentrate on the problems of the next generation of academics and on how we can manage to recruit them. When we were recruiting in my own department last year, I was struck that we offered a salary of £18,000 to people who would have worked for four years after their initial degree, and accumulated in almost all cases considerable debts. I can walk out of my department, and cross the road at the Aldwych to see in Pret a Manger that after six months' training one can earn £16,500 working for that company.
The attractions of working for universities at present are very low. The Minister is aware that Economic and Social Research Council figures indicate that the number of British students applying to do graduate work to PhD level has declined by 10 per cent in each of the past two years; and that there is a catastrophic decline in particular in the number of people entering economics for graduate and research study. In my own field of international relations, the number of British students applying for research degrees last year declined by over 20 per cent. The age structure of the profession has a large number of people like ourselves who entered academia in the balmy 1960s and who will be retiring in the next 10 years.
The consequence is that British universities are making do, as far as they can, by recruiting people from abroad. I noted the other day that 40 per cent of the

1719
academic staff of the London School of Economics are now non-British. I welcome much of that, but I worry slightly because on the past two or three panels for junior academic staff there were almost no good quality British applicants. I am happy that there were a number of others from abroad—refugees from the German system and others—but it should be a matter of considerable concern to the Government that we have to find the next generation of academic staff if we are to maintain the quality of our universities.
The system has been enlarged considerably in the past few years. We still have the highest quality university system in Europe, but as quantity has been increased, so there is a real problem that quality may now begin to decline.
I say a little about procedure. Over the past 15 years, in the higher education system we have also seen a remarkable growth in direct state control—socialism imposed by the former Conservative Government. I recognise that the Minister and this Government have inherited a deeply unsatisfactory situation: a demoralised profession which had seen its salary go down; a huge funding crisis; and the Dearing committee which was in many ways a deliberate fudge. I suspect that the Minister privately believes that the current funding situation is unsustainable. I also suspect that she is unable to say so in public. It seems desirable from the Government's point of view that they should be able to stand back from too direct an intervention in levels of academic salaries. That is part of the attraction of a pay review body, such as exists for doctors and other professions—I hope that we may all agree that academic teaching is a profession. It adds a certain degree of distance between what Ministers have to decide and what universities may have to accept.
There is of course the danger—I am sure that the Treasury has added this point to the Minister's brief—that the Government fear that they may lose control of a major element in higher education funding. I note from the AUT briefing that a 10 per cent increase in academic salaries would add £340 million to academic costs over the course of a year. Having been involved in my party's manifesto exercise in 1997 and worked out how much one gains for education from an additional 1 per cent on income tax, I am conscious of just how far £340 million goes.
Nevertheless, there is a problem of content and procedure. We all agree that academic salaries have sunk too low for quality to be sustainable. Therefore, the question for the Government is: do they wish to hold on to direct responsibility for them or do they accept that it is time to distance themselves by accepting a permanent pay review body, which this useful Bill proposes? I hope that the Government will welcome the Bill and that we may take it further.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, this is an important Bill and I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate this well-judged and well-timed measure. Unlike my noble friend Lord
1720
McCarthy and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I am not an academic. However, I am pleased to say that I have friends, acquaintances and relatives in academia. While they are good in not clamouring for my attention, it is useful to be able to talk to such a range of people in order to discover what is happening and to hear from those at the coalface, as it were. I always dislike industrial metaphors applied to academia, but I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I shall be brief because much of the ground has been covered very well. However, I wish to add my voice to establishing four unassailable and significant facts about academia. If those facts are accepted, as I believe they are—they are not controverted—the conclusions and the need to act will be unarguable.
First, we have gone through a period of massive expansion in higher education. The latest figure indicates that 1.8 million students are now in academic life. That is an increase of more than 100 per cent over the past 10 to 20 years, and probably much in excess of that.
Secondly, it is relevant that that magnitude of increase has brought with it a substantial increase in the workload of academics. That cannot but be so. I accept that a lecturer can give the same lecture to a group of 10 students as to a group of 50, but when one has to tutor and supervise them and mark their essays and look at their examination papers the difference between 10 and 50 becomes all too obvious. Our academics are heavily overloaded with that vast increase in their workload and the tiny increase in their number during that period.
The third fact has already been strongly emphasised. It is the almost unbelievable failure of the system of rewards in academia to keep pace with either some compensation for the workload or with the relative pay and rewards of virtually all other public sector employees and indeed everyone else in the country. It is amazing, and I almost chide myself for not being more aware of that, because it has been happening for a long time.
The AUT has circulated a short document and I shall quote only one passage. I could hardly believe it when I read it and I shall be grateful to my noble friend Lady Blackstone if she can confirm it. Is it really the case that between 1981 and 1996 or 1997, whichever is the latest date for which figures are available—a period of more than 15 years—academic pay rose, in real terms, by only 1.1 per cent? Is it possible that that could be true? That is an incredible criticism, mainly of previous Ministers who manned the Treasury Benches in the 1980s and the first part of the 1990s. If correct, it requires our urgent attention.
The fourth fact, which is again incontrovertible, is that our success as a nation depends crucially on our country's intellectual performance and, in particular, on the contribution made to research and development in industry and many other areas of our life by those who are the products of our universities. The first report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology considered research expenditure in Britain

1721
and the Dearing report. The report notes that Dearing concluded that:
"The funds available to support research are barely adequate".
The Select Committee itself then referred to the funds available and stated:
"It is our view that they are wholly inadequate and that without substantial and sustained additional public investment the Government will be putting the nation's future prosperity and quality of life at risk".
That is one of the most powerful warnings that I have ever read; and I have read an awful lot of Select Committee reports.
That establishes the facts, which are incontrovertible.
What are the consequences? One is the increasing difficulty in recruiting academics. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, quite properly drew attention to one manifestation of that, namely, the way in which the number of British students with first-class degrees enrolling for PhDs has fallen away. They are nearly all foreign students. It is ludicrous to be in such a position.
As a nation, there is an incredible shortage in a number of specialist areas where we should be in the lead. We are a creative country, and we have in the past, and still do, take the lead in many areas. But good heavens, we have fewer trained doctors per ten thousand of the population than virtually every other developed country in the OECD. Professor Jarman's recently published report makes that point. It is unbelievable that the country which pioneered the National Health Service should find itself desperately short of doctors. That is why we cannot get the waiting lists down quickly and effectively; we do not have the doctors available. Then there is the constant temptation, due to the inadequate pay here, for the trained people that we do have to be attracted to universities, research institutes and other places of learning in other countries and, in particular, the United States, where the rewards are much higher.
What conclusions can be drawn? I do not know if others among your Lordships have read the quite remarkable article by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times on Monday. Mr Wolf is a serious journalist. He begins by saying—and let the words again sink in—that:
"The quality of teaching and research in British universities faces collapse".
The quality faces collapse. He goes on to say:
"By global standards, there will soon be no first-rate universities in the UK (if there is one today)".
Surely that must make people sit up and start to think about what they should be doing. I do not think any stronger words could be deployed.
I do not mind what the actual arrangements are, and I am sure that my noble friend who introduced this Bill does not mind either, provided that we have a body which will examine and constantly update the needs of the academic profession. I hope greatly that the Bett committee will do something about raising its pay substantially in the short term. I hope that we shall then have a permanent review-body like others in the public sector to ensure that this does not happen again.
Finally, although I am afraid that my noble friend who has replied to the debate knows far more about this than anyone in the House—I have no doubt at all about
1722
her sympathies and wishes—I shall have to be a little sharp and harsh. I do not believe that what the Labour Government have done in the past two years has helped. The academics of tomorrow, who will conduct the research and development which is so essential to the quality of our national life and to our prosperity, are, of course, the students of today. These students, as I am sure one of my noble friends who has already spoken has pointed out, are now leaving university more heavily laden with debt than ever before. The average debt will be at least £15,000. There may be another extra £1.000 in fees, though that is not the main factor. In my judgment the withdrawal of maintenance grants is the more important factor. But still the problem is that the students will be in debt. They will probably select a partner who is also in academia with a similar level of debt. Then they are to be offered lectureships without tenure, at—what?—perhaps £16,000 per year, when all their contemporaries are going to jobs not only in other parts of the public sector, but also in the City and in industry. Those areas pay significantly higher rewards.
This must stop. It must be stopped extremely quickly. We must await the Bett Committee report. But I say to my noble friend, in all friendliness and candour, the Treasury must be shaken. The only solution is a massive increase in the amount of money granted directly from the Chancellor. Money lying around in different universities which can be deployed differently will not solve the problem. We need an increase in public expenditure. Whether or not the Chancellor observes his golden rules, he had better get on to the job quickly. If he does not I shall rely upon my noble friend and her Secretary of State to make sure that the matter is raised in Cabinet and is brought to a satisfactory solution.
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I too must declare an interest. I am a member of the AUT. Until the end of September I am employed by the University of Sussex which I joined in 1981 from a Civil Service post where I would now be paid considerably more—even if I had stayed at the same grade in the Civil Service—than I am paid in academia. For a considerable period of time, in the latter part of the 1980s until 1996, I was a member of the executive committee of Save British Science.
This Bill establishes a permanent pay review body for academical-related staff at universities. It directs the Secretary of State to establish a permanent, but independent committee of between five and nine members and it gives the Secretary of State power to refer to that committee on an annual basis issues concerning the employment and remuneration of academics. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, stressed in introducing the Bill, it would be up to the Secretary of State to decide whether and how to implement the recommendations from the pay review body.
We welcome the Bill on these Benches. As we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Wallace, the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and even from the noble Lord., Lord McCarthy, we face a crisis in the academic: profession. There has been an erosion of pay in

1723
academia in relation to other professions, which is having an effect on the recruitment and retention of high calibre young people.
Towards the end of the 1980s a report was written for Save British Science, based on a survey carried out among its members, on the recruitment of young people into scientific careers as contract researchers. I wrote an article based on the survey. The short research paper was aptly called Neglecting the Seed Corn. That warned, almost 10 years ago, that unless we heeded the problems that such young people faced as contract researchers, not only with regard to uncompetitive pay, but also uncompetitive conditions of employment, the quality of the British academic research base will be badly eroded. Frequently, after fulfilling the requirements of a masters degree and a doctorate, such young people were then expected to spend six years without tenure, moving from one job to another, uncertain whether they would be able to get another job and unable to have mortgages because they had no tenure of contract.
We are in danger of losing those whom we need in our scientific professions, the very best of our scientific brains who are not entering into doctoral studies in this country, but are carrying out their doctoral studies abroad, and, frequently, not returning home. Something like two-thirds of our FRSs are now resident abroad. That shows what is happening to the scientific professions in this country.
In regard to my personal experience, for the past seven years I have been running a research centre—the Science Policy Research Unit—within my unit at the University of Sussex, which has won international acclaim. In that research centre, we have about 20 researchers, most of whom are employed on fixed-term contracts. I am conscious that a number of my colleagues, including myself, will be retiring over the course of the next few years and that it is important for us to nurture young people in specific areas of specialism so that they can take over the mantles we have been holding. Within the past six months, three of those young people have announced their departure because we cannot compete in the terms we can offer and the money we can pay. One is moving into a private sector job, another to a National Health Service job and another to a tenure job elsewhere in the university system.
It is extremely difficult for us to recruit staff of the quality we need at the salaries we can currently offer. All those factors, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, acknowledged in his introduction, were discussed in the Dearing report. As the noble Lord said, the situation in relation to university pay is chaotic. He rightly pointed to Recommendation 50 in the report—that higher education employers should appoint, after consultation with staff representatives, an independent review committee to report by April 1998 on the framework for determining pay and conditions of service. It said that the chairman should be appointed on the nomination of the Government.
That pay review body was appointed, although not as quickly as the Dearing report recommended. The Bett committee's report has been sadly delayed and
1724
continues to be delayed. As we understand it from newspaper reports, the problem is the cost of implementing the committee's recommendations. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore, pointed out, academic pay has fallen back by 40 per cent in comparison to related professions over the past 18 years. But let us suppose we introduced a 10 per cent increase; it would cost in the region of £360 million, which is a great deal of money and undoubtedly the Treasury is dragging its feet on that sum.
In a sense, the Bett committee illustrates the difficulties of appointing an ad hoc committee to solve a problem, and it is that difficulty that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, seeks to solve. Ad hoc committees lead to peaks and troughs in pay. First, there may be a catch-up pay rise too large for the Treasury to fund, but perhaps implemented in part or over the course of a number of years. Over the course of those years, increases below or at the level of inflation mean that the problem builds up again. That is followed by another ad hoc committee and another bump in pay rise.
In the public sector it is never easy to know what is a fair rate of pay, particularly where we have, as we have in this case, a monopoly employer in terms of the state. As the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy pointed out, over the course of the years the concept of pay review bodies is probably the most satisfactory way that we have discovered of dealing with this. That is why we on these Benches feel that the setting up of a pay review body is long overdue.
The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals objects to the proposal. As the university and college employers' association, it puts forward three specific objections. First, that the pay review body would not allow for sufficient local flexibility. But the Bill makes it quite clear that it would only set a minimum and that it would be open to local institutions to decide upon any variations that they wished.
Secondly, the university employers object because such a body would remove from them key employer responsibility for managing staff. I regard that as complete humbug. There are few employers who have been as irresponsible on occasions as have the universities in terms of their broad responsibility for training, conditions of work or, indeed, any aspect of employer relations in universities.
I am delighted to see that this Bill is about academic and academic-related staff pay and conditions. The scandal of the lack of attention to employee relations was brought out in the Dearing report and it is about to be exposed again in the Bett report. We know, because it has leaked out to the press, that the Bett report will address the issue of sex discrimination: the fact that women academics and others in the university area have been systematically underpaid at every level, whether they are academics, administrators or manual staff. There is also the scandal of the fixed-term contract staff who have been expected to sign away their rights to redundancy over the course of the years.
The third objection put forward by the employers is that it may be divisive to have employees on two different scales; in other words, the support staff and the

1725
bureaucrats at universities should be on a different scale from the academic staff. Yes, it may be divisive, but it may not be. I would argue that support staff and bureaucrats in universities have very different functions from the academic staff. Moreover, they are not under the constant pressure to meet performance criteria in relation to teaching and publications. I do not deny that everyone in the academic sector is overworked and overstressed. A colleague of mine mentioned the other day that he carried out a survey among his staff and discovered that 70 per cent of them were on medication for stress.
I believe that we have reached an absurd situation in the academic sector, and in other parts of the public sector, where we are expected to meet the pressures of the market-place and, side by side with that, the full bureaucratic panoply of command economy performance indicators—that means endless time spent filling in forms, counting activities and writing reports justifying one's activities—rather than being able to get on with one's own research writing upon which one is being measured. All that spills over to our bureaucrats who are equally hard-pressed and the butt of many insults; but they do not have to go home at weekends and cope with the marking of hundreds of essay and exam scripts, let alone turn their minds to learned articles in obscure journals, which is necessary to satisfy the demands of the research assessment exercise. I can see no real reason why academics and academic bureaucrats should be on the same pay scale; nor why they should not have two separate pay scales.
As I have made clear, this Bill has the full support of these Benches. Academic pay in this country is currently far too low and wholly uncompetitive with the professions with which it competes for the best minds in our country. Conditions of employment are sometimes scandalous. The record of the universities as employers is appalling and their attitude to successive governments is supine, to say the least. The setting up of a permanent independent review body, which might have a little bit more spunk, is well overdue.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I do not have to declare an interest as I am not involved in academia, but I am the proud mother-in-law of a newly qualified PhD in linguistics. This has been a most interesting, thought-provoking and important debate. However, I shall make only a brief contribution at this stage.
I do question the timing of the Bill. It is common knowledge, as has been expressed on all sides of the Chamber today, that the Bett committee will be publishing the report of the review on higher education staff pay and conditions very soon. Indeed, if rumours are to be believed, I understand that the date of publication is likely to be 23rd June. Therefore, would it not be preferable to consider the report as a whole, and its conclusions, before taking legislative action? The committee will clearly address many issues, including the desirability or otherwise of appointing a pay review body for higher education, differential pay between men and women in higher education, levels of pay, the
1726
relative treatment of academic staff and support staff, the degree to which short-term contracts are used in higher education, and so on.
Until the Minister responds today we cannot be certain as to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. This is therefore an opportunity to pose some questions ahead of the report's publication for consideration by the Secretary of State and, if possible, for a preliminary response from the Minister today. Do the Government have any misgivings or objections to a pay review system for university staff? Can the Minister tell the House, in the spirit of open government, whether the Government covered the issue of a pay review body when giving evidence to the Bett committee because it has been reported that the implementation in full of the various recommendations contained in the Bett report can only take place at some cost? If, as has been suggested, the report is likely to recommend increased pay, particularly at the bottom and at the top of the salary scale, and an effort to redress the pay inequalities between male and female staff, the costs could be considerable. A figure of £450 million was mentioned in this week's Times Higher Education Supplement. Will the Minister give a guarantee that the Government will fund these costs in full, and if so will this constitute a real term increase in the total higher education budget, or will an increase in funding to finance the Bat proposals be matched with cuts elsewhere in the higher education budget?
What view is taken by the Government on the level of academic salaries and was it conveyed to the Bett committee? Do the Government accept that pay review bodies operate within the principles of affordability and fairness? If so, in what way do the Government see these principles applying to higher education? Have the Government given any indication to the Bett committee of an alternative system to a pay review body? As we have heard, the Association of University Teachers is particularly concerned that, given the Government's commitment to longer term financial planning and following the comprehensive spending review, the allocations for higher education have still not been announced.
One important point for consideration at this stage, for I am sure there will be other issues to be addressed once we have seen the report, is that of flexibility. There is within the higher education sector considerable diversity of provision and of the nature, style and structure of institutions. Could a single pay review body for the whole sector reflect this diversity and to what extent would it remove flexibility from university employers? This is a point that I know my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour would have raised if she had not been unavoidably absent from the House today. She is extremely sorry not to be here as she is much interested in the subject. It is a key point of concern of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Therefore I wish to ask for some assurances.
First, is the Minister aware of fears among vice-chancellors that the Bett report may place them in a pay and conditions strait-jacket if, as expected, it recommends a national wages structure? What

1727
guarantees can the noble Baroness give that the new system will not rob universities of the necessary local flexibility on pay and conditions?
There is much interest in the Bett report which, as noble Lords will know, was commissioned in response to a recommendation from the Dearing report. Many issues will be raised to be considered by government and the higher education sector in addition to Members of Parliament in both Houses. However, I conclude where I started by saying that this is not the time to be considering one aspect of university pay and conditions in isolation from and in advance of the Bett report.
I do not expect detailed answers at this stage. I am sure that noble Lords present would be grateful, however, if the noble Baroness could give some idea of the Government's position on these issues in anticipation of the Bett committee's findings.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the terms and conditions of those who work in higher education are of great importance. I have listened to all the points made in the debate with great interest. We all agree that this country's world-class reputation in higher education has been achieved by the quality and excellence of the staff who work in it. There is no question about that. Whether they be academic, non-academic, management or support staff, they all contribute to the maintenance of our enviable position. I disagree with what Martin Wolf said in his article in the Financial Times earlier this week. I do not believe it is the case that the quality of British universities is in terrible decline in terms of research and teaching. I am sure that that position is also taken by the academics who have contributed to the debate. There is still a great deal of wonderful work going on in our universities. I regret that a journalist I much admire should take such a negative position.
I take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the hard work and commitment demonstrated by staff in higher education in recent years. As my noble friend Lord Shore said, they have had to deliver a significant expansion in student numbers and they have done so at a cost the country can afford.
The Government have been clear about the agenda for higher education. There is no doubt that we are committed to ensuring that our higher education system continues to enable those who can benefit to enjoy more and wider opportunities to participate in a high-quality system, especially those groups who traditionally have been under-represented. That will be good for the individuals and for the country.
That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced an additional £165 million for higher education in 1998–99. He has also announced more than £750,000,000 extra over the next two years compared with 1998–99. So I am rather more optimistic about the sector than the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
1728
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked about the final year of the Comprehensive Spending Review. There will be further announcements later this year about what will be provided for the HE sector. I believe that the announcements will be well received.
Perhaps I should say to my noble friend Lord Shore that the package we have announced allows for greater student numbers, for improving quality, for raising standards, for supporting capital improvements and for boosting research. That is a demanding agenda. It has implications for both the management and staffing of our universities. The systems for determining the terms and conditions of staff in the sector need to be capable of reflecting the importance of greater flexibility and responsiveness in meeting the challenges of the coming years, as the CVCP and SCOP have recognised, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, has mentioned.
I turn now to my noble friend's Bill, which attempts to put such systems in place. The Bill proposes the creation of a body, appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to examine and report on such matters relating to the remuneration and other terms and conditions of academic and academic-related staff in HE. It also allows for the implementation by secondary legislation of the recommendations of the review body. It is an interesting idea, but it is one on which I have a number of reservations. Perhaps I may explain why.
I know that pay is important. I can recognise that people in the sector want to improve their pay and other terms and conditions of employment. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friend Lord McCarthy, that I know that academics work extremely hard. There is no question about that. I also accept, as nearly all noble Lords have commented, that there was a relative decline in the pay of academics under the previous government. However, I am puzzled by the figure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shore of a 1.1 per cent increase in real terms since 1981. The previous AUT figures that we have had quoted to us are of a 12 per cent increase in real terms since 1981. I am therefore a little confused as to where the lower figure comes from.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Minister mentioned a figure of 12 per cent. From what source does the figure originate? Who supplies the figures?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the figure of 12 per cent comes from the AUT. The Government's figure, which is based on the new earnings survey of male full-time staff only, and therefore is not a complete figure, is of an 18 per cent increase in real terms over the period. I recognise that it compares badly with the increases awarded to many other comparable non-manual workers in the public sector. But I must make clear and remind your Lordships that under current arrangements the question of salaries and indeed other terms and conditions for all staff in higher education is a matter for the employers to determine. The Government play no part in the negotiations between the employers and staff representatives and are not involved in the setting of pay levels in higher

1729
education. The Bett committee, about which I shall say a little more shortly, was established by the higher education employers, not by the Government. It will report to them and not to Ministers.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy has referred to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and his committee looked into the question of the sector's employment framework and considered options for the future determination of pay levels. The Dearing committee looked at a number of possibilities, including national pay bargaining, local pay bargaining, a standing pay review body and a statutory pay review body. The committee discussed the pros and cons of each of those options. When the Dearing committee published its report in July 1997 it did not recommend a change to the arrangements that I outlined earlier. It took the view that questions of remuneration should not be taken in isolation, rather that the whole issue of the terms and conditions of all staff in higher education should be looked at together. As my noble friend said, Dearing therefore recommended that an independent review committee should be established by the HE employers to look at the framework for determining the pay and conditions of service of all staff employed in the sector. The Universities and Colleges Employers' Association took forward that recommendation. It established a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Michael Bett at the beginning of last year.
1 stress again that it is not a government review and that the committee's report and recommendations will not be addressed to the Government; rather it will report to the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association. As I understand it, the Bett committee has been considering a wide range of issues—pay levels, pay structures, terms and conditions of service and possible frameworks for determining pay and conditions. As part of its work, it has commissioned research and invited the views of a great many interested parties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked about the Government's evidence to the committee. The Government's evidence is a public document. I shall be very happy to send her a copy rather than go through what we said at the time. Incidentally, we made no comment, one way or the other, on a pay review body.
Like other noble Lords, I have seen reports in the press in recent weeks as to the content and conclusions of the committee's report. Like them, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on what is really speculation. I understand that the committee is due to publish its report in the next two or three weeks. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the report has not been delayed because of the views of the Treasury; it is a report to employers. It, will then be for the employers and the representatives of university staff to discuss the committee's recommendations and agree a way forward. It is the Government's hope that the higher education sector will find that the report's conclusions provide a framework for taking forward negotiations on pay and conditions for future years.
But I must stress, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble friend Lord Shore, that the report has not yet been published. 'The Government
1730
believe that it would not be wise to pre-empt the conclusions of the Bett committee and the negotiations on its recommendations by moving to set up a pay review body for academic and academic-related staff as my noble friend proposes. The Bett committee has been considering these important and complex issues for the best part of 14 months. I am sure that the committee has thought long and hard about what is the right way ahead for the sector when it comes to the methods of determining terms and conditions of employment. It does not seem right to me that, in advance of the report being published, we should now be discussing proposed legislation to introduce a pay review body for one section, and one section only, of higher education staff—a proposal that may or may not figure in the Bett report.
The normal method of determining pay is by negotiation between the employer and employees' representatives. The normal pay negotiating process—between the parties directly affected—gives the best opportunity to reach settlements that reflect the circumstances and requirements of the employer and of staff. There does not seem to me to be a compelling reason to override them in this case.
Alternative pay determination procedures, such as a pay review body, need to be considered only if there are factors preventing the proper operation of the collective bargaining process. These might include limitations on the ability of either side to participate in negotiations, or inhibitions placed on the negotiating process by sensitivities to any disputes arising. Those inhibitions would need to be on a scale which justified putting pay issues in the hands of a third party. I do not believe that such considerations apply here.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy mentioned equal opportunities, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. Like many noble Lords, I have seen recent press reports about the pay of women in universities. The legal position is quite clear. Under the Equal Pay Act 1970, it is illegal for an employer to pay a woman employee less than a man for like work—that is, for work that is the same or of a broadly similar nature; for work rated as equivalent to that of a man, where there has been a job evaluation study; or for work of equal value to that of a man in terms of the demands made on them both under such headings as "effort", "skill" and "decision-making".
That legislation has been in place for many years. I expect individual higher education institutions to be taking action now to address any equal pay issues if necessary. The Equal Opportunities Commission's statutory code of practice on equal pay which was issued in 1997 will be helpful in that respect. Its recommendations give employers information and advice on how to review their pay structures to ensure that they are not discriminatory.
A key issue in determining the levels of pay within the sector is affordability. It is important that pay costs should be met within the resources available to the sector and that institutions should be able to manage and control their pay bills. I thought that the noble Baroness,

1731
Lady Sharp, was a little hard on the employers given the very severe constraints under which universities have been operating for quite a long time.
I have explained fully the reservations that I have about the Bill. I recognise the wish of some people in the sector for a pay review body of that type. But I am not altogether persuaded that such a body would be right for higher education. I also believe, as I have already made clear, that it would be unwise to pre-empt the conclusions of the Bett committee's report which is due to be published pretty soon. Of course I shall not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I shall have to disappoint speakers in the debate by saying that the Government cannot give it their support.
3.59 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in an interesting run round the course of this complicated issue. Three out of four speakers supported me, which is not bad. Naturally I agreed with virtually everything they said. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out the growing shortage of British academics. It is partly pay, but it is also the growing shortage of scholarships for graduate education. In my own college we have no British graduates in economics because they cannot get scholarships, even when they get firsts. Nevertheless, it is a sign of the deterioration in the situation and I am glad that he pointed it out.
I agreed with all four points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, about the explosion in size and workload, and the relative loss of pay. As for the 1.1 per cent, my figures come from figures given to me by the NUT. It is simple enough to calculate. Everyone knows the rates of pay of the various categories of academics and all we have to do is put it over the RPI to see what happens. But before we go into Committee, I undertake to look at the figures again. Even if it were 12 per cent, it would be a significant loss, which the Minister does not deny. It would be a loss for which one cannot find many comparable examples in other professional groups.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I did not know that two-thirds of FRSs now live abroad and I can see why. There is a small number of academics, something like 5 per cent., who still do extremely well. They are distinguished and spend the entire summer at Harvard or somewhere similar. Of course, if they are FRSs, they do even better. If they have Nobel awards, they do better still. But that is not the academic profession. We do not compare what actors earn with what Tony Hopkins earns and most academics are nowhere near that grade of people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mostly asked questions of the Minister so they do not necessitate replies from me. However, she asked whether this was the right time for me to introduce such a Bill. The difficulty for anyone trying to change anything, particularly in this country, is that they have to make the point over and over again. It may well be—though my information is that it is not the case—that Sir Michael will deal with the long-term problem. My
1732
information is that Sir Michael understandably will deal with the short-term problem. I am talking about the long-term problem. If we are trying to improve the long-term situation in this country, it will take a long time and that is why we are starting this afternoon.
I turn to what the Minister said. I begin with agreement. I agree that we are not in terminal decline. We have not reached the point where the surgeon says, "There's nothing to be done, it's just a question of time. Would you like me to take her off the machine?" We are not in that situation, but we are getting quite close.
There are three broad categories of universities in this country. I will not give names, but there are those at the top, those in the middle and those at the bottom. The ones at the top will survive. They may not be quite as flashy as MIT but they will survive and in comparative terms the academics there are protected. It is in the middle and at the bottom—those universities which have only just gained that status and have expanded most—where morale is lowest, pay is worse and external opportunities are non-existent because of caseload. That is where something must be done; otherwise, we may go into irreversible decline.
The Minister said that some money would be forthcoming. I did not understand her to say that some of that money would be earmarked for pay in any sense. If only the Minister could say—not necessarily this afternoon but later—that some of that new money would be specially directed to correcting these anomalies! More and more of the money has not gone to pay but to other things. The proportion that goes to pay has been in decline. Therefore, to say that there is new money does not really help.
The Minister said that the Bill was an interesting idea. I am glad that the Minister is interested. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we cannot exonerate the vice-chancellors. Quite apart from the fact that they pay themselves twice or three times as much as professors and control their own pay, they have not done as the National Health Service management did. Without making a fuss, the NHS management fought for the implementation of pay review for nurses and other groups. One may say that they had it to fight for. However, I believe that the vice-chancellors of this country have been supine in agreeing with everything the Government have said. They could have sided with their employees and said that the Government should put in more money, because it is the Government who control the total sum.
It is no good saying that the Government play no part in the negotiations when in effect they tell the vice-chancellors that there is no more money in the kitty. That was what Dearing meant when he said that the system was in chaos and there was no negotiation or movement. He said that somebody outside the bargaining arena determined the total sum, not a pay review board but the Secretary of State and, behind him, the Treasury.
The Minister then reviewed the Bett Committee. I only hope that that committee says what we hope it will say in relation to pay review. I remain convinced—I believe that if it reflects upon it the House will also be

1733
Convinced—that there is nothing to be done but to wait for pay review. If pay review were as interventionist and difficult as the Minister suggested today the Government would seek to abolish teachers' pay review. The Government know very well that that would ruin relationships with teachers. No government abandons and abolishes pay review because it works, and one day it will work for academics. In the meantime, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill
4.9 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill
4.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill, which was introduced into the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Basingstoke, Mr Hunter, completed its passage through another place without amendment and with the complete agreement of all political parties. I hope that we may continue that.
I make clear that the Bill has nothing to do with the mechanics of MOT testing. It is a Bill to improve the structure of the administration of the testing regime. We are dealing here with some 19,000 test stations and 55,000 testers. Twenty-two million motor cars are tested each year.
Computerisation of MOT testing will happen with or without this Bill. But since the public-private partnership is advancing, the Bill enacted would enable us to benefit fully from the advantages that computerisation will bring. First, it will encourage registered keepers to have a valid MOT certificate because police will be able more readily to check on the police national computer. Secondly, the database will promote the efficiency and fairness of the MOT testing regime. The Vehicle Inspectorate will be able better to control the testing standards that prevail across the 19,000 stations.
Thirdly, the computerisation is motorist friendly. It prepares the way for paperless vehicle relicensing transactions and makes it possible one day to renew our vehicle excise duty payments and obtain the licence without producing pieces of paper.
The measure is cost neutral. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that with the introduction of computerisation the MOT test system continues to be fully financing. The Bill sets out how the Vehicle Inspectorate receives its fundings after computerisation.
1734
It has another advantage. With the paperless system one of the largest elements of fraud in the sale and purchase of used motor cars will be removed. There will not be a certificate. We all know that many MOT certificates have been stolen, mislaid, counterfeited, and so on. The confirmation of an MOT test will he electronically transmitted.
Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour this Friday afternoon, it would be remiss of me not to run through the main points of each clause. Clause 1 is intended to aid the enforcement and facilitate the option of introducing paperless vehicle relicensing. It also enables information on the database to be sold to help offset the cost of computerising the scheme. The MOT testing of vehicles is governed by the Road Traffic Act 1988 If I refer to "the Act" it will be in that context. The Act does not refer to nominated testers, although in practice that category of person carries out most MOT tests.
Clause 1(1)(a) inserts a new paragraph and thereby puts nominated testers on to a statutory basis. Subsection (1)(b) replaces the existing subsection of the Act and provides for inspectors whose names are put forward by designated councils to be approved by the Secretary of State. The advantage of computerisation testing is that it will enable the Vehicle Inspectorate to monitor testing standards more efficiently.
Subsection (3) adds two new subsections to Section 45 of the Act. It will enable the Secretary of State to provide or to make arrangements for the provision of courses of instruction in connection with MOT testing. He does so under the present administrative arrangements, but it will enable him to charge fees for attendance on such courses. This is a new provision designed to make those who benefit from such courses responsible for paying for them.
New subsection (6)(b) will require the Secretary of State to establish and maintain records relating to MOT tests. The main objective of that element of the project is to establish and maintain a central record of the MOT slip status of every vehicle subject to MOT testing.
Clause 2 is the most lengthy clause. I shall try to be brief, but it is important to acquaint the House with its provisions. It substitutes for Section 46 of the 1988 Act. It re-enacts the existing provisions and adds further. In Section 46(1)(a), the 1988 Act empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide only for the authorisation of the examiners. However, as we all know, other categories of people are involved in MOT testing. New subsection (1)(a) will ensure that those people are treated in exactly the same way.
New subsection (1)(b) will provide that regulations made under Section 46 of the 1988 Act may establish conditions to be complied with by authorised examiners, nominated testers, inspectors and designated councils. The conditions are principally the successful completion of a course of training and the payment of the prescribed fees.
New subsection (1)(e) deals with the supervision of examinations and so forth. New subsection (1)(g) closely follows Section 46(1)(d) of the 1988 Act and enables the Secretary of State to prescribe the form and particulars of the paper test certificates and notices of refusal, but the

1735
new subsection, also following the 1988 Act, empowers the Secretary of State to provide what the fee should be for duplicated or copied test certificates.
The new proposed subsection (2)(a) will empower the Secretary of State to require that persons connected with MOT testing should successfully complete training courses. The proposed subsection (2)(b) will enable the Secretary of State to require that persons connected with MOT testing should pay such fees as may be prescribed in connection with applications for authorisation.
Subsection (5) relates to access to the MOT database information. This will permit the Secretary of State to make information available from MOT records to prescribed persons on payment of a reasonable fee. The provision will allow the Secretary of State to disclose information from the database in accordance with regulations. It is envisaged that these regulations could, on payment of a reasonable fee, provide for details of a vehicle's MOT history to be issued to people who could demonstrate they have a reasonable cause for wanting such information. The regulations could also provide for the issue to the police of information relating to the MOT status of a vehicle free of charge via the police national computer.
New subsection (6) also relates to the disclosure of information from the proposed database in a rather different circumstance. Regulations made under this provision would enable the Secretary of State to sell anonymised information from the database to such persons and on such terms as he thought fit.
Under the new subsections (5) and (6) there are identifiable markets; for example, manufacturers, retailers, motor associations, research companies, consumers and those who through diverse ways seek to fight crime concerned with stolen and scrap vehicles. To some extent the availability of information may increase, as demand is not absolutely foreseeable.
Clause 3 inserts a new section establishing how the Secretary of State may use records in a proposed MOT database and the database of vehicle records held by the DVLA. It is anticipated that the database held by the Association of British Insurers will to some extent be embraced in this co-relation.
Clause 4 inserts a new Section 46B into the Road Traffic Act 1988. At present a vehicle's MOT test status is usually provided by producing a certificate. In future, it will be possible to use records from the proposed MOT database. The clause makes provision for admitting evidence from those records in court. Legislation to effect that is necessary because such use of information held by a centralised computer database falls outside the provisions of the 1988 Act.
The proposed new subsection (1) provides, therefore, that the database records are an authoritative statement of the test status of a vehicle. The proposed subsection (2) establishes that a document purporting to be part of the database, a copy of a document forming part of the database or a note of information from the database shall be authoritative if it is:
"authenticated by a person authorised to do so by the Secretary of State".
1736
Clause 5 will add a paragraph to Section 66(2)(a) of the 1988 Act. Under that provision, a vehicle may be re-licensed without necessarily presenting an MOT certificate but by reference to the information held on the database.
Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to the Department of Transport fees order. Subsection (1)(a) and (b) define the terms that feature in the next two subsections. Subsection (2) refers to the Department of Transport fees order, which includes a provision relating to fees chargeable by virtue of Section 46 of the 1988 Act. This will require amendment as a result of the Bill.
Subsection (2)(a) and (b) will enable an order that relates only to Section 46 matters, and which is made within 12 months after Royal Assent, to be made subject to negative procedure. This is perhaps a little unusual but the purpose of the time limit is to ensure that the procedure can be used only for matters that flow from the Bill.
Subsection (3)(a) removes the requirement for the affirmative resolution, and subsection (3)(b) emphasises that it can be subject to negative resolution.
Clause 7 introduces the schedule of consequential amendments and repeals two elements of redundant legislation.
Clause 8 deals with financial provisions, and has been the substance of a money resolution debate in the other place. It does not therefore concern us.
Clause 9 provides that the Bill's provisions that relate to operational matters are subject to commencement by order. Clauses 6 and 8 are not subject to commencement by order because their effect is directly linked to implementation of the Bill's other provisions.
The schedule contains consequential amendments relating to the Transport Act 1982, which remains prospective legislation. That was passed when the possible privatisation of the Vehicle Inspectorate was on the agenda. In the event, that never materialised but the legislation still remains. The passage of this Bill demands amendments to that unused Act.
As regards the disclosure and sale of information, provisions are envisaged to enable a mileage record of vehicles to be made by virtue of that being a requirement of the MOT procedure; that is, to record the mileage shown on the speedometer at the time that the car is presented for checks.
The passage of this Bill will make a considerable improvement to the procedures for checking the mileage of motor cars. It will positively deter the clocking of speedometers which has given rise to such anguish not only on the part of the motor industry but most particularly on the part of consumers.
I have been brief, but that is the substance of what the Bill is about. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.25 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, introduced the Bill comprehensively and clearly. Its enactment will help all DV LA customers, private and commercial; it will improve road safety; and it will assist enforcement.
I shall not delay your Lordships on a Friday afternoon beyond planting a thought which may perhaps, at some stage, form part of a regulation. When a vehicle is subject to recall from a manufacturer, it is the manufacturer who contacts the DVLA for the keepers' details pertaining to the recalled vehicles. The manufacturer then writes to each registered keeper with a notice of recall. It is then up to the motorist to present the vehicle to a franchised garage for any necessary items to be checked and, if necessary, modified. Finally, the garage will confirm to the manufacturer that the required work has been completed.
Because it is intended that MOTs will be computerised, would it not be a small—and I use that word guardedly—matter of programming the computer so that any vehicle subject to a recall cannot be given an MOT certificate until that vehicle has been registered by the manufacturer as having had the appropriate work done? There must be some acknowledgement of responsibility in advising the DVLA and that, surely, must he accepted and acted upon by the vehicle manufacturer. After all, if the manufacturer had no need to implement the recall, the procedure would not be necessary.
This Bill is to be welcomed. It will make life easier for most people and much more difficult for the minority.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made a full introduction of the Bill. It does not provide for the computerisation of MOT processes, which is already under way under a public/private partnership scheme, but, as he said, it will enable the widest and most effective use of the new system and in particular, rapid access by the police to MOT records; a movement towards paperless MOT transactions; the use of the information garnered from the central record-keeping of MOT processes for general benefit; and the elimination of theft and forgery of MOT certificates. That was all dealt with very fully by the noble Lord.
There was a very brief discussion of this Bill at Second Reading in another place. As the noble Lord said, there was discussion of a money order and further discussion on Report and Third Reading. Only two items of dispute or discussion emerged from those discussions in another place. The first was the additional cost to motorists for the MOT licence, which amounts to about £1 per licence, to offset the £22 million per annum that it is anticipated the new system will cost once it is under way. The second was the degree of confidentiality which surrounded the ability of the Government to sell to commercial organisations some information that they maintained on their records.
1738
I heard what the noble Lord said in relation to money matters. Nevertheless, that caused a certain amount of worry in another place. It may be helpful—perhaps the Minister already has it in mind—if the noble Baroness could repeat for the benefit of the House the response of the Minister in another place on these matters. I believe that that was broadly as I have indicated; namely, that the cost would be offset by £1 per MOT certificate and, further, that the sale of that additional information would possibly offset the cost to the motorist of the MOT certificate.
The second matter was the commercial sale of the information. Can the Minister confirm, for the benefit of the House, that neither the names of the keepers nor the places where the MOT certificates were granted will be released when the Government sell information from their central records?
On a lighter note, when discussing this little Bill at lunch today, a cynical Member of your Lordships' House said, "Ah, they are going into computerisation just in time to catch the millennium bug". I notice that the timing, provided to us in a background brief, suggests that the detailed design of the scheme—I suppose that means the software—will not start until the year 2000. Therefore, I hope that that pitfall can be avoided.
This Bill is a useful addition to the legislative provision for MOT tests and everything that surrounds them. It seems an admirable way to go forward. There has been no dispute in the other Chamber, and I do not propose to raise any dispute in this Chamber either.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome and support the Bill wholeheartedly. It was conceived during the previous administration, and happily has much cross-party support. I want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth on piloting the Bill through this House and my honourable friend Mr Andrew Hunter, the Member for Basingstoke, for taking it through another place.
My noble friend has stated the aims and objectives of the Bill in detail and with great clarity. The best comment that I can make at this stage is to wish it a speedy passage through the remaining stages, so that it makes its way on to the statute book as soon as possible. It is a good, sensible measure and I commend it to the House.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I want to join other noble Lords in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, on his masterly summing up of the main features of the Bi11. The Government welcome the introduction of this Bill and give it their firm support. The Bill is, as he said, all about getting the most out of the proposed modernisation of the MOT testing scheme by computerising many of the administrative processes associated with it.

1739
I shall seek to deal with the specific points raised. If I fail to cover any, I shall not only write to the noble Lord who raised the point but also to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, raised the issue of additional costs to motorists. There will be an additional cost of around £1 a test involved in introducing computerisation. However, that cost will bring many benefits, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. If the Government can sell information from the database, any profit will be used to reduce the cost to the motorist.
Concerns have been raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, in relation to the provisions of the Bill which involve disclosure of information. I can confirm that the details of the registered keeper will not be liable to be disclosed because, as Clause 1 indicates, that information will not be on the database. Full information would only be disclosed on a case by case basis when the Secretary of State was satisfied that there was a legitimate and reasonable cause for so doing; for example, an imminent purchase of a vehicle. Where information was being disclosed in bulk, it would he completely anonymous and would not contain any names and addresses. It is true that under the provisions of the Bill more information would be widely available in relation to individual vehicles but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, that information would be particularly beneficial to enforcement organisations and those who wished to combat fraud.
My noble friend Lord Simon is concerned about the issue of vehicle safety recall. The procedure for recalling vehicles is subject to a code of practice which is monitored closely by the Vehicle Inspectorate on behalf of Ministers of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Those arrangements generally work well, but the Government are interested in developing ways in which the system could be made more effective. It is possible that the project to introduce computerisation into the MOT scheme might be able to help, perhaps by enabling MOT testers to alert vehicle presenters to the fact that their vehicle had been subject to a manufacturer's recall campaign. That is something at which the Government are already looking in the process of drawing up a list of requirements which the computerisation contracts will be expected to fulfil.
1740
I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that the scheme will be proof against the millennium bug. However, that is not a matter for this Bill. If the idea turns out to be a good one and if it can be made to work in a practicable way, it may be incorporated into the MOT computerisation project anyway.
In conclusion, I can only reiterate the Government's firm support for this Bill. As I have made clear, relying also on the superb presentation of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, essentially its provisions have only one main objective; that is, to help to ensure that it can deliver the maximum benefit possible from the introduction of computerisation into the MOT scheme. With the benefit of this new legislation, the Government will be able to deliver a modern MOT scheme which will be much easier to enforce. The provisions of this Bill will make it possible to make information widely available from the proposed database of records of MOT testing of 22 million vehicles every year in Great Britain with the safeguards to which I referred. That all amounts to taking a valuable step in a very worthwhile direction. I hope your Lordships agree.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short Second Reading debate and am delighted to have such support.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned the recall of vehicles. It is a serious point because around 15 to 25 per cent of all recalled vehicles are never presented. If we could at some time later devise a scheme within the proposed new infrastructure, it would be enormously helpful and add to the safety element.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was being somewhat amusing in her remarks about the millennium bug, but my understanding is that the contract—the licence—to operate the scheme is unlikely to be let until much later in the year. She will, of course, appreciate that it could be many weeks after the letting of the contract before a computer ever arrives on the scene. I anticipated the support of my noble friend Lady Seccombe and I am grateful for it. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before five o'clock.

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: Apportionment of Work
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary: Apportionment of Work
  Official Development Assistance
  Official Development Assistance
  Health Bill: Consultation Document
  Health Bill: Consultation Document
  Medicines: Advertising
  Medicines: Advertising
  GM Crops: Farm-scale Evaluations
  GM Crops: Farm-scale Evaluations
  GM Crops: Public Interest and Commercial Secrecy
  GM Crops: Public Interest and Commercial Secrecy
  Aircraft: Cabin Ventilation
  Aircraft: Cabin Ventilation
  Lead Shot Regulations: Devolved Legislation
  Lead Shot Regulations: Devolved Legislation
  Hearing Loss
  Hearing Loss
  Abattoirs: Bovine and Porcine Carcasses
  Abattoirs: Bovine and Porcine Carcasses
  Abattoirs: Cost of Specified Risk Material Controls
  Abattoirs: Cost of Specified Risk Material Controls
  Pet Quarantine Reform
  Pet Quarantine Reform
  GM Crops and Foods: EC Directives
  GM Crops and Foods: EC Directives
  Scottish Parliament: Holyrood Building
  Scottish Parliament: Holyrood Building
  Human Cloning: Legislative Competence of Scottish Parliament
  Human Cloning: Legislative Competence of Scottish Parliament