Sitting of 12 June 2000

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

  Lottery Awards
  Gillian Merron: What steps he has taken to assess the equity of the distribution of lottery awards across the country. [123668]
  The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): We require distributors to take into account the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding and the need to reduce economic and social deprivation. We monitor lottery awards given to each constituency and remain keen to encourage a fairer distribution of funding across the country.
  Gillian Merron: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the distributing bodies press ahead with redressing imbalances throughout the country, so that Lincoln people can see the gap close between the welcome £9.5 million that they have so far received and the national average of £11.9 million?
  Kate Hoey: Yes, that is exactly why we set up the report into lottery funding for coalfield areas and former mining communities. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a package of measures designed to ensure that those areas receive greater benefit from national lottery money. We have to try to get more equitable funding, while recognising that some areas of greater economic and social deprivation have not been as proactive as they might have been about getting their forms filled in and so attracting benefit from the lottery. Now, with the new powers under the National Lottery Act 1998, we are seeing changes and increases; it is all about equity.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the point that I made at the Department's previous Question Time, has the Minister had time to consider the amount and proportion of funds going to outer London boroughs? Understandably, much of the money that goes to London goes to great national institutions, and although we accept that the quality of applications is an important
  620
  factor, there is a feeling among those living on the outskirts of London that we are not being dealt with correctly.
  Kate Hoey: I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels. The amount of money that has gone to my constituency of Vauxhall seems huge, because it has several major tourist attractions along the River Thames; however, little money has gone into community projects. Furthermore, if a constituency contains the head office of an organisation, that constituency is credited with having received the money given to the organisation, even if it is spent in many other places and none is spent in the constituency itself.
  Helen Jones: My hon. Friend touches on an important point about how we assess the sums that go to each constituency. Will she discuss with the National Lottery Charities Board how it arrives at its figures? Many of the grants included in figures sent to me were made not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts). Although I have no objection to my hon. Friend's constituency receiving grants, I would prefer that they were not included in the allocation for my constituency. Will my hon. Friend the Minister also examine the assessment of ticket sales, whereby tickets sales in town centres are often allocated to only one constituency, even though they are bought by people from several neighbouring constituencies?
  Kate Hoey: As I said, I fully understand hon. Members' concerns. It is frustrating to be told that one's constituency is receiving a lot of money when one knows that it is not, in fact, going there. Such matters will be the subject of our on-going discussions and of the negotiations surrounding the award of the new franchise. The ticket-buying public want to know where their money goes, and they want the figures to be clear and objective; similarly, we as Members of Parliament want to know what is happening in our constituencies.
  Mr. John Greenway: First, will the Minister join me in wishing the England team all success in Euro 2000, and echo our hope for a peaceful, trouble-free tournament?
  On the question of lottery funding, does the hon. Lady agree with the recent comments of the vice-chairman of Sport England, Des Wilson? He says that because of the Government's raid on the lottery and the recent decline in ticket sales,
  many community organisations that could have taken a positive reply for granted five years back will now be disappointed. The money just won't be there.
  Is not the truth that the Government's abuse of the lottery and total abandonment of the arm's-length and additionality principles will rob sports clubs throughout the country, especially those in areas that have done less well, of support for important projects that they could reasonably have expected to receive by now?
  Kate Hoey: Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in sending the England team our best wishes for their first match tonight—and, indeed, for the whole tournament.

  621
  We are especially keen for the tournament to be free of trouble, and for our supporters to represent our country in the best possible manner.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman has misquoted the vice-chairman of Sport England. I heard Des Wilson speak on Radio 5 just a few hours after that quote came out, and he did not say that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the lottery was set up five years ago, it was said that about £1.8 billion would go to sport over the first seven years of the contract. That was guaranteed. In fact, the sum will be increased. The hon. Gentleman can talk about percentages and new developments, but the amount going to sport over the seven years will be more than was originally promised. In addition, some of the money from the new opportunities fund goes directly to after-school activities related to sport. Of course, we want more people to play the lottery, because if people do not buy tickets, there will be no money for any of the good causes.

  Digital TV
  Mr. Ben Chapman: What action he is taking to promote take-up of digital TV. [123669]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We have set in place two firm tests of availability and affordability, which must be met before the full switchover to digital television can take place. In the meantime, we are working with the industry on a public information campaign about digital television, and we will shortly set up a viewers panel to ensure that policy is well informed by consumer concerns.
  Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when digital was rolled out, it was done in a way that perpetuated the anomalies inherent in the analogue system, in that some parts of the United Kingdom receive regional television coverage that is entirely inappropriate to the area? For example, my constituency, which is patently in the north-west, gets terrestrial television only from Wales and the midlands. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any future broadcasting Bill, broadcasters should be required to provide appropriate regional television, and that the take-up of digital television would thereby be enhanced?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises a genuine concern with regard to analogue coverage, and I am well aware of the problems faced by a number of his constituents in that respect. Digital terrestrial television at present covers only about half of the country. That proportion will increase progressively over the next two years. My aim is to ensure that as digital television becomes universally available, it will provide a solution to the problem faced by my hon. Friend's constituents.
  My hon. Friend's question highlights the fact that it is not only infrastructure that matters, but content as well. We have noted in recent days considerable concern about some of the content on television, particularly in relation to Channel 5. Government cannot and should not directly intervene, but I believe that the broadcasters have a commercial and a moral duty to take good account of the views of the public, and I urge them to do so.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the consequences of the roll-out
  622
  of digital television is even more control of what people can receive is placed in the hands of the broadcasters? I am thinking, in particular, of access to sport. Individual broadcasters have a monopoly of the supply of television coverage of a particular sport to sections of the population who are keen on that sport. Should the Government now examine that issue?
  Mr. Smith: We have put in place the list of protected sporting events that are of national importance and must be shown free to air on terrestrial television. Shortly after coming to office, we expanded that list to include more sporting events. In addition, it is important that the terrestrial broadcasters, not just the subscription broadcasters, ensure that sport forms a key part of their provision for the public. I certainly look to the terrestrial broadcasters to do that.
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does my right hon. Friend's definition of digital television include digital access to the internet? We do not want digital television sets that deliver only television programmes. We want them to offer internet access as well. Does my right hon. Friend's definition that digital television should be widespread and available to 95 per cent. or more of the population include internet access?
  Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, perhaps more than most, the boundaries between what we previously described as television and personal telephonic communication have been merging rapidly in recent years. In my speech to the Royal Television Society in September, I made it clear that one of our aims is to ensure that universal access to the internet forms part of the universal availability of digital television.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on his plans for the millennium dome. [123670]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Millennium Commission's plans for the dome are, first, to help to ensure that the experience draws in increasing numbers of visitors throughout the rest of this year; they will experience the same great enjoyment as previous visitors. Secondly, it will assist with the regeneration of a previously derelict area of south-east London, which is in real need. Thirdly, it will provide a lasting legacy for the future.
  Mr. Paterson: In the same spirit, the Prime Minister made an amazing speech in February to outline why the dome was good for Britain. He said that the project was on target and on budget, that it would not take taxpayers' money, and that it would take only £400 million of lottery funds. Every one of us has projects in our constituencies that cry out for lottery funds, yet this hideous failure has gobbled up £538 million. Will the Secretary of State now stand up and say that enough is enough, and that not one penny more of lottery funds—or any other public funds—will be spent on that national humiliation?
  Mr. Smith: May I make three points to the hon. Gentleman? First, it was the previous Government who

  623
  began the project. Secondly, 85 per cent. of visitors to the dome say that it is a hugely enjoyable experience, which they would recommend to their friends and neighbours. Thirdly, the Millennium Commission has made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must cut its coat according to its cloth and operate within the budget that has been allocated to it.
  Mr. Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dome's detractors have failed to recognise the benefits that it has brought to its part of London? Before the millennium project, there were no transport links, other than heavy rail, for people travelling to central London. The site was one of the biggest derelict areas, and heavily contaminated. Without a project of the dome's size, it probably would not have been decontaminated and used. More importantly, the project brought economic development and jobs to an area of London where, only a few miles from here, there are some of the most deprived communities in this country.
  Mr. Paterson: What about Shropshire?
  Mr. Efford: Opposition Members clearly do not understand the need for economic development and intervention to create jobs where there is no hope of jobs. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to ensure that that issue remains at the top of his agenda when he considers future uses for the dome?
  Mr. Smith: I certainly give that undertaking, although I am not personally involved in the decision about the dome's future legacy. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are involved.
  My hon. Friend's point about the dome's regeneration impact on the whole of south-east London is well made. That was one of the major reasons for the birth of the project, which was conceived by the Conservative party. Conservative Members' attempts to do down the project does them no credit and the country no good.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State's attempts, on the one hand to shed responsibility for what has gone wrong with the dome and place it with the previous Conservative Administration, and on the other to pretend that the project is a resounding success, are as convincing as the Prime Minister's performance at the Women's Institute conference last week. Are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would refuse the dome more money? How bad do things have to get? How deep must the hole be dug? In its contempt for history, its cheap gimmickry and its botched execution, the dome has become the perfect symbol of new Labour. Value for money, financial responsibility, lottery cash, and even public opinion, count for nothing, because what matters most to the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Millennium Commission is saving the Government's face.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's assessment flies in the face of the assessment of the two and a half million people who have already visited the dome and enjoyed the experience enormously. Of course, the numbers have been lower than those originally projected, as everyone knows, and I accept that that has created financial
  624
  problems. However, we have made it extremely clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau, the chief executive of NMEC, confirmed last week that he would not return to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.
  Mr. Ainsworth: All I can say is, come off it. The Government are not having much luck. Even the new millennium bridge is beginning to look a little like new Labour. From a distance it is a rather attractive proposition, but once tested, it is given to bouts of violent wobbling.
  I know that the Government do not like answering questions about the dome's finances. All too often, we are batted away with bogus claims about commercial confidentiality. However, it is unusual not to get any response at all, not even a holding reply. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that I tabled on 25 May, and say which accountancy firms have been paid by the dome and for what purposes?
  Mr. Smith: That question will be answered in due course in the normal way.
  The hon. Gentleman takes the apparent initial difficulties with the millennium bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside rather lightly. I do not. The safety of pedestrians on bridge is surely paramount, which is why I have already asked Millennium Commission officials for urgent advice on what measures need to be taken to ensure the public's safety. I would have thought that that was rather more important than making a few cheap jokes, as the hon. Gentleman did.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on access to museums. [123671]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. We have enabled national museums that are funded by my Department and offer free admission to continue to offer it. We have scrapped entry charges for children and the over-60s to museums that currently charge for admission. Funds have been set aside to enable trustees to introduce a standard admission charge of £1 from September 2001, and to grant free admission to all those, including people with disabilities, who are in receipt of the major social security benefits.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister scrap his fatuous, insulting and politically correct proposal that museums are to have funds withheld if they fail to attract enough ethnic minority visitors? If he will not scrap that ludicrous scheme, how are museums expected to distinguish between ethnic minorities and, for example, natives who are excessively suntanned? Will that ludicrous policy also apply to this place—which, thanks to the Prime Minister's indifference, is rapidly turning into the museum of democracy?
  Mr. Alan Howarth: That scheme is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination, fed by a peculiarly silly article in The Daily Telegraph. I assure him that there are no quotas and that there is no link between museum funding and ethnic minority visitor numbers. Of course we want people from all backgrounds to have access to the best of our culture. I regularly discuss that matter with the chairmen of trustees and the directors of our national museums and galleries, all of whom share the Government's enthusiasm for ensuring that our museums are accessible to the many, not the few. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not share that vision.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on presiding over a great increase in the number, and the enthusiasm, of people in this country who visit museums and art galleries. What discussions has my hon. Friend the Minister had with the Treasury on VAT, which, of course, limits the opportunities that we had hoped for as a result of my right hon. Friend's initiatives?
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words. We have scrapped admission charges for children and pensioners at 23 museums and galleries, and, in the first year, child visitor figures are up 18 per cent. In the two months since we abolished admission charges for pensioners, recorded numbers of visitors over 60 have increased almost two and a half times, which is encouraging.
  My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the tension between our ambition to ensure that our museums and galleries are accessible to the largest number of people, and the impact of the VAT regime, which penalises museums and galleries that charge for entry. With that in mind, I convened a meeting last year with the directors of national museums and galleries and the National Art Collections Fund, as a result of which the NACF produced an extremely helpful paper, which is assisting us in our discussions with the Treasury.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it still the Government's intention that there should be free access for all to national museums and galleries, and is not the issue essentially one of working out ways of bringing that about and calculating the cost? Will the views of people such as generous benefactors—for example, Sir Denis Mahon—be borne in mind when it comes to the crunch?
  Further to the point about VAT, in the two months since the Budget, have the Minister and his colleagues made progress in the discussion about the possibility of adding national museums and galleries to the bodies covered by section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994? That seems to be the most sensible way of avoiding the nonsense whereby the Government give cash grants to national institutions and then reclaim them through VAT.
  Mr. Howarth: I readily echo the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to Sir Denis Mahon, who has been a most remarkable benefactor of our national museums and galleries. As we said in our pre-election document, "Create the future", access will be a cornerstone of our
  626
  cultural policy, and we remain committed to making the best progress that we can towards extending free entry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that section 33 of the VAT Act seems to be the most promising avenue to enable us to overcome that important snag, and we shall continue to explore it.
  Ms Claire Ward: What legal advice did Ministers receive before deciding to introduce free admission for the over-60s rather than linking it to pension age? Has that advice been made available to other Departments?
  Mr. Howarth: If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend on that point. We had to make a judgment, and it did not seem sensible to persist with gender differentiation in free access for people of retirement age. I hope that she will feel that in opting for 60 rather than 65 we erred on the right side.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the progress that has been made on charges by the national museum and galleries of Wales, with free entry available not only to children and pensioners but to students and unemployed people? Is not that a good model for the other parts of these islands, and will he congratulate the national museum of Wales and the National Assembly for Wales on that scheme?
  Mr. Howarth: I do, with pleasure.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The fact is that Labour stumbled into making a pledge about universal free access without having even thought about the Treasury implications. Is the Minister not aware of the growing frustration of museum directors and trustees about the way in which their service agreements are becoming increasingly intrusive, patronising and political? Does he not understand that they resent being bullied on access, when they have always tried to increase access anyway?
  Now that the Government have completed the U-turn on their pledge for universal free admission, what practical assistance will the Minister provide to all the other museums throughout the country, many of which are local, which face an uncertain future under this Government?
  Mr. Howarth: I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We did not make the pledge that he described. Far from what he says being correct, the chairmen of trustees and the directors of national museums and galleries appreciate the opportunity that the negotiation of funding agreements gives them to explore our shared objectives in depth.
  As for the important issue of how we are to ensure better support for regional museums and galleries, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the £15 million designation challenge fund, which is already in place, to the funds to support museums and galleries in education spending and investment in information technology, and to the extension of the heritage lottery fund's access fund by £3 million a year into the future.

  National Foundation for Youth Music
  Ms Glenda Jackson: How many schools are expected to benefit from the National Foundation for Youth Music in its first year. [123674]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The National Foundation for Youth Music's remit is to support activities for young people that take place largely outside the formal education sector. However, as applicants are encouraged to form partnerships with the wider community, there will be benefits for schools. The foundation is currently considering applications under Music Maker, which aims to benefit up to 120,000 children, and Singing Challenge, which will serve at least 15,000 children. The instrument amnesty has attracted approximately 5,000 unused instruments, which will be re-routed to up to 1,000 organisations working with young people.
  Ms Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely heartening reply, which shows the support provided not only by the foundation but by the Government, highlighting the importance of music making and ensuring that all our children have the ability to deal with the difficulties of music and musical instruments. Did not the previous Government make the most swingeing and savaging attacks, reducing the ability of all our children to enjoy the pleasure of music making? Although every part of the country suffered severe deprivation under the Conservative Government, will he ask the foundation to ensure that some of the most seriously deprived areas of the country will be at the top of its list, so that their children have access to music and music making?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the serious decline in musical instrument teaching for young people in this country over the past 15 to 20 years. We have begun to put that right through the establishment of the national foundation and through money from the standards fund, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has also made available. Of course those initiatives will help in the areas that suffered most, especially in areas of social deprivation, where the need is arguably greatest.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Did the Secretary of State note the reported comments last week by the head of the Yehudi Menuhin school, who said that opportunities for teaching music, art and drama were being squeezed out of the curriculum in schools throughout the country? Does he recognise that that problem is far from being confined to the past, but is continuing and getting worse? Is the Secretary of State doing anything in conjunction with his colleague in the Department for Education and Employment to set the record straight?
  Mr. Smith: I did note those comments, and they do not reflect what is happening across the country as a whole. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made £150 million available to local education authorities through the music standards fund. Several local education authorities, some controlled by the
  628
  Conservative party, have not taken up that funding. The Department for Education and Employment cannot force local education authorities to take up the money, but it is there.

  Lottery Awards
  Mr. Tony McWalter: What proportion of the national lottery funds allocated to (a) the arts and (b) sport has been allocated to dance. [123675]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Arts Council of England has awarded lottery funds to 563 dance projects, totalling over £136 million—11 per cent. of the total ACE lottery awards made. Sport England has awarded funds to six specific movement and dance projects totalling £697,016–0.1 per cent. of the total lottery funds awarded by Sport England. Sums awarded to other projects in which dance is an element further increase those totals.
  Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and for his continued interest in the development of dance in Britain, but is he aware that that very low figure for sport does not do justice to the fact that dance provides the main opportunity that many young girls have to develop kinaesthetic ability and enjoy competitive recreation? Will he ensure that the figure for sport is significantly increased in future, so that that population can be properly served?
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in that subject and look forward to meeting him and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) before long to pursue our discussion at a meeting in my Department. In the meantime, I shall certainly talk to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.
  However, as my hon. Friend knows, it is not for us to instruct the lottery distributors what particular projects they ought to support, although, with his assistance, we can ensure that the significance of supporting dance in schools and as an aspect of sport is more widely appreciated.

  Royal Parks Constabulary
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When he last met the chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary to discuss the powers of constables. [123676]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I have met the acting chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary on several occasions to discuss that point. I will meet the new chief executive of the Royal Parks Agency regularly once he takes post on 10 July. I also meet, and receive advice from, the Royal Parks Advisory Board. We shall shortly undertake a review of the Royal Parks Constabulary.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister confirm that the chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary and the

  629
  chief constables of the Ministry of Defence and the British Transport police have asked for the powers set out in my Police Bill? What is he going to do about that and when?
  Mr. Howarth: As I said, we shall review the Royal Parks Constabulary, and the issue that my hon. Friend raises will undoubtedly be an important focus of that review.

  Theatre
  Mr. Paul Flynn: What has been the percentage change in the (a) level of public subsidies and (b) size of audiences for live theatre in the past 10 years. [123677]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Public subsidy for theatre decreased by about 1 per cent. in real terms in the 10 years to 1997–98, but will have increased by 7.2 per cent. in real terms between then and 2000–01. Meanwhile, in the 10 years to 1997—the last year for which figures are currently available—audiences for subsidised theatre decreased by about 16 per cent.
  Mr. Flynn: Does not that reveal a bleak situation? The majority of live theatres around the country outside tourist areas represent an art form in decline. While we would all say that live theatre is an important part of the artistic inheritance of all the nations of Britain, perhaps the time has come to consider subsidising those of great artistic excellence and to reconsider transferring money to booming art forms—for example, the publication of books of poetry has doubled in the past five years—and the infinite opportunities that the new technologies present to provide live theatre and other art forms universally through the internet.
  Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that those figures reveal that a small reduction in subsidy starves theatre of funds and results in a much greater decline in audiences. Therefore, reversing that decline, as we are in the process of doing, has been one of the important parts of the extra investment that we have put in place with the Arts Council. I am pleased that the Arts Council will allocate £1.4 million to literature in 2000–01, and more than 70 per cent. of that will be spent directly or indirectly on poetry.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I implore the Secretary of State to ignore what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has just said and to do all he can to encourage live theatre, which is one of Britain's national treasures, not only in the west end but in provincial theatres all over the country. When there is so much spare capacity, it is a great shame that people and young schoolchildren who would dearly love to go to live theatre are unable to do so. Will he ask the theatres to allow more people to see live theatre by encouraging either discount schemes or the use of spare capacity by schoolchildren?
  Mr. Smith: For once, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the point of the new audiences fund, which we put in place two years ago and have continued since. It is aimed particularly at helping
  630
  people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to do so, to see not only theatre but all forms of the performing arts. I am acutely aware of the plight of regional theatre—it has been highlighted by the Boyden report, which the Arts Council recently published—and, together with the Arts Council and the regional arts boards, we are considering how we can help in that matter.

  Urban Regeneration
  Ms Hazel Blears: What assessment he has made of the impact of millennium projects on the regeneration of urban areas. [123679]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Millennium projects are already making a significant impact in urban areas across the United Kingdom, providing new community facilities, cultural and educational resources, improved public spaces and boosted economies. The Lowry centre in Salford, the international centre for life in Newcastle and Tate Modern have all opened within the last couple of months. The Millennium Commission will be undertaking a detailed large-scale economic impact assessment of its capital projects this summer.
  Ms Blears: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to attend the opening of the magnificent Lowry centre. I hope that he enjoyed the experience.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for centres such as the Lowry to involve their local communities, as well as providing venues for world-class opera, ballet and other performances? Will he confirm that his Department intends to continue expanding the fund to build new audiences and, crucially, to invest in the skills, talent and creativity of local young people so that they see the Lowry as their theatre—their centre—and a place where they can express the talents that we all know they possess?
  Mr. Smith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the role that she has played, on Salford council and subsequently as Salford's Member of Parliament, in ensuring that the Lowry has been an enormous success.
  The Lowry has already attracted a £72 million retail and leisure development—a commercial development—to an adjacent site. It has been a catalyst for the £4 million water quarter improvement programme in the area, and it is estimated that it has helped to create some 6,500 jobs in the local economy. That demonstrates that major cultural capital projects rooted in the support of the local community can be a major force for regeneration.
  Mr. John Bercow: Can the right hon. Gentleman offer the House some assessment of the proportion of the jobs to which he just referred that have been created in the private sector, and the proportion created in the public sector? Can he also offer a rough indication of the proportion of those important jobs that he expects to be sustained?
  Mr. Smith: I certainly expect the jobs in whole to be sustained. I do not know the exact breakdown between

  631
  the public and private sectors, but I imagine that the overwhelming majority are in the private commercial sector, although some people will be directly employed by the Lowry centre.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2000, Official Report, columns 379–80W, what liaison he has had with the devolved Administrations about nomination of the Forth bridge to UNESCO for world heritage site status; and if he will make a statement about how the UNESCO world heritage committee's priorities for action relate to the Forth bridge. [123680]
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Although my Department liaises regularly with the devolved Administrations over United Kingdom world heritage site issues, including the possible order and timing of all future UK nominations, the Scottish Executive will decide when they wish to nominate the Forth bridge. UNESCO's world heritage committee is considering priorities for the number and types of sites it would like to see nominated from all countries in the future, and that will affect UK nominations.
  Mr. Dalyell: When is the consideration to which my hon. Friend refers likely to reach a conclusion?
  Mr. Howarth: I cannot answer my hon. Friend on that point, as it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive. I can, however, tell him that the Forth bridge is a category A listed building and, as such, should be properly cared for, whether or not it is nominated as a world heritage site. Should it be nominated, there is an expectation—indeed, I would say a requirement—for the site to be properly maintained to the highest standards in accordance with a management plan.

  Holidays (People With Disabilities)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: What discussions he has had with the English Tourism Council about promoting and widening access to holidays for people with disabilities. [123682]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Widening access to tourism for everyone, including people with disabilities, is a key commitment for the English Tourism Council. I am pleased to note that, this summer, the ETC is publishing "Accessible Britain 2000", a complete list of accommodation awarded a category of accessibility by the tourist boards or Holiday Care under the national accessibility scheme.
  Mr. Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. It is important, given the large number of people who cannot currently take a holiday, many of whom are disabled. Does he, like me, welcome the work done by other organisations such as the Association of British Travel Agents in promoting awareness, and in particular the scheme that it is pursuing with the Royal National Institute for the Blind? Does he agree that many small hoteliers in seaside towns still need advice and assistance
  632
  from the ETC in making their establishments accessible, and will he consider the possibility of using the new opportunities fund for that purpose?
  Mr. Smith: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the importance of encouraging and widening accessibility for people with disabilities. It is a notable fact that about 40 per cent. of the population do not take a holiday. I suspect that a substantial proportion of those do not do so because of difficulties of physical access. We need to continue to encourage the tourism industry to seek to overcome that. One of the features of the industry is that it is made up of many very small enterprises. We need to encourage and enable them to improve accessibility. The ETC will certainly seek to do that.

  Football Taskforce
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What discussions he has had with the football authorities about the football taskforce report on commercial issues, with special reference to the cost of going to professional football matches for families and children. [123683]
  The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on 16 March I met representatives of the Football Association, the premier league and the football league to discuss the Government's response to the report. In further informal discussions with the football authorities and supporters groups, I have made clear the Government's desire that football's new regulatory body—whatever form it takes—should examine the costs of attending football matches.
  Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that the majority report expressed serious concerns about ticket pricing at some clubs and about the price of replica shirts supplied by some football clubs. Those are issues of great importance. Will she recognise the important step that has been taken by Burnley football club, which, newly promoted to the first division, has introduced a children's ticket to all parts of the ground for £35 for next season? Should not all premier clubs ensure that they issue concessionary tickets to all children?
  Kate Hoey: I congratulate Burnley. Indeed, a number of other clubs have introduced quite innovative methods to ensure that children and families are attracted to football, but we take the issue seriously. As I have said, whatever form the regulatory body takes, when we announce our formal conclusions on the taskforce report, that will be a priority.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a restoration of balance in favour of ordinary football-going supporters such as my brother and his family? There should be a restoration in the balance of interests, so that it is not just the commercial interests of big companies that take directors to football matches on a Saturday that are respected but those of ordinary football-goers who enjoy their Saturday.
  Kate Hoey: I am sure that the hon. Lady's family are ordinary football supporters. They are the people without whom football would not be what it is. It is crucial that

  633
  football clubs, whether they be in the premier league or in another division, realise the strength and importance of their supporters and look at things in the long term. They should not just go for the short-term effects of short money, with no long-term solutions for football.

  Swimming
  Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the promotion of swimming in schools. [123684]
  The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Swimming is important in its own right as a school sport and as an essential safety tool. That is why it remains a compulsory element of the national curriculum for physical education, which requires that, by the age of 11, pupils should be able to swim 25 m and should be aware of the principles of water safety.
  Mr. Bercow: I speak as someone who swims badly but persistently five times a week at the Living Well health club at No. 4 Millbank. Does the hon. Lady accept that I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about the diminution in opportunities in schools to participate in swimming? Will she guarantee to arrest the tide? Will she take this opportunity to spell out the importance not only of swimming in general, but of the excellent sport of synchronised swimming in particular?
  Kate Hoey: The only information that the hon. Gentleman has not given me is the time that he goes swimming at the health centre, but I agree about the importance of swimming. Last October, I raised my concerns with Chris Woodhead of the Office for Standards in Education to encourage him and Ofsted to do more in terms of section 10 inspections of school swimming. It is something that a number of Members are interested in. Ofsted has now introduced an extra focused inspection on swimming. We will get the results of that very soon. They will be announced shortly.
  Having watched synchronised swimming, I support it very much. It is a sport that requires a huge amount of physical effort; it is very demanding indeed.

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

  Management of Investments
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What steps the commissioners have taken to transfer day-to-day fund management of UK equities and their fixed interest portfolio; and if he will make a statement. [123698]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have decided to transfer day-to-day fund management of their United Kingdom equities and fixed-interest portfolio to Churches, Charities and Local Authorities Investment Management Ltd. Additionally, several experienced members of the in-house team will
  634
  transfer to preserve continuity of management, which, over the years, has produced such good results for the commissioners. It is planned that the transfer will take place on 30 June 2000.
  Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. One thing that he has not told us, however, is the cost implications. Will large costs and hefty fees be paid to CCLA? If so, what effect will those have on the commissioners' ability to help fund the Church?
  Mr. Bell: The commissioners will, of course, pay CCLA a fee. However, an increase in the overall costs of fund management is not expected to affect the distributions that the commissioners make for support of the Church. The policy remains to provide the maximum sustainable level of support to the Church.

  Church Repairs and Renovations
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: What assessment the commissioners have made of the contribution to the rural economy in England of repairs and renovations to churches. [123699]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The repair, renovation and development by parishes of rural churches make a significant financial contribution to the rural economy, to supporting and encouraging local skilled craftsman and businesses, and to maintaining rural community life.
  Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which confirms the Historic Houses Association's view that that activity maintains about 7,000 jobs in the sector. Does he agree that the traditional labour-intensive skills to which he referred would be further enhanced and encouraged if £18 million of the £123 million that the Church spends yearly on repairs and renovations did not go straight into paying VAT? Will he also use that information to press home those points on colleagues and Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in time for the forthcoming rural White Paper?
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the issue of VAT on church repairs, on which discussions are continuing with the Treasury and the DETR. We are also seeking to persuade the Government not only to review operation of the directive within the European Union, so that it will cover church repairs, but to reduce VAT to 5 per cent.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: In support of the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), and in view of the encouragement that can be taken from the remarks just made by the hon. Gentleman, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even when the Treasury has—as it often has—quite good arguments in principle for a general approach, there is a quite special problem in relation to churches, particularly small churches and large churches in small communities,

  635
  for which the cost of repair and renovation is entirely disproportionate to anything that they can realistically raise?
  Mr. Bell: Those points were made to the Minister for the Arts when we saw him. It is not generally known that we have 16,000 parish churches in rural areas, and that they are among the best maintained in Europe. However, the additional burden of VAT on maintenance of those buildings is a serious burden on local, Church-worshipping communities.

  Assets (1999 Results)
  Mr. Ben Chapman: What implications the commissioners' recently published 1999 results have for their support of the Church; and if he will make a statement. [123700]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The market value of the commissioners' assets stood at £4,400 million at the year end, and the assets provided £156 million in support of the Church's ministry. That sum includes an element of support targeted specifically at parish ministry in dioceses most in need of financial help. The total sum met 20 per cent. of the Church's overall running costs, in 1999, of approximately £760 million.
  Mr. Chapman: Given that, could more be done for the very poorest of parishes? Could some of those funds be used to enable clergy to have decent conditions of service? Could the conditions of service and rights of employment that have increasingly been made available to other people in society now be made available to the clergy as well?
  Mr. Bell: In fact, £20.6 million of parish ministry support is provided by the Church Commissioners, and £15.1 million is targeted to support parish ministry in areas of greatest need. The archbishop's council is examining the content of the clergy remuneration package, the remuneration of clergy in relation to that of other groups and the financial circumstances of clergy, and its review will be given to the General Synod in November 2000.

  Investment in Zimbabwe
  Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the commissioners' policy on investment in Zimbabwe. [123701]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): As at December 1999, the commissioners' overseas equities were valued at £648.1 million. The commissioners have no investments in Zimbabwe.
  Mr. Bercow: In the light of the brutal behaviour of the Zimbabwean Government at home, the way in which they have offended everybody abroad and the fact that they
  636
  are now, without doubt, international pariahs, is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer, on behalf of the Church Commissioners, warms the cockles of my heart?
  Mr. Bell: I am pleased to be able to warm the cockles of the hon. Gentleman's heart. I should point out that the commissioners' overseas investments are managed externally by three fund managers. Those managers have discretionary powers to invest in all world equity markets, including those of the emerging economies, while complying with the commissioners' ethical criteria. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in relation to those criteria.

  Church Land Rents
  Mr. Paul Flynn: What has been the increase in real terms in the level of rents charged for church land in the last 10 years. [123702]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am not able to quantify the 10-year return on commissioners' farm lettings alone, but, over the last 10 years, the total return on all the commissioners' agricultural property has been 9.7 per cent.
  Mr. Flynn: When the commissioners next adjust the rents, could I urge them to read the inspiring words of the Books of Isaiah and Hosea on Christian charity, which urged that it should be extended beyond the human race to the animal species? Could not the Church Commissioners devise a way to reward those tenants who have already banned the cruel activity of fox hunting on their lands?
  Mr. Bell: I would not wish to anticipate the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will listen to it with great interest.

  GM Crops
  Sir Sydney Chapman: What advice the Church Commissioners have received about the growing of GM crops on Church land; and how they intend to monitor the results of the current round of trials. [123703]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Following extensive study and consultation, the Church of England's ethical investments advisory group—a copy of whose report has been placed in the House of Commons Library—has recommended to the commissioners that new agricultural tenancies should contain a clause restricting the use of genetically modified seeds and requiring the express consent of the commissioners to the use of their land for this purpose. The commissioners have considered and accepted this advice.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If it can be shown that there is no damage to the ecological system in introducing genetically modified crops—given, however, that controversy surrounds the subject—would the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree that it might be more

  637
  sensible if the Church Commissioners were unilaterally to change their leases and take over control of matters relating to cropping on their land?
  Mr. Bell: The Church Commissioners have taken fully into account the continued controversy concerning GM crops. In law, the commissioners have no power to change leases already granted, as their tenants enjoy freedom of cropping within the terms of their lease. As responsible stewards of the land that we own, we remain prudently aware of developments in this controversial area from many perspectives, including environmental stewardship.

  Vocations
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on recent trends in the number of vocations. [123704]
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The trends in the number of vocations over the last four years have been rising in all categories—that is, among stipendiary ministry and also non-stipendiary and ordained local ministry. There are approximately 25 per cent. more ordinands in training than there were four years ago.
  Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the Church Commissioners will be able to meet the expenses that that increase anticipates, particularly in respect of the long-term future regarding pensions?
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the burden on the commissioners of meeting pension commitments entered into and to the need to provide a proper stipend and proper conditions for those within the Church. We are on target for that, but we are in the hands of actuaries, who often investigate these matters and give us their views.

Hunting With Dogs
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, I shall make a statement on the report of the committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales, which I am publishing today. Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office.
The House will recall that, last November, I announced that there would be an inquiry into hunting and that Lord Burns had accepted my invitation to be the chairman. The other members of the inquiry were appointed for their expertise in agricultural and rural economics, and in veterinary science. I am most grateful to Lord Burns, and to the members of his committee, for their hard work and for the fact that the report has come in on time.
The committee was not asked to recommend whether hunting should be banned, for that is a matter for Parliament to decide. Nor was it asked to consider moral or ethical issues. The Burns report instead covers four key areas in relation to hunting. First, it considers the contribution that hunting makes to employment and the rural economy as well as to social and cultural aspects of life in rural areas. Secondly, it deals with animal welfare issues and matters of population management. Thirdly, it considers whether drag hunting is a viable alternative to hunting with hounds. The final area covered by the report is an assessment of the consequences of any ban on hunting, and how a ban might be implemented. The report also assesses how some people's concerns in regard to particular aspects of hunting might be addressed should hunting not be banned.
The committee visited different parts of England and Wales to witness at first hand a number of hunting activities. Academics were commissioned to undertake research. The inquiry organised a number of seminars, which were attended by all sides of the debate. It also held public meetings and ensured that working papers were publicly available on its website. This inquiry into hunting was the first official one since the Scott-Henderson inquiry reported to the House in June 1951.
I have had the opportunity to read the Burns report over the weekend. I thoroughly commend it to all right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that when they have had the same chance as I have had to study the report, they will share my view that it is a profoundly impressive study, cogent and well argued, dispassionate and careful in its conclusions.
The report needs to be read and considered as a whole, and it is hard to do justice to its views in a few paragraphs. None the less, the House would, I think, wish me to summarise some of its key observations.
On employment, the report states that
between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs … depend on hunting.
It states that most of the employment effects of a ban could be offset in the long term, which it describes as between seven and 10 years. However,
in the short and medium term, the individual and local effects might be more serious,
as they would be for a number of local communities.
The report contains details of research commissioned in four specific rural communities where hunting is actively pursued, and says that this research suggests higher levels of support for hunting in such areas than previous surveys have indicated.
640
In chapter 6, the committee considers animal welfare aspects of hunting and the relative effects on the welfare of foxes and other species of different methods that are currently used to control their population. It concludes—I quote paragraph 6.49—
There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
The report says that a ban on hunting with dogs would have no significant impact on the population of foxes in lowland areas, but could lead to an increase in the number in upland areas.
Several recommendations are made about the regulation and licensing of hunting if a ban were not imposed, and the committee also concludes that, generally, any ban should apply nationwide, without different legislative provisions in different regions of the country.
The purpose of the inquiry was to get to the facts, in order better to inform the debate. I am sure that when right hon. and hon. Members have read the report they will see that it has achieved that objective.
Let me now turn to the arrangements that I propose to the House for it to consider the report and reach conclusions on it. Right hon. and hon. Members will first want the chance to study the report. Then, subject to the agreement of business managers, I would like the House to have an opportunity, before the recess if at all possible, to debate the report itself, on a motion for the Adjournment.
I want now to say what I propose should follow that debate. In our manifesto, we said that there would be a free vote on hunting with hounds. The Government are, and remain, neutral on the merits of whether hunting with hounds should be banned, but, in the light of that commitment, we have an obligation to ensure that the decisions of the House can have effect.
That is why, when I announced the establishment of the Burns inquiry last November, I said that the Government would provide Government time and assistance to allow the House to come to a proper legislative conclusion on a free vote. Our original plan was to do that by means of a private Member's Bill, drafted with Government assistance, and in Government time, but I now believe that it would be better for the convenience of the House to have a Government Bill, in Government time, containing a series of legislative options on the merits on which there can be free votes. Such a Bill would, I believe, provide for a more structured debate and better allow for consideration of a wider range of alternatives in the light of the report. The House will recall that such an arrangement worked satisfactorily for the Sunday Trading Bill six years ago, in 1994.
In the meantime, arrangements are being made for the main interest groups, and for the police and other relevant public authorities, to be consulted so that the options in the Bill reflect the alternative legal regimes that could properly be put into force. The consultation will take place as soon as possible, and I anticipate that a Bill will be introduced early in the next Session.
I well recognise—all too well—the strength of feeling on this matter. It is only right that all sides of the debate should be given the opportunity to have their point of view considered fairly and that Parliament should then have the chance to come to a proper conclusion. I hope

641
that the House will agree that a procedure of the kind that I have outlined provides that opportunity. Meanwhile, I repeat my thanks to Lord Burns and his committee, and I commend his report to the House.
Mr. David Lidington: First, I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary was heard in silence and Mr. Lidington must be, too.
Mr. Lidington: I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in giving me early sight of both the Burns report and his statement.
On behalf of the Opposition, regardless of our individual opinions, I express our appreciation for the work that Lord Burns and his team have done. In the short time that I have had to acquaint myself with the findings of the report, it has become clear to me that it is a thorough and painstaking piece of work and that all Members of Parliament, on all sides of the argument, would do well to study it in detail.
The fact remains that the Government's introduction of a Bill on hunting is a distraction from the issues that really matter to the people whom we represent. The Government appointed Lord Burns and his committee six months ago. They waited for half a year while that committee examined in meticulous detail the evidence on the subject and consulted individuals and organisations representing all sides of the argument. Astonishingly, however, they could not be bothered even to wait for the report to be delivered to the Home Secretary's desk before they started to brief selected journalists that, regardless of the report's conclusions, they would press forward with their own Bill, in Government time.
The Home Secretary reminded the House that decisions on the options that he proposes will take place on a free vote. However, he will be responsible for introducing a Bill that may create new criminal offences. I have three questions about his responsibilities, and those of his Department, as that Bill is prepared.
First, Lord Burns states that a ban on hunting would be open to challenge under the European convention on human rights. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, over the next few months, he will carry out and make publicly available an analysis by his Department and the Law Officers of the convention's potential impact on the Bill?
Secondly, the Home Secretary's plans involve the creation of new criminal offences. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to include in the Bill a detailed description of the new offences, so that people know exactly where they stand, or does he propose to frame the Bill in more general terms? He will know that Lord Burns drew attention to the importance of that decision.
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman make a detailed assessment of the demands on the police service of enforcing the law if a ban is eventually enacted? Has he consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers on the matter? Does he really regard enforcing laws such as
642
would be involved in a ban on hunting as a priority for our police service, which is especially hard-pressed in rural areas? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Lidington: It is clear from the Burns report that more jobs would be at stake from the Government's proposed Bill than were stake in the recent crisis at Longbridge. Are the Government planning to consider a form of direct compensation, or some other arrangements, to help people whose livelihoods may be taken away from them by an Act of Parliament?
The Home Secretary will know that Lord Burns draws attention to the role that hunts play in respect of dealing with fallen stock, and to the importance of that for the farming community. Are the Government starting to think about alternative arrangements for disposal if the hunts were no longer available to deal with carcases?
When the Bill comes before the House in the next Session, will the Home Secretary confirm that it will apply to England and Wales only, and that any decisions in respect of Scotland will be devolved to the Edinburgh Parliament? If so, will he therefore urge all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster to refrain from taking part in debates and votes on the Bill? Will not this be the first important test of the principle that laws that affect England and Wales should be made by the representatives of England and Wales?
May I conclude on a note of agreement with the Home Secretary? I agreed completely with his statement to The Times in March 1998, when, talking of hunting, he said:
I am well aware there are strong opinions on this matter, but it is not uppermost in the minds of the majority of the population. What they want are decent schools, a decent health service, and to be able to walk down their streets safely.
Has not the Home Secretary's statement today demonstrated, once and for all, that the priorities of this Government are no longer the priorities of the British people?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for the appreciation that he expressed to the noble Lord Burns and to members of his committee.
The hon. Gentleman says that bringing forward a Bill on hunting is a "distraction". There is at stake quite an important constitutional issue, which arose in exactly the same way in respect of shops legislation a dozen years or more ago. It was perfectly plain that the House wished to come to a conclusion on the issue. As it turned out, I was on the losing side, because I was against an extension of Sunday trading. Be that as it may, as a private Member, I strongly believed that the House needed to come to a conclusion. Given that a large number of private Members' Bills and motions had failed to reach a conclusion, the Government of the day took the view that the public expected that there should be a legislative conclusion. They sensibly arranged for a Bill containing a series of options to be introduced, on the merits of which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the argument would be able to come to a conclusion and exercise their own vote. I think that that is a sensible way to proceed.

643
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I agree that a ban is open to challenge under the European convention on human rights. He was right to read out paragraph 10.17 of the report, which says:
Legislation to ban hunting might be open to challenge under Article 1 Protocol 1 … and, possibly, Article 8 … of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Of course, any Bill that is presented to the House by a Minister is subject to a section 19 statement by the Minister presenting it as to whether or not it is compatible with the convention. That will happen in this case. I am glad that Conservative Members have now discovered the merits of our incorporating the European convention on human rights in legislation. Conservative Members keep forgetting this, but they wished the Human Rights Bill well on its Third Reading.
The framing of any Bill will, of course, take careful account of the importance of drafting the criminal offences so that they are comprehensible to the law enforcement authorities, the courts, the police and any potential offenders. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers offered evidence to the Burns inquiry. As I made clear in my statement, we shall, of course, be consulting ACPO and the other police associations in the consultations that are about to take place.
The hon. Gentleman then made a series of comments about whether this was a distraction. His view is obviously not shared by the person who normally takes his role, namely the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). After all, she said under the heading "Widdecombe backs Blair over hunting":
Foxhunting is rightly doomed. It is time for the last "tally ho!"
That is the right hon. Lady's opinion. She has been banished from the House under the freedoms that the Leader of the Opposition offers his members of the shadow Cabinet, and she obviously does not take the view that any difficulties would arise so far on the framing of criminal offences. That is her view. Of course, I shall go into those matters in much greater detail.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman raised the absurd point as to whether Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It is absurd for members of the Conservative party; I thought that, above all, they supported the Union. The change that we introduced was to give a degree of devolution to Scotland in order to bind the Union. It is most interesting that Conservative Members now say that they want to break the Union.
Mr. Michael J. Foster: I congratulate the Home Secretary on his statement, which brings with it the real prospect of an end to the cruel and unnecessary practice of hunting with dogs. I look forward to reading the Burns report, as I urge all Members to do. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what was said way back in November 1999—that, on this matter, after the free vote has been taken, the guillotine may be used and the Parliament Act may be invoked to ensure that the will of the House prevails?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to look forward to reading the report. I emphasise again that I am the only person in the House who has had the opportunity to do so
644
and that it should be read before people come to a final conclusion, whatever side of the argument they take—or none.
As for the procedures of the House, as the Bill will be a Government one in Government time, it follows that the normal procedural arrangements could apply to any such measure.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As the other shadow Home Secretary has not been sent to earth today, I shall tell the Home Secretary that we welcome the report and the use of such a process. Furthermore, we welcome the Government's clarification that they will adopt the Bill in Government time, after a reasonable period has been allowed for people to read and understand the report. The idea of a Bill with options, which has a precedent, seems to us an entirely appropriate way to proceed.
On a practical matter, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a report selling at £32.50 is made fully available to people throughout the country on a website and in other ways, so that everyone who wants to do so can read it?
In relation to the hunting of foxes, deer, mink and hares, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the big issue is whether the country wants to decide that hunting with hounds is the only acceptable or civilised way of dealing with the problems caused by those animals and that, if it is not, the country is entitled to decide that, in a civilised society, we might want to move on and to deal with those animals in other ways? Does he agree that dealing with animal welfare issues is just as much a priority as how we manage the public services? Does he agree that the loss of some jobs and the reordering of the rural economy is of course important, but that it should not be an absolute issue? If jobs that support a particular activity are inappropriate, they may have to change.
On the very proper question of whether the measure might be in breach of the European convention—so that there can be no argument in future—may we have not only the Government's assurance as to the compatibility of such a Bill, but, if necessary, a declaration from the courts in advance that the draft Bill would be compatible with European law? Could a decision about Wales be taken separately from one about England?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and for the procedure that I have outlined. When I saw the price of the report, I, too, thought that it was rather steep. However, the report is available on a website, which is important. I will not respond to the arguments that the hon. Gentleman used to support his opinions; my job today is to deal with issues of process.
On the point about the European convention, the same procedures will have to apply to the proposed Bill to determine whether it is compatible with the convention as apply to any other legislation. That point is laid down in section 19. I am afraid that there is no procedure by which it is possible to gain a pre-emptive declaration by the courts in advance of legislation in respect of a convention point any more than it is in respect of any other point that might be taken before our courts or before the court in Strasbourg. I emphasise that, even were the convention

645
not incorporated into British domestic law before the Bill comes before the House, it is still possible that convention points could have found their way to Strasbourg.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have not said this before, but let me say it now: my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a hero. The Bill is not a distraction because Labour Members speak for the vast majority of people, and that rabble in Parliament square speak for no one but themselves. Is it not the case that the real distinction is not between town and country, but between the people who relish the idea of killing for fun and those who, like me, are repelled by that? The legislation is long overdue. Is my right hon. Friend relieved to hear that, in view of what I have said, I shall withdraw new clause 5 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill?
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his compliment. In my job they are few and far between, so I will savour it. His views are very strongly held and I respect that. However, as with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow up those views. I am grateful to learn—as I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be—that my hon. Friend regards the proposed Bill as an appropriate legislative vehicle for the issue of hunting with hounds.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: To paraphrase Lord Burns, in what I am sure is an excellent report, legislation to ban fox hunting will seriously compromise the welfare of the Government. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen anything in the Burns report or in any of the evidence that has been placed before him that shows him that there is either the necessity or the evidence to justify a ban on fox hunting?
Mr. Straw: Everybody in the House will have to make his or her own judgment about whether fox hunting should or should not be banned. That is a matter for a free vote by individuals. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many Conservative Members—not a majority, I accept—support a ban on hunting with hounds and some Labour Members support a continuation of hunting with hounds. This is quintessentially an issue for a free vote, but I have already explained why I and the Government think that it is important now to bring this matter to a conclusion.
Whether there are arguments in the Burns report that support the views of all sides—there are more than two sides to this argument—is a matter for the readers of the report. Again, I urge hon. Members to read the report before they come to conclusions about it.
Mr. Robin Corbett: May I commend my right hon. Friend on the calm and sensible manner with which he has responded to the views of the overwhelming majority of Members of the House? Did he happen to see photographs on BBC's "Newsnight" of the Beaufort hunt terrier man, Thomas Burton, feeding foxes in man-made dens? Does that not give a lie to claims that this barbaric pastime has anything to do with pest control?
Mr. StrawUnusually, I did not see "Newsnight" that night, but I have seen newspaper reports subsequently. There is considerable discussion in the Burns report of some of the current practices in relation to hunting. As right hon. and hon. Members will see when they read it, the report is categorical that certain practices—including, although I speak only from recollection, those identified in the "Newsnight" report—should be prohibited, whether or not hunting with hounds continues.
Mr. Roger Gale: Nobody in the House will be surprised to know that I welcome any move from any quarter that hastens the day when the hunting of wild animals with hounds is brought to an end. However, I find the Home Secretary's position, with one leg on each side of the barbed wire, a little inelegant. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's selective amnesia and his continued assertion that the previous fox hunting Bill was killed in the House of Lords, when everybody knows that it did not even reach there, it is a fact that he made a clear commitment on television that fox hunting would be brought to an end by the conclusion of this Parliament. I fail to see how that squares with the Home Secretary's statement of agnosticism on the part of the Government. Will he make himself plain—do the Government intend to bring fox hunting to an end within the life of this Parliament or not?
Mr. Straw: I have made myself as plain as possible. Our commitment is to ensure that the House can come to a conclusion about the matter on a free vote. It has always been known—there is no dubiety about it—that the Government, as the Government, are neutral on the matter. What we are doing, as I have already explained, is to ensure that Parliament can come to a sensible conclusion. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to resile from that, given the position he takes overall. As for whether there is time to do it in the lifetime of this Parliament, I remind the House that that does not necessarily expire until late May 2002.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As a Member of Parliament who became involved in putting forward legislation to end hunting with dogs from the moment I was first elected to the House 30 years ago this month, I thank my right hon. Friend for at long last introducing legislation to deal with that odious pursuit. The junior spokesman for the Conservative party—the unspeakable in pursuit of the unbeatable—said that the Bill is a distraction, so can my right hon. Friend explain why there are three times as many Conservatives here this afternoon as there were for their pension debate last Thursday? I hope that I do not have to wait another 30 years for other of my pet causes to be fulfilled—but I am ready to hang around to make sure.
Mr. Straw: I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his 30 years, and I look forward to the celebration in his constituency, which I shall attend, next month. He slightly, and uncharacteristically, understates the position on Conservative attendance, because there may now be three times as many present for this statement as there were for the Opposition day debate on pensions, but there are 10 times as many

647
Conservative Members present as there were for what was flagged up as a major, headline debate on crime, organised by the Conservatives just two weeks ago.
Mr. Alan Duncan: In terms of his party's policy and its purported principles, will the Home Secretary take a moment to explain to the House the basis on which he thinks it is ever right for a majority to constrain the rights of a minority?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman touches on a central issue of how liberal democracies, in the best sense of the phrase, should operate. He is, of course, right to ask that question, which has been consuming political philosophers since political philosophy first developed. Having said that, I have to say that there are many opinions on both sides as to precisely the point at which the criminal law should be imposed by the majority on the minority.
If the hon. Gentleman reads the Scott-Henderson report, published 50 years ago, he will find that it considers that issue. The committee concluded that, at that time, certain practices of hunting generally were sufficiently cruel that they should be banned, but that, at that stage, fox hunting did not come into that category. That was the test that the committee and, subsequently, the House chose to use. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those who support the ban, who include many Labour Members as well as quite a few Opposition Members, take the view that there is sufficient and unnecessary cruelty in fox hunting to warrant a ban. Others take a different view, and the Government, as I have said repeatedly, are neutral on the issue. What is clear, not least from the intense interest generated today, is that the issue can no longer be allowed to fester. Parliament needs to come to a conclusion.
Ms Chris McCafferty: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his historic statement? I should like to pass on the gratitude of the vast majority of my constituents in Calder Valley, who believe that fox hunting is an astonishingly cruel and outmoded activity that has no place in a modern society.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that drag hunting provides a popular and viable alternative to fox hunting that can help to sustain similar jobs in the rural economy? When, in 1997, I visited one of the two manufacturers of riding habits in my constituency, I was surprised and delighted to find that staff expressed more concern about whether the Chancellor would put VAT on children's clothing and how soon we would enter the euro than about fox hunting. The other manufacturer exports 95 per cent. of the clothing it makes to Europe and has won the Queen's award for export to countries that do not have the fox.
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are getting into the Adjournment debate that has been half-promised by the Home Secretary, in that they are debating the issue, not asking questions. I shall take a few, but only a few, more questions, and I hope that they will be both questions and pertinent. Would the Home Secretary care to respond to the hon. Lady?
Mr. Straw: Very briefly, Madam Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. There is an interesting discussion of drag hunting in chapter 8 of the report.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I assure the Home Secretary that the people of Worcestershire,
648
including the city of Worcester, will regard today's announcement as a massive distraction from the real issues facing their county and the country? However, given the Home Secretary's determination to distract the House and the country in this way, will he give an assurance that one of the options contained in the Bill will be the middle way group's proposal for the licensing of hunting, which is a compromise on the issue that satisfies most sensible people?
Mr. Straw: The answer is yes, albeit not directly the middle way group's proposal. As I have said, there are more choices available than simply the one between an outright ban and the continuation of current practice. The committee of inquiry was specifically asked to consider the question of regulation and I do not doubt that the Bill will contain two or three options in addition to what would result from the Bill being negatived, which is the continuation of the status quo.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, and express the hope that we will all read the report? Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that one of the options that he will set out in the Bill will provide for an exemption for the fell packs in the national parks? It is utterly inconceivable that people should be allowed to roam the fells—which tourists visit—shooting foxes and endangering the general public.
Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend will see when he reads the report, different conclusions are reached about the effect of hunting with dogs on the welfare of the foxes hunted, and the effect of a ban in upland areas, compared with other areas of the country. I stated, accurately, the report's conclusion that generally there should be no geographical distinction between the regime that should apply in one area or another. However, the report went on to state that that should be the case unless there were objective reasons for differences—in other words, for a ban not to apply to one part of the midlands, say, rather than another. We shall certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account in framing the alternatives, so that they can be put before the House.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Does the right hon. Gentleman recall telling The Times the following on 6 March 1998?
We do not have a mandate for a hunt ban… But you ask me what is my opinion, Jack Straw? The answer is I do not see a role for Government
in bringing in any such ban. Why has the right hon. Gentleman changed his view on that? If he covers himself by saying that the Bill will offer a number of options, may I ask him a specific and detailed questions about those options? Will the option that secures the largest number of votes win the day, or will it be an overall majority that wins the day? If the vote in this place is different from the vote in the other place, will the Parliament Act apply?
Mr. Straw: The Government do not have a mandate for bringing in a ban on hunting, and we, as a Government, are not bringing in a ban on hunting. We are seeking to respond to the clear view on both sides of the House that the matter should be brought to a conclusion.

649
I do not make predictions about the conclusion that will follow, except to say, as I explained, that it is a matter on which the House needs to conclude its opinion.
This has been a wonderful afternoon for some further insights into the Conservative party. We have discovered that Conservative Members are fully in favour of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, which is a good thing. We have also discovered, from what I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, that a number of hon. Members of his opinion want a different voting system, a kind of proportional representation system, on the issue to ensure that the minority vote becomes the majority. Personally, on a free vote, I regard that as a bad thing.
On the Sunday Trading Bill, a clear and logical hierarchy of alternatives was established. That is a matter that we shall have to consider, so that the House can properly exercise its opinion. That hierarchy worked to produce a logical opinion of the House, although, as I said, I happened not to agree with it, and that is what we shall seek to do in this Bill.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): May I declare an interest, as vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports? That organisation has campaigned for many years for an end to hunting with dogs. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision that he announced this afternoon. It will be warmly received in my constituency and by the majority of people in the area hunted by the Holderness hounds.
The compromise position of the fox is a matter that concerns us all, as foxes were not asked their opinion, but my right hon. Friend could get their opinion if he listened to recordings of foxes, and also hares, being torn to bits by dogs. He would then understand the pain and trauma that they experience. An autopsy is not necessary to discover that.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. An important and interesting chapter—chapter 6—of the report deals with the definition of animal welfare that the committee followed, and its conclusion about the welfare of the relevant quarry species.
Sir Teddy Taylor: We all know that many people voted Labour at the last election because they were given a firm pledge that time would be provided for early legislation on hunting. Does the Home Secretary realise that grave suspicion will exist in some quarters about the timing of the Government's announcement? Even with a guillotine, there will be no almost no chance of enacting the legislation before the next election. Does the Home Secretary accept that the only way in which he will overcome the feeling that the Government are trying to play politics with fox hunting is to give an assurance that they will enact the legislation before they call an election? Otherwise, the announcement will simply look like another dirty public relations trick.
Mr. Straw: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was expressing his support for a ban on fox hunting; many Conservative Members support such a ban. On a point of accuracy, we gave a clear pledge in our manifesto:
650
we advocated a free vote on hunting with hounds. The implication was that such a vote would lead to a legislative conclusion. However, that did not happen; I have already explained the reasons for providing the same alternatives as for the Sunday trading legislation.
On enacting legislation, we intend to introduce the Bill early in the next Session, which will be in the autumn. Many examples exist of Bills that become law in six or seven months. That means that, even according to the most fevered speculation about the date of the general election, the Bill could become law.
Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Like many who have consistently supported a ban on hunting with hounds, I shall read the Burns report objectively and carefully as a fresh contribution to the debate. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will do likewise, and that her substitute today will not.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would not have had to be diverted into using Government time had not so much energy been spent on frustrating the will of the House and defeating a private Member's Bill? My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government will be neutral. However, if, having considered the Burns report, the House clearly votes for a ban on hunting with hounds, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will bend their best efforts towards enacting the Bill as quickly as the procedures of both Houses allow? Will he also invite the Opposition to treat the views of the House with similar respect?
Mr. Straw: It is a delight to respond to a question from my right hon. Friend, who is also an old and close friend. I do not regard the implementation of a manifesto commitment as a distraction for a Government. It is interesting that Conservative Members believe that manifesto pledges are there to be broken—they learned that trick when they were in government. We believe that manifesto pledges are there to be implemented. We are delivering on hospitals, schools, law and order and many other issues. The reasons why people vote for one party and not another is a matter for them. However, there is no doubt that when voters considered our manifesto and commitment to implementing it, they took all our pledges into account.
Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Home Secretary establish a further inquiry to ascertain whether there is a consistent moral principle in banning hunting with hounds while permitting angling, shooting and other field sports which result in cruelty or pain to animals? In the absence of such a principle, must we not conclude that the measure is either motivated by class antagonism or is the thin end of the wedge?
Mr. Straw: Moral balance and principle must, ultimately, be a matter for hon. Members. We are elected to make such judgments. I personally thought that it would have been wrong to try to delegate responsibility for making those moral and ethical judgments to a committee, as we are here to make such judgments. As the committee of inquiry made clear, whether some sporting activities involving hunting or killing animals should or should not be banned must be seen as a relative matter.

651
However, the right hon. Gentleman may be saying that all current measures against gratuitous cruelty to animals and their hunting—which, in the past, involved many kinds of so-called sports—which have been supported by members of his party and of mine should be abandoned.
Dr. David Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his intention to ban the barbaric and cruel practice of hunting with hounds, which will be welcomed by the vast majority of people in the House and throughout the country. Will he confirm once and for all that, once the House has made its wish clear, the Bill will be a Government Bill subject to all the ramifications to which such a Bill is subject, including the Parliament Act 1949?
Mr. Straw: The Bill will be a Government Bill at all stages and will leave the House for the other place as a Government Bill, a clear view on its contents having been expressed by the House. As I have already made clear, all the procedural arrangements for Government Bills will apply to it, as to any other Government Bill.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am sure that the report is excellent and makes a vital contribution to the debate. I am sure, too, that changes for rural areas are on the way. Nevertheless, the report contains a mistake, as Wales and England are not one country. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will include an option to allow the National Assembly for Wales to decide the issue of hunting for itself, as the Scottish Parliament can do?
Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that Wales and England are not one country. However, with respect, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Wales and England are one common law jurisdiction. Indeed, one Crown court circuit extends across the border and, historically, has always done so. The criminal law has always applied in the same way in England and Wales so, in my judgment, there would have to be strong arguments for seeking to impose a territorial distinction solely on the grounds of their being different countries, although that is a matter for the House as a whole to decide.
The report brings out a separate argument about whether there should be any objective differences between, for example, the regimes that should apply in upland and lowland areas. Finally, the issue is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly, but it would be open to the hon. Gentleman to table amendments suggesting that it should be during the passage of the Bill.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, given the vagaries of the private Members' Bill system, in the many years that we have been around in this place on a Friday, there was never a cat in hell's chance of getting a Bill banning hunting with
652
dogs through the House of Commons? Will he also confirm that, at the election, the Labour party made a distinct promise to give the Government and its Members an opportunity to vote to ban hunting with dogs?
Governments must be seen to be carry out their promises: that is one of the most important things in today's politics. I can therefore only wish my right hon. Friend well in this endeavour and trust that we make sure that we get the Bill on the statute book, which is something that no other Labour Government have been able to achieve.
Mr. Straw: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and subscribe to his view that Governments should carry out their promises. We promised to provide a free vote, with the obvious implication that that vote would have a conclusion, as we are not just a debating society. We are doing that, and the merits of the case are a matter for free votes. As we have seen, opinions on the matter differ on both sides of the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Home Secretary reflect carefully on the points made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on the special circumstances in the Cumbrian fells? Is he aware that hunting there takes place not on horseback but exclusively on foot and that there is no drag-hunting alternative? Hill farmers, who have suffered enough in recent years, would feel that they had been stabbed in the back if their ability to protect their livestock were to be removed in this way. How does the Home Secretary reconcile the Government's declared wish to create one nation with the introduction of legislation that will arouse feelings of anger, bitterness and betrayal among many millions of our fellow citizens?
Mr. Straw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's last remark is particularly realistic. Many hon. Members in his party take the same view as us, including, famously, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is not present in the House, even though—[Interruption.] The Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), is not the shadow Home Secretary or the Home Secretary, and she is not responsible for this issue; she is fully entitled to her view.
On the hon. Gentleman's main point, the report, which I commend to him, contains many interesting insights into hunting with dogs, but not on horseback, in upland areas such as those represented by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, as well as its effect on animal welfare and the effect of any ban. As the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the report, its conclusions for upland areas are different from those for other areas.

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

    New Clause 9
    COMMUNITY SENTENCES: ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF REQUIREMENTS
    '. After section 36A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 there is inserted—
    "Electronic monitoring of requirements in community orders
    36B.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, a community order may include requirements for securing the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with any other requirements imposed by the order.
    (2) A court shall not include in a community order a requirement under subsection (1) above unless the court—

    (a) has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the relevant areas specified in subsections (7) to (10) below; and

    (b) is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under those arrangements.

    (3) Where—

    (a) it is proposed to include in an exclusion order a requirement for securing electronic monitoring in accordance with this section; but

    (b) there is a person (other than the offender) without whose co-operation it will not be practicable to secure the monitoring,

    the requirement shall not be included in the order without that person's consent.
    (4) Where—

    (a) it is proposed to include in a community rehabilitation order or a community punishment and rehabilitation order a requirement for securing the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2; but

    (b) there is a person (other than the offender) without whose co-operation it will not be practicable to secure the monitoring,

    the requirement shall not be included in the order without that person's consent.
    (5) An order which includes requirements under subsection (1) above shall include provision for making a person responsible for the monitoring; and a person who is made so responsible shall be of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
    (6) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating—

    (a) the electronic monitoring of compliance with requirements included in a community order; and

    (b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the functions of persons made responsible for securing the electronic monitoring of compliance with requirements included in the order.

    (7) In the case of a curfew order or an exclusion order, the relevant area is the area in which the place proposed to be specified in the order is situated.
    In this subsection "place", in relation to an exclusion order, has the same meaning as in section 40A below.
    (8) In the case of a community rehabilitation order or a community punishment and rehabilitation order, the relevant areas are each of the following—

    (a) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, the area mentioned in subparagraph (6) of that paragraph,

    (b) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of that Schedule, the area mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph,

    (c) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with any other requirement, the area proposed to be specified under section 41(3) below.

    (9) In the case of a community punishment order, a drug treatment and testing order, a drug abstinence order, a supervision order or an action plan order, the relevant area is the petty sessions area proposed to be specified in the order.
    (10) In the case of an attendance centre order, the relevant area is the petty sessions area in which the attendance centre proposed to be specified in the order is situated.".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.26 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 101, 108 to 113 and 119.
    Mr. Boateng: The amendments relate to the electronic monitoring of community sentences proposed in the Bill. The measures will provide the probation service and other agencies with vital new tools to increase the protection of the public and to improve the effectiveness of community sentences through increased compliance and tougher enforcement.
    The amendments relate to a change that we trailed in Committee, but before I say anything more, I would point out that these changes have nothing to do with the home detention curfew or electronic monitoring of prisoners on release on licence. I know that there has been some confusion on that point in the past, and I want to establish the facts early and to make it clear to hon. Members who want to address curfews and prisoners on licence that they will have the chance to do so, but now is not the time, as the amendments deal with other matters.
    In Committee, I advised that, later in the Bill's passage, we would be considering how best to use electronic monitoring to strengthen enforcement of a range of orders. The amendments are the result of that further consideration. They replace clause 47 on monitoring of requirements in community rehabilitation orders and several other references to electronic monitoring of freestanding exclusion and curfew orders with a new, better-ordered and more comprehensive clause that enables the court, when imposing a community order, to secure the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with any of the requirements imposed by the terms of the order.

    655
    Obviously, that will include the electronic monitoring of offenders subject to curfew and exclusion. It will also, in due course, allow us to use technology such as voice verification systems, which could enable us to identify whether an offender is speaking from a location on an agreed list and whether the right person is responding to pre-planned or random checks. All such schemes would of course be properly piloted, but that is an example of the scope that the clause would open up in enforcing community sentences.
    The amendments draw together powers enabling the electronic monitoring of the terms of freestanding curfew and exclusion orders and any requirements of any community order.
    As I stated in Committee, the purpose of the amendments, apart from the obvious benefits in clarity and scope, is to enable electronic monitoring to be used to enforce more of the requirements of community orders. In addition, they apply to a wider range of those orders. Of course such schemes will be subject to the same rigorous testing and piloting as other new initiatives before they are rolled out.
    The amendments also broaden the definition of an "affected person" in relation to exclusion requirements and orders to include not only those who have to give their consent to allow electronic monitoring to occur, but individuals who are, to some degree, being protected by the order or exclusion in question. The former group is already covered by the Bill, and hon. Members who were present in Committee will remember our short debate about persons who might have an interest.
    An offender's victims would have an opportunity to be advised, as affected persons, about exclusion requirements and orders. That is reasonable and sensible. For example, if an offender, who hangs about a woman's house during the night, is excluded from those premises between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am, the victim should know that that is the case. That would tell her exactly what she should expect under the order, when the exclusion is in effect and when it is not. They are the only changes of substance that will be achieved under these amendments. The rest of the detail will remain effectively the same.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister is right to say that the issues relating to whether it is appropriate for people to be released early on tags will arise in later debates. He knows from our extensive debates in Committee that there are many such issues, but I entirely agree that this is not the right debate in which deal with them. However, I shall put some specific questions to the Minister. He will be aware that our concern throughout—indeed, it has been expressed by Labour as well as Opposition Members—has been that proper account should be taken of working probation officers' views in particular.
    The Minister is well aware that the National Association of Probation Officers has expressed grave concerns about several aspects of the Bill. As he says, he trailed in Committee the fact that further changes might be made, but has he fully consulted working probation officers and, in particular, has he taken account of the views of probation committees and the National Association of Probation Officers? The concerns expressed on both sides in Committee were real. Although
    656
    it is only a relatively short time since the Committee completed its proceedings, the Government want to replace a fairly large chunk of the Bill and we want to be sure that they will not change it for the worse. I hope that the Minister will tell us about that.
    I accept that many of the amendments in the group are consequential. We are discussing only one substantive change, although the grouping of amendments makes it seem as though there are many changes. We are discussing the major change in new clause 9, from which the other changes in detail flow. I hope that the Minister will also tell us whether he has taken account of the views of police officers, police organisations and the Council for Circuit Judges.
    The Minister will recall that there was much discussion in Committee about whether circuit judges and lay magistrates, who are at the sharp end of using such provisions, had been consulted. There is a grave weakness in that the Government are making changes at a late stage, but they have not necessarily taken into account the views of those who will impose the sentences. There are still grave concerns. We want the Minister to tell us exactly who has been consulted on these further, detailed changes. Having said that, I do not propose to press him further, on the basis that he will deal with all those points.
    Mr. Humfrey Matins: I wish to raise with the Minister four short, slightly nuts-and-bolts points. I did not serve on the Committee and come to the matter slightly afresh, but the Minister knows my background in terms of sentencing and so on. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited an experiment in tagging and electronic monitoring in Manchester some months ago, the stipendiary magistrate told us that one of problems was that too many people who were not the defendant turned up or volunteered to be tagged and monitored to give the defendant a free hand elsewhere. That was happening quite a lot in Manchester and we were told that it was the only way in which a breach could be made. When a person reported for tagging, no accurate check was made on whether he was the one who had been sentenced. Can the Minister reassure me that that problem has been overcome?
    Secondly, I speak as a sentencer when I say that quite often nowadays, when consent needs to be given, the law seems to change from time to time. For example, one used to have to get the defendant's consent before sentencing him to community service, but that is no longer the case. The new clause provides for consent on one occasion, but not on another. Although I see the point of needing consent, that leads me neatly to the third point.
    Judges, recorders and stipendiaries find that many forms of sentence are being introduced nowadays and I can tell the Minister—I was about to say in confidence, but nothing I say here is confidential—that a lot of new sentences are not imposed by the courts because the form of words for them has not been issued by the Judicial Studies Board. That is a most extraordinary point to make, but it is true. It is terribly important that either the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department makes sure that all sentencers are completely familiar with new forms of sentence that are being introduced and, furthermore, with the form of words to be used. If one does not know the form of words exactly, it is all too easy to think of another sentence, which might not be quite as good.

    657
    Finally, is the Minister content that the new clause's requirements for electronic monitoring are not moving us into too heavy a cost area? Will the resources be available to ensure that those problems are dealt with?
    Mr. Boateng: I am glad to assure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who speaks with great authority on these matters, that the resources will indeed be available before the amendments are brought into effect. We are anxious to ensure that we pilot and evaluate before rolling out. That also gives us the opportunity to make an assessment as to cost and, therefore, of cost-effectiveness and value in terms of that process. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about individuals' rumoured swapping of identities in an attempt to fool those responsible for administering tagging, but I have yet to have brought to my attention a single substantiated case in which that happened. That point is developing the characteristics of an urban myth.
    Mr. Malins: It is anecdotal.
    Mr. Boateng: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, it is anecdotal. However, we are determined to ensure that that anecdote has no substantive basis and that those responsible for administering the tag are alert to the possibility that there might be an attempt to subvert the system in such a way. So far, we are not aware of a single substantiated case in which that happened.
    I endorse wholeheartedly the hon. Gentleman's expression of concern that sentencers should be informed and adequately and appropriately trained in the form of words used to impose sentences. It will be important to ensure—the process has already begun in relation to other aspects of the Bill—that magistrates and other sentencers have the knowledge of the content of the sentences that they are asked to impose necessary to give them the confidence to impose those sentences. With respect, those points are well made and certainly taken.
    In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, I say that he over-eggs the pudding. I do not accept that concerns exist to the extent that he suggests. I believe that anyone who wants to ensure that the public are better protected sees the potential that the new technology represents in providing that better protection, and giving victims of crime, and those who might otherwise become victims, a sense of security and safety.
    I have spoken to sentencers, probation and chief probation officers and those who head probation committees, and have widely trailed our proposals. Those to whom I have spoken have broadly welcomed them, and I have no reason to believe that the Home Office probation unit has not received the same response from those whom it has consulted.
    I hope that, on that basis, Opposition Members will give these modest and, in my view, non-controversial, proposals a fair wind.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

  SHORT-TERM PRISONERS: RELEASE SUBJECT TO CURFEW CONDITIONS
  '.In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
  "(aa) the sentence is for an offence to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (notification requirements for sex offenders) applies;".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 12—Exclusion of assault on police from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
  'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—
  "(bb) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

  (i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);

  (ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);

  (iii) an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) committed against a constable in the execution of his duty.".'.

  New clause 13—Court to have power to direct that power to release short-term prisoner on licence shall not apply—
  'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
  "(ad) the court, when passing sentence, has directed that subsection (3) shall not apply in the interests of justice, or because of the serious nature of the offence, or because the offender is a persistent offender;".'.
  New clause 14—Exclusion of offenders convicted of offences punishable by maximum term of ten years or more from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
  'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
  "(ac) the sentence is for an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more;".'.
  New clause 15—Exclusion of offenders subject to minimum sentence for burglary from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
  'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
  "(ab) the sentence was imposed under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (minimum of three years for third domestic burglary);".'.

  659
  New clause 16—Exclusion of sex offenders from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
  'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
  "(aa) the prisoner is subject to the notification requirements of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997;".'.
  New clause 17—Repeal of power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
  'Sections 34A, 37A and 38A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are repealed.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 40 to 44.
  Mr. Boateng: The purpose of the Opposition new clauses is clear: to abolish the home detention curfew scheme in its entirety. That comes as no surprise, as on several occasions the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have made no secret of the fact that it is to be one of their manifesto pledges. I consider that to be profoundly misguided, and contrary both to the public interest and to the safety and security of our fellow citizens who benefit from the scheme.
  We have no intention of abandoning the scheme, which has had a highly successful performance record in the 16 months since its implementation. It was heralded by an all-party Select Committee report, which endorsed it, and to which a number of Opposition Members—including an Opposition spokesman—were knowing and willing signatories.
  The scheme is designed to assist in the successful resettlement of selected short-term prisoners, supporting the transition from custody to the community. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that is exactly what it has achieved. At its introduction, it received the unanimous support of the Committee to which I referred—the Select Committee on Home Affairs—to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, among others, put his name. He has now reneged on that, and put his name to new clauses seeking to abolish or reduce the scheme. No doubt we shall be told why he has changed his mind.
  The Committee's report said that the scheme would
  provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison.
  That expectation has been borne out by experience.
  Prison governors have shown great care in conducting risk assessments. Only about 30 per cent. of eligible offenders have been placed on home detention curfew to date, and the authorities have been notified of reoffending by fewer than 2 per cent. of those people while they have been on curfew. Overall, the scheme continues to have a high successful completion rate of about 94 per cent. I challenge Opposition Members to identify a scheme in the field of criminal justice, designed to protect the public in this way, that has a better record.
  4.45 pm
  Overall, the scheme continues to enjoy the high successful completion rate to which I have referred. It is an impressive record by any standards. Of course, we deeply regret any further offences committed on curfew,
  660
  and all breaches, but the fact remains that, in the vast majority of cases, the careful risk assessment conducted before a prisoner is allowed to join the scheme is working properly and the right decisions are being made.
  Mr. James Clappison: My knowledge of the matter is a little rusty. Perhaps the Minister can help me. If someone who is sentenced by the courts to six months' imprisonment is released at the earliest opportunity under a home detention curfew, how long does that person actually spend in prison, when the public have been told that he has been sent to prison for six months? How long will it be?
  Mr. Boateng: Sentencers know very well about the scheme. Indeed, it is not a scheme that is hidden from the public. They know very well that such a person would have an opportunity, if he were eligible—and only if he were eligible—to qualify for the scheme and to be released before the halfway mark at which he would normally be released.
  Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, I will not give way again. If the hon. Gentleman would like to remain in his seat a bit, he may learn more about the scheme.
  That is not a secret or hidden. It is the basis of the home detention curfew scheme and what it is designed to achieve. Someone who is sentenced to six months in those circumstances would become eligible for a HDC having served six weeks—one and a half months—of his sentence. That is not to say that, having become eligible, he would be granted release on HDC.
  I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman. It is not a secret. It is there. People will draw their own conclusions as to how best to reintegrate such people into the community. The all-party Select Committee unanimously found that the scheme was a good way of doing that. The hon. Gentleman may take a different view. Others will take the view that it is the right way. The conclusion that we have come to, having considered the all-party Select Committee's unanimous endorsement and the evidence of how the scheme is working, is that, on balance, it is the right way forward and that now is not the time to go along the route proposed by Opposition Members.
  Many of the new clauses are about reducing the scope of the scheme by excluding various categories of offenders all together. I am glad to say that, in one instance—namely, new clause 10—the Opposition support our policy. Their new clause 16 recognises, as we do, that it makes eminent sense to strengthen the existing home detention curfew scheme by excluding from it sex offenders who are subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. That is, in any event, our practice; it has been from the outset. We now believe it right to put that in statute, but the other proposals tabled by the Opposition are far less helpful and are designed to undermine the scheme. We are simply not going to go along with that because, in our view, that is not the best way in which to protect the public.
  Under new clause 12, the Opposition wish to exclude from the home detention curfew scheme those sentenced to a range of offences committed against the police, including assault; obstructing or resisting a constable;

  661
  assault with intent to resist arrest; wounding; and causing grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm to a police officer in the execution of his duty.
  The aim of new clause 13 seems to be to exclude from the home detention curfew scheme any offender who the sentencing court has directed should not be eligible for the scheme, whether in the interests of justice, because of the serious nature of the offence, or because the offender is a persistent offender, while new clause 14 would exclude prisoners convicted of an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. New clause 15 would exclude from the scheme prisoners sentenced to a minimum of three years for a third domestic burglary.
  The issue of whether there should be a statutory exclusion for sex offenders was raised initially when the House first considered the home detention scheme, during passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At the time, we argued for retaining a discretion to consider whether to place an offender subject to the 1997 Act on the scheme in cases in which the risk assessment suggested that there was minimal or no risk to the public and that there would be a clear potential benefit to the chances of successful resettlement, treatment or supervision.
  The example on sex offenders that we gave the House at that time was one in which release to a treatment centre was judged to be central to a prisoner's release plan, and curfew was considered to be necessary to support the likely completion of the treatment. In practice, in the 16 months since the scheme went live, it has been apparent that establishments have not identified circumstances that justify releasing on HDC offenders subject to the 1997 Act. In fact, only one such offender has been placed on the scheme, and that placement was contrary to policy because the Director General's approval had not been sought, which was highly regrettable.
  We have, therefore, taken the view that the time has come to include in statute an exception—that, if one is subject to the 1997 Act, one will not qualify for HDC. The exception reflects current practice and puts the position beyond doubt. The statutory exclusion will also ensure that, in future, there are no errors of the type that permitted the release of that particular individual without the director general's approval. I am glad that the Opposition join us in taking that step.
  I should say—without labouring the point on the Opposition's new clauses on other exceptions—that, although I share the sense of outrage and even disgust at some of the categories of offence dealt with in their new clauses, I really do not believe that the way to deal with those offenders is to exclude them from the scheme. The scheme is designed to smooth the transition from custody into the community. We believe that if that transition is made in the context of order and supervision, it is less likely that the individuals concerned will offend again. For that reason, and because we are satisfied that, in each of the instances highlighted in the Opposition's new clauses, we have in place sufficiently robust risk assessment standards and tools to assess individual cases and ensure that the public are well protected, we do not feel that the Opposition's new clauses take the matter any further forward.
  662
  We urge the House to reject the Opposition's new clauses and to accept our new clause 10, which we believe gets the balance right. Our new clause will ensure that the public are protected by providing for a smoother and more ordered transition for offenders from custody into the community, and it will uphold the HDC scheme—which would be undermined if the Opposition's new clauses were accepted. The scheme is working and it is founded on sound policy. I urge the House to reject the new clauses whose effect would be, in effect, to wreck it.
  Mr. David Lidington: As the Minister said, the amendments deal with what the Government term their "home detention curfew scheme", which might be more accurately labelled as the special early release scheme for prisoners convicted of serious offences.
  As the Minister rightly pointed out, the Opposition have disliked the scheme from the very beginning. Our reservations were made clear during the early proceedings on what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—whom I am glad to see in his place—and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
  New clause 17 would seek to scrap the home detention curfew scheme altogether. Our other new clauses would seek to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the Government's early release scheme by excluding from it certain categories of offender or offence. The Opposition would wish, if possible, to press for divisions on new clause 12 and on new clause 17, although I understand that there might be procedural difficulties.
  As I said, new clause 17 would scrap the special early release scheme altogether. New clause 12 would exclude from the scheme people convicted of assaults or other serious offences against police officers. The police, who are—particularly, but not exclusively—responsible for law and order in our inner-urban areas need the support and protection of the law. That includes being certain that when someone has been sentenced to prison for an assault on a police officer, they will serve the full term that the law prescribes and will not be let out of jail early because that suits the Government's release scheme.
  New clause 13 would give the courts power to direct that the home detention curfew should not apply in particular cases. New clause 14 would exclude from the scheme offenders who were imprisoned for any offence that carried a maximum sentence of 10 years or more. That clause has been drafted with an eye to the Government's own proposals on immigration rules.
  The Government are saying in their consultation document following the Tyson case that they propose, as a matter of rule, to exclude from entry to the United Kingdom anybody who has been convicted of an offence which, were it committed on British soil, would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or more.
  Through the new clause, we accept that the Government are right to identify such offences as serious, and worthy of condemnation and severe penalty. We are saying that, as a matter of justice, people who have been convicted of such serious offences and sent to prison for them should be excluded from the privilege of the early release scheme.
  New clause 15 would exclude from the early release scheme burglars who had been persistent offenders and had been sentenced to a mandatory minimum prison term

  663
  under the terms of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which has been consolidated into the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
  I wish to refer to the Government's new clause 10 and how it relates to our new clause 16. New clause 10 would remove from the early release scheme people who were serving a sentence following conviction for which they had been included in the sex offenders register. I welcome that concession especially because it is an aspect of the law that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has been pressing ever since the Government introduced their original proposals for the early release scheme. Time and again, my hon. Friend and other Opposition Members have argued that the scheme should, as a matter of policy and of justice, exclude people who have been convicted of serious sexual offences and who are on the sex offenders register.
  5 pm
  Hitherto, the Government have said that there is no need for such statutory exclusion. They have written into the rules for prison governors to follow in carrying out their risk assessment a detailed series of steps that each must follow when considering the case for the early release of a particular sex offender. Against that background, I am glad that the Government have come forward with a concession, at least as far as it goes.
  In a genuinely non-adversarial spirit, I put it to the Minister that the Government's new clause still leaves a loophole. As I read it, it would not exclude from eligibility for early release a criminal who was on the register of sex offenders because of a previous conviction but who, at the time when his case was being considered, was serving another custodial sentence for a crime that was not a sexual offence. It is not an academic prospect. I recall within the past few weeks reading of a case where a convicted paedophile who had served time in prison for such offences was subsequently released, and thereafter charged with other offences. In the end, he was convicted of an offence which, although related to his sex crimes, was not a sexual offence.
  I can envisage a situation, for example, where someone is convicted of the abduction of a child, of kidnapping or of assault. He might, because of his previous convictions and his known record of sexual offending, be sent to prison on account of that non-sexual offence. However, under Government new clause 10, he would be eligible for early release under the home detention curfew scheme. Our new clause 16 seeks to relate exclusion from the scheme to the offender rather than to the particular offence for which he is serving a sentence at the time when he comes up for consideration for early release.
  I would welcome the Minister taking advice on this point of detail. It may be something on which the Government wish to reflect and to which they may wish to return to at a later stage in the Bill's consideration, if they share my concern about a potential loophole in the law.
  The Opposition's objections to the early release scheme remain fundamental. More than 20,000 criminals have so far been released early from prison as a result of the scheme. They are being released at an earlier point in their sentence than the normal statutory remission of 50 per cent. There are just under 2,000 offenders who are now out of prison under the scheme, when the Opposition would argue that they should still be behind bars.
  664
  Part of our objection stems from the fact that a significant number of offences have been committed by people on early release. The Minister is right to say that the number is small as a proportion of the total number of people who have been released early, but we know of 395 offenders who have been released early and have gone on to commit other crimes. Those crimes have often not been trivial. They have included five cases of threats to kill, 51 violent crimes, three rapes and 135 burglaries, robberies, thefts and similar property crimes. That represents a large number of victims. It may seem small as a percentage on the Home Office statistical returns, but it means real anguish, grief and loss for those individuals and families who have been the victims of those criminals who the Government have chosen to let out early.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but do he and his party think that if a significant number of people commit offences when they are on licence, no one should have the right to release on licence? Does he take the view that, if the reduction of a sentence leads to any risk of an offence being committed, that category of release should not be permitted by law?
  Mr. Lidington: I do not want to stray too far from the new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Opposition's view is that there should be much greater honesty in sentencing, so that the sentence passed by the judge is the sentence served in prison.
  My party and I believe that there is certainly a place for supervision under licence at the end of a determinate sentence or after someone has served the appropriate portion of a life sentence. We see a place for tagging being used to enforce supervision and for its use in support of non-custodial penalties, but we object to its use as an excuse for the early release—release earlier than under the normal statutory arrangements—of people on whom the courts passed a particular sentence knowing what the statutory rules were. We believe that that is an affront to justice and that is why we tabled the new clauses.
  The Government's early release scheme adds to the dishonesty of our sentencing system.
  Mr. Boateng: Who introduced that sentencing system? Who was responsible for 18 years for the sentencing policy that we inherited? Who is now reviewing that policy? The answer is that Conservative Members were responsible for the system and the Government are reviewing it.
  Mr. Lidington: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), when he was Home Secretary, introduced proposals for honesty in sentencing, If the Labour party wants to pick a fight with us over our call for greater honesty in sentencing, no one will be more delighted than the Conservative party.
  Let us consider the facts. A written answer from the Home Office at column 402W of Hansard on 23 May 2000 listed the average custodial sentences passed on people who had been released early and compared them with the actual term served. For burglars, for example, the average

  665
  sentence passed by the judge was 19.3 months, whereas the average term served was 7.4 months. For arsonists, the average sentence passed was 22.8 months and the average served only 9.8 months. For wounding, an average sentence of 15.6 months was passed, but the average sentence served was 6.2 months.
  Most of our constituents would be outraged at the gulf between the sentences passed by judges in court and the sentences actually served. They would want Parliament to take whatever steps it could today to redress the imbalance in the law and to provide for greater honesty in sentencing.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important matter, and I have heard the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members talk about it on the radio. I have one simple question for the hon. Gentleman: is it the Conservative party's view that what the hon. Gentleman calls honesty in sentencing would mean that significantly more people would go to prison and serve significantly longer sentences? I had understood that the Conservative approach was that roughly similar sentences would be passed, and that there would be similar numbers of people in prison, but that judges would hand out shorter sentences, which would be served in full.
  Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made our approach very clear. We believe that honesty in sentencing and length of sentence are distinct. We assume that honesty in sentencing is desirable as a good in its own right. In calling for the abolition of the statutory 50 per cent. remission, we assume that judges would take that into account in determining the length of sentence to be passed.
  We assume that the average length of sentence would come down at first. We argue that sentences for particular crimes should be longer, especially mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders. We have said consistently that we would regard it as a Conservative Government's prime duty to ensure that sufficient prison places were provided to house the criminals whom judges decided to send to prison.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I agree with the principle underlying my hon. Friend's contribution, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I are the only two people in the Chamber who have sent people to prison. Does my hon. Friend accept that when a judge sentences a person to a term of imprisonment, he goes on to say that the person will serve half the sentence and that the remainder will be served on licence? I accept the use of the word "dishonesty" in this argument, but the sentencing judge is not guilty of any dishonesty.
  Mr. Lidington: Absolutely. The judge knows what he is doing. Our criticism of what I have termed dishonesty in sentencing is that although the arrangement is familiar to those who operate the courts and the criminal justice system, the general public do not understand it. The sentencing process must be made more transparent.
  I turn now to the Government's claims for the home detention curfew scheme. The Government argue that the scheme is a rehabilitative measure that works. I want to
  666
  repeat that the Opposition support effective rehabilitation measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald in particular has made clear her passionate determination to establish a more effective rehabilitative regime in our prisons.
  However, the Home Secretary has said that he measures the success of the home detention curfew by the occurrence, or absence, of convictions for reoffending only during the curfew period. In a written answer of 7 April, he made it explicit that any offending that took place after the curfew period had ended was not a factor in defining the success rate of the home detention curfew scheme.
  That seems a crazy way of carrying out an assessment. If the scheme works in terms of rehabilitating criminals, surely we ought to see some results, in that criminals subject to home detention curfew will be less likely to reoffend after the end of their sentence and the curfew period, than other prisoners who have not had the benefit of early release under the Government's scheme. I think that the Government's measurement of their scheme's success is deeply flawed.
  5.15 pm
  Our case boils down to this: it is a matter of justice that the early release scheme should be ended. Among the 20,000 criminals who have been released early so far there are 210 people who have either committed or attempted homicide. There are people responsible for 3,342 violent crimes. There are 1,187 burglars, 811 robbers, 4,433 thieves, 3,236 drug offenders and 125 arsonists. I believe that the Government's scheme is an insult to justice and an insult to the law-abiding constituents whom we are sent here to represent and to defend.
  Jackie Ballard: I think that we all agree that imprisonment has a number of roles. One is the proper punishment of offenders; another is the protection of the public. By definition, while people are in prison they cannot commit further crimes, although there is some argument about the effectiveness of deterrence when it comes to committing further crimes after they leave prison.
  Prison must also have a rehabilitative role. If it is to carry out that role effectively, we need to keep the provision for early release on licence with, in these cases, the added safeguard of tagging. In cases in which people have benefited from the experience of imprisonment, and the risk of early release has been properly assessed, we believe that the scheme enables the proper transition for a number of prisoners from prison to freedom. We must not underestimate the fact that some people find that difficult to cope with, because for them, prison is an easy option, as they cannot offend while they are in, and coping with freedom is a challenge for them. It is in the interests of public safety that ex-prisoners are successfully reintegrated into the community.
  As the Minister said in his opening remarks, eligibility for early release does not imply that a person will automatically be released. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that Conservatives Members would press for a vote on new clause 12, if not on one of the other new clauses in the group. In that case, the Liberal Democrats will oppose it.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his comments,

  667
  particularly on the sex offences provisions in new clause 10, and I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my question. I also admired his bravura performance of ministerial confidence. The scheme that he is defending—early release through home detention—is so alien to the common sense and sense of fairness of the majority of members of the public that it takes a performance such as his to try and sweep it under the carpet and get away with it.
  It would be churlish of me not to welcome new clause 10 on sex offences and the fact that the Government have, after all, accepted the point that we pressed on them from the start—namely, that serious sex offenders who are liable to registration under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 should be statutorily prevented from being part of the scheme. That is right.
  I listened to the Minister's rationale for the Government's original view that, under certain circumstances, it would be possible for sex offenders to be eligible for early release. According to a written answer of 6 April 2000, there has been only one case in which such an offender was released. As the Minister accepted in his remarks, that one case illustrates just what can go wrong and how seriously it can go wrong under the arrangements that the Government have allowed to be in place for home detention curfew. The person in question had committed a serious offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. He was given a sentence of six months. I think that in fact he did not even serve six weeks. Because of some administrative oversight, he was released after only 35 days, and his case was not considered by the Director General, which was one of the safeguards originally recommended by the Government. The system clearly did not work then; it will be much better if, by statute, sex offenders are not eligible for early release. Most members of the public would agree with that.
  The public would also be concerned at the number of violent offenders who appear to have been released under the scheme. If the statistics read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury are correct, the number is significant. Members of the public would be concerned about the overall honesty of the system—a point that my hon. Friend was right to make. I agree with the gist of the intervention made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about how the courts operate and that judges are honest in passing sentences. The dishonesty occurs when the length of time an offender spends in prison bears little relationship to the sentence passed—when offenders serve only a fraction of the time that the public are told they will serve.
  In his response to my intervention, the Minister pointed out that, under the provisions, someone sentenced to six months could be, and in many cases is, released after only six weeks Six months must not mean six weeks. Such a bulging gap strains the credibility of the public and their confidence in the criminal justice system.
  I cannot accept the Minister's defence—not among his best-considered remarks—to part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, as, in essence, the right hon. Gentleman was self-contradictory. He said that the previous Conservative Government had allowed prisoners to be released after serving only part of their sentence. That is correct, although towards the end of their period
  668
  in office, they were moving towards a closer relationship between the sentence imposed and the length of time served.
  However, the Minister is now adopting the position that the sentence should be less. In every case, the average sentences to which my hon. Friend referred are less than they would have been before the home detention curfew provisions were introduced. Prisoners are allowed on home detention curfew after they have served only a small fraction of their sentence in prison. We are not being honest in what we tell the public.
  The public do not like such dishonesty. I am not convinced that they would be so severe in passing sentence. Research shows that, in the majority of cases—especially those involving non-sexual or non-violent offences—members of the public would not pass especially severe sentences. They do not constantly demand ever more severe sentences. What they want is honesty. That is the inconsistency in the Government's system.
  The points made by my hon. Friend are correct. The new clauses will give a little assistance in improving a bad system—especially in cases involving police officers. It is unfair that the public should be told that a man who has assaulted a police officer will be given a sentence of six months, when that person will be out on the streets in six weeks. That cannot be honest.
  I emphasise those points about honesty in sentencing because I am not against tagging as such. Tagging has an interesting history. It was pioneered by the previous, Conservative Government—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says it was abandoned. It was certainly not greeted by bouquets and assistance from the Labour Opposition. Whenever possible, they opportunistically extracted the maximum political advantage—whether or not their statements were consistent. They certainly did not hand out bouquets.
  The previous Government were right to persist with tagging, even though there were some technical problems initially. Tagging is right as a sentence. It is also an acceptable way to deal with someone whose liberty needs to be constrained while awaiting a court appearance. It is better for such people to be tagged than to be locked up in prison. However, it should not apply to people sentenced for serious offences. The Minister will confirm that people are eligible to be tagged for offences when the courts have sentenced them to up to four years imprisonment. The offences committed can encompass serious offending.
  It would be far better if we explored the use of tagging as a sentence in its own right and as an alternative in appropriate cases to people going to prison. For example, it is particularly appropriate for tagging to be considered for women prisoners. In the past few years, under the previous Government and under this Government, there has been an extraordinary growth in the number of women prisoners. Under this Government alone, the number of women in prison has risen by 30 per cent., which is faster than the rate at which men are being imprisoned. However, women do not tend to commit the serious violent offences that cause most concern to the public. The Government are creating more prison places to lock up more women while they are releasing under the home detention curfew scheme men who have been convicted of serious offences, including offences of violence.

  669
  The Government are getting criminal justice sentencing into a crazy mess. The system needs to be put right and our new clauses would go some way to doing that. However, the system is so dishonest that we need to take a much more root-and-branch approach. I hope that such an approach will come in due course so that we can give the public a system of sentencing that is honest with them and in which they can have confidence.
  Mr. Malins: I do not think that it is so much honesty in sentencing—of course, we need that—but clarity in sentencing that we want. One of the problems that I face as a sentencer is that I must scratch my head before I pass a sentence. If I pass a sentence of six months, I tell the defendant that he will be released on licence after three months. Provided that he keeps his nose clean while he is on licence, that is the last he will hear about it. However, if he does not, he will return to prison to serve the balance of his sentence. The same principle applies if I pass a sentence of four years in the Crown court for a serious case of burglary. Before someone passes sentence, the question that he or she must ask is, "Wait a minute. Do I really want this person to serve four years, or shall I say four years on the basis that he or she will serve two?" It is a head-scratching exercise.
  The home detention curfew scheme will cause a little more head scratching. As I understand it, when we pass a sentence, we do not mention the home detention curfew scheme at all. It is purely an administrative rather than a judicial matter. In sentencing a person, one passes what one considers to be the right sentence and warns about offending on licence. However, whether someone comes out under the home detention curfew scheme is an administrative decision and, unfortunately, the judge knows nothing about that—someone else makes the decision.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that the decision as to who, under the home detention curfew scheme, comes out and is tagged for the balance of the sentence is made not by the judiciary, but by either the Home Office or a prison governor. I might not have a problem if either of them takes the decision, but it makes it a bit difficult for the sentencer to understand whether the sentence that he has imposed will mean what he intends it to mean.
  That takes us back to the thorny old question of whether release on a home detention curfew is meant to rehabilitate. Clearly, the scheme is Treasury-driven because it will save money. I remember that, in the 1980s, the Conservative party released many prisoners because it was cheaper to do that. I am sure that we did that.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is there not a qualitative and profound difference between releasing people early to save money and home detention curfews that attend to the rehabilitative needs of the prisoner and to the protection of society?
  Mr. Malins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that the home detention curfew scheme is rehabilitative. We need to see some pretty firm statistics to show that people do not reoffend, not just in the period while they are under the curfew, but in the period after the curfew. Rehabilitation is meant to be a long-term process.
  670
  The Minister will accept that we must be careful about sentencing in general. We must not take a mismatch approach by which we add to, and subtract from, the legislation each year. If the result of such an approach is that sentencers do not understand the sentences that they pass, that defendants need to employ a senior Queen's counsel to explain to them and that the public do not understand what is happening, we have a problem.
  The Minister teased my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) about his work on the Home Affairs Committee, and I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that my hon. Friend contributed massively to the Committee during the all-too-brief period for which he was a member of it. The Minister knows as well as I do that sometimes on Select Committees one has to cede point A to gain point B and that the fact that the report was unanimous does not mean that everyone agreed with all its conclusions. Otherwise, I would have been thought to have changed my mind at least six times on various issues in the past few months.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that I am less charitable than the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) towards the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but perhaps that is not a surprise, bearing in mind our respective positions. We have had a good debate, although I did not think we would.
  Mr. Stephen Day: It has been brief.
  Mr. Boateng: I hear the silent one mutter that it has been brief, but it has also been important in teasing out the issues and where we agree and where we do not. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a serious and considered contribution to the debate, and I shall reflect on several of the remarks he made. I am bound to say that I come to a different conclusion on the home detention curfew scheme, but I welcome his support for electronic tagging and the new technology as an aid to sentences. We need to ensure, however, that we have greater clarity and transparency in sentencing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Woking in that respect.
  I prefer the phrase "clarity and transparency" to the language adopted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), which rather marred his contribution. He seeks to be all things to all people in this matter and seeks to give the impression that he would, given half the chance, be tougher on crime than me or the Government. That simply is not the case. He must understand that he is being disingenuous in his call for greater honesty in sentencing, thereby suggesting that the existing system is dishonest, bearing in mind the fact that it was successive Conservative Governments who were responsible for the sentencing system that we inherited.
  The hon. Member for Woking argued that one has to cede some points in order to gain others, but the difficulty for his party is that it signed up to the sentencing system for 18 years. You cannot now wriggle out of the consequences of your actions in relation to existing sentencing policy and the framework that you established when you were in government. [Interruption.] I mean the Conservatives, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you, of course, had no part in it whatever.
  We recognise that the sentencing framework is flawed and we are going to change it. I look forward to a considered and constructive contribution from, among

  671
  others, the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Woking, as well as the shadow Attorney-General, to that process. It has to be done, because we need greater clarity and transparency. I would argue that we also need, in some cases, greater toughness in terms of the length of sentences. It is however disingenuous of the Opposition, in their call for greater honesty in sentencing, to attempt to give the impression that longer sentences will necessarily be served as a result of such a policy being implemented. We believe some categories—certainly in the case of burglary and arguably in cases of violent crime, in which there has been an unacceptable increase—ought to lead to longer terms of imprisonment being served by offenders, hence the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in introducing the "three strikes and you're out" policy.
  We have to understand that, although the home detention curfew scheme is designed to ensure a smoother and better-ordered transition between custody and freedom, it is part of the sentence. A home detention curfew and the paraphernalia of a tagged person are signs that society requires limitations on liberty and a certain form of order and conduct as part of a sentence served, not in a custodial setting, but in a home setting, as a precursor to ultimate liberty.
  Mr. Garnier: So that our debate is better informed, will the Minister state the relative cost, on a daily, monthly or annual basis, of a home detention order, a tagging order and a prison place; and, in the event of there being no tags or home detention orders, how many additional prison places the Government would need at their disposal?
  Mr. Boateng: I shall certainly write to the hon. and learned Gentleman with that detailed information. His intervention enables me to draw the House's attention to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Woking that the measure is Treasury-driven. That is a simplistic approach. As the figures that I will make available to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will illustrate, a degree of saving to the public purse is entailed, but that should not cause the House to underestimate or ignore the added benefit and value of creating, after a rigorous process of risk assessment, a framework of law and technology around the offender by which that individual's transition front custody to the community is better managed.
  That issue was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in his intervention. The HDC scheme continues to have a high successful completion rate of about 90 per cent., and only 2 per cent. have been notified as having reoffended while on curfew. That demonstrates that, in the vast majority of cases, the careful risk assessment undertaken is working as it should, and that the care and attention given to the matter by governors is ensuring that public protection is enhanced by these arrangements for the return to the community of offenders who have been carefully selected as eligible and properly placed on the scheme. It also demonstrates that the risk assessment carried out manages and minimises the risk of individuals reoffending during that period.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Boateng: I am not giving way now. The hon. Gentleman has just returned to the Chamber, and we must make progress.
  672
  The effectiveness of the risk assessment management and the minimisation of risk during the period that would otherwise have been served in custody are the proper measure of the success or otherwise of the scheme. That does not mean that one should overlook the ultimate goal of rehabilitation in the medium and longer term. That applies across the board, but we judge the success or otherwise of the scheme by what occurs during that period.
  This group of amendments includes Government amendments Nos. 40 to 44, which are technical changes relating to the power to attach conditions to release licensees. The amendments will ensure that all young offenders who are released following a period of detention may have electronic monitoring or, in the case of over-18s, drug-testing requirements imposed as release conditions.
  Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 correct a technical flaw in the current draft of the Bill which would prevent young offenders—including those up to 21 years of age—from having electronic monitoring or drug-testing conditions imposed. That, clearly, is undesirable, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. Technology has something to offer sentencers in terms of public protection, and should be used.
  The need for amendment arises from the fact that clauses 56 and 58 refer specifically to those released from sentences of imprisonment. However, sentences imposed on young offenders are not legally defined as sentences of imprisonment. Young offenders are sentenced to periods of detention and may serve their detention in accommodation other than a prison. The exclusion of young offenders from the provisions in the Bill was not intended, and the amendments remedy the situation, while retaining the proviso that drug testing conditions will not be available in respect of under-18s.
  With that explanation, and following a good debate, I hope that the House will give the Government new clause and amendments the fair wind that they deserve.
  Mr. Garnier: I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks have provoked me, in a gentle way, to do so.
  Any savings that will be achieved through the home detention curfew or by the tagging of early-release prisoners will fall to the benefit of the Treasury as a whole. I invite the Government to allow the Prison Service, which is already under huge financial strain—I speak as a Member of Parliament for a constituency that has within it Gartree prison and also part of the estate of the Glen Parva young offenders institution—to keep the savings made, so that it can reinvest that money in additional facilities at prisons and in additional services for prisoners, especially for the rehabilitation of prisoners.
  I note that in my constituency prison, Gartree, the probation service is less well represented in terms of numbers—the quality, I am sure, is excellent—and the education services have had to be cut as a consequence of Government restrictions on Prison Service finances. I trust that the Government, who, I have no doubt, believe in honesty in all things, will allow honesty in financing, as well as honesty in sentencing.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

  REMAND CENTRES
  '.In section 43(1) of the Prison Act 1952 (places of detention provided by Secretary of State), paragraph (a) (remand centres) is to cease to have effect.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 32 to 39, 63 to 96, 100, 103 to 107 and 117.
  Jane Kennedy: In Standing Committee, a new clause—now clause 55—was introduced to abolish the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution. Following the abolition of that sentence, all convicted defendants over the age of 18 will be sentenced as adults. The Government consulted on those proposals last year and there was broad agreement on them. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that further minor amendments would be tabled around the clause. We are now considering those amendments.
  Despite the number of amendments—that may have caused a few raised eyebrows among Conservative Members—I assure hon. Members that they are minor and consequential. We are also considering an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to provide a power for the police to authorise a young person's release on bail for administering a reprimand or a final warning. If I take a few moments to explain the amendments and answer one or two questions about them, it may save later interventions. I am conscious that there is a great deal of interest in the next group of amendments.
  New clause 11 and one set of amendments in the group deal with the repeal of the power to set up remand centres. No remand centres have ever been set up under that power. Clause 55 is founded on an acceptance of the age of majority as the best sentencing threshold. That removed the principal rationale for the existence of remand centres.
  Another set of amendments in the group relates to the repeal of section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The amendments will ensure that all persons aged 18 or over who are detained for default in the payment of a fine, or for contempt of court, are treated in the same way.
  A further set of amendments in the group will ensure that the legislation governing sentences issued by courts martial reflects as far as possible the changes that clause 55 makes to the civilian sentencing regime.
  The main principle of abolishing the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution has not changed. The amendments, together with consequential changes to other legislation, make no substantive changes. They simply complete the legislative picture.
  I am conscious of the interest in the next group of amendments. I therefore invite the House to give these amendments a fair wind.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that there was some discussion in Standing Committee
  674
  of the way in which the original provisions would apply to young offenders. We also accept that the Government's proposals were fairly trailed in Standing Committee. We divined that many amendments in the group were consequential.
  All parties share a special concern about the treatment of young offenders. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows from our debate in Committee, before becoming Members of Parliament, many members of the Committee in differing professional capacities had experience of dealing with young offenders. I prosecuted and defended in juvenile courts over several years. It is fair to say that hon. Members are united in wanting to ensure a proper regime for young offenders.
  We acknowledge the accuracy of the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on the relevant clause of the Prison Act 1952. It has not been used, and there is no reason for it to remain on the statute book. We are not therefore considering a matter of enormous division between the parties. However, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as I asked the Minister of State, Home Office on an earlier group of amendments, to confirm whether the Government have consulted the National Association of Probation Officers, the Council for Circuit Judges and others about the further amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) stressed, we think it important that those who are sentencing are clear about what the Government are doing.
  In his helpful and considered contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which the Minister of State has repeatedly prayed in aid on Second Reading, in Committee and in his remarks today. He and the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that a substantial part of that report relates directly to young offenders.
  I reject some of the more specious arguments used by the Minister of State in our earlier debate. Indeed, to use his own word, he was disingenuous. In examining the whole Select Committee report which, as he said repeatedly, is unanimous, one must look especially carefully at the sections relating to young offenders. I am sure that we are not divided on that. As the Government arrange the passage of the Bill through its remaining parliamentary stages, I hope that they will examine carefully what is contributed by experts in various professional fields dealing with young offenders, and that they will take into account further submissions.
  In Committee, both Ministers said, fairly, that they had an open mind about looking at the treatment of young offenders and ideas that may be brought forward. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the short debate on this group, confirmed that the Government's mind remains open to further suggestions. Clearly, this is an area in which there can be great scope for expert opinion to put forward new ideas all the time. In the light of concerns expressed about the disposal of young offenders in serious cases, arising from the treatment of Thompson and Venables in the James Bulger case, which we debated extensively in Committee, the Government must be careful to bear in mind the views of the European Court on such matters.
  In relation to what was said about treating all those over 18 as adult offenders, in the past and under Governments of both parties it has been an article of faith in the criminal

  675
  justice system that there are special factors affecting those between 18 and 21. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that, in Committee, we debated the tragic history of suicides of young adults remanded to adult prisons, and of those in places such as Feltham and Armley. The Government take that suicide rate very seriously indeed, but I am earnest in urging the Parliamentary Secretary to say again that the Government recognise the particular vulnerabilities of those aged 18 to 21 who are serving sentences. In Committee, we had quite a lot of debate about whether 21 was a crucial age. The Government take such matters seriously, as both we and the Liberal Democrats sought to do in Committee, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that they will continue to do so.
  Jane Kennedy: I have sat through many hours of interesting debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House and have listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on many occasions. I cannot recall an occasion on which one could have accused him of being disingenuous. I assure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that my right hon. Friend has an open mind and will continue to have an open mind. I genuinely hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his point about the expert opinion expressed to the House on these serious matters. We bring an open mind to the issue.
  The hon. Gentleman made an important point about young offenders who may currently he sentenced to a period in a young offenders institution, those who may be subject to custody for life, and those whose sentences will continue to run in the period immediately following the Bill's implementation. There will clearly be an immediate impact on the prison estate as a result of the amendments which will require management. It may be worth noting that those young offenders whom I have just mentioned and to whom the hon. Gentleman drew attention will not be disadvantaged by the change, as they will remain subject only to the maximum punishments currently available for 18 to 20-year-olds, as opposed to those currently available for prisoners aged 21 and over.
  Issues such as ensuring that vulnerable young adult prisoners will not be put at risk and making sure that movement of young adult offenders between young offenders institutions and prisons takes account of their regime needs will be addressed before the changes are implemented. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that reassurance in response to his serious point.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

  DEFENCE UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971
  '.It shall be a defence for a person accused of an offence under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that he did not wilfully permit an activity under section 8 to take place.'.[Mrs. Anne Campbell.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell. I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 190, in title, line 4, leave out "dealing with".
  Mrs. Campbell: It may be helpful if I begin by reminding hon. Members that section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 states:
  A person commits an offence if, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on those premises.
  That is to say:
  producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug … supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug … or offering to supply a controlled drug to another … preparing opium for smoking … smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium.
  New clause 1 would strengthen the defence of someone accused under section 8, which includes the words "knowingly permits". The new clause would allow an offence of wilfully permitting activities under section 8: that wording is slightly stronger. New clause 1 is grouped with amendment No. 190, which is a consequential amendment to the long title of the Bill which, in its current form, does not allow for the new clause. Amendment No. 190 makes further provision for persons suspected of, charged with or convicted of offences, as opposed to provision for dealing with such persons.
  It will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I have tabled the new clause, given my concern about Wintercomfort and my constituent Ruth Wyner who at present is serving a sentence in Highpoint prison under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. She was convicted at the same time as her co-worker John Brock, who is not my constituent but who, nevertheless, was working in the charity, which is based in my constituency. I do not pretend to be an expert on the issue, but I shall use my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament of visits to homeless accommodation and day shelters, to explain why a change to the existing law is necessary.
  6 pm
  People work in this part of the charity sector because they care about people, and not just ordinary people, but those who have problems, which are often severe. They may be angry and disturbed, and many of them have lost hope. I have enormous admiration for the workers who want to help such people, and I feel in awe of the dedication that, day after day, takes charity workers into situations where people are often hostile and unfriendly, and desperately in need of help.
  The charity Wintercomfort in Cambridge offers not only a cooked meal and hot drinks, but a place where homeless people can see a doctor, have a haircut and wash and change their clothes. It helps them to feel civilised and human. In many cases it offers a sympathetic ear so that people can talk about their problems, and it helps them out of a crisis. Such work is essential if we are to rehabilitate homeless people who may have spent many years on the street.
  We know from surveys that many people who are homeless are addicted to drugs. The exact figure is not known. According to my latest edition of The Big Issue, the number is somewhere between 20 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the homeless population. I would never condone homelessness shelters becoming havens for drug abusers or places for dealers of hard drugs to make a quick buck. That is not shelters' intention, and such activity is disruptive to the local population.
  If, however, there is drug taking and drug dealing on a shelter's premises, despite the best measures being taken, it should be a defence for a person charged under

  677
  section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that it was not wilfully permitted. That provision is needed to safeguard the livelihood of the many dedicated men and women who do a very difficult job to the best of their ability and to protect them from possible criminal prosecution.
  I shall address the precautions that charity workers must take now to avoid prosecution, and I hope to demonstrate that theirs is not a simple task and that it would be easy for somebody to fall into the same trap as my constituent Ruth Wyner. The 1971 Act applies to anyone who is a director, manager, deputy manager or team leader or anyone in control of the premises. Other workers and even volunteers also need to be aware of the Act, since anyone who has the authority to exclude someone from the premises would be considered to be concerned in the management. That is the advice of the charity Release which was published on the internet shortly after Ruth Wyner and John Brock were convicted. It has implications for the running of hostels and for training, which must be extremely thorough so that all staff and volunteers are aware of their responsibilities.
  The supply of drugs need not necessarily take place in the building for an offence to be committed; if it is done outside the building, on the front steps or in the doorway, garden, yard or outbuildings, it still constitutes an offence. It is therefore necessary for staff to be extremely vigilant and to use mirrors and cameras and to have regular staff checks. Failure to adopt such measures could indicate unwillingness to prevent the supply of drugs and lay the staff open to criminal prosecution.
  The situation is difficult because dealers do not pass drugs openly. The undercover surveillance conducted by the police at Wintercomfort indicated that drugs were not passed when staff were present, and it was only the surveillance that determined that drug dealing was going on.
  A drugs policy is necessary for any organisation in this sector, and clearly it is good practice to put up notices and inform service users of the rules. The sanctions should also be clear; people who are caught with drugs are normally banned. Difficulties arise if people are banned and the police then require the names of those who have been banned.
  Release has issued guidelines that suggest that a book with the names of those banned should be open for all workers and the police to look at, but confidential information, such as the reason for the ban, can be kept separately and privately and will not be open to police scrutiny. Those are only guidelines, however, and charity workers are worried that their shelters will not be used if users perceive that any information handed over in good faith will be passed to the police. There is a conflict of interest.
  When my constituent Ruth Wyner first went into Highpoint prison, she was asked if she would like to train to counsel other prisoners, particularly on drug abuse. She went to her first training session and asked the inevitable question, "If somebody gives me information about drug abuse, do I have to keep it confidential?" She was told, "Of course, it is important that you keep it confidential." I find it ironic that, in prison, such information must be
  678
  kept confidential, but outside prison, in a homelessness shelter, people are expected to give names to the police. That is a difficulty that we need to resolve.
  Mr. Malins: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her approach and her thoughtful and well constructed speech, which comes from the heart. The current offence is knowingly to permit drug dealing or drug taking to take place, and we think that we understand what that means. The hon. Lady suggests that the offence should be wilfully to permit that activity. I find it hard to see the difference. Is there is a real difference, and could she try to draw it out so that we are better informed?
  Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman enables me to come on to my next point. There is a difference between "knowingly" and "wilfully". It is possible for workers to suspect that drug dealing is going on, but they may find it difficult to catch the perpetrators, and in that situation they would be knowingly permitting the offence to take place. "Wilfully" is a stronger description, and somebody would be wilfully permitting drug dealing if they deliberately turned a blind eye to it. There is a subtle distinction between the two, and I hope that my explanation has clarified that.
  Well meaning workers who carry out their work conscientiously and diligently within the spirit of the law need an extra line of defence. That is what I propose, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept it.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that the change should be made. Although it is not the practice of the House to debate a conviction, and it must be said that up to now Ruth Wyner and John Brock have not had permission to appeal against their conviction, I do not believe that they should be held to be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be used.
  I shall give an example to support my argument. A Home Office Minister is responsible for the Prison Service, in which the supply of illegal drugs is detected only one in every 30 times that a prisoner is detected to be using drugs. In Highpoint, Ruth Wyner and John Brock are in a place where the rate of detection of drugs use is lower than that at the Wintercomfort project in Cambridge.
  I should say that, before becoming a Minister in the early 1980s, I was chairman of the executive council of the Church of England Children's Society. One of the 100 projects that we ran involved young people who misused drugs. I am aware of the difficulties that staff have in trying to get those who are drug misusers to become ex-drug misusers According to the definition used by Cambridgeshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service, I would not have been surprised to join Ruth and John in prison. I hope that I would not have done so.
  Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend could not have done.
  Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend says that I could not have done, but in practice, if I knew that those who occasionally misused drugs were present, or if I were responsible, as a director or manager, for a project that had a needle exchange system—clearly, people who

  679
  misused drugs would be involved—I would know that drugs users used the facilities. Therefore, as I understand the Cambridgeshire Two case, I could have been convicted if I could not show that I had prevented any exchange of drugs for money. I hope that I would have been allowed leave to appeal against conviction, and I hope that they will be allowed leave to do the same. I say in passing that it would be interesting to calculate how long a sentence they would have completed in jail before their leave to appeal against conviction could be heard.
  If the Home Office is concerned about new clause 1—I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for the way in which she moved the motion—it should tell the law authorities that, because this is an untested case, they should bring forward the appeal and the application for leave to appeal to next week. If the higher court allowed leave to appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence, that would at least provide a chance for the House to know what the state of the law actually is, as well as remedying the injustice involving those two people.
  During the march from Hyde park to Trafalgar square on 25 March, the most telling slogan was "Help the homeless, jail the social workers." I am concerned about prison governors and Home Office Ministers as well as social workers. People under the control of the state in prison were detected as having used illegal substances 18,000 times last year—in simple terms, they had used drugs. The number of people who were prosecuted in the Prison Service and allied employment was three. Two thirds as many people were prosecuted in the Cambridge case as in the whole Prison Service during the past 11 or 12 months.
  One of the reasons why I am sensitive to the matter is that one of my brothers-in-law—Dr. George Reid—is a trustee of Wintercomfort. This country owes a debt of gratitude to his colleagues and those in similar projects throughout the country. We have a choice: should those who misuse drugs and who are on the streets be ignored, or should people try to work out what they basically need? They need the opportunity to remain in touch with the kind of medical services that the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. Should not they have a chance to be helped to come off drugs?
  I pay tribute to Ministers and the Prison Service for the practical help that is available to drugs misusers in prison. I understand that that they even go so far as to have drugs-free wings in some prisons. Help similar to that provided in prison should be provided out of prison. Wintercomfort and the Bus project were trying to provide such help, but the impact of those convictions has been to close access rather than to open it. Many people around the country need open access to the schemes.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to The Big Issue. I do not know to which edition, but I bought the teenager-edited issue at about 1 o'clock today from someone on the non-swinging bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside. People under the age of 20 had written very openly about subjects about which they felt strongly, one of which was access to drugs. If a pupil says that drugs are available in a school, will the school governors, the education authority or the head be open to the same charge as that which the hon. Lady refers in the extra, stronger defence that she proposes, which might help those who are against drugs?
  680
  In the Wintercomfort case, it was clear that Ruth and John were against the use of or dealing in drugs. In fact, secret surveillance was required by the police, not the policeman who was passing; it was part of the protocol—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members can refer to relevant cases in discussing the Bill, but they should not seek to interfere with the process of the courts. I hope that that is clear.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Bottomley: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is one of the reasons why I made it clear that there was no present leave to appeal against conviction. I said that, in my view, there should be, but I made that remark in passing. An application for leave to appeal is in a different category, but I have moved on from that passing reference. Your remarks have reminded us that there is an urgent need not just for new clause 1 to be considered, but for the Home Office to ensure that, if it wants to establish that there is no need for the law to be changed, the leave application is heard quickly.
  I was referring to schools. So far as I am aware, until now, no head teacher, governor or education authority has faced a similar charge to that faced by the people in Cambridge. If we need to protect those in our schools who try to ensure that drugs are not available there, or, if they are available, that dealing and their use are stopped, I suspect that those who say, "Something needs to happen in my school because I know drugs are there and want to stop it," will be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be provided. Or must that unit, project, social project, school or prison be closed, if necessary in extremis? That was said in the case to which I shall not refer again. That is a disgrace.
  If Ministers care about those who are helping the homeless and trying to reduce the number of people affected by drugs, those issues and new clause 1 matter. We have seen in the newspapers this week how many glamorous writers in this country appear to have had a heavy drugs habit, but should we convict editors and proprietors for knowingly employing those who misuse drugs? The underlying point is that the people who do a decent job for some of the least well off in society, who have the most need to come off drugs, need to be supported, not to be locked away in a place where there is more drug misuse than in the projects that they run.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I am happy to support new clause 1 and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on tabling it. To understand the need for new clause 1, we must appreciate the precise nature of what is normally known as homelessness or rough sleeping. Only very briefly, and rarely, is the lack of a home the problem with those who sleep rough. In the great majority of cases, the problems for those who persistently sleep rough are not the transient ones of parental abuse or family trouble, but those of mental ill health and alcohol or drug addiction.
  Large sums are being spent to overcome the problems of homelessness, but all the schemes end up dealing with long-term problems involving a relatively small group of people. The great difficulty is to take them into homes where they can spend the night away from the streets, but is it reasonable and practical to expect those people to end

  681
  their addictions that night—immediately? We know that there are schemes in other countries in which intermediate homes are provided, but they are not practicable or possible under British law. Those who come into the homes will say, with the best will in the world, that they will never touch a drop of alcohol or take a drug again. They often stay dry or do not use drugs for a short period, but inevitably, there is a great danger that those who have alcohol or drug addictions that stretch back many years will backslide.
  There is great fear throughout the organisations and places in this country that deal with homeless people. With the best will in the world, and although they will make every effort to ensure that people do not take drugs on their premises, there is a real possibility that drugs will be acquired from outside. There is no way that anyone can ensure that drugs are not taken and it is wholly unreasonable that those who work for such organisations should risk ending up with a prison sentence, perhaps of four years.
  Making a change is essential. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, we are in a strange position. Drugs turn up in unexpected places. This weekend, we heard of a drug turning up where one would least expect it. I do not know whether the head of the household will be arraigned before the courts and threatened with a sentence. Drugs are in prisons, in schools—everywhere. The people who do wonderful work for the homeless feel demoralised and frightened by the present situation, but we can give them a confidence boost by passing this valuable new clause.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for introducing the new clause and it will not surprise the House to learn that, like others, I received a large amount of correspondence from people who support a change of the law in this direction. Their experience is a practical one of which we are all very conscious, and it does not matter whether a person offers youth service provision or runs either a shelter for homeless people, as in this case, or a centre in which people stay overnight or during the day.
  Many of those who have management responsibility, the more removed responsibility of a trustee or a committee of management responsibility could be caught by the law and, if I may say so to the hon. Lady, it is entirely appropriate for her to have put the issue before the House. There has been a conviction and the matter has been dealt with. The people involved must pursue their appeal and I support the view of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) that the sooner it can be dealt with, the better. That is in everybody's interest and I hope that those who manage court and appeal business not only read our debate—we can make sure that they receive a copy—but respond to it.
  We need to get to the essence of the matter, and I want to make two points. The first concerns the broad issue of how to deal with people who, technically, might be caught. To be honest, unless people with important management responsibility in social work in the wider sense are able to risk being with potential criminals, a lot of the work will not be done. I used to be a youth leader and the implication of that was that I sometimes dealt with
  682
  people who had weapons or drugs on them. Unless I had their confidence, I would never get into the relationship that allowed me to deal with the issue.
  Members of Parliament have similar experiences. A single parent came to my door on Saturday after being referred to me. That person's giro had not come, the children were at home and the family had no money. I took the best steps that I could. I went to the person's house and we then tried to sort things out with the Benefits Agency on Saturday evening. We are all often in positions in which we could have a responsibility to people who could break the law; we do not know their circumstances. The two people who have been convicted assumed that responsibility as part of their job. They took in vulnerable people who were at risk and near the margins of offending.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was absolutely right to say that people can become homeless as a consequence of a number of factors. I remember a tragic incident. A person came to my surgery who in three months had gone from having a home, being married and being employed as an officer in the services to having no employment, no marriage and no home. He had also become addicted to drink. Inevitably, the engagement requires the risk. The hon. Member for Cambridge is therefore right to say that we need a definition in law that does not risk the prosecution of people who are not knowingly party to the commission of offences and do not encourage those offences.
  The second issue is the debate about the proposed wording and the law as it stands. I guess that we shall hear from the Minister a summary of the case law on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There is plenty of it and plenty of people have pleaded as a defence that their case did not comply with the terms of the law. The Bill should contain a legal definition that distinguishes between those who specifically and unequivocally know that somebody is dealing in drugs and do not take action—in colloquial terms, they go along with it, and do so actively rather than passively—and those who are in a position from which they may suspect, have concerns about or even be aware of possibilities of drug dealing, but do not participate in, condone or associate themselves with it, although it is part of their work.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not object if I say that it may be that Parliament needs two bites at the cherry to get it right: tonight's debate and the formal response as well as negotiation, in collaboration with the Home Office and others who have made representations to us, to find a form of words that works.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman rightly goes far beyond the debate held in Westminster Hall on 29 February and takes us back to the discussions that took place before and after the 1970 general election. It was absolutely plain that the provision was to deal with those who organised drags-type parties and could say, "I didn't see it; I wasn't involved." That is very different from what he and the hon. Member for Cambridge have spelled out this evening.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I practised in cases in which such a crime was the charge and recollect that the provision was intended to deal with people who sought commercial gain, whether they

  683
  operated in a nightclub, a bar, a pub or other premises. Basically, turning a blind eye meant that they were able to facilitate the passage of drugs through their kebab house, pub or club. I know of loose management of commercial premises in my constituency which has given a place a reputation. The hon. Members for Cambridge and for Newport, West will know of examples in their constituencies and Members of the House do not have to be very streetwise to learn about specific places that are more likely than others to be venues for such activity. Even the slightly older Members soon get to hear about it.
  I went into a certain establishment on my way home from the House late one night to get some food and remember being told that, if I did not know it already, this was the place where, at any moment during the night, such activity was likely to take place. It is not the place that the hon. Member for Newport, West uses when he stays up in London during the week so he is quite safe.
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West is right to say that the law was not intended to deal with social workers or the equivalent who run such places, or those who do a professional job in an effort to rehabilitate and support people. Nor was it intended to catch those who knew that they had to take risks, but did not conspire with others to break the law. The law is being misrepresented. We can have our views about the sentence—none of us was in court for the trial that has been referred to—but there is widespread public disaffection with the way in which the law has been applied in that case.
  Not only have people written to us in significant numbers, but I know that in my own party, steps have been taken to have the matter debated more widely and to call for the law to be changed. That is entirely appropriate and if we can manage to achieve that before the end of this parliamentary term, the hon. Member for Cambridge will have done the House, her constituent and the colleague convicted with her a service. I hope that we make the law more like the law it was intended to be—one that does not sweep up people who were never intended to be criminalised. To be honest, they will not be able to do their jobs properly if we keep on the statute book a law that is interpreted in such a way.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Dawson: I associate myself with the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and also with what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about the need for the Government to deal with this important matter as quickly as possible.
  At Christmas, I spent a little while at a night shelter in my constituency. The shelter has operated over many Christmases, and I have often visited it, but I have never witnessed such anxiety among people there—one or two of them paid workers, but most of them volunteers—who, for goodness' sake, had given up their Christmas to offer comfort and support to some of the most vulnerable people in Lancaster.
  Those workers and volunteers were extremely worried about their own positions in the light of the case in Cambridge. Even the first whiff of concern about drugs dealing led to the police being called immediately, with sniffer dogs, and to the whole place being searched from top to bottom. It is to the credit of all concerned, not least those who were using the night shelter—and the police,
  684
  and the staff of the shelter—that the search, which in fact revealed nothing, was taken in good part; but it was profoundly disruptive to what had been a pleasant evening at Christmas.
  I hope that the Wintercomfort case represents a significant aberration. However, it sent a chilling message to those who work with vulnerable people, often in extremely difficult circumstances and for little or no pay. They may be under physical threat, and they are likely to experience emotional difficulties; the hours are long, and the pressures are many. I hope that the situation can be resolved.
  I believe that the Government are determined to deal with drugs issues, and to help with the rehabilitation of drug addicts and those involved in the complex world of drugs sub-cultures. Many difficult issues confront those who work in such a setting: there are tremendous subtleties. Sometimes there are hints of what is going on, and sometimes there is more evidence. Sometimes, I suppose, it is necessary to allow a situation to develop in order to deal with it properly. I regularly talk to my local police divisional commander, who tells me that, while he is aware of criminals operating in the division, it is sometimes necessary to allow that to continue in order to catch the criminals and deal with the matter properly.
  It seems to me that, in the case we are discussing, two people committed to social work in the most difficult circumstances have been dealt with in a draconian way. The issue is plainly of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, and it needs to be dealt with. The Government need to take a view, and people working in such circumstances need proper protection.
  Mr. Hawkins: I, too, compliment the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who has done the job that all of us, as constituency Members, seek to do in drawing attention to a serious issue in her area. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who—along with others—explained his personal connection with one of the trustees of the project, and his general concern about the issue.
  I think that we all recognise that there is no more serious issue than that of drugs. I know from my experience in the courts both prosecuting and defending in drugs cases, and from my experience as a constituency Member, that there are many dedicated people who try to wean others off drugs. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned his dealings with such people, and, like all constituency Members, I too have met a number of them. In recent years, I have worked closely with Dr. Tony Blowers and the Surrey drug action team, and I know that there are similarly dedicated people in all areas. No doubt the Minister will join me in paying tribute to them.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not consider me churlish if I say that all of us, as Members of Parliament, must recognise the truth of the old saying that hard cases make bad law. We must also be conscious of the separation of powers doctrine. It is for Parliament to make laws, and for the courts to interpret them. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly warned us all not to stray over the boundary and comment on the courts. In relation to the case that we are discussing, I have only read what has been in the press, and all of us who have ever dealt with court cases know that it is often not possible to

  685
  obtain a full picture from press reporting. Sadly—although this is not a criticism of them—journalists frequently do not fully understand the nuances involved in a court's response to a case. It may be necessary to have sat in the court to know exactly what went on. I therefore do not wish to comment on this case, but I will say that we recognise that the issues are serious.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge presented her views very reasonably, as did all the other speakers, and we look forward to seeing how the matter progresses. However, the official Opposition will not support the hon. Lady's proposal. Although we feel that she was right to draw the House's attention to what happened in her constituency, we think that the new clause is akin to a private Member's Bill. She has made her case, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West and others, and we shall be interested to see how this difficult issue develops.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has used this Report stage as a vehicle to raise a case that she has raised privately in the past with my officials and me, and has also raised in a related debate in Westminster Hall. I congratulate her on her assiduity and determination in pursuing her constituent's interest.
  It would not be proper for me to comment publicly on the Wintercomfort case, and I do not intend to do so. The matters involved have been before the courts, and are the subject of appeal. I should say, however, that, as far as I am aware, this is the first prosecution of care agency staff—it is, I believe, the first to be drawn to the House's attention—since the 1971 Act came into force. Care agencies have a duty to uphold the law; they are in no way exempt from it. The fact that this is the only case brought against care agency staff since the 1971 Act would not seem to support the contention that the current law in some way works against the interests of therapeutic interventions in this difficult and complex area, or works in a way that inhibits care staff from carrying out their proper functions and duties.
  Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence for an occupier or person concerned in the management of premises knowingly to permit certain specified actions to take place there: the production or attempted production of a controlled drug; the supply or attempted supply of a controlled drug; the preparation of opium for smoking; and the smoking of cannabis.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
  Section 8 replaced a similar section in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 and was specifically drafted to ensure that only a person with guilty knowledge could be caught by its provisions. Section 8 as drafted properly requires those concerned in the management of premises to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable steps that are available to them to prevent drug dealing.
  I want to allay some concerns that anyone reading Hansard might have stimulated in them by the suggestion that, to found liability under section 8, it is enough to know that people on the premises use drugs. That is not
  686
  the case. The law is very clear, which is why we do not need to amend it as my hon. Friend suggests. What is required is that someone responsible for the management of premises should knowingly permit certain actions to take place on those premises; the offence is committed only if that person knowingly permits or suffers the illicit activity to take place. If he or she takes reasonable steps to deal with the problem and does not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye to the activity, there is no question of the offence having been committed.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: May I just finish, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Gentleman have had their say? I intend to lay out what we believe the law is. Then I will of course give way, first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.
  It was argued that, if people, for example, did not tip off the police as to their suspicions that someone was taking drugs on the premises, that would in some way breach section 8. Nothing in section 8 should give cause for that belief. What is required is that they do not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, and that they take all reasonable steps to prevent the premises from being used in that way.
  Let us draw on our own experience. We had the discussion in the debate in Committee. Many of us here have run youth clubs of one sort or another. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has; I have; and I suspect that other hon. Members have. There is a decision we must make when running a youth club: do we or do we not allow the stuff on the premises? It is a decision that a number of us have had to make in our own lives.
  Once we make the decision, we enforce it. We say, "We are not having drugs on the premises. If you use drugs on the premises, you are out", and we enforce that. We are required to ensure that the youth club is managed in such a way that, if people are caught smoking on the premises, we tell them to leave and they do so. If they do not, we may well have to call the police. No one who takes that line in relation to the management of premises will find themselves falling foul of section 8.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for those of us who are concerned with the particular case to accept what the Minister is saying, because some of the issues that he is canvassing were brought up in the case, which we have been warned not to go into in detail. If the Minister could more easily stick to what the law was thought to be for the case under discussion, it would make for a rather better debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I made it plain earlier that it is possible to refer to the case in very general terms. I see no reason why the points that are being made cannot be made in that way. I think that that is what the Minister is trying to do.
  Mr. Boateng: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  687
  6.45 pm
  The law is as laid down in a succession of Court of Appeal judgments to cope with the matter. The case to which the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred has, at first instance, its own very specific facts. I do not intend to go into that case. It is, of course, open—subject to the direction given by you Mr. Deputy Speaker—to hon. Members to raise it in a general manner, as they see fit. I do not seek to do that. I seek to share with the House the law as it currently is, and the interpretation by the Court of Appeal and existing case law of the impact of section 8.
  The impact is as I have described it. For the offence to be made out, there is a requirement for an individual knowingly to have committed, or to have suffered, the illicit activity on the premises. If reasonable steps are taken to deal with the problem and there is no action to condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, the offence is not committed.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I refer back to a point that my right hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech. He said that it was not necessary to change the law because there had been only one such conviction under the law. Does he agree that the case has given rise to enormous anxiety among people working in the homelessness sector, who are very worried that they will now be caught in exactly the same way?
  Mr. Boateng: I have not said in terms that we do not need to change the law because there has been only one case. What I said is that the fact that only one prosecution has been brought shows that there is not a widespread problem of care activity being inhibited by ill-founded prosecutions, accusations and convictions in this area. It is different from the gloss that my hon. Friend has put on it, but, having heard her and being aware of the concern that the publicity around the case has generated, we are concerned to ensure that there is clarity on the activities of care agencies in that important area. As has been said—it is certainly accepted by me—some very difficult and challenging tasks must be performed by dedicated and committed workers in the front line in relation to drugs and to the care and support of vulnerable and, at times, difficult and damaged people. Such workers need to be reassured and supported in their work.
  Therefore, the Government and the relevant agencies are considering what further guidance should be issued to those who work with homeless drug misusers to clarify the law, and proper practice and procedure in that area. Clearly, there are concerns out there and they need to be addressed. We are anxious to ensure that they are addressed while the existing law continues to be upheld, as it must be upheld for very good reason.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Boateng: Once I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, I will come to that.
  Mr. Bottomley: The House will be grateful for the Minister's comments on consultation. It would be very useful if he included the Association of Chief Police Officers in that consultation, as I think that some chief
  688
  police officers would issue guidance to their forces that is quite different from that issued to the Cambridgeshire constabulary.
  Will the Minister also include the Prison Governors Association in the consultation? Is it not true—on the issue of turning a blind eye—that, if prison governors know that drugs are getting into their prisons and extra resources and more hidden cameras would enable detection of those drugs, but that, if they do not get those resources, they would be in the same position as social workers who are unable to deal with drugs on their premises? I do not want to trade points of law with the Minister. As he said, we are dealing with an unusual case on which the Court of Appeal has not yet delivered a judgment, and neither he nor I can put ourselves in the court's position.
  Mr. Boateng: As I have previously said to the hon. Gentleman, it is profoundly misconceived to compare the position of prison governors in relation to drugs in prison with the position of a care agency manager. Prison governors are required to take all reasonable action to deal with the use and misuse of drugs in prison—not only to prevent drugs from entering prisons, but to seek to detect and dissuade those who use drugs when they do enter prisons. Prison governors are given a range of powers and facilities, which they exercise, to take that action.
  How the hon. Gentleman puts his case is entirely a matter for him, but comparing the position of a prison governor with that of someone who manages a care agency or those who are engaged in front-line work is not his best point. I see the attraction of making such a comparison, as there clearly are concerns about drugs in prisons, but it flies in the face of reason to suggest that prison governors are likely to fall foul of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
  Mr. Flynn: Is not the difference between the two circumstances the fact that prison governors have a group of people who are confined to prison, under their control and surveillance, 24 hours a day, whereas those who run places such as Wintercomfort supervise people for only a small part of the day? Additionally, those people are not only free to go outside and to make outside contacts, but are well used to disguising their addictions. Are not prison governors much better placed to be responsible for drugs misuse than those who run places such as Wintercomfort?
  Mr. Boateng: I shall not be drawn down that particular path, because I simply do not think that the situation of a prison governor and that of a front-line worker in a care agency are analogous. My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Worthing, West and I clearly disagree on that point, and they will make their point as they see fit.
  Section 8 was widely drawn intentionally to apply to all public and private premises and was not designed solely to deal with the type of premises that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drops into for a late-night snack on his way home or that the hon. Member for Worthing, West described as causing concern in the swinging 60s, when he was young. The 1970 Hansard extracts of the Committee's debates on the 1971 Act show that the Act was drafted deliberately to include not only pubs and clubs but care agencies and any other premises where there was a concern to ensure that no unlawful drugs are supplied.

  689
  For many years, across the country, drug treatment agencies, probation hostels and homelessness projects have acted on the basis that they need to take action to stop drugs from being supplied and used on the premises. That was, has been and always will be very much part of what those organisations do to create a desirable environment. In no circumstances is it desirable that people should turn a blind eye to—or in any way condone, encourage or collude in—the supply and use of drugs on premises.
  It is quite reasonable that the law should require those who are concerned in the management of care agencies to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable action to prevent drug dealing. Managers can and do take a range of actions to combat drug misuse on their premises. Managers and staff should ensure that all reasonable action is taken, in accordance with the law, to prevent the supply of controlled drugs on the premises.
  The key lies in an effective drugs policy which is known and understood by managers, staff, residents and others who use the premises. They will also understand that that policy has been developed on the basis of best advice, involving liaison with police and health agencies. Such a policy is the way forward and the basis of good practice.
  Managers across the country have daily to deal with those issues. We owe the overwhelming majority of them a debt of gratitude for the way in which they perform that function.
  We are unable to accept new clause 1, which we believe would weaken and certainly make less clear the provisions of the 1971 Act. The new clause would enable owners and managers to argue that, although they had what is currently considered to be a guilty knowledge of illegal activity, they had not permitted it wilfully, by showing that they had taken some, but not all reasonable measures to prevent the production, supply or use of illegal drugs on their premises.
  I do not think that, in those circumstances, the new clause would achieve the clarity and transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the other hon. Members who tabled the new clause seek to achieve to enable those who do that difficult and complex work better to order their affairs.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may not be able to answer this question now. If he cannot, I should be grateful if he would write to me on it. He said that, in the context of care provision, the measure was used for the first time in the case that we discussed. Can he give us the figures on how frequently the measure has been used generally since 1971?
  Mr. Boateng: No; but I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on that.
  Clarity is crucial in the drafting of criminal offences. I do not believe that new clause 1, as drafted, would meet that test, as those who tabled the new clause intended it to do. However, I well understand the concerns about the general point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge articulated, while avoiding comment on the specific case. In considering further guidance, we shall certainly bear in mind the contribution of all hon.
  690
  Members to this debate. It has been an important debate about a serious issue and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it in the way that she has.
  7 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, which has been important in terms of clarification. I thank also my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the courteous way in which he responded to my concerns.
  I accept that care agencies are not exempt from the law, nor would I wish them to be so. It is important that we take steps to ensure that there is no illegal drug abuse on premises where we can reasonably expect people to be protected from such activity. It is important that care agencies should not be exempt from the law; indeed, that was not what I was arguing.
  I was arguing that there should be more clarity, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will issue guidance. I hope that that will come soon, because of the enormous anxiety that the case to which I referred has created. Of course, care workers must take reasonable steps to show that they have not knowingly permitted or suffered actions to take place. They must not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye.
  I believe that reasonable steps were taken in the case of Wintercomfort when people who were suspected of drug taking were excluded from the premises. That does not appear to be a sufficient way of demonstrating that reasonable steps have been taken. Many people were excluded—not on the basis that they were seen to be exchanging drugs or money but, in some cases, simply on the basis that they were suspected of doing so. It may have been because of their behaviour. They may have been sitting close together in a huddle, having a conversation which looked as though it was not intended to be overheard.
  My right hon. Friend maintains that this is not a widespread problem. I will be happy if that is the case, but there is a concern, held by many in the sector, that having once brought a successful case and gained a conviction, the police might be encouraged to bring others, and innocent victims may be caught.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the more interesting words used by the Minister of State were that, often, Court of Appeal judgments in these sort of things helped to make the law clear, and that it would be convenient if the Court of Appeal could do that in this case?
  Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in pursuing this case and makes an important point. Like many others, I will read the words of my right hon. Friend on the clause with care. I hope that the further guidance from the Government will be issued and I urge that that be done as quickly as possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT 1978—MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT
  '—For section 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (Punishments), there shall be substituted—
  "(6) a person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine, or to both;

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.".'.—[Mr. Lidington.]

  Brought up, and read the First time
  Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Repeat Child Sex Offenders: Minimum Sentences—
  '.—(1) (a) Subject to subsection (b), this section applies where a person over the age of 18 years is convicted in England and Wales of a sex offence against a child and has previously been convicted in any part of the United Kingdom of a sex offence against a child.
  (b) This section shall not apply to any person to whom section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (Mandatory life sentence for second serious offence) applies.
  (2) Where the person referred to in (1) above has one previous conviction for a sex offence against a child, the court shall impose either

  (a) a sentence of imprisonment of at least five years, or

  (b) a sentence of life imprisonment.

  (3) Where the person referred to in (1) above has more than one previous conviction for a sex offence against a child, the court shall impose either

  (a) a sentence of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or

  (b) a sentence of life imprisonment.

  (4) The court may not impose the prescribed sentences specified in (2) and (3) if it is of the opinion that there are specific circumstances which relate to any of the offences or to the offender which would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.
  (5) Section 58 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Sentences extended for licence purposes) shall apply to sentences passed under this section.
  (6) In this section "sex offence against a child" means any of the following offences where the victim or intended victim of the offence was or would have been under the age of sixteen years at the time of the offence or intended offence:
  (a) offences under the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—

  (i) section 1 (rape);

  (ii) section 5 (intercourse with a girl under 13);

  (iii) section 6 (intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16);

  (iv) section 10 (incest by a man);

  (v) section 11 (incest by a woman);

  (vi) section 12 (buggery);

  (vii) section 13 (gross indecency);

  (viii) section 14 (indecent assault on a girl);

  (ix) section 15 (indecent assault an a boy);

  (x) section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery);

  (xi) section 23 (procuration of a girl under 21);

  (xii) section 28 (causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with, or indecent assault on, girl under 16);

  (b) an offence under section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child):
  (c) an offence under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse);
  (d) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children);
  (e) any offence under

  (i) section 70 of the Army Act 1955;

  (ii) section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955; or

  (iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957,

  of which an offence under paragraphs (a) to (d) would constitute a corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of that Act)
  (f) any offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of the above offences;
  (g) any offence of conspiring or attempting to commit such an offence;
  (h) any offence under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland that, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute an offence under paragraphs (a) to (g) above.'.
  New clause 4—Possession of Indecent Photographs of Children—
  '.—For section 160(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 there shall be substituted:
  "(3) a person guilty of any offence under this section shall be liable—

  (a) on conviction, on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or a to fine, or to both;

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.".'.

  New clause 5—Procuration of child under sixteen—
  '.—For section 23 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Procuration of girl under twenty-one), there shall be substituted—
  "Procuration of child under sixteen
  It is an offence for a person to—

  (a) procure or attempt to procure a child under the age of sixteen for the purposes of sexual activity anywhere in the world with a third person;

  (b) incite or attempt to incite another to procure a child under the age of sixteen for the purposes of sexual activity anywhere in the world with any person."

  (2) In the second schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in the column headed "offence", for the term "Procuration of girl under twenty-one (section 23)", there shall be substituted "Procuration of child under sixteen (section 23)"
  (3) In the second schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in the column headed "punishment", for the term "two years" relating to "Procuration of girl under twenty-one (section 23)", and an attempt to commit that offence, there shall be substituted "ten years".'.
  New clause 6—Indecency with children—
  '.—For section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (Indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be substituted—
  "—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, 'child' means a person under the age of sixteen years.
  (2) Any person who—

  (a) knowingly commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child, or who incites a child to commit such an act with that person, or with another, or

  (b) travels with the intent of committing any act of gross indecency with or towards a child; or

  (c) knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, an act of gross indecency with or towards any child; or

  693

  (d) transports a child with the intent that that child engage in an act of gross indecency,

  is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to a fine, or to both.
  (3) Any person who—

  (a) abducts, detains or otherwise restricts the liberty of a child for the purpose of sexually exploiting that child; or

  (b) organises or knowingly facilitates such abduction, detention or restriction.

  is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to a fine, or to both.
  (4) Any parent, guardian or other person having for the time being custody or control of a child who knowingly permits that child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexual activity, or who knowingly permits the sexual exploitation of that child, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to a fine or to both.
  (5) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
  (6) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).".'.
  New clause 7—Use of computers to commit act of gross indecency with a child—
  'After section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (Indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be inserted—
  "Use of computers to commit act of gross indecency with a child
  1A.—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, 'child' means a person under the age of sixteen years.
  (2) Any person who uses an electronic communications system, including (but not limited to) computers, computer networks, computer bulletin boards and newsgroups, computer chatrooms, the internet, and other analogous electronic means, for the purposes of

  (a) engaging in an act of gross indecency with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child; or

  (b) engaging in a sexually explicit discussion with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child; or

  (c) soliciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to engage in any that would constitute an offence under section 1 above or under subsections (2)(a) or (2)(b) of this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable

  (d) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both; or

  (e) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

  (3) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
  (4) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).".'.
  Government amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and 55 to 62.
  Mr. Lidington: The Opposition have tabled a group of amendments designed to address a number of difficulties in the law relating to sexual offences against children. There are three aspects to the group. The first is that we believe that, in a number of cases, the existing maximum sentences are simply too low—in some instances, low
  694
  almost to the point of risibility. They do not have proper regard to the gravity of the criminal offence that the law defines.
  Secondly, we believe that we have identified some areas in which the current law is deficient and needs to be updated. Thirdly, we believe that the law needs to be strengthened to cope with the new and insidious threat posed by child pornography transmitted via the internet; and to deal with the problem, identified in a number of recent court cases, of paedophile offenders using internet chatrooms as a means of trying to entrap young children and establish contact with them, with a view to committing more serious criminal offences later.
  I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who has worked hard on this issue and lobbied my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and me about the need for these changes to the law. I know that he feels strongly about this campaign.
  New clause 2 would increase the maximum penalty for taking, making or distributing indecent photographs of a child from the present three years to a new level of 10 years. We believe that these are serious, arrestable offences and that the maximum penalties that the law current provides are simply inadequate. To many constituents, a maximum penalty of three years for an offence involving child pornography would seem trivial: a maximum more appropriate to a traffic offence than to an offence of this seriousness.
  In the Republic of Ireland, the crimes targeted by this amendment warrant maximum prison sentences of as much as 14 years. The principle is that children under 16 cannot in law give consent for their bodies to be used sexually. People who force children to engage in sexual acts without their consent are committing the most vile crimes imaginable. It is our contention that the people who take, distribute or show photographs of this nature are, in effect, responsible for sexual offences. They are causing children, against their will and contrary to the law, to engage in sexual demonstrations. We believe that the law should provide a more serious penalty than it does now.
  New clause 3 would impose new and higher penalties upon people who were convicted for the second time of a sexual offence against children. This is a principle with which the House will be familiar. The principle was introduced in respect of the most serious sexual offences such as rape and in respect of serious violent crimes and persistent burglary by the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997—one of the last Acts of Parliament to go on the statute book before the last general election. We believe that it is right to extend the principle to paedophile offences.
  The new clause proposes that in a case where someone is convicted for the second time of such an offence, the judge should impose either a determinate sentence of no less than five years in prison or, alternatively, a sentence of life imprisonment if the judge decides that the threat to public safety is such as to warrant a life sentence, with all that that entails in terms of being able to keep that offender under supervision for the rest of his life.
  New clause 4 would raise the maximum sentence for the possession of indecent photographs of children from the current level of six months to 10 years. We are told by the police that they sometimes catch people with literally thousands or tens of thousands of such photographs in

  695
  their possession. I know of one case where the police found a man in possession of 35,000 different pornographic photographs of children. Some of them involved children as young as two. In theory, under current law, the court could pronounce a sentence for each photograph, and so impose in aggregate a very long sentence on the offender. However, in practice that does not happen. We therefore believe that a higher penalty is appropriate.
  Jackie Ballard: It would help if the hon. Gentleman explained on what basis he has calculated that 10 years should be the maximum sentence for such offences. There is a big gap between six months and 10 years. What research has he undertaken, or how has he arrived at 10 years?
  Mr. Lidington: The analogy that we have chosen is based on the law that relates to property. The maximum sentence for stealing is 10 years. Receiving stolen goods carries a heavier maximum penalty of 14 years. I am not wedded to 10 years. If other hon. Members present a persuasive case for a different penalty, so be it. However, I believe that a sentence of six months is too short. The public would surely expect us to allow the courts to impose a much longer sentence than the statute currently provides.
  There is also an issue of principle. It is not merely a matter of getting tough with particular offenders. If we tightened up the law on the possession of pornographic material, it would make life more difficult and more risky for those who are involved in producing and distributing child pornography. There could be an indirect benefit to the law enforcement agencies in trying to crack down on the trade.
  New clause 5 deals with offences of procuring children for sexual purposes and inciting others to procure children. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will be able to say whether this is a subject that the Government intend to examine, perhaps following the report of the current review into sexual offences. The present law is complicated and out of date. For example, it does not offer equal protection to boys and girls, and it does not provide for an offence of inciting somebody else to procure a child.
  Mr. Garnier: One of the provisions in new clause 5 is novel in this area of the law, although it has been seen in conspiracy law relating to terrorism. If the clause took its place on the statute book, it would catch those who commit offences of procuring anywhere in the world if they are British subjects and can be brought within our jurisdiction. That would be a useful addition to the criminal calendar. Many people leave the United Kingdom to go abroad to commit what are loosely called sex tourism offences. Despite the private Member's Bill that passed to the statute book either this Parliament or at the end of the last Parliament, there is a role for the House in passing Government legislation to deal with extraterritorial sex offences committed by British subjects.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He has drawn the attention of the House to an important detail of the new clause.
  696
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley drew attention to a case in which a man approached the proprietor of a sex shop, seeking child pornography and "live action", as he termed it—in other words, sex with children. The police were able to arrest him, but they had a difficult time making charges stick because the only law available to them to draw on for a charge was that which involved a charge of the man having procured a girl, and having done so specifically with the intention of having sexual intercourse.
  The new clause is designed to cover procuring children for any type of sexual offence, rather than for sexual intercourse itself under the law as it stands. It would help the police in establishing the evidence that they need to deal with such offenders, who are a menace to society.
  Jackie Ballard: Having read the new clause, I raise a genuine query. The proposal provides that it will be
  an offence for a person to … procure a child under the age of sixteen for the purposes of sexual activity.
  As has been said, that would apply only to British citizens. How would the provision work in countries where 14 is the age of consent? In Italy and some other European countries, the age is below 16.
  Mr. Lidington: I believe that we should have laws that allow us to provide protection for children that we as legislators believe to be appropriate. I shall examine the detail in the light of what the hon. Lady has said.
  Mr. Garnier: It is not my job to give the House a lecture on double actionability. However, one of the possible answers is that a British defendant might be caught only if the crime that he committed was a crime both in the foreign jurisdiction and in this jurisdiction. If the two were not able to be brought on that basis, there would be no offence. However, it is open to Parliament to make laws that it thinks fit. If the House says that it will be an offence for anyone to act in the manner set out in the new clause, subject to any better advice from the Minister of State, who is an extremely experienced barrister in criminal cases, I think that the law will be as stated in the new clause.
  Mr. Lidington: New clause 6 deals with indecent conduct towards children. Again, we think that the present law is complex and inadequate. The police can use the present law to protect boys under the age of 16, but 14 to 16-year-olds can be protected only if they have been assaulted by a man. As I understand it, girls of 14 to 16 are not protected at all. The new clause would both simplify and update the law. It would include all children regardless of gender, and it would increase the maximum penalty to 10 years. We believe that the clause would allow police to arrest offenders at stages prior to their having physically abused a child. Such preparatory offences already exist in other areas of criminal law.
  Finally, new clause 7 deals with the problem of the use of computers to promote paedophile activity. This is something about which a number of the organisations involved with Internet service providers have expressed concern. The chief executive of the Internet Watch Foundation said recently that 90 per cent. of the hotline

  697
  calls which its switchboard received were about child pornography. He added that the websites were not the main problem and said:
  By and large, Websites are legal. Most of the illegal material is in the much less controlled area of Usenet news.
  He continued:
  the new frontier is Chat Rooms, which are in real time. So what goes on there is not susceptible to the sort of process we have of getting material reported, looking at it and then investigating.
  There have been several recent cases in which it has been shown that paedophiles have sought to use chatrooms to make contact with children. One case, reported recently by the BBC, involved a 47-year-old man who introduced himself to a teenage girl as a 15-year-old when they first began swapping messages. The girl, who was only 13, agreed to meet the man, who admitted on the internet to being 18.
  Thankfully, the girl's mother, who was suspicious of this unknown teenage boy, went with her daughter and was horrified when she found out that there was a middle-aged man behind the messages. The case was described by the chief inspector who investigated it as most disturbing. He said that the girl could have been placed at considerable risk.
  In the recent Lockley case, Judge Peter Fingret at the Old Bailey called on the Government to seize the opportunity for an overhaul of the law on child pornography and to deal in particular with the problem of paedophiles using the internet.
  We believe that it is time for such changes to be introduced and we hope that the debate that we have initiated can play a part in bringing that about. We look to the Government to tell us how they plan to deal with the issue, which we believe is a matter of increasing concern to many of our constituents.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I hope that I can be succinct, even though we are dealing with six new clauses. The House will recognise the importance of this subject. When we were discussing a four-legged predator, we had a full House—presumably because there was disagreement—whereas now that we are considering two-legged predators who damage babies and children, the House is virtually empty, no doubt because there is general agreement at least on the idea behind the new clauses.
  The idea is to broaden the action that the police can take and to increase the penalties for criminals who make little apparent effort to rehabilitate themselves. Perhaps most important, we have suggested changes to make the system proactive.
  New clause 2 would change the maximum sentence and create a serious arrestable offence, giving the police a little more clout in trying to deal with paedophiles. As I understand it, at present, if the police have a warrant to search the home of a suspected paedophile, that person can just up sticks and walk without the police having any possibility of holding him. I understand that, if the offence were made a serious arrestable offence, the individual would be required to stay with the police if they so required it.
  Most serious arrestable offences carry sentences of 10 or 15 years to life. Sexual offences of this class against adults carry maximum sentences of 10 years or more. That
  698
  might answer the question put by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). I hope that the House will agree that children should have at least the same protection as adults—arguably more, because they are more vulnerable.
  The photographs are appalling. The aim of the photographs of the fox that were referred to earlier is to shock, whereas, in terms of physical and psychological damage to babies and children, the photographs distributed by paedophiles are unprintable and cannot be shown in the newspapers. Such pictures would certainly change the mind of anyone who felt soft on the issue. Those who take such photographs are forcing children to take part in sexual acts without their consent. Many children never properly recover from the psychological and physical trauma inflicted on them at such a young age. Many countries take a different approach from ours. Ireland has a maximum sentence of 14 years, and some of the states of the United States have a maximum of 20 years.
  Modern technology enables paedophiles to feed and stimulate their and others' fantasies. We must recognise that and increase the sentence available to try to stimulate thinking towards stopping such action.
  New clause 3 is in the classic "Three strikes and you're out" mode. It is well known that paedophiles are among the most difficult of criminals to rehabilitate. We need to approach the matter by saying that, if they persist, rehabilitation has failed, and we need to protect society by putting them away for a bit longer. We are not only protecting society; we are protecting its most vulnerable members—hence the idea of an incremental increase or "three strikes and you're out".
  New clause 4 would extend to a prison term of 10 years or more or fine or both the maximum sentence on conviction, on indictment, for possession of child pornography. The Gary Glitter case shocked many people. This Glitter individual had tens of thousands of pornographic pictures of children, some of whom were under two, yet lie received only a six-month sentence—that was the maximum—and spent a very short time in prison. That is not unusual. It is sad, and reflects badly on us.
  United Kingdom law should view the possession of such quantities of pornography in the same way as it perceives those who handle and receive stolen goods. If an individual is convicted of handling or receiving stolen goods, the maximum sentence is 14 years. For a pornographic photograph to be taken, the child has to have been abused. The stealing of goods carries a lower maximum of 10 years, which reflects the approach of cutting off the source that attracts the sellers and producers.
  I find it hard to believe those who collect child pornography when they say that they do not want to abuse children. Ray Wyre, who works with convicted paedophiles, is considered an authority and often quoted. In David Howitt's "Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children", Wyre makes it clear that
  If a man buys "child pornography" he does so for one reason and one reason alone … The fact that he may not have done so is more likely to be a question of availability or the fear of getting caught than revulsion at the very concept.
  I hope that that will be key to our approach this evening.
  New clause 5 is a complex clause that would update and broaden the Sexual Offences Act 1956 by recognising that the age of consent is universally set at 16, not 21, and—

  699
  unlike Members of Parliament in 1956 or thereabouts—recognising that protection against paedophiles should apply to boys as well as girls: in other words, it would make the legislation gender-neutral.
  The new clause would replace "sexual intercourse" with "sexual activity", because some paedophiles have dodged prosecution by virtue of the fact that, legally speaking, their activities have fallen just short of sexual intercourse.
  7.30 pm
  New clause 5 would introduce a new offence of inciting a third party to procure someone under the age of 16 for the purposes of sexual activity. That would meet the difficulties experienced by the police in a recent case, in which a person sought to procure a young girl for quite appalling sexual abuse by means of the internet. Fortunately, the police managed to arrest the person, but they could bring only relatively minor charges with distinctly insignificant sentences. Consequently, I believe that the maximum sentences for such crimes should be increased.
  Any hon. Member who hesitates about the importance of that needs to know about a previous case involving a person called Undermark. When he was arrested, he was attempting—persistently and seriously—to procure for his perverted sexual gratification a child so young as to be in nappies. I expect that all hon. Members will find that staggeringly hard to believe.
  The new offence set out in new clause 5 is important, as it would enable the police—for the first time—to be proactive so that paedophiles could be stopped before they damaged a child. The law at present is more reactive, and there is a much higher risk that a child will be hurt before anything happens.
  Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of new clause 5(1) would extend the application of the legislation to anywhere in the world. That has been mentioned before. It gives one a good feeling to think that, with sufficient evidence, police will be able to arrest a person as he waits for his first drink on a Thai airliner at Heathrow. However, the provision would go further. In a recent case, a person was trying to procure a very young girl over the internet. He was accessing the internet in California, but a police sting there led to the notification of the police in this country. As a result, the man was arrested before he was able to procure the girl.
  New clause 6 would protect children of both sexes up to 16—the age of sexual consent. The present law applies only to children aged 14 and under. That fails to recognise that many children below the age of sexual consent but older than 14 can be victimised by paedophiles, with the justice system being unable to act.
  I understand that the police have been able to use section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—which relates to gross indecency or attempted gross indecency with another man—to protect boys between 14 and 16. However, that does not apply when it comes to protecting girls.
  Once again, new clause 6 is proactive. It would allow police to arrest offenders before they have physically abused a child or children. That approach is used already in respect of other areas of criminal activity—for example, it is a crime to go out equipped to steal.
  700
  The difference is that new clause 6 is proactive, and I hope that the Minister will accept it, as it would help to prevent the damage to the child that can result from a reactive approach.
  I turn to the sickening matter of parents or guardians who betray their great trust and responsibility by sexually exploiting the children in their care. I doubt that any hon. Member who had met such people would not agree that a maximum sentence of 10 years was appropriate.
  New clause 7 would update the law by enabling the police to arrest paedophiles who use computers to engage with children by means of the internet in what is called cybersex. The matter was brought to my attention when I visited Charing Cross police station. I sat for about an hour with a Metropolitan police officer, scanning chatrooms and the information going to and fro. An enormous number of people were using the rooms. The word for what they were trying to do is "groom": they wanted to groom children in the sense that they wanted to lure them into their net. Their hope was to secure a meeting with a child, and their subsequent intentions were obvious. The experience in that room was staggering. I left wondering whether the thinking of a third of the population—male and female—was quite alien to what I consider normal.
  I hope that the Minister will take the new clauses seriously, as they are intended to be a positive, proactive and modernising step forward in assisting police in the many paedophile units around the country to catch paedophiles and so prevent them from harming and damaging children.
  Jackie Ballard: I am sure that all hon. Members abhor the sexual abuse of children and their exploitation for sexual purposes. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) hinted that some people were soft on the matter, but I do not think that he will find any such softness in this House. However, 16 is not accepted all over the world as the age of consent for sexual purposes. It is the age below which the House has decided that people are children, and should be treated as such in connection with sexual offences. It must be remembered also that the age of 16 has not always been accepted for those purposes even in this country.
  I believe that it would be more appropriate to have a more general review of sentences appropriate for sex offences than to take a few random offences and to fix what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) admitted were fairly arbitrary maximum sentences for them. In general, Liberal Democrat Members oppose mandatory sentences, but I am not sure of the Conservative attitude. Conservative Members support mandatory sentences for sex offence cases but oppose them in others—for example, in connection with some well-known manslaughter cases.
  Our approach to mandatory sentences is consistent. We believe that it should not be for politicians to determine sentences, but for the judge to take into account all the circumstances in relation to the sentencing guidelines that have been laid down. New clause 3 would bring in mandatory sentences for repeat sex offenders, but also contains what appears to be a get-out provision, allowing courts to take specific circumstances into account. I hope

  701
  that, in his response, the hon. Member for Aylesbury will explain how a mandatory sentence can remain mandatory when such a get-out clause can be invoked.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady said that her party was not in favour of mandatory sentences. Does that mean that Liberal Democrats oppose the mandatory disqualification of breathalysed drivers found to be over the drink-driving limit? Do they also oppose the mandatory life sentence for murder?
  Jackie Ballard: I shall not be tempted to discuss offences outside the remit of the new clauses, but the straightforward answer is that, in general, we are not in favour of mandatory sentencing.
  New clause 5 deals with the procurement of children internationally, in respect of which the current law does seem to need amending. However, the hon. Member for Aylesbury admitted that a general review of sexual offences was under way at present. That would appear to he a more appropriate forum for dealing with the matter.
  New clause 7 also brings up a matter that needs to be addressed. Given the Government's modernisation programme, I should have thought that they would be looking at the problem of pornography on the internet, and at the fact that the net can be used to procure unknowing children.
  I hope that the Minister will welcome the fact that new clauses 5 and 7 raise serious issues. I shall he interested to hear his response.
  Mr. Malin: I shall be very brief. I have listened to the debate very carefully, and one conclusion is inescapable: the world of today involves internet pornography on an international scale. Parental control was much easier in the old days of the top-shelf magazine than it is in today's world of the internet.
  I am the father of two teenage children. I am terrified of the unlimited access that the internet gives them to the sort of material that all hon. Members abhor. I am unable to do anything about it, however, because I do not know how it works. This is a very dangerous long-term development—it is an international problem.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise my real concerns about the future—the need for some control and for some serious thinking. This is one of the biggest and most dangerous issues to affect families and teenagers today. I support what my hon. Friends have said, but my focus throughout the past 10 or 15 minutes has been on an area about which, sadly, I, along with many others, know little.
  Mr. Boateng: This has been an important and significant debate, not least because, as we speak, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is being considered in the other place. The internet has led to an international dimension in these matters; it has the potential for evil—that is not too strong a word—as well as for great good. Getting the balance right is essential when it comes to civil liberty and privacy on the one hand, and the significant public interest in bearing down on child pornography and the criminal abuse of children on the other. We are talking about child abuse of the most appalling kind. Right hon. and hon. Members on both
  702
  sides of the House such as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who is in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and others who take an interest in children's welfare are appalled at the potential for harm to which children are exposed.
  The Government have put the protection of children not only at the heart of criminal justice policy but, significantly, at the heart of health and social policy, and in the overlap between the two. Tragically, the abuse of children in children's homes and other institutions, and in circumstances in which child protection measures have failed to deliver to children safe places in which to grow are all too obvious. We must be ever-vigilant in ensuring that the various agencies of health, social services, police, prosecution and prison and probation services all work in a way that is designed better to protect children. The debate tonight has been an important one, on which we need to build.
  From the outset, the Government have, as I have said, sought to put child protection at the heart of criminal law, social and health policy, and put in place a strategy that has a number of building blocks. One of them is in the Bill. There are others, such as the work that the Department of Health is doing to take forward, in health and social services, the recommendations of Sir William Utting. The Department of Health is in the lead, but we are working across Government better to protect children through that work and the legislative and other measures that flow from it.
  Another significant area that I will refer to in the course of my response is the review of the law on sex offences. It has at its heart the aim of increasing the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation.
  7.45 pm
  We believe that it is important to take forward this issue in a way that ensures that we address it as a coherent whole. Therefore, I will, I suspect, disappoint right hon. and hon. Members in some areas when I say that to maximise the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation, it is necessary to await the outcome of the sex offences review so that we can tackle this holistically rather than on an ad hoc basis. That is not for one moment to put the issue on the back burner or to underestimate the importance and gravity of the subject matter with which we are dealing and the need to address it with vigilance.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: May I just continue with my argument a little and indicate where we will be proceeding to reassure right hon. and hon. Members as to our determination to take forward this issue?
  We will be bringing forward amendments in the House of Lords in relation to new clauses 2 and 4. We will be asking the House not to accede to new clauses 5 and 6, pending the conclusions of the sentencing review. We obviously commend our amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and amendments Nos. 55 to 62 to the House. I will deal in a little detail with why we do not feel able to accept new clauses 3 and 7.

  703
  New clauses 2 and 4 deal with maximum sentences. We share the sense of abhorrence towards the crimes to which the new clauses refer. The possession, taking, making, distributing, showing and possessing, with a view to distribution, indecent photographs of children under 16 is a loathsome offence that needs to be met with condign and appropriate punishment. It is a particularly abhorrent form of child abuse. The possession of such material is clearly wrong and is an important factor, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, in perpetuating its production by others. They have an incentive to feed the appetite, as long as that appetite continues to exist. We must do all we can to dissuade those who seek such material.
  There is no doubt that the misuse of the internet, which is, as I said, capable of reflecting great evil as well as producing great good, has led to an increase in the number of offences committed under the Protection of Children Act 1978. We raised one such case in the House tonight—that of Paul Gadd, also known as Gary Glitter. It was a peculiarly unpleasant case; however, it is, sadly, by no means unfamiliar to those of us who have practised in the criminal courts.
  In the light of these concerns and the forthcoming proposals for the protection of children in the sexual offences review, we felt it necessary to commence a piece of work in the Home Office to strengthen measures against this abhorrent activity. I welcome the opportunity that these two new clauses have provided to outline to the House what they are.
  The sexual offences review did not look at pornography offences per se, but there is a clear read-across to the offences under the 1978 Act. In the light of our concern to ensure that the law delivers protection for children—the review has the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation as its central aim—and our wider concern as to the increased incidence of child pornography offences, the time is right for a review of sentences for such offences.
  The Government believe, however, that there should be a clear distinction between the lesser offence of simple possession, with no aggravating features, and the more serious offence of production and supply. That is not to say that offences such as simple possession should be treated lightly; for the reasons I have given, they are extremely serious. That is why the Government intend to bring forward our own amendments in the Lords.
  The first amendment will increase the maximum sentence for possession of child pornography from six months imprisonment or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. The second will provide for a maximum sentence, under the Protection of Children Act 1978, for taking, distributing, showing and possessing with a view to distribution indecent photographs of children aged under 16, on conviction or indictment, of a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine, or both. The amendment will also propose a sentence, on summary conviction, of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. As we intend to table those amendments, I ask the House—
  Sir Paul Beresford rose—
  Mr. Garier rose—
  Mr. Boateng: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and then to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
  Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for his positive reaction. He mentioned two reviews—on sentencing and on sexual offences. Can he tell us when they will be completed and when he anticipates some action? Many of the cynical policemen chasing paedophiles think that much has been said, but nothing has happened. That does not apply only to this Government, but to others going back over 30 years.
  Mr. Boateng: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he put that intervention; that is how one should consider the issue. The sentencing review will take some months to complete. The sexual offences review has completed its considerations. It was led by the Home Office and involved both a reference group and a steering group with a wide cross-section of interests in the matter. The outcome has been passed to Ministers and we hope to publish it in due course. We shall pursue that agenda; we do not intend to delay, although hon. Members will understand why I am not able to announce the date of publication or of any responses at present.
  Mr. Garnier: I rise simply to tell the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) asked the question that I would have put.
  Mr. Boateng: We shall not kick the review into the long grass. That cannot be so. We need to approach the matter with determination and vigour.
  We shall be tabling in the other place the amendments I described, ensuring that they are properly drafted to cover territorial considerations, especially with regard to the internet. There is little point in increasing the sentences in England and Wales, if child pornographers believe that they will receive a less severe sentence for a similar offence in, say, Northern Ireland. We must ensure that the drafting is right. Colleagues in Scotland will want the opportunity to consider the implications of our intentions on their own jurisdiction.
  New clause 3, as currently drafted, is flawed. It stipulates a minimum sentence of either five or 10 years for a number of offences for which the existing maximum penalty is less than 10 years—in some cases, less than five years—with an alternative of life imprisonment. The reference to an alternative of life imprisonment is insufficient to overcome the conflict between the new clause and the current maximums for the offences to which it applies. There would thus be two conflicting maximum penalties, which would lead to confusion for practitioners and for the courts.
  I well understand what lies behind the new clause, however, and have much sympathy with it. Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 already provides for an automatic life sentence for those convicted of a second, serious sexual or violent offence. It is important that sentences take account of that. Under that section, rape, including attempts, under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and intercourse with a girl aged under 13, under section 5 of the 1956 Act, are qualifying offences.

  705
  Pending the outcome of the sexual offences review, which has been considering the law relating to sex offences, it would not be appropriate to change the maximum penalties at this stage. The review may result in recommendations that affect some of those offences. It is thus not the time to accept new clause 3.
  Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the role of mandatory sentencing, which has always been limited to the most serious offences for which life imprisonment is the maximum penalty. Such sentences should clearly be exceptional and reserved for narrowly defined categories of case. Although sexual offences against children are always a matter of grave concern, and courts can and should be expected to sentence in a condign and appropriate way, the new clause would potentially cover a wide range of behaviour and sets of circumstances—including, for example, consensual acts between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old. That is obviously not the intention of those who tabled the provision; it would hardly be appropriate to impose that length of imprisonment in such cases.
  In our view, the provision is flawed; it could not be enacted without significant consequential amendments to the maximum penalties for a number of the offences to which it applies.
  There is a further flaw. The new clause applies to an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 for which the current maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment. New clause 2 also addresses that offence, and proposes a new maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The two provisions are inconsistent; they could not both be enacted.
  As the sexual offences review has conducted a rigorous examination of those complex issues and bearing in mind the wide-ranging proposals it recommends both on the definition of offences and on appropriate penalties—on which we shall hold consultations—the route suggested in new clause 3 would not be acceptable.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the sexual offences review and look forward to its publication. Do the Minister's comments mean that—except in the most exceptional sexual offence cases—the Government do not support mandatory sentences? Is that a fair conclusion to draw? New clause 3 proposes mandatory sentences but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out—it allows exceptions in specific circumstances. Does the Minister share the view that that is not really a proposal for mandatory sentences at all?
  Mr. Boateng: I have a different view on mandatory sentences from that held by the Liberal Democrat Opposition. That is the way it is; I do not go down the same road as the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept new clause 3 for the reasons that I have given. Although we have come to the same conclusion, I suspect that we reached it by different routes.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Before the Minister concludes, will he give way?
  Mr. Boateng: I shall go on for some time, I am afraid, but I shall give way.
  8 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: Before the Minister goes on, will he reply to a final question? One of the drives behind the new clauses was their proactive aspect. They are designed to protect a child from damage while allowing for the arrest and conviction of the offender. Is that the sort of approach that the Minister is willing to take in further amendments and legislation?
  Mr. Boateng: I wholeheartedly endorse the proactive approach; it is the best way of proceeding. We must ensure that action is taken against violent and sexual predators. That is why we will shall come forward with proposals, and we shall announce our conclusions in due course. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has already endorsed cur proposals for offenders and others with severe personality disorders that make such people a danger. Violent, predatory paedophiles will be among that group, and it is right that we are proactive in responding to the problems that they present. I have no doubt about that.
  The underlying philosophy of the amendments is shared by the whole House. We have to ensure that we work in a way that is holistic and that our strategy recognises the complexity of the process. An action in one place, unless it is thought through and is part of a holistic strategy, can have the reverse effect from that which we intended.
  I sense that the House wishes to arrive at a rapid conclusion on this matter, but it is a serious issue and I do not want anyone to be in any doubt about the extent to which we take it seriously. Although we cannot accept new clauses 5 and 6 for the reasons that I have given, it is important to ensure—I now come to new clause 7—that we do all that we can to curb the misuse of the internet by child pornographers and paedophiles. We have a great deal of sympathy for the intent behind new clause 7, but it contains gaps in the way in which it responds to the complexity of the issues involved. That is why we intend to proceed with the work that we are doing with, among others, the internal relay chat sub-group, which has been set up to examine the issue in detail, to identify the problems and to recommend solutions. That sub-group will present its report to the internet crime forum by the end of August and we need to wait for its conclusions and its recommendations before moving to legislation. However, we accept the thrust behind the new clause.
  The Government amendments are designed to strengthen the Bill. They are a response to the debate that we had in Committee and to the consultations that we have had with a wide range of organisations concerned with child protection. They carry forward the intentions of the Bill as expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. For that reason, I commend the amendments to the House.
  We intend to table amendments in the House of Lords as a result of new clauses 2 and 4 and to put new clauses 5 and 6 to one side pending the conclusions of the sentencing review. I hope that that course will commend itself to the House and that it will accept Government amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and 55 to 62.
  Mr. Lidington: Before I respond to the Minister's remarks, may I deal briefly with the question put to me by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) about the new clause on mandatory sentences? We have reproduced the previsions in the Crime (Sentences) Act

  707
  1997, as consolidated by recent legislation, that give the judge, when considering all the circumstances of a particular case, the discretion to override the normal rule for a mandatory minimum sentence if he considers that there is an overwhelming case for him to do so. One could argue whether such provisions should have been in the 1997 Act and I recall that there was much controversy about them at the time. The wording in the new clause simply reproduces what is in current legislation.
  Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman clearly, accepts the provision in the 1997 Act that judges can take specific circumstances into account, so, he does not support mandatory sentences without reservation.
  Mr. Lidington: Our new clause reproduces the wording of the 1997 Act as it applies to burglars and class A drug offenders and applies it to the category of child sex offenders to which the new clause relates. Whatever the arguments about the principle of the extent to which judges should be allowed to exercise a degree of discretion, it makes sense for different categories of offenders to be subject to the same type of law on mandatory and minimum sentences.
  The Minister replied in a generous spirit to the debate and I thank him for that. I welcome the fact that the Government propose to table amendments in another place that would pretty well mirror our proposals in new clauses 2 and 4. I hope that, in due course, the Home Office wall bring forward other amendments to the law to give effect to the ideas that were embodied in the other new clauses.
  Given the number of flaws that we find in the legislation introduced by expert and professional Government draftsman, I concede that the inexpert and unprofessional draftsmen of any Opposition may make errors of their own. I accept the Minister's comments in both spirit and substance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

  SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997: NOTIFICATION PERIOD
  '(1) In section 2(1), section 2(2) and section 2(7) of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, for the words '14 days' there shall be substituted the words '48 hours'.'—[Mr. Lidington.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause would require sex offenders to notify the police of a change of address within 48 hours of their changing address rather than within the 14 days that the law currently permits. It would target the paedophiles whom the police have encountered and who travel around the country. For example, they travel along canal routes, never staying in one location for 14 days. That has meant that they have found ways in which to escape registration even though their history of paedophile offending means that they should be registered. In effect, they become invisible to the law.
  By reducing the registration time to 48 hours, the police and other agencies will be able to keep an eye on paedophiles more easily and hinder their ability to escape
  708
  the law. Given that paedophiles are more likely than other offenders to become repeat criminals, it is absolutely vital that we keep track of those who have been caught and convicted before.
  Mr. Boateng: We have much sympathy with the thinking behind new clause 8, which is clearly intended to strengthen the protection of the public. Research into the operational effectiveness of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will be published this summer. I have several concerns, as I suspect other hon. Members have, about how the Act has worked in practice, and the new clause relates to one of them. We will launch a policy review of the Act which will consider those findings and other relevant issues. It will take into account the views of a wide range of organisations, including children's charities and the police, and we believe that it would be premature to amend the Act in advance of that consultation. It also does not make much sense in our view to consider that one aspect of the Act in isolation, when we have indicated our intention of conducting a more thoroughgoing review.
  Sir Paul Beresford: An additional point is that a period of 14 days allows the predatory paedophile the opportunity to "groom" his clients—as he would put it—and 48 hours would make that exceedingly difficult.
  Mr. Boateng: There is much strength in the argument that 14 days is too long. However, my point is that other concerns arise from the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in relation, for instance, to aspects of foreign travel and people who have committed offences overseas. They need to be considered in the round and I have no doubt that in due course, a basket of proposals will be made as a result of the research and consultation that will lead to later amendment of the Act. This issue may be one of them, and I request that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) does not press the new clause, pending the outcome of the research into the workings of the Act.
  It is worth celebrating the fact that we have the Act in place and that we achieve a good rate of compliance, in the sense that 97 per cent.—at the last count—of sex offenders comply with the registration requirement. That has helped to change the climate and the culture in terms of the police and the other child protection agencies working together to identify and keep tabs on that group of people who, as the supporters of the new clause recognise, are predatory and guileful, and require careful monitoring. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful for the Minister's sympathetic response. However, the situation is that there is an acknowledged loophole in the law. The Government have said that they are embarking on a review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, but in this matter we should err on the side of caution and protecting young people. Let us change the law tonight, plug the loophole and let the Government conduct their review on that basis, with good will from all sides. I intend to press the new clause to a vote.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 261.

  Division No. 225]

  [8.13pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Amess, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Key, Robert

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baldry, Tony

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Ballard, Jackie

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brady, Graham

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brake, Tom

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Breed, Colin

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maples, John

  Burns, Simon

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cash, William

  Moore, Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Chidgey, David

  Norman, Archie

  Clappison, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Page, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Paice, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Collins, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Prior, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Randall, John

  Cran, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Rendel, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Robertson, Laurence

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Day, Stephen

  Ruffley, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Evans, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Faber, David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Flight, Howard

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Soames, Nicholas

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gale, Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Garnier, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Gibb, Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gidley, Sandra

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gill, Christopher

  Syms, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Hammond, Philip

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Hayes, John

  Trend, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Walter, Robert

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Webb, Steve

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Welsh, Andrew

  710

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ainger, Nick

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Drew, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Austin, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Efford, Clive

  Beard, Nigel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Fisher, Mark

  Best, Harold

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Borrow David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Godman Dr Norman A

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Goggins, Paul

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Gorton, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edingburgh Pentlands)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Humble Mrs Joan

  Corbett, Robin

  Hurst, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Jean

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  711

  Kemp, Fraser

  Raynstord, Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rooney, Terry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lepper, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McAllion, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Singh, Marsha

  McCabe, Steve

  Skinner, Dennis

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McDonnell, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stevenson, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McNulty, Tony

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  MacShane, Denis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  McWilliam, John

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Timms, Stephen

  Meale, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Merron, Gillian

  Todd, Mark

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Touhig, Don

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Miller, Andrew

  Truswell, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Morley, Elliot

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mountford, Kali

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mudie, George

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Watts, David

  Norris, Dan

  White, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pike, Peter L

  Wills, Michael

  Plaskitt, James

  Wilson, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Winnick, David

  Pond, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Pope, Greg

  Woodward Shaun

  Pound, Stephen

  Worthington, Tony

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wray, James

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Mr. Graham Allen and

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12

  EXCLUSION OF ASSAULT ON POLICE FROM POWER TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE
  'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—
  "(bb) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

  (i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);

  (ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);

  (iii) an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) committed against a constable in the execution of his duty.".'.—[Mr. Lidington.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 280.

  Division No. 226]

  [8.25 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Amess, David

  Gray, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Greenway, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Baldry, Tony

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burns, Simon

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clappison, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cran, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Faber, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fallon, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Flight, Howard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Norman, Archie

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Page, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  713

  Prior, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robertson, Laurence

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Trend, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Walter, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Jean

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cotter, Brian

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beard, Nigel

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Darvill, Keith

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Borrow, David

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Doran, Frank

  Brake, Tom

  Dowd, Jim

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Drew, David

  Breed, Colin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burden, Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Chaytor, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Galloway, George

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clelland, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clwyd, Ann

  Goggins, Paul

  Coaker, Vemon

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Colman, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Connarty, Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grogan, John

  714

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moore, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mountford, Kali

  Heppell, John

  Mudie, George

  Hill, Keith

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hope, Phil

  Norris, Dan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jamieson, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Rendel, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kidney, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  salter, Martin

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lepper, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Singh, Marsha

  Levitt, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Smith Angela (Basildon)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Love Andrew

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  McCabe, Steve

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Stevenson, George

  McDonnell, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stringer, Graham

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McNulty, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robort

  Timms, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Tipping, Paddy

  Meale, Alan

  Todd, Mark

  Merron, Gillian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Touhig, Don

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Trickett Jon

  715

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wilson, Brian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wood, Mike

  Walley, Ms John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Warn, Ms Claire

  Wray, James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Webb, Steve

  Wyatt, Derek

  White, Brain

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Graham Allen and

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

  AIMS OF THE SERVICE
  Mr. Boateng rose—
  Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
  '(d) the education of offenders, in particular about the impact of crime on the victims of crime and the public.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 123, in clause 9, page 5, line 3, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 127, in page 21, line 6, leave out Clause 38.
  Amendment No. 128, in page 21, line 27, leave out Clause 39.
  Amendment No. 129, in page 22, line 8, leave out Clause 40.
  Government amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.
  Amendment No. 138, in clause 44, page 27 line 41, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 139, in page 28, line 15, leave out "punishment" and insert "service".
  Amendment No. 140, in clause 45, page 28, line 28, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Government amendment No. 27.
  Amendment No. 141, in clause 5, page 29, line 10, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 142, in page 29, line 16, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 143, in clause 45, page 29, line 19, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Government amendment No. 28.
  Amendment No. 144, in page 29, line 25, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 149, in clause 46, page 30, line 2, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  716
  Government amendment No. 29.
  Amendment No. 150, in page 30, line 26, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 151, in page 30, line 32, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Government amendment No. 30.
  Amendment No. 152, in page 30, line 35, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 153, in clause 47, page 31, line 12, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 154, in page 31, line 16, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 155, in page 31, line 38, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 156, in page 32, line 7, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 189, in clause 48, page 32, line 26, at end insert—
  'and that failure constitutes a serious breach and a period of at least three months has elapsed since the commencement of the order'.
  Amendment No. 157, in clause 50, page 34, line 22, leave out—
  'community rehabilitation orders or community punishment and rehabilitation orders'
  and insert—
  'probation orders or combination orders'.
  Amendment No. 158, in page 34, line 25, leave out from the first "community" to ", to" in line 26 and insert—
  'service orders, or combination orders'.
  Amendment No. 159, in page 34, line 31, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 160, in page 34, line 33, leave out "punishment" and insert "service".
  Amendment No. 169, in schedule 6, page 53, leave out from beginning of line 20 to end of line 47 on page 54.
  Amendment No. 170, in page 56, line 22, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 171, in page 57, line 19, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Amendment No. 172, in page 57, line 23, leave out paragraph 18.
  Amendment No. 173, in page 60, leave out lines 8 and 9.
  Amendment No. 174, in page 60, line 11, leave out—
  'community rehabilitation hostel' means a community rehabilitation'
  and insert—
  'probation hostel' means a probation'.
  Government amendment No. 102.
  Amendment No. 175, in page 64, line 9, line 9, leave out paragraph 58.
  Amendment No. 176, in page 65, line 23, leave out from "for" to end of line 25 and insert—
  'before "probation, community service, combination", there is inserted "exclusion".'.

  717
  Amendment No. 177, in page 66, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
  Government amendment No. 114.
  Amendment No. 178, in page 66, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13.
  Amendment No. 179, in page 66, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.
  Amendment No. 180, in page 66, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.
  Amendment No. 181, in page 67, line 1, leave out from "for" to end of line 4 and insert—
  'before "probation" there is inserted "exclusion, drug abstinence"'.
  Amendment No. 182, in page 67, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.
  Amendment No. 183, in page 67, line 13, leave out from "for" to end of line 15 and insert—
  'before "probation" there is inserted "exclusion, drug abstinence"'.
  Amendment No. 184, in page 67, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
  Amendment No. 185, in page 67, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
  Amendment No. 186, in page 67, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 68.
  Government amendment No. 115.
  Amendment No. 187, in page 68, line 12, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
  Government amendment No. 116.
  Amendment No. 188, in page 68, line 41, leave out from second "of' to ", curfew" in line 42 and insert "probation, combination".
  Amendment No. 120, in page 68, leave out lines 43 to 48.
  Mr. Hawkins: It seems that the Minister wanted to move our amendments for us. That indicates a new spirit of support for our measures. I look forward with particular pleasure to his words a little later.
  We are dealing with a large group of amendments, but the House will appreciate that many of them are consequential on others.
  The House will recall that there was great delight when, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is in his place, the Minister conceded that we had been right and the Government had been wrong in their attempt to change the name of the probation service. That was a welcome concession, but we hoped that the Government would make further concessions in Committee. We were sadly disappointed. Even though they had conceded what the National Association of Probation Officers, every county probation service in the country and large numbers of other people had said about the name of the service, they remained adamant and refused to accept the equally strongly held views expressed by the same groups of people—not only the probation officers trade union, but all the country probation committees—that it was crazy to change the names of all the orders that the courts were used to dealing with.
  718
  I draw to the attention of the House the continuing concerns, even after the Committee stage, that have been expressed by the Hereford and Worcester probation committee in particular. A member of that committee wrote to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who served on the Standing Committee with us, and stated:
  We welcome the Minister's decision not to change the Service's name, but Part III of the Bill introduces a completely new nomenclature for community sentences … which the Committee—
  that is, the Hereford and Worcester probation committee—
  considers both unnecessary and unhelpful. The new names (in particular community punishment order for community service order, and community rehabilitation order for probation order) offer an over-simplified account of their functions, and are likely to increase confusion about community sentences, and undermine rather than enhance public understanding of the work of the service.
  We pointed out that what the Government were doing with the orders ran the risk that the courts and the orders that were imposed by sentencers would become the target of ridicule. In Committee, there was a great deal of anxiety, even from Government Back Benchers, about potential dangers. We had several constructive debates about that. I am disappointed that Ministers have remained adamant and unpersuaded, despite the fact that the logic of their concession on the name of the service should have led them to agree with us and all the experts on the names of the orders.
  One need not spell out the acronym of "community rehabilitation and punishment order" to appreciate immediately that it could easily become a matter of ridicule. The law must not be mocked. We are therefore very worried. The letter from the member of the Hereford and Worcester probation committee is especially significant because the author is not, as Ministers may suppose, a member of the Conservative party, or even a Liberal Democrat, but a sitting Labour councillor. Even local Labour party activists who are on probation committees believe that the Government have got it wrong; they have expressed the matter in strong terms, which I described.
  Mr. John Bercow: Far be it from me to engage in protracted semantic dispute, but does my hon. Friend accept that the community rehabilitation and punishment order potentially admits of several different acronyms and pronunciations? My hon. Friend appeared to refer to an acronym that was not unconnected with rubbish; is not it possible that CREEPO would be an appropriate interpretation of the Government's proposed title? Would not that be undesirable?
  Mr. Hawkins: It would certainly be undesirable. My hon. Friend, as always, uses his verbal and intellectual dexterity to undermine the Government's words.
  We must also take seriously the impact of offences on the victims of crime. It is especially appropriate that amendment No. 122 is the first amendment in the group because we want to include new paragraph (d) in clause 2(2). It states that regard should be taken of
  the education of offenders, in particular about the impact of crime on the victims of crime and the public.
  After all the discussions in Committee and speeches from hon. Members of all parties, we are convinced that victims of crime or their relatives would want to know that offenders would have to be educated about the impact of their crimes on the victims.

  719
  Many hon. Members have worked with organisations such as Victim Support; no party has a monopoly of virtue on that. However, I have been hugely impressed by Victim Support's work. There has been an increasing trend towards making offenders more aware of the impact of their crimes on the victims. The amendment would provide for a specific method of ensuring that that happened. It would be a useful provision. Even if Ministers cannot accept amendment No. 122 tonight, I hope that they will continue to consider the matter seriously as the Bill progresses.
  When writing to me and other members of the Committee, Ministers have repeatedly said that their minds are not closed. We hope that they will reconsider clause 2(2). We would be delighted if the Government tabled an identical or similar amendment to amendment No. 122 later, perhaps in another place. I am sure that both Ministers agree that it is essential to take account of victims' interests.
  I regret that some amendments were not selected for debate. However, I shall not stray into considering them; we will discuss other aspects of entitling organisations on Third Reading. I emphasise that we feel very strongly that no provision of the Bill should expose the law to ridicule or contempt. The Government's proposals run that serious risk.
  As I said earlier, many of the amendments are consequential on the names that the Government have suggested for the proposed new orders. It is therefore unnecessary to consider every amendment. However, I emphasise that we believe that the Government's proposed name changes achieve no good purpose and are counterproductive. It is more important for people to get used to the existing names of probation and community service orders. The Government's attempts to change those names amount to fiddling while Rome burns.
  8.45 pm
  Jackie Ballard: The Minister and I were confused about who would move which amendment next. I rise to move amendment No. 189—I hope that that is in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady does not have to move the amendment, because it has been grouped. She simply has to speak about it.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: She will learn.
  Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman says that I will learn. In Committee, when I believed that an amendment I had tabled had been moved in a group with the Minister's amendment, I was wrong. I am now taking a belt-and-braces approach and moving amendment No. 189, just in case. I shall indeed learn, albeit slowly.
  Amendment No. 189 deals with breaches of community orders and the consequences. Breaching a community order should be taken seriously, and penalties should be applied for such breaches. Proper supervision of community orders is important, not only to aid public confidence in non-custodial sentences, but to improve public safety.
  The most recent study of breaches of proceedings by the Inner London probation service showed that, over two years, 28 per cent. of the case load was breached. Of those
  720
  cases of breaches, 21 per cent. of offenders received a custodial sentence. Clearly, the court did not feel that a custodial sentence was necessary in the majority of cases.
  Introducing an automatic three-month prison sentence, and reducing from three to two the number of acceptable breaches, without differentiating between a serious breach, such as assaulting a probation officer, and a less serious breach such as turning up 10 minutes late for an appointment, will inevitably increase the prison population and introduce an element of rough justice into the system.
  In Committee, the Minister accepted that it would be more difficult for some people who lead a chaotic life style, whether due to drug or alcohol misuse, or problems with employment or housing difficulties, to comply with a community order. Part of an order's purpose is for the supervising officer to help that person achieve a more regular life style. Again, in Committee, the Minister of State accepted that. The clause will undermine probation officers' work with offenders, which is aimed at order compliance. In Committee, the Minister resisted our amendments, which would have effectively neutered the clause. Consequently, amendment No. 189 is meant to be helpful, as it would accept automatic sentencing for breaches, but it proposes that that should not occur within the first three months of a sentence. That would give probation officers time to work with offenders to help them adjust their life style in a reasonable period. The duration of that period would be known to the offender and the probation officer, so would concentrate their efforts to end the offender's chaotic life style and ensure that he complied with the order.
  Three months is a reasonable period for any offender to get his or her act together with such help. If, during that period, a serious breach of the order took place, it would still be available to the courts to use their existing discretion to impose custodial sentences, as they have done in the past with breaches. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment as a genuinely constructive way of trying to take forward the debate that we had in Committee.
  I shall outline Liberal Democrat views on at least two of the Conservative amendments. On amendment No. 122, there was some debate in Committee about whether the aim of the probation service should include the education of offenders and whether they should be educated about the impact of their crime on the victim. As we discussed, many offenders, especially shoplifters, seem to think of their offence as a victimless crime. Similarly, many who are convicted of corporate fraud probably think of that as a victimless crime. It is important that offenders are educated to realise that most crimes have victims and that they should be aware of the impact of their crime on the victim.
  I agree that the probation service should have a wider educative role. For example, many offenders have basic skills needs. Those serving community sentences should have at least as much access to basic skills help as those serving custodial sentences. I am therefore pleased that Conservative Members have broadened the scope of the amendment compared with the one that they tabled in Committee so that it encompasses offenders' other educational needs. I hope that that means that the amendment will now attract the Minister's support, as he

  721
  was reluctant to accept the amendment tabled in Committee because it focused too narrowly on educating the offender on the impact of his crime.
  I do not agree with most of the Conservative amendments relating to changing the names of orders, even though I too have read the briefings of the National Association of Probation Officers. However, we agree with amendment No. 128, as the term "community service orders" is well understood by the public and offenders. It means what it says and refers to reparation to the community by means of taking part in supervised, structured and purposeful community service activity. Community service orders also help to improve the self-esteem of some offenders who may never have done anything purposeful or useful for the community in their lives and might be able to stop offending if they see themselves as contributing something to the community, albeit as a result of a sentence imposed by the court.
  We do not support amendment No. 123, so we do not agree with its consequential amendments, which make up the bulk of amendments in this group. However, we support amendment No. 128 and its consequential amendments.
  Mr. Boateng: We have had an interesting, if rather bitty, debate on important issues. I shall try to draw those issues together and even hope to elicit a contribution from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who provided a useful platform for us to make clear our intentions on the naming of the National Probation Service for England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman has been strangely silent this evening. One would have hoped for a contribution, but he has confined himself to a giggle here, a prod there—this is Bercow at the fifth remove.
  Mr. Bercow: Is the Minister aware that this is the first occasion, and will probably be the last in this Parliament, on which I have been attacked for speaking too little?
  Mr. Boateng: I count myself among the hon. Gentleman's admirers. He adds enormously to the House in some ways, although not in others. He certainly approaches the issues with genuine care and, in matters that involve the Home Office, with a degree of erudition that is always welcome. I always listen carefully to what he says and was therefore disappointed that he did not make a speech this evening.
  Names are important, but the Opposition have got the wrong end of the stick. I understand the reason for their amendments, and I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is much influenced by the National Association of Probation Officers. We can always rely on him to pray its name in aid of almost any proposition that he cares to adopt. However, he is unwise to do so in this case, because I know from discussions with probation officers that while they have a clear view about the name of their service—I understand that view and I have accepted their arguments—they are concerned about public ignorance about the content of the various orders that they invite the court to make.
  What, for example, does the term "combination order" tell us about the content of such an order? We know that it combines elements of probation supervision and the
  722
  requirement to do unpaid work, and that it is designed both to punish and to rehabilitate the offender, but the name completely obscures those facts. The name "community punishment and rehabilitation order" tells us exactly what the content of the order is and describes what we are asking probation officers to do.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister suggests that I am unwise to pray in aid the National Association of Probation Officers, but its view could not be clearer; I have its briefing here, and it says:
  NAPO is opposed to the renaming of existing community orders. The phrase "probation order" has international resonance and recognition. Community service has a higher profile than the Home Office appears to believe.
  The Minister is wrong; NAPO is 100 per cent. with the Opposition and 100 per cent. against the Government.
  Mr. Boateng: I shall not lose any sleep over that, because I do not believe that in this instance NAPO accurately reflects the concerns of its members. Before the hon. Gentleman prays it in aid, he ought to ensure that the cause in question is supported by its members. They tell me that they are concerned that the public should get a better grasp of what they do. The term "combination order" does not give them that grasp, and "community service" fails to tell them what work we ask offenders to do, and why we ask them to do it.
  Many people volunteer to do community service because they want to help their neighbours or take part in a local community group, such as Homestart, a citizens advice bureau and so on. They serve the community voluntarily, but we require offenders to pay something back to the community that they have wronged. There is nothing voluntary about that; it is a punishment delivered in the community.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Boateng: I give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister casts doubt on NAPO's ability to represent the views of its members on this matter on the basis that probation officers have been telling him something different. Will he clarify what measures he has taken to consult probation officers; how many have spoken to him on this matter; and what evidence he has to suggest that those views are more representative than those expressed by NAPO?
  9 pm
  Mr. Boateng: In my humble way, I can only share with the House what probation officers tell me when I visit probation services throughout the country. They tell me that they want people to have a better sense of what they do. That is what we want to achieve under our proposals.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to have aroused such interest.
  Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people share his view

  723
  that community service is what the town mayor and borough councillors do, and that the victims of crime especially, for whom the Conservative party often claims to speak, will welcome the refreshingly frank statement that we are talking about community punishment?
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I could not agree more.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Boateng: I suspect that I shall not agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who has not yet spoken in the debate.
  Mr. John Hayes: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates a lack of agreement between us, given that we usually agree—at least socially, if not in the Chamber. Is he telling the House that the new terminology is clearer and more precise? Community service orders are widely understood and the concept of probation is rooted in the public consciousness. Is he really telling us that they are not widely understood by the public?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman, of whom I am fond, is over-egging the pudding when he says that the concept of probation is rooted in the public consciousness. That is going a little too far. We cannot afford to be complacent; we must devise orders that tell their own story. The terms "community rehabilitation" and "community punishment" tell a story.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has made a serious allegation. He has suggested that the trade union which represents probation officers has sent briefings to hon. Members that do not represent their members' views. The leader of that union, Mr. Harry Fletcher, will be very concerned to hear that Her Majesty's Government prefer to believe the Minister's anecdotes. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is accurate in saying that perhaps two or three probation officers, who may or may not be members of NAPO, have made such points to him. However, we are talking about a briefing that has been sent to hon. Members on behalf of the probation officers' trade union. If he does not accept those views, will he accept those of probation committee members from his own party?
  Mr. Boateng: The party affiliation of probation committee members is neither here nor there. I regret the politicisation of this criminal justice issue by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who is the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson. He should think carefully before suggesting that any party political element is involved. We are concerned with the proper administration of justice. I have no doubt that NAPO performs its proper function in representing its views, but there is more than one view. Others hold views that are inconsistent with the position that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted—in other words, that punishment and rehabilitation are proper adjectives to describe the orders that we ask the House to approve tonight.
  Mr. Dawson: In welcoming the conversion of Opposition Members to the concept of trade union rights and their enjoying social occasions with radical reforming
  724
  Labour Front Benchers, does my right hon. Friend agree that they have entirely missed the point? The very title of the new national probation service reflects the fact that we are taking the best of the past and renaming some of the most important elements of its work; and shows that we are intent on a new future and putting the bad old days well behind us.
  Mr. Boateng: I could not have put it better myself and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the obvious truth that our proposals take forward the reforming, modernising agenda that we have developed around the national probation service.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: I should get on, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because he performed a moment ago, as those attending to the debate will have observed, a rather inelegant wriggle in back-tracking from his truly vicious attack on the integrity and representative character of NAPO. It is a matter of concern to me and to other Conservative Members that he should behave in such an unacademic fashion. He did not provide empirical evidence. Ordinarily I greatly admire him, but does he think that such a contribution is worthy of a product of Apsley grammar school, Bristol university and the College of Law?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman's tongue is so firmly in his cheek as to give him a positively hamsterish appearance. There is no way that anything I have said or done could possibly bear the interpretation that he puts on it. We really must get on with debating the amendment in hand. For the reasons that I have outlined—a desire that sentences should be understood—we have adopted these names. I hope that, on reflection, Opposition Members will come to accept them and in time, as I believe they will, welcome them and recognise the good sense that underpins them.
  The Opposition have raised the aims of the service in Committee and on Report and I want to deal with whether the amendment would achieve the end on which we all agree. We all share a belief, on which Labour Members have acted, that we ought to bring victims centre stage in the criminal justice system. That is why the Government enacted the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and why we are taking the Bill forward. All contribute in their way to ensuring that victims take centre stage and that we establish a greater emphasis on restitution as part of the process of our law. We will take no lessons from the Opposition on victims and support for victims, not least because we increased substantially the grant aid to Victim Support and enabled it to extend its work to cover magistrates and Crown courts. The Opposition signally failed to do that when they had stewardship of the criminal justice system.
  We do not accept the amendment, although we well understand where it is coming from. It simply does not meet the requirements of a statutory implementation of the aims of such a service, as it is too narrow and it would underpin some but not all the functions and activities of

  725
  that service. For example, the function and activity of preparing reports to advise the courts could not be carried out in such a way as to meet the wording of the amendment. We support entirely, and have developed a range of, accredited programmes which have been shown to reduce the risk of reoffending. Those programmes are being delivered by the probation service and the Prison Service together, and are central to the successful rehabilitation of offenders. That has been done: that is happening. We do not need an amendment like this—poorly drafted and inelegant—to encourage us to proceed in a direction in which we are already proceeding. It adds nothing; indeed, it is a distraction and a possible source of confusion.
  As for amendment No. 189, I recall that in Committee we did not feel able to accept the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). The amendment would cause the statutory warning to be disapplied to certain cases within the first three months of an order, rather than its being applied to all unacceptable failures to comply with an order. Our position has not changed. If offenders are not returned to court immediately after a first unacceptable failure to comply, a final warning letter must be sent to them explaining the consequences of any further such failure. Clause 48 puts that warning on a statutory footing, and imposes on the probation service a duty to return an offender to court no later than immediately after a second unacceptable failure. That reinforces the new national standard introduced in April.
  As I have said before, the offender will have had every opportunity to explain his behaviour and, where necessary, to provide evidence such as medical certificates, appointment cards and details of a family crisis, showing that he had a good reason to miss an appointment.
  Jackie Ballard: I know what the Minister is saying, but I think he accepts that many such offenders have a chaotic life style. Does he not also accept that it will take time for a supervising officer to help an offender to change that life style? The proposed three-month period is not intended to go against the spirit of what the Minister is trying to achieve; it is simply intended to provide the necessary time.
  Mr. Boateng: We have considered the issue carefully. We moved to the new national standard in April, after a period during which a lighter touch was applied.
  We are satisfied that we must begin as we intend to proceed. There is scope for judgments on whether failures to comply are acceptable or unacceptable, and I would expect the considerations mentioned by the hon. Lady to be taken into account in the determination of whether a failure was acceptable or unacceptable. If an individual was in the process of responding positively, and restoring order to a chaotic life style—and, in that context, was able to establish, by means of medical certificates, appointment cards or the provision of other details, why there had been a failure to attend—such an individual could be judged on that basis.
  Judgments could be made, on a case-by-case basis, by supervising officers, in accordance with national guidance. We are not talking about removing the capacity
  726
  of the individual making the judgment to work with the offender, and to work with the grain of that person's vulnerability. We are saying, "This is the standard that we expect of you".
  Unlike the official Opposition, we do not propose an automatic return to court for each unacceptable failure to comply. I am sure that the hon. Lady is under no illusion in regard to where they are coming from. They are not coming from the same place as her. We have seen with our own eyes the attempt to concoct an alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party—an unholy alliance, if I may say so, in the context of this aspect of enforcement.
  9.15 pm
  Our proposals are pragmatic. They give some discretion to take account of personal circumstances when considering enforcement, and give offenders a chance to respond to a warning about their future conduct. Therefore, we will not be returning offenders to court unnecessarily, but we cannot permit repeated failure to comply, or lax enforcement.
  Jackie Ballard: I shall not respond to the comments about the unholy alliance because I am sure that the Minister will have observed that Liberal Democrats vote with the Government when we think that they are right and with the Opposition when we think that they are right. It is not about whom we have alliances with; it is about the issues.
  May I probe the Minister a little more and make sure that I understand what he has said? Is he saying that, if the personal circumstances of an offender are such that he has turned up late for two or three appointments in a row, for reasons that he does not have appointment cards to prove—it is because of a chaotic life style that he is working towards changing—the probation officer will have discretion not to breach that offender automatically, or is he saying that the officer will have to breach him automatically?
  Mr. Boateng: I am saying that the national standards are there. The law is there on the context and circumstances in which someone needs to be returned, but it is important to remember that the offender will have had every opportunity to explain his behaviour. He will have had an opportunity to produce evidence where it is appropriate.
  Judgments will have to be made. People will make them in the context of what they know of the offender. Therefore, a professional judgment must still be made, but we say that the public cannot be expected to have confidence in community penalties unless they are rigorously enforced. Where there is a failure to comply that is deemed to be unacceptable, it is serious and must be dealt with. The probation officer needs to be in a position to make those judgments.
  Mr. Brady: Will the Minister confirm that simply saying by way of explanation that one has a chaotic life style would not be sufficient to convince the court?
  Mr. Boateng: Of course it would not, and I would not expect it to be sufficient to convince a probation officer. I do not want to be flippant about it, but those of us who

  727
  have worked in that area in whatever capacity—whether as lawyers, social workers, probation officers or justices sitting—all know that people come up with the most absurd excuses. They seek to hide behind the notion of a chaotic life style as an excuse for not getting their act together, yet they manage to get their act together remarkably when it comes to the act of signing on and when it is something to which they attach value and importance. We are trying to move towards a situation in which an offender comes to attach value and importance to the court order. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that offenders cannot flout or ignore a court order and that, if they do, such conduct will not be condoned by their probation officer.
  At its best, the service shows that, where offenders are faced with consistent discipline, and with determination and rigour in terms of enforcement, they respond to that certainty. That enhances the offender's view of the court order. It enhances compliance and the public's confidence in community penalties generally. That is why we want to put the warnings to offenders on a statutory footing.
  The amendment attempts to apply the statutory warning scheme only to the so-called more serious cases and, further, only to such of those cases that arise after the first three months since the commencement of the order. It is misguided to allow that grace period to enable someone to come to terms with the discipline of the order. Offenders need to come to terms with it from the word go, and to be helped and assisted in doing so.
  Amendment No. 189, as drafted, would not have any practical effect. Offenders in the first three months of their order would simply be given a non-statutory warning for an unacceptable failure to comply and, in accordance with national standards, be returned to court no later than the second such failure. They would face the same penalty for a breach—usually imprisonment—as offenders who are given a statutory warning. That is what the national standards are all about. The amendment would, therefore, remove the deterrent effect of the statutory warning at a time when the consequences of flouting such an order most need to be reinforced.
  Mr. Bercow: It would be helpful to the House, in seeking to evaluate the amendments in this group, to know whether the regulations flowing from the unamended clause would be subject to the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure?
  Mr. Boateng: We have always taken the view that certain categories of regulation should be subject to the negative procedure, and that others should be subject to the affirmative one. I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman pushes me on it, to share my own view on the issue—on which I do not have a closed mind. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was even kind enough to suggest that I was noted for my open-mindedness on these issues. Indeed, I could not be more open-minded on an issue than I am on this one.
  My mind is currently veering towards the notion of a negative resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—but, if my arm were twisted, I could be persuaded that an
  728
  affirmative resolution might be more appropriate. What does the hon. Gentleman think about it? Which would he prefer?
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the Minister. In what might be described as the parliamentary equivalent of a time-out in basketball, he could always consult and look for further and better advice. He will not be surprised to know that my own advice, especially after being chastised by him for my uncharacteristic silence in this debate and in our previous consideration of the Bill, is that we should have the affirmative procedure. That procedure—so that members of the public are aware of it—entails providing the opportunity for substantial and considered debate on the regulations' merits, rather than the quite scurrilous process whereby the Government ram them through the House in accordance with the negative procedure, which facilitates no debate at all.
  Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Then again, he would say that, and I have no doubt that, in his position, I would say the same. I myself am not necessarily persuaded of the need for national standards to be established by any order-making power. Nevertheless, if that is an idea that he has, I am only too happy to consider it. I shall write to him and let him know how my mind develops on that particular issue. I should return to the substantive issue.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: I really must not continue giving way like this. However, I will on this occasion.
  Mr. Hayes: I do not want to disrupt the joust between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—especially as I have no knowledge of netball or whatever it was they were dealing with—but I, too, should like to return to the substantial issue. It seems to me—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that amendment No. 189 is less fair to offenders. Loosening the requirements in the initial period may confuse and bewilder offenders, making them feel that they have more latitude than they really have and that they can play fast and loose with the service. Ultimately, therefore, rejecting the amendment, as the Minister recommends, would be fairer not only to society as a whole, but to offenders themselves.
  Mr. Boateng: I am bound to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is always the difficulty in relation to the Liberal Democrats' approach to the issue. They seek—no doubt with the best will in the world—to be understanding and considerate, but they have missed the point here. The best way to bring about the change or correction—the purpose of the disposal, after all is to change and correct offending behaviour in a community context—is, from the word go, to lay down clear parameters as to what is or is not acceptable. In some instances—as the hon. Member for Taunton will know from her experience—this may be the first time any such parameters have been set in those lives. In doing that, we need to be clear about what we can and cannot get away with.
  Jackie Ballard: I guess that the Minister will know what I am about to say. It is very much because it will

  729
  be, for some, the first time that parameters have been set that I am suggesting that those concerned need time to learn to adjust to those parameters. Given the three-month period that we are suggesting, it will be clear that any breaches after that period will result in serious consequences.
  Mr. Boateng: There is a fundamental difference between us on this matter. We are both agreed as to the end; what we want is compliance. The question is how to get there. Many of the people we are talking about will have been given opportunity after opportunity in the past. They will have received a community penalty in place of a possible prison sentence. There has to be an understanding from the beginning that this opportunity is not given lightly. It is a privilege that will be lost if there is not compliance. That is our considered view. I hear what the hon. Lady says, but we believe that the amendment would take away the deterrent effect of a statutory warning.
  Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if one expects low standards, one will get them? If someone spends the first three months on an order learning that they do not have to obey it because they lead a disorderly life, they are likely to want to plead the same way over the following three months.
  Mr. Boateng: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who speaks from experience on these matters. We do not believe that it would be right to accept the amendment, which would take away the deterrent effect of a statutory warning at a time when the consequences of flouting an order most need to be reinforced. The amendment tries to introduce a distinction between unacceptable failures to comply that simply does not exist.
  The real distinction is between acceptable and unacceptable failures. That is a question of judgment—a judgment that can take into account a variety of factors. Making that distinction is the professional role of the probation service within national standards and associated guidance. All unacceptable failures to comply are serious and should be dealt with accordingly. We simply cannot accept the philosophy that underpins the amendment and I hope, for that reason, the hon. Member for Taunton will not push it to a vote.
  I wish to refer to the Government amendments regarding the extension of electronic monitoring to offenders in the community. That is a separate issue from the debate that we have had about home detention curfews. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, notified the Committee of our intention to table certain amendments to our new exclusion provisions. These would preserve a victim's right to know the relevant terms of the orders, while curtailing their right to more sensitive information about the offender.
  The provisions that allow for the extension of electronic monitoring could be used in a variety of circumstances. I much appreciated the support of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in that regard. An electronically monitored exclusion order, for example, could be used to help prevent a known shoplifter from entering premises in which he was accustomed to steal, such as a shopping centre. Or an offender could be
  730
  excluded from a house for the purpose of protecting an individual who lives there. In such a situation, it is eminently reasonable and sensible that the person being protected by the terms of the order, or requirement, should know its terms. If an offender who hangs about the house of a woman during the night is excluded from those premises—I have given an example of the hours between 8 pm and 8 am—the victim should know that that is the case. That will tell her exactly what she should be able to expect within the terms of the order—in other words, when the exclusion order is in effect and when it is not.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister appreciates, there is an identity of view between the two sides of the House in relation to the importance of these matters, especially those involving domestic and family violence, on which we had some good debates in Committee. However, will he make it clear that he will keep these provisions under review, especially in the light of the danger, of which he is aware as I am, that sometimes in a domestic violence case there can be wrong on both sides?
  Mr. Boateng: I am not sure that I would put it like that. I do not know about wrong on both sides. If there is domestic violence and somebody has been the victim of it, that is wrong. I do not care what is on the other side.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry if I did not clarify my point. There can be domestic violence by either spouse against the other. The Minister will have seen cases, as I have, where someone is made the subject of a county court order and constantly allows that order to lapse or be breached, and there is violence on both sides. That is my concern.
  Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. When there is a development in the law of this nature and when there is a link between that and the development of technology, it is always important to keep matters under review. It is undoubtedly the case that technology can give reassurance to both sides in a domestic dispute. It provides irrefutable evidence and avoids a situation in which one person says yea and the other nay. That is a difficult situation for a court to untangle, and I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to that. Technology will avoid that.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister clarify for the purpose of the debate that an individual who is subject to an exclusion order would be guilty of its breach if he were to enter the property or immediate environ of the person protected from him, and if he were to communicate with that person either by telephone or in writing?
  Mr. Boateng: That would depend on the order. Most orders include contact, directly or indirectly. In those circumstances, yes, there would be a breach.
  We have talked about these matters in terms of domestic violence, and rightly so. The provisions give an immediate value-added element to the development of technology in this area. I also see them as having a real impact in terms of a certain category of offences committed in shopping malls and shopping centres. There will undoubtedly be an advantage for the managers of those centres or spaces.

  731
  I think that it was last year that I saw an example in Wood Green, where there is an excellent relationship between the local police, local retailers and the private security firm that provides the security in Wood Green. The scheme is clearly being implemented in the interests of reducing retail crime, and those concerned have access to the information that X, Y and Z have been tagged. They will then know, given the machinery that they might install in the mall, when someone is in breach of an order.
  Dr. George Turner: On a topical subject, might such an exclusion order apply to football grounds?
  Mr. Boateng: How very topical. I understand that we have lost 3–2. Yes, the order would certainly have a use in football grounds.
  This has been a good debate. We have shared a range of opinions, there has been remarkable unanimity and some probing questions have been asked. My mind, which was very much open to the input of hon. Members of all parties, has been developing in relation to the affirmative resolution and final warning provisions. I am very glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Buckingham that those provisions will apply to community orders listed in schedule 3 to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and the list may be amended by affirmative resolution.
  On that happy consensual note, I commend the Government amendments and ask the House to reject amendment No. 122.
  Mr. Bercow: I support the amendment, because it is so eminently reasonable and so manifestly sensible that it could be damaging to the reputation of our politics for the Government to insist on rejecting it. The House and the wider public should be aware of that.
  I returned earlier the compliment that the Minister kindly bestowed on me and said that I had a great regard for him. I believe that he is a truly brilliant man, although in all fairness he must yield in terms of brilliance to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). As the late Enoch Powell was wont to observe, one sometimes encounters people who are so clever as to be unable to see the simplest point. In this context, that is peculiarly applicable to the Minister.
  The amendment is sound, reasonable and fair and suffers from only one political disadvantage: it was tabled by the shadow Home Office team. For that reason, I suspect, the Minister said to his advisers, "I beg you, I kneel before you, I beseech you to offer me some excuse to oppose the amendment." I greatly regret the fact that the Government have decided to do that. I believe that it is wrong and unfair, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.
  My second criticism of the Minister is that he violently abused the National Association of Probation Officers. He was challenged to provide the evidence discrediting its claim to represent its members. The Minister is a product of Apsley grammar school, Bristol university and the College of Law, yet he was reduced to saying that his impression from his chats with probation officers in his perambulations around the country was that they disagreed with the national leadership. That was a triumph of anecdotalism over the professional integrity and representativeness of the association.
  732
  My third reason for disappointment in the Minister is that he has backtracked on the welcome humility that he displayed at Home Office questions on 13 March. On that occasion, I welcomed his sensible climbdown on the name of the probation service. In deference to the representations that he had received, he dropped his silly idea of renaming the body with a very long-winded title.
  My anxiety is that I have paid a price for my silence in the intervening period—a silence for which the Minister roundly criticised me this evening. I took my eye off the ball, and the right hon. Gentleman used the opportunity to get his own back. It clearly stuck in his gullet 91 days ago to withdraw his proposed renaming, and he now proposes the renaming of a series of penalties. He is wrong to do so. There is no empirical justification for the proposed change. His intention to go ahead with it makes it clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of, or has not taken to heart, the wise adage of Lord Falkland, who said:
  When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
  Mr. Hawkins: This has been an interesting debate, in which we have had arcane discussions about the negative resolution procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) extracted a significant concession from the Minister, who originally said that he was not sure whether the procedure to be used was the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure. In the end, we discovered that the affirmative resolution procedure would be used. That is right, and my hon. Friend made his points well.
  I could not disagree more strongly with the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who suggested in their interventions that the Minister's anecdotal evidence from probation officers was to be preferred to the professional opinion of the National Association of Probation Officers.
  There is no doubt that probation orders and community service orders are well understood by the courts. That is the acid test, as it is the courts that impose them. I believe that the titles of the orders have become better known to the public over the past 25 years, and they are certainly better known than the complicated mouthful of replacement titles that the Government have produced.
  We had a sensible debate about the importance of electronic monitoring in relation to domestic violence. Members of all parties agreed about the essential need to protect victims, but the most important element of this group of amendments remains the Government's unwise and unnecessary proposed change to the orders. In view of the Government's saying that they still have an open mind on the protection of victims, and of the fact that the Minister gave a more reasonable reply to our amendment while indicating that he could not accept it now, I am hoping that wiser counsels will prevail over time and that something akin to amendment No. 122 may be accepted. I see the Minister nodding, and I take heart from that, because he may at some stage be prepared to accept something alone the lines that we propose.
  In those circumstances, although I will be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with me on amendment No. 123, I intend to withdraw amendment No. 122 in the light of the Minister's comments. However, on amendment No. 123—the matter that we regard as the most substantial in the group as it deals with the

  733
  Government's wholly unnecessary change of titles, which has been opposed by the National Association of Probation Officers and by probation committees up and down the country—I will be inviting all right hon. and hon. Members to vote with us.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

  APPROVED BAIL HOSTELS, ETC.
  Amendment proposed: No. 123, in page 5, line 3, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 289.

  Division No. 227]

  [9.45 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Key, Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brady, Graham

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Lidington, David

  Cash, William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Day, Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Faber, David

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Gale, Roger

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gray, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Green, Damian

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hammond, Philip

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Heald, Oliver

  Soames, Nicholas

  734

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Streeter, Gary

  Wells, Bowen

  Swayne, Desmond

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Syms, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Yeo Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Trend, Michael

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ainger, Nick

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darvill, Keith

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Austin, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Denham, John

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benton, Joe

  Doran, Frank

  Best, Harold

  Dowd, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Drew, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Borrow, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  Breed, Colin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Flint, Caroline

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Galloway, George

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chidgey, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coaker, Vemon

  Grogan, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Colman, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cotter, Brian

  Heppell, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  735

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Norris, Dan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pike Peter L

  Jamieson David

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Khabra, Piara S

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kidney, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr Jonn (Hamilton N)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Roche, Mrs Berbara

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lepper, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Levitt, Tom

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Love, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McAllion, John

  Salter, Martin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith Angela (Basildon)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  McNulty, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  MacShane, Denis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McWilliam, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stevenson, George

  Mallaber, Judy

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Martlew, Eric

  Stunell, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Timms, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tipping, Paddy

  Moore, Michael

  Todd, Mark

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Morley, Elliot

  Touhig, Don

  736

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Willson, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wood, Mike

  Twigg, Stephens (Enfield)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wray, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Webb, Steve

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Graham Allen and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 5, line 11, at end insert—
  '(4) Before giving approval to a hostel or other premises under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the local community has been adequately consulted about the establishment of the hostel or other premises and that arrangements are in place for liaison with the local community about the operation of the hostel or other premises after approval is given.'.
  We raised this issue in some detail in Committee because several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee had had experience of controversies about the establishment of bail or probation hostels in their constituencies. I was involved in a significant dispute about a proposal for such a hostel in which members from all three main political parties joined in a campaign to stop a wholly unsuitable property being used for a probation and bail hostel, so I am well aware of the strong feelings that can be engendered.
  In the case with which I was involved, a decision was made not to establish the hostel, but it took a long and concerted campaign with all-party support before that decision was made. There was much protest because the building involved was on the route that parents with very young children used on their way to and from nursery and other schools. It was proposed that serious offenders, including some who had been convicted of serious offences against children, should be put in that hostel, but it was clear that the wrong site had been chosen. It was not a "not in my backyard" dispute. Most of the campaigners freely conceded that—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Hawkins: The case was one in which most of those who opposed the use of that property accepted the need for a bail or probation hostel somewhere, but felt that the wrong site had been chosen. In Committee, it was made clear that my hon. Friend the Member for

  737
  Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) had had similar experiences, and other hon. Members had also faced similar challenges. In the case in which I had some involvement, some of those who were not then Members of Parliament—such as the now hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—were involved when they were in local government, so this matter concerns all parties.
  In Committee, Ministers recognised that serious issues needed to be confronted, and they dealt constructively with the debate at that stage in the Bill's proceedings. I hope that we will receive a similarly constructive response from the Government tonight. I claim no particular magic in the wording that we have chosen in the amendment—we simply wish to raise the issue again—because, perhaps in the other place, others may have views.
  We want to keep the issue alive, because we should like the Bill in its final form to contain a provision along the lines of that contained in our amendment. We want to see some recognition, if necessary through a differently worded Government amendment, of the need to consult the local community. Concerns were expressed on both sides of the Committee—and they are concerns shared by hon. Members from many different political parties whenever bail and probation hostels are proposed. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
  Mr. Boateng: We had a good debate around the issue in Committee and I do not intend to replicate that tonight by rehearsing all the arguments. However, few hon. Members, in their constituency capacity, will not have had to wrestle with such issues at some time. Undoubtedly, such matters can provoke real dissension and fracturing in the local community.
  We all know that hostels, and those who work in them, play a vital role in protecting the public and in rehabilitation. Often that is an unsung and thankless task, and tonight we can give some due recognition to the front-line workers in the probation and related services who do that valuable work.
  In responding to this debate, I have in mind the need to ensure that we do nothing that undermines the work of those front-line hostel workers and their management committees, because it is difficult enough at the best of times without being plunged into the midst of community dissension. We must also approach this topic with due caution, so as not to do anything that would undermine the integrity of the local planning process. However exasperating that may be from time to time for Members of Parliament, it is in the end our surest protection in terms of the balance of our various responsibilities between national Government and national representation on one hand, and local government and local representation on the other.
  For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted. It would impose two parallel and coterminous duties on two Secretaries of State: the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for the planning process, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for the approved hostel process. That can only be confusing
  738
  and unsatisfactory and act as a potential cause of division, when we should be doing everything possible to encourage joined-up, not splintered, government.
  Mr. Hawkins: In his final phrase, the Minister made the point that I intended to make. Surely. if the Government genuinely believe in joined-up government and joined-up thinking, not merely as rhetoric, but as reality, they will perceive an advantage in thus linking the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Mr. Boateng: The responsibilities involved are distinct, but related: one for the planning process, the other for the approved hostel process. The planning process is a statutory process and therefore has to be a statutory responsibility. The approved hostel process is one in which, as a matter of policy, the Secretary of State for the Home Department approves a specific hostel for the purposes laid down in statute; that approval is carried out on the basis of policy guidance, so it is an administrative, not a statutory, process. I assure the House that that policy guidance requires checks to be made to ensure that appropriate consultation has taken place. Our best defence lies in ensuring that the policy guidance is adequate and appropriate in terms of the consultative process to be undertaken, and in so doing ensuring that the respective roles of different Secretaries of State are not confused.
  My second concern, which I am sure the House will share, relates to the definition of "community". In the context of the amendment, it is vague and non-specific. If the consultation were too extensive or drawn too widely, the result might be to encourage nimbyism, which is already a problem. No new hostel would ever be approved, because it would be bound to alienate someone, or be opposed by some interest or individual. The judgment on how broadly to consult is best determined locally, by those who are closest to and best understand the local community. That is not to say that consultation is not a vital task; it is, and it must be carried out with care and sensitivity. However, I do not believe that we shall be doing our constituents any favours if we impose on the whole process the additional burdens contained in the amendment.
  We must be careful not to undermine the thrust of Government policy. Let me give an example of how that might, inadvertently, be the result of the amendment's being accepted. Suppose that a voluntary organisation was already operating in an area, working with a hostel that already had all the relevant planning approvals. Along comes the Secretary of State for the Home Department, seeking to make the hostel an approved hostel. Were the amendment to be accepted, the organisation running the hostel—say, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—would have to open fresh consultation on whether it should become an approved hostel. In such circumstances, it might be difficult to persuade voluntary sector organisations to enter into partnerships with the Home Office or the national probation service for England and Wales to deliver hostel accommodation in the right place to meet the purposes of rehabilitation and public protection.
  Once the hostel is operating it is much better to leave liaison with the community to those with responsibility for running the hostel. Certainly, they need guidance for

  739
  that, and they should involve Members of Parliament, local councillors, the immediate neighbours, relevant local community organisations and the police
  We should be travelling down that road of more effective liaison, consultation and guidance, rather than down the road of statutory duties, which could open up the possibility of the confusion of roles that I outlined, act as a deterrent to voluntary organisations entering into partnership, as I described, and, horror upon horrors, open up the possibility of yet more legal challenges to the adequacy of arrangements, resulting in undue expense and delay.
  I understand why the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. Every constituency Member knows of the difficulties that can arise. I shall reflect on whether we could do more by way of administrative guidance on the matter. It is an area worth exploring, and we may need to return to it. However, I ask the House not to go down the statutory route proposed by the amendment.
  Mr. Hawkins: I recognise and welcome the Minister's constructive comments, particularly at the end of his remarks. In the light of his helpful indication that the Government will continue to keep the matter under review, and examine the guidance to see whether more can be done, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment, with one proviso: the matter may be debated further in another place, and we may table an amendment with slightly different wording, to see whether by then the Government will accept it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

  SECTIONS 27 AND 28: SUPPLEMENTAL
  Amendments made: No. 7, in page 13, line 34, at end insert—
  ' "guardianship order" means a guardianship order within the meaning of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or the Mental Health Act 1983,'.
  No. 8, in page 14, line 12, leave out—
  'within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 32

  CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 31
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 16, line 4, leave out—
  'within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983'.
  No. 10, in page 16, line 8, at end insert—
  ' "guardianship order" has the same meaning as in section 29,'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 34

  MEANING OF "REGULATED POSITION"
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 17, line 42, after "person" insert "who holds a position".
  No. 12, in page 17, line 44, leave out from second "of' to end of line 45 and insert "an educational institution".
  No. 13, in page 18, leave out line 11.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 37

  INTERPRETATION OF PART II
  Amendments made: No. 14, in page 19, line 43, leave out from "children" to end of line 44.
  No. 15, in page 20, leave out lines 1 and 2.
  No. 16, in page 20, leave out lines 9 and 10.
  No. 17, in page 20, leave out lines 14 and 15.
  No. 18, in page 20, leave out lines 20 to 24.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 41

  EXCLUSION ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 19, in page 23, line 37, leave out "40B below" and insert "36B above".
  No. 20, in page 23, line 45, leave out from "any" to end of line 47 and insert "affected person".
  No. 21, in page 24, line 2, leave out from "offender" to end of line 3 and insert—
  'and the responsible officer, and
  (b) give to any affected person any information relating to the order which the court considers it appropriate for him to have.'.'
  No. 22, in page 24, line 4, leave out "and section 40B below".
  No. 23, in page 24, line 5, at end insert—
  '(12A) For the purposes of this Act, a person is an affected person in relation to an exclusion order if—

  (a) a requirement under section 36B(1) above is included in the order by virtue of his consent, or

  (b) a prohibition is included in the order for the purpose (or partly for the purpose) of protecting him from being approached by the offender.'.

  No. 24, in page 24, leave out lines 11 to 32.
  No. 25, in page 24, line 42, leave out from "orders" to "; and" in line 44.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 42

  DRUG ABSTINENCE ORDERS
  Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 25, line 16, after "A", insert "or Class B'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 131, in page 25, line 27, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 132, in page 25, line 31, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 2, in page 25, line 32, at end insert—
  (c) the court is satisfied that an appropriate programme of drug treatment is available in the relevant area and can be provided for the offender.'.
  No. 3, in page 26, line 18, at end insert—
  '(d) where and when the treatment for drug abuse is to be made available to the offender.'.
  No. 133, in clause 43, page 26, line 41, after "A", insert "or Class B".

  741
  Government amendment No. 26.
  No. 134, in clause 44, page 27, line 19, after "A" insert "or Class B".
  No. 135, in page 27, line 29, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 136, in page 27, line 36, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 137, in page 27, line 38, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 145, in clause 52, page 35, line 17, after "A', insert "or Class B".
  No. 146, in page 35, line 26, after "A', insert "or Class B".
  No. 147, in page 36, line 23, after "A', insert "or Class B".
  No. 148, in page 36, line 25, after "A', insert "or Class B".
  No. 161, in clause 57, page 40, line 17, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 162, in clause 58, page 40, line 31, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 163, in clause 59, page 40, line 40, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 164, in page 40, line 42, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 165, in page 41, line 6, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  No. 168, in schedule 5, page 53, line 14, after "A", insert "or Class B".
  Mr. Hawkins: Although there is a lengthy list of amendments in the group, the House will realise that they are largely consequential, one on another. There is one principle at stake: we believe that in the new regime that the Government are setting out, which we debated at length in Committee, they are unwise to restrict the operation of the provisions only to class A drugs. We recognise, of course, that class A drugs are the most serious, but we believe that it would be helpful if the Government added class B drugs.
  I direct the Minister's attention to research carried out by the Home Office. In 1996 and 1997, the Home Office commissioned a research project at Cambridge university into drug use by arrestees. The project took place in five contrasting areas—Sunderland, Nottingham, Manchester, Cambridge and London. With respect to the recent drug consumption of those arrested, tests showed comparatively high levels—61 per cent. of those arrested had taken at least one illegal drug, and 27 per cent. tested positive for two or more drugs. The drug that was found most often in the tests, with 46 per cent. of arrestees testing positive for it, was cannabis.
  10.15 pm
  We have referred earlier—not only tonight but in Committee and on Second Reading—to the fact that many hon. Members have had extensive professional dealings with drug offenders. For example, some have prosecuted or defended them, while others have dealt with them through their work as social workers, probation officers or
  742
  youth workers. However, no one who has been involved professionally can doubt that cannabis is the most prevalent drug.
  When considering the causes of and influences on crime, I hope that we can agree that drug use is a major factor.
  Jackie Ballard: I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman's answer to two questions. Given the well documented stronger link between alcohol misuse and crimes of violence, why has not the hon. Gentleman included alcohol in the amendment? What is the evidence that cannabis is linked to crime?
  Mr. Hawkins: On the hon. Lady's second question, I point to the Home Office research on drug use, which I mentioned earlier. If the hon. Lady talked to police officers who are regularly involved in drugs work, they would say that many crimes are committed by those who have taken cannabis, or in order to raise funds to feed a cannabis habit. The hon. Lady shakes her head. We know that the Liberal Democrats have held some interesting views on the legalisation of cannabis. Liberal Democrat conferences have voted for it several times. I do not know whether the hon. Lady voted for it—perhaps she will tell us.
  Jackie Ballard: To set the record straight, the vote in the Liberal Democrat conference was on whether to set up a royal commission to consider drug misuse, including the possible decriminalisation of cannabis. I voted for the establishment of such a royal commission.
  Mr. Hawkins: When such matters are debated, we know where the Liberal Democrats are coming from. I note that the Minister smiles. On this occasion, the hon. Lady is being disingenuous; we know the views of many leading members of her party.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: At least we vote for what we believe in.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman should do me the courtesy of acknowledging that I also vote for what I believe in. However, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's honesty in indicating his true beliefs on the issue that we are considering. We are holding an useful debate. Often, late at night, the truth will out in the Chamber.
  Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): Will the hon. Gentleman consider the first point that the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made, about alcohol? The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the large number of policemen who would state that there was a close relationship between crime and the use of cannabis. Does he agree that the same number of policemen habitually imbibe alcohol?
  Mr. Hawkins: I am sure that, when off duty, many police officers enjoy a drink as much as the next man and certainly as much as this man. In Committee, the hon. Member for Taunton made great play of the fact that she was an abstainer. Through a question from the hon.

  743
  Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), we discovered that she even abstains from salt. If she is announcing a new Liberal Democrat—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying a little too far from the amendment.
  Mr. Hawkins: Of course I respect your ruling as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However the hon. Lady asked whether alcohol should be included in the amendment. I was simply speculating about whether there was a new Liberal Democrat policy to introduce prohibition. I hope that that is not the case. That would mean that even fewer Liberal Democrats would be elected at the next general election. On current polls, there will be few anyway.
  We are considering a serious matter. The official Opposition believe that class B drugs should be included in the orders. We look forward to the Minister's response. The issues that we are discussing should be considered very seriously.
  Jackie Ballard: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which my hon. Friends and I tabled. I shall try not to rehearse the gist of the detailed arguments that we had in Committee.
  Abstinence orders should not be imposed unless the court is satisfied that an appropriate programme of drug treatment is available in the court area and can be provided for offenders. Before making an order, the court should explain the effect of the order and the consequences of failure to abstain and also tell the offender where and when treatment is to be made available to him or her. It is widely accepted among those who work in the drugs field that class. A users will not stop or abstain from using such drugs just because the court tells them to. Indeed, if they have a persistent drug habit, they cannot abstain just because they are told to, and it may be dangerous if they do. Home Office guidance on drug treatment and testing orders states:
  Simply stopping taking a dependent drug can be serious and even life-threatening. Offenders who are dependent should be warned against sudden cessation of use in such cases.
  The simple requirement to abstain gives the impression that change can be instant, but we all know that it is not likely to be so. A positive test result would be a breach of the order. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, said that a probation officer would keep track of progress by using random drug testing. She said that research from the United States suggests that drug testing alone can deter drug use, but she was not aware of any long-term follow-up studies to see whether that continued beyond the point at which the testing stopped. The Minister of State said in Committee that coercion alone helps people to restore order to drug-abusive lives. Abstinence orders may not be effective in the short term—indeed, they may even be dangerous—and will not be effective in the long term without treatment.
  I acknowledge the drink—[Laughter.] Acknowledging the drink and imbibing it are two different things. I meant to say that I acknowledge the link between class A drug abuse, addiction and acquisitive crime. Drug abuse is a chronic relapsing condition and drug treatment can make a positive and significant impact on abusers and addicts.
  744
  People have to wait between eight weeks and 12 months for treatment in different parts of the country. The Home Office acknowledges the postcode lottery of availability of treatment, as was obvious from the Home Secretary's statement last week.
  A few weeks ago, I asked the Home Secretary in this place if he would set a target for the maximum waiting time for drug treatment. None is in place at the moment and the Government still seem to be reluctant to have such a target. However, the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs entitled "Alternatives to Prison Sentences" recommended that the Government set an objective for all drug misusing offenders who are given community sentences to have access to appropriate treatment. I agree with that recommendation and believe that offenders should be told explicitly by the court how the provision of treatment will help them to comply with an abstinence order.
  I do not underestimate the extra resources that will be needed to provide treatment for all drug abusers. Indeed, I wonder whether the Government are reluctant to accept the amendment because they are aware that it will require extra resources.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Is not one of the problems that there is an almost total absence of abstinence programmes across Britain? I am aware of only one professional programme in Greater Manchester, to which people are referred from the whole of the north-west. We need more abstinence programmes to help people through a period of coming off drugs.
  Jackie Ballard: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The gist of my argument is that imposing an abstinence order alone will not help people to come off drugs: they also need proper programmes to help them. That will also demand the provision of many more drugs advice workers, who will need to be recruited and trained, especially if we are not to end up with the only route to treatment being through the criminal justice system.
  Studies in the United Kingdom and the United States show that for every pound spent on treatment of drug users, £3 is saved in the criminal justice system. Although there is certainly a resourcing issue in the short term, the criminal justice system would save money in the long term if the measures were successful.
  If the Government really intend to tackle the problems of the link between class. A drug abuse and crime, they must invest more in the provision of treatment and speedier access to it. Without that, abstinence orders will be meaningless and will merely lead to more offenders ending up in the prison system.
  Jane Kennedy: Although we had a lighthearted discussion of these issues in Committee, I acknowledge the serious points made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
  I shall deal first with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his colleagues. I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by inviting my hon. Friends to resist his amendments if I cannot persuade him that there is no need to press them to a vote.

  745
  The amendments seek to add class B drugs, which include cannabis and amphetamine, to the specified class A drugs, heroin and cocaine, which will be tested for under our proposals. The Bill offers a comprehensive approach to drug misuse, and the remedy suggested in the amendments is too simplistic. Our proposals are based on sound research evidence. They are a proportionate response to the very serious problem posed to society by drug-related crime. There is no disagreement between hon. Members on the serious nature of that problem.
  The hon. Gentleman helpfully drew attention to our drug testing of arrestees research programme. I shall refer to elements of the research that he did not highlight. It showed that property crime funded around 75 per cent. of the total income of arrestees. [Interruption.] "Arrestees" are those arrested. Unfortunately, "drug testing of arrestees" is the name of the research programme. We have been heavily into names during our debates. One third of arrestees' total income was spent buying heroin, crack and/or cocaine.
  We have no compelling evidence at present to suggest that a similar link exists between other drugs—in class A or class B—and the commission of crime on a similar scale. If research evidence of a link involving other drugs becomes available, we will consider including those in the testing programme.
  We are piloting the new regime to evaluate its effectiveness and to find out what works best before we decide how to roll it out further. Initially, we are concentrating the pilots on property criminals and on the drugs—heroin, crack and/or cocaine—that research tells us are most clearly associated with the drugs-crime cycle. The Bill already contains powers to extend the range of drugs tested and the trigger offences if research evidence justifies that. If the pilots are successful, roll-out will be done when all necessary facilities, including prison places, are available. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.
  Before I deal with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton, I shall deal quickly with Government amendment No. 26, which is a minor drafting amendment, but none the less important. It will make it clear to the courts that the pre-sentence drug test, along with the other drug-testing provisions, will be piloted in the first instance, as I have just described, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will notify the courts when arrangements are in place for the provision to be brought into effect. It mirrors the similar provision already included in respect of drug abstinence orders and requirements.
  Let me spell it out again: the purpose of the pilots will be to test our assumptions about the value of drug testing in reducing crime and illegal drug taking. Drug treatment and testing orders were also piloted in the first instance. A preliminary evaluation by researchers from South Bank university informed our decision to roll-out the drug treatment and testing order nationally from next October.
  10.30 pm
  The hon. Member for Taunton has tabled two amendments that I firmly believe would detract from the effectiveness of the drug abstinence order by making
  746
  unrealistic and often unnecessary requirements for the availability of treatment services before the court may make such an order. That is not to diminish the importance of the availability of treatment, but a drug abstinence order targets those offenders under probation supervision who do not require immediate treatment, although their drug misuse requires monitoring. Drug abstinence orders are primarily designed for offenders who have a propensity for drug misuse, but who do not need immediate treatment.
  Interventions to identify and monitor drug misuse are planned for those on charge, on bail, on community service or under other forms of community supervision, including release from prison on licence. The drug abstinence order is an integral part of that strategy. In particular, it will complement the drug treatment and testing order, which is principally aimed at offenders who commit high-volume acquisitive crime to feed a drug habit, are assessed as requiring treatment for drug misuse and are motivated to enter treatment.
  Those offenders who do not require treatment or who are not motivated to enter it may well be suitable for a drug abstinence order, which will enable supervising officers to monitor their progress by using random and mandatory drug tests. There is already evidence from the mandatory drug testing programme in prisons that testing, although not a panacea in itself, can have the deterrent effect on hard drug misuse that we are looking for. A positive test under a drug abstinence order would alert supervising officers to potentially problematic behaviour and the need for remedial action, including provision of treatment where necessary.
  Our strategy is to have in place drug interventions at each stage of the criminal justice process to identify drug misusers and, where appropriate, to get them into treatment and monitor their progress.
  Jackie Ballard: I want to be absolutely sure that I understand the hon. Lady correctly. Are abstinence orders designed not for class A addicts, but only for occasional class A drug users?
  Jane Kennedy: I resist the invitation to specify the groups of offenders for which drug abstinence orders might be appropriate. They will be appropriate for some offenders in some circumstances. Some offenders do not opt for treatment—they resist it—but it may be possible to get them to agree to a drug abstinence order. The mandatory testing that will be part of the order will allow the supervising officers to follow their progress. We would know that such individuals had a drug habit and we would want to monitor their progress in resisting the use of the drug.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have another question on the same lines. I understand what the Minister says about the difference between monitoring people's continuing abstinence and providing treatment. Following the Home Secretary's statement last week and his speech, can she tell us whether the Government have a target for the maximum time for treatment where it is required as part of the continuing rehabilitation process?
  Jane Kennedy: No, we do not have a target, but I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton

  747
  that we are aware that coverage for the treatment of drug misuse is not yet complete. Considerable resources are being put into treatment—£20 million into arrest and referral schemes and £56 million into drug treatment and testing orders—but we recognise that there is a shortage of capacity. That is being addressed.
  Dr. Iddon: Will counselling be applied to an individual who accepts an abstinence order? If it is not available, I cannot see the orders succeeding.
  Jane Kennedy: As I understand it, the failure of a drug test by an individual subject to a drug abstinence order would be reported to the court, and it would be for the court to determine what measures should be applied to that individual. It would depend on the circumstances in each case. I do not say that counselling will not form part of the package, but it will be for the court to decide.
  I was talking about the shortage of capacity in the overall programme of intervention in drug misuse. We are aware of that shortage, and it is being addressed. One initiative that is in hand is a joint Department of Health and Home Office recruitment campaign for drugs workers. By April 2001, up to 685 drugs workers will be recruited and trained. Those are important steps; this is a major investment in an important part of our work.
  Treatment availability will continue to be developed. In the meantime, the existence of any gaps should not constitute a reason for denying the opportunity of identifying drug-misusing offenders at arrest, and monitoring their behaviour on bail or while under probation supervision. That will go a long way towards reducing the damage being done to communities by drug-related crime.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am encouraged by the Minister's helpful and serious response. She said that the Government would keep the matter under review. She also said that, at a later stage, they might well consider amendments along the lines that we suggest in relation to class B drugs, and that they will monitor the effects of provisions that the Government have, in fact, drafted very carefully. I shall therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but, once again, with the proviso that the other place may well return to the issue.
  I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

  PRE-SENTENCE DRUG TESTING
  Amendment made: No. 26, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
  '(4) The court shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless it has been notified by the Secretary of State that the power to make such orders is exercisable by the court and the notice has not been withdrawn'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 45

  COMMUNITY SENTENCES: CURFEW REQUIREMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 27, in page 28, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 28, in page 29, line 25, leave out subsection (9).—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 46

  COMMUNITY SENTENCES: EXCLUSION REQUIREMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 30, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
  No. 30, in page 30, line 35, leave out subsection (8).—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 47
  MONITORING OF REQUIREMENTS IN COMMUNITY REHABILITATION ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 31, line 8, leave out clause 47.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Clause 51

  PLACE FOR GIVING REPRIMANDS AND WARNINGS
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 35, line 10, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (limitations on police detention), for subsection (5)(b) there is substituted—
  "(b) that, in respect of any such matter, proceedings may be taken against him or he may be reprimanded or warned under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 55

  ABOLITION OF SENTENCES OF DETENTION IN A YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTION AND CUSTODY FOR LIFE
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 38, line 25, at end insert—
  'and no court is to make a custodial order except in relation to a person who is aged at least 17 but under 18.
  ( ) No court is to commit a person to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention of persons aged at least 18 but under 21 for default or contempt) or make an order fixing a term of detention under that section'.
  No. 34, in page 38, line 28, leave out "or".
  No. 35, in page 38, line 29, after "life" insert—
  'or to a custodial order'.
  No. 36, in page 38, line 30, after "aged" insert "at least 18 but".
  No. 37, in page 38, line 32, at end insert—
  '(2A) A person who—

  (a) has been committed (before the coming into force of this section) to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or in respect of whom an order fixing a term of detention under that section has been made (before the coming into force of this section), and

  (b) is aged under 21,

  may be detained in a young offender institution, or in a prison, determined by the Secretary of State'.
  No. 38, in page 38, line 37, after "(2)" insert "or (2A)".
  No. 39, in page 38, line 44, at end insert—
  '( )In this section—
  "court" includes a court-martial and a Standing Civilian Court,
  "custodial order" means an order under—

  (a) section 71AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to, the Army Act 1955.

  (b) section 71AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to, the Air Force Act 1955,

  (c) section 43AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to, the Naval Discipline Act 1957.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 56

  RELEASE ON LICENCE ETC: CONDITIONS AS TO MONITORING
  Amendments made: No. 40, in page 39, line 7, after second "conditions" insert ", however expressed".
  No. 41, in page 39, line 20, at end insert—
  '( ) In this section references to a sentence of imprisonment include—

  (a) a detention and training order,

  (b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.

  (c) a sentence of detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure),

  (d) a sentence of detention under section 91 of that Act (detention of offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences),

  (e) a sentence of custody for life under section 93 or 94 of that Act,

  and references to prison shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 58

  RELEASE ON LICENCE ETC: DRUG TESTING REQUIREMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 42, in page 40, line 21, after "person" insert "aged 18 or over".
  No. 43, in page 40, line 25, after "conditions" insert ", however expressed".
  No. 44, in page 40, line 35, at end insert—
  '( ) In this section references to a sentence of imprisonment include—

  (a) a detention and training order,

  (b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,

  (c) a sentence of detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure),

  (d) a sentence of detention under section 91 of that Act (detention of offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences),

  (e) a sentence of custody for life under section 93 or 94 of that Act,

  and references to prison shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 60

  ACCESS TO DRIVER LICENSING RECORDS
  Amendments made: No. 45, in page 41, line 18, leave out from "constables" to end of line 19.
  No. 46, in page 41, line 26, at end insert—
  '( ) Before making any regulations applying in respect of constables in police forces in Scotland, the Secretary of State must, to the extent to which the regulations will so apply, consult the Scottish Ministers'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 61

  FAILURE TO SECURE REGULAR ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL: INCREASE IN PENALTY
  Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 41, line 31, leave out clause 61.
  If the amendment were accepted—I am ever the optimist—it would lead to the deletion of clause 61, which increases the penalty for failure to secure regular school attendance. It more than doubles the maximum fine, and introduces imprisonment for up to three months.
  In Committee, I expressed surprise that the clause had appeared for the first time in this Bill rather than in an education Bill, in which its merits or otherwise in helping parents to ensure school attendance could have been debated by colleagues specialising in education as part of a wider discussion about how to encourage parents to be responsible and responsive when their children are truanting. I hope that the Minister will not caricature my views on the clause, suggesting that I am in favour of truanting or of parents who are irresponsible about the matter. I think that the debate is about the effective way of ensuring that parents carry out their duties in getting their children to school.
  It would be much better to debate the clause in an education context than in a criminal justice context. However, it is in this Bill, and I believe that increasing the penalties will not in itself help parents who are struggling to ensure that their children attend school regularly. I also think that it will have a minimal impact on those who could not care less what their children are doing between 9 am and 3.30 pm on school days.
  A range of interventions, including parenting projects, home tuition and family support, are much more likely to help than draconian penalties. Many—although not all—families with difficulties, including school attendance, will be poor families with multiple problems. Doubling the fine that can be imposed will simply add to their problems. Using the ultimate deterrent and sending a parent to prison will further fracture dysfunctional families.
  In Standing Committee, I asked the Minister what research evidence there was to show that a fine of £2,500 would make an appreciable difference, as opposed to a fine of £2,000 or even £5,000. The Minister had no answer to that question. It seems that the clause has been slipped into a criminal justice Bill to try to avoid the scrutiny of educationists and to enable the Government to claim that they are getting tough on truancy, without any empirical or even anecdotal evidence to show that those particular get-tough measures will help to deal with the problem in any way. They will not, and they may do much harm. That is why we wish the clause to be deleted.
  Mr. John Cryer: In Committee, I expressed concerns about clause 55 as it then was; it is now clause 61. The concerns are that increasing the fines for parents of truanting children and, more particularly, jailing them will be counterproductive.

  751
  Since the Committee stage, I have contacted several charities concerned with children. They have written back to me to express their reservations about clause 61. For example, the Child Poverty Action Group said, among other things:
  I can certainly confirm that we would regard this as a retrograde step. Penalties of this sort, levied upon families on low incomes, seem to be based on the assumption that children will somehow be insulated from the effects of fines paid by their parents—or from the consequences of those fines not being paid. This is manifestly not so and we would hope that, given further reflection and discussion, a less punitive approach might prevail.
  NCH Action for Children wrote in similar vein:
  We do not think it is helpful to have increased sanctions against parents whose children do not attend school. The reasons why children do not attend school are many and complex and we do not think that increasing the penalties on parents is the most constructive way forward. Indeed we are concerned that this clause, whilst perhaps having a deterrent element, would actually result in more difficulties and problems for families that are already vulnerable and disadvantaged.
  Those were the two key responses from the two charities.
  That leads me to the question that I raised in Committee. The measure would send parents to jail and put children in care. I have talked to one or two head teachers in my constituency who know children of secondary school age who are regular truants and who have younger brothers and sisters. If the sanction were used by magistrates courts, the patents would be sentenced to three months in prison. The younger children and, for that matter, the older children at secondary school would be taken into care, obviously at a hugely increased cost to the taxpayer. The measure would be counterproductive.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office argued in Committee that the measure would not work that way and that it was mainly a deterrent that would not, in practice, be used by magistrates; but it is not the Minister, me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be on the bench when cases come up. It may be people who have a particularly vindictive streak. There are magistrates who have vindictive streaks; I have seen them in action. They may choose to use the full sanction of the law and to jail parents for three months at a time.
  That is a realistic prospect. In the light of the comments by the charities that I have mentioned and by other charities, if we pass the legislation, we will go against some of the key charities that have the interests of children at heart and that have campaigned for children's rights for a long time. They are clearly dead against the clause going through. There is much to be said for their arguments.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer). Although I did not serve on the Committee, I should like briefly to give a few reasons why I think that the Government's intention to go down this road is misconceived.
  The Government could say—I have read the Minister's comments in Committee—that the provision will give magistrates another power that they, in their wisdom, will use only when necessary, and that it will simply expand
  752
  the range of options available to them. Although that statement is true, it presumes that it is acceptable or reasonable to imprison parents for three months for failure to secure regular attendance.
  In recent debates, the Government have talked about the possibility of imprisoning offenders for one day, for a weekend or for other very short periods. If we really think that we are not getting through to parents on the issue, that length of imprisonment would seem to be much more appropriate as an ultimate sanction. I do not think that it is reasonable to propose a three-month removal of the type of parent who cannot manage to deliver their children to school.
  The proposed response is entirely inappropriate and is not supported by any evidence that it is likely to produce a positive outcome. It is also absolutely unhelpful in trying to address the underlying issues.
  Earlier in the debate, I cited the example of a relevant constituency case which, entirely coincidentally, occurred only last weekend. On Saturday, a single-parent constituent came to my front door to ask for help on finances, as her benefit cheque had not arrived. In the process of helping her to sort out the matter, I went to her home, where I discovered five children, all of whom are of school age, but one of whom was not going to school. I shall deal with that matter in the usual way. However, the point is that the girl had left in her first year of secondary school because of bullying, and no other suitable school had yet been found that would accept her.
  In all my years as a Member of Parliament, my experience has been that a child who does not attend school usually fails to do so because of a problem between that child and the school, and that such problems are usually better resolved by educational welfare officers finding a better school or deciding that it is not appropriate for such children to be in a formal school setting.
  Frequently, one of the reasons why parents do not ensure that their children go to school is that they are unhappy with the school. We will not solve that problem by sending those parents to prison. Parents often say to me, "I am sorry, but I am not sending my child to that school. I am not comfortable about that being a satisfactory school. The educational standards are not satisfactory; it has poor discipline; it is too far away. None of the other local children go to that school. There are no community links."
  Parents' reasons for not wanting to send their children to a particular school are many and varied. Their concerns should be dealt with in various ways, but not by saying that they should go to prison. Such a response will not get the child into school any better than other actions would.
  Mr. John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking more about the Education Act 1996 than the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. We are talking about cases in which children who should be at school commit yet another offence. Very often, it is a matter of "yet another" offence, as the children will already be subject to orders under the 1996 Act. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be addressing that issue.
  Mr. Hughes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was speaking. If he was, he would

  753
  have heard her say that the issue would have been dealt with more appropriately in a debate on education legislation. The issue is not about offences committed by children at all, but simply about how we respond, in criminal justice legislation, to cases in which parents do not send their children to school. Our proposal—supported, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said, widely outside the House—is to delete the proposed clause which deals with a person being guilty of an offence if they fail to secure regular attendance of their children or the young person for whom they are responsible. The clause states that the penalty should be increased to a maximum of three months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 4. The Bill proposes to increase both the imprisonment and the fine.
  I ask the Government to think seriously about the likelihood and appropriateness of this measure ever being used and to consult more widely about whether this is not absolutely the wrong road to go down. I have never had a single experience where the threat or the actuality of the imprisonment of a parent for a non-attending school child has produced any better result.
  Ms Diane Abbott: This feels like one of those clauses that goes through late at night without sufficient debate and which, in retrospect, is seen to be a clear mistake.
  I represent a constituency in the east end of London where truancy is a serious problem. Hackney probably has higher truancy than many other areas. I am aware that truancy is serious, as being a truant is one step along the road to being involved in criminal activity. I applaud the Minister's intention to crack down on truancy, and his intention to try to reinforce positive, meaningful and responsible parenthood among parents of all ages. We must be aware of issues relating to responsible parenting and to a lack of parenting skills.
  As to the clause, and whether it will achieve the results that Ministers want, I am concerned. The clause applies to parents but, with many truanting children, it is not "parents"—there is a single mother. I cannot see how it can be in the interests of the family unit to send a mother to prison for three months as, invariably, it will not just be one child but others too who will be forced into care as a consequence.
  I recently visited Holloway. This country already imprisons far too many women for such offences. We imprison more women as a percentage of the population than any other country in Europe for just this type of offence. A clause in a Bill that must lead inevitably—if it is to be meaningful—to more women going to prison cannot go by unremarked. I applaud the Minister's intentions and motivation, but I do not believe that the clause has been sufficiently thought through.
  I cannot believe that it will be in the interests of the truants themselves that their parents run the risk of serving time in prison. Those types of truanting children are very often beyond the control of their parents in any case. I wonder how effective the new clause will be in practice.
  Mr. Dawson: I was not going to speak on this subject in Committee and was provoked into it, and the same is the case tonight. I have worked on truancy and school
  754
  non-attendance issues for a long time and I do not buy a lot of the statements that have been made in the last 10 minutes.
  This is a complex, distressing and difficult problem. At the heart of it are children's rights to have an education, and parents' duties to ensure that they receive it. People have referred to many of the factors that make truancy a problem. Of course there can be real and genuine difficulties between parents and schools. Of course there are millions of children with special educational needs; there are often educational needs that go unnoticed, unassessed or unrecognised for many years. We need to attend to such factors. Some teenagers, but often younger children, are palpably beyond the control of parents. Parents who do their absolute darnedest to get their children to go to school need the appropriate support.
  There are a thousand aspects to the issue of school truancy and it is extremely difficult to tackle, especially when it has gone on for some time, but some people do not seem to recognise that there is also sheer parental bloody-mindedness. There are people who have no interest whatever in getting their children to attend school and will use any excuse to avoid ensuring that they get the education that they need.
  One can respond to that through care proceedings. There is nothing more fundamental than breaking up families, but the clause gives us the ability to bring home to recalcitrant parents the true seriousness of the situation. If the threat of a serious fine or imprisonment is enough to bring parents to court or make them consider the issues seriously, that is a useful element.
  Jackie Ballard: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have that parents who could not care less whether their children go to school will be influenced to change their behaviour by a fine of £2,500, when they are not influenced by a fine of £1,000?
  Mr. Dawson: So much depends on individual circumstances. The threat of imprisonment is a potent factor, although I sincerely believe that it would not be carried out. The spectre that people conjure up—of parents being hauled off to jail in great numbers, while the children are taken into care and the whole family explodes—is simply not credible. The circumstances in which such a tactic would be used are comparatively rare, but it is an important element in the armoury that is available.
  Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend says that he believes that imprisonment will not be used, but it will not be he or I on the bench making the decision. If it will not be used, why put it on the statute book?
  Mr. Dawson: The uncertainty about whether it will be used is important. All that I have to back this up is the experience of dealing with parents in this position—and the only way of getting them to face up to the difficulties was by laying down an extremely hard line about the consequences not to their children but to them if there was no change.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a simple question. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be acceptable for a single parent of several children to be sent to prison for

  755
  between one and three months because one of the children was truanting? If not, he should not support a proposal to give magistrates courts the power to do just that.
  Mr. Dawson: We have to consider the individual circumstances. I do not believe that the sort of situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined earlier would be dealt with under the existing legislation. We are talking about people who need help and support to deal with the complex problems of truancy. The provision will not necessarily apply to any of the people with whom hon. Members have been in touch, let alone all of them, but my experience tells me that it is useful to have it as a threat to hang over some parents, in some circumstances.
  11 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I, too, have some experience of child care: for 13 years, I was the house father of a small family unit children's home. Sometimes it was difficult to get the children to school.
  The Government must recognise that legislation, once introduced, will be used. The provision allowing courts to imprison people for a lengthy period seems draconian, and there is no use arguing that it will be used in only a few cases. If it is used in only one case, a family will be broken up and children will go into care. We must make sure that the provision will have some effect on truancy.
  However, all hon. Members know why families do not send their children to school. It happens largely when the system has failed both parents and children. The cycle of deprivation means that parents do not appreciate the importance of education or of sending their children to school. However it has been noted already that other legislation—education Acts and social legislation—provide that children can be taken into care.
  In this respect, the Bill is worse than a sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It is a very uncreative way to tackle a problem with which most hon. Members are familiar. This month, I have had discussions in my constituency with the organisation Homestart, and I have been involved with groups of head teachers in establishing a truancy centre. I have also been working with social services officers on individual cases to try to build support in the community and families, and ensure that children are sent to school.
  The introduction of a power to imprison parents who refuse to send their children to school cannot be ameliorated by saying that it will be used only as a last option and probably not at all. Can we have confidence in the courts that the provision will not be used? I know the local magistrates in Hayes and Uxbridge, and I am sure that many of those wonderful people would not touch the power with a bargepole. However, I am not so confident about magistrates elsewhere.
  I want the powers in any legislation that I am involved with to be so valid that they are used. In this instance, the Government are flying in the face of the experience of all hon. Members. The work that we do in ensuring that parents send their children to school must be based on an understanding of families' problems, not on retribution.
  I gave up the opportunity of visiting a constituent in prison today. I wanted to deal with clause 61, although I did not realise that we would come to it so very late at night. I am amazed that the clause has been included in the Bill, as it is so incongruent with the other provisions.
  756
  It seems that the Government have taken another opportunity to pander to readers of the Daily Mail by cracking down on parents who do not send their children to school.
  Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say who has been consulted on this matter? What support has been found among teaching organisations, social work professionals and others? What is the international experience of imposing on parents fines and prison sentences of this length? More creative means of tackling the problem exist. We cannot want to deprive children of their parents simply because the system has failed to inculcate in families the benefits of sending children to school.
  Mr. Lidington: Somewhat unusually, I find myself in considerable agreement in this debate with the views expressed not by only the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), but by several Labour Members. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been discussed at some length already, but it seems that if a fine is to be a deterrent, one has to assume that the person subject to the fine will feel that they have a reasonable prospect of paying it. Otherwise, imposing a fine becomes completely meaningless.
  In my constituency experience, I can think of cases in which parents of children who have been persistent truants are entirely reliant on social security benefits. I find it difficult to see how an increased fine could be a real deterrent in such cases when the prospect of it ever being paid is minimal.
  I also agree with the points made by other critics of the clause about the power to imprison. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that it was fine to have the power to imprison because we would never want to use it, an argument that I found unpersuasive. It is worth having a power on the statute book only if our intention, as legislators, is that in some circumstances at least that power should be exercised by the courts. That would mean that we would have to address the issues raised most strongly by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  This is not a party political point, but we already know that local authority children's homes have a thoroughly bad general record in caring for people if we measure that in terms of the number of people who have been in local authority care who subsequently get into trouble with the courts, the number of young offenders in institutions such as the one in my constituency or the number of such people who go to prison when they are adults. If at all possible, I believe that it is better to keep the family together with the parents caring for their children. The idea that parents should be taken away and locked up, and that the local authority would somehow step in and put everything right by taking the children into care is at odds with experience in this country hitherto.
  I hope that even at this stage, the Government will think afresh about the clause and bring forward changes in another place.
  Mr. Boateng: We have had a good and extensive debate about a very serious issue. All right hon. and hon. Members will be concerned to get this measure right and to send a clear and unequivocal message from the Chamber.

  757
  We should first understand where the Government are coming from in introducing the clause, and why we oppose amendment No. 6. I well understand where the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) is coming from. She has been very frank and upfront from the outset about her opposition to this measure, and she makes her case seriously. She is right to say that we must avoid the tendency to caricature one another's responses on issues such as this. I certainly have never caricatured her response as in any way being on the side of the truant, and I see that she is good enough to affirm that. Similarly, I would be grateful if she would not caricature our coming forward with this proposal, at this time, in the context of this piece of legislation, as being an attempt somehow to avoid serious scrutiny by educationists. The reverse is the case.
  This measure was first referred to in our consultation document "Tackling Truancy Together", which was announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last September/October. In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), there was an opportunity for organisations to respond. The organisations that responded were largely educational, although magistrates responded too, and were largely in favour of the proposal. I will write to my hon. Friend with a detailed list of the organisations that responded and outline what they said.
  The measure has been carefully thought through, and has been the subject of consultation. It is in no sense out of place within criminal justice legislation, because we have to be clear what we are talking about here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, many such young people are at risk not only of losing their education, but of offending.
  There is a direct link between the subject matter of the Bill and this clause. In government, we have shown—more than any of our predecessors—that we are trying to develop and establish a holistic approach to the matter. That has led us to fund generously organisations such as Homestart, but we realise that the issue cannot be left to teachers alone. It requires input from education welfare officers, from social workers and, indeed, from the police.
  As I listened to my hon. Friend, I recalled a visit to east London when I discussed with police and social workers in Newham the joint patrols carried out by the police and education welfare and social services officers on the streets of the area. That is precisely the sort of joined-up criminal justice, education, welfare and care approach to truancy that we want to promote.
  The provision should not be seen as one response alone—as a tunnel vision approach. It should be seen as one of the building blocks that we need to set up in order to provide an effective response to the problem of truancy. It stands alongside parenting classes and parenting orders. Voices were raised against parenting orders, but, when we piloted them, they were found to be extremely successful. They brought parents to court who otherwise would have continued to avoid their responsibilities; the orders obliged them to confront the consequences of their neglect. Those parents were directed towards help and support to ensure that they addressed the needs of their children and to overcome their own deficits as parents.
  758
  What does the clause do? Yes, it raises the fine above its current level, where it is the same as that for non-payment of a television licence—that is equated with not ensuring that a child attends school. It does not seem unreasonable to say that treating in the same way the non-payment of television licences and the failure to ensure school attendance does not reflect the seriousness of that neglect of a child. By raising the fine level, we send out a message about the seriousness of the offence.
  In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), of course, magistrates will continue to have to take into account the financial situation of the parent when setting the fine. There is no question that someone in receipt of benefits would be required to pay the maximum fine, but it is right that the level should be raised to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take the offence. It is more serious than not paying a television licence.
  The question of intention was raised: what do we plan to get out of this provision for the child? We believe that we must be able to compel the parents of truants to attend court. By making the offence punishable by imprisonment, we are ensuring that parents are required to attend court or risk arrest. Without that provision, we shall not have the power to compel them to do so—backed up by a power of arrest. That is why the offence has to be made custodial. The proposal was introduced not out of a desire to lock up large numbers of parents, but out of a desire to require parents to attend court when their children do not attend school. The Government believe that that is eminently reasonable.
  Mr. McDonnell: The point has been made in the debate that the power might be used infrequently. What assessment have the Government made of the number of parents who would be imprisoned as a result of the introduction of the power?
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Boateng: I shall come to that point. The power will be available to the courts and we do not expect it to be used widely or often. However, it will be on the statute book to be used in the circumstances that justify it. My hon. Friend might ask me what those circumstances are; I do not expect its use to be justified, except in the most extreme cases, against a single parent with other children who might end up in care. However, when two parents have continually and habitually neglected the interests of the child, have failed to address their responsibilities and have failed to attend court, it is not unreasonable to say that parents have responsibilities as well as rights. Those responsibilities cannot be swept aside just because they are inconvenient.
  Mr. McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, I shall not give way again. My hon. Friend has made his point; he does not need to labour it.
  With the rights of a parents core responsibilities. This clause is designed to act as a wake-up call for parents who persistently refuse to accept their responsibilities.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will understand the position as well as I do, so does he accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)?

  759
  When families rely entirely on state benefits, a court is more likely to be driven to the imprisonment conclusion, because a fine would not be a sanction on the parents. Therefore, the power in the clause is much more likely to be used to the disadvantage of the most disadvantaged rather than for the punishment of those who have the resources and the ability to respond.
  Mr. Boateng: If that were the case, our sentencing process on fines would be nonsense. The hon. Gentleman might think that it is, but we do not. When an offence is sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment, we believe that it is right that there should be an alternative. In this case, the alternative to imprisonment is a community penalty. expect the fine to be levelled at a rate that is commensurate with an individual's ability to pay.
  Mr. McDonnell: On every provision, including the parental orders, at least an estimate was given of the numbers who would come before the court as a result of it. Can my right hon. Friend tell us the estimate of the numbers who will come to court, the numbers who will be imprisoned and the number of children who will go into care as a result of this clause?
  Mr. Boateng: I have answered that point and I do not intend to cover the same ground again.
  The measure was introduced after consultation that has produced, in many instances, a favourable response. It is a reasoned and proportionate response to a real and pressing problem. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment should the hon. Member for Taunton decide to put it to a vote.
  Jackie Ballard: I am pleased that the amendment has produced a good and useful debate and I am grateful to Labour Members who spoke to it. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) was the notable exception, but I wish that many more of them had made similar points in Committee. We might then have been successful in deleting the clause at that stage.
  Many hon. Members have referred to their own experiences of dealing with families with difficulties and of truanting children. Just for the record, I have also had similar experiences in the past as a social worker, teacher and school governor. I have had similar experiences to those of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but I have come to a different conclusion. The hon. Member for Hornchurch made a good point about the impact on children in families that already have difficulties in coping of increased fines and potential imprisonment: in punishing the parent, it is inevitable that the child is also punished.
  I tabled the amendment to allow for debate and I know that the Minister has heard the concerns expressed, especially by Labour Back Benchers. Even the Labour Back Bencher who spoke against the amendment seemed to hope that the ultimate sanction of imprisonment would never be used. I hope that the Minister and the Government will have second thoughts on clause 61 in the other place. I shall also be interested to see the responses to the consultation document, especially from education welfare officers, social workers, teachers and others involved professionally with truanting. The Minister said that a number of those who responded
  760
  supported the clause, but he did not tell us whether a majority had done so or how they broke down into groups. That information would be interesting and I hope that the Government will consult further with those who may have missed the initial consultation document.
  The question is whether the increased penalty will reduce truanting—an aim that all of us wish to achieve—or help children and their families. In the hope that the Government will have a change of mind before the Bill reaches the other place, I shall withdraw the amendment, but we will—if necessary—pursue it in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Boateng]
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Hawkins: I shall be brief, given that the Minister has moved Third Reading formally. However, it is important to make a couple of points. We have sought to adopt a constructive attitude to the Bill, because we recognise that parts of it may be helpful. We had good debates in Committee, as I am sure the Minister and other hon. Members would agree, and we have had constructive and mostly good-natured debates this evening on such important issues as domestic violence and drugs.
  It is fair to say that all parties have contributed to the constructive approach. The debate on amendment No. 6 was a good example of a genuine difference of view within the Labour party. Indeed, at one stage the Minister faced an unaccustomed amount of friendly fire from behind him.
  We need to recognise that the Government have described a completely different picture in relation to curfew releases in terms of the serious offences committed by those who have been released from what was originally intended by the members of the Home Affairs Committee. If the members of the Committee, of whom I was then one, had known what the Government had in mind, their report would have been very different. It was never envisaged by the Opposition, by members of the Committee or by other right hon. and hon. Members, when they considered the Government's proposals, that they would mean the early release of six attempted murderers; 53 people convicted of manslaughter; 2,767 people convicted of drug dealing and trafficking; 1,556 people convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; 811 robbers; 1,887 burglars; 23 offenders convicted of cruelty to children; 34 offenders convicted of making threats to kill; and 126 offenders convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. That is a travesty of a policy on the part of a Government who claimed they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The ordinary law-abiding citizens of this country will be horrified by those figures.
  The situation is especially ironic given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out, those are the very offences in respect of which the Home Secretary proposes to apply his revised immigration rule 320(18) to keep serious convicted criminals out of the country—the so-called Mike Tyson rule. The Home Secretary's own consultation document

  761
  describes such crimes as serious offences and states that protection of the citizens of this country from those who are convicted of such offences overseas is essential and appropriate. It is impossible for the Government logically to argue that the British public must be protected from foreigners who commit such offences, barring them from the country, at the same time as they let out of jail on early release thousands of British criminals who have committed the same crimes. That is the Bill's most significant weakness. We hope that the Government will consider the matter further.
  Ministers have been reasonable and said that they will retain an open mind on several other issues debated in Committee and on Report. One matter that we have not be able to address on Report and on which I wish to touch during our Third Reading debate is the new name of the welfare service. The Government have called it the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, but, in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, said:
  We are open to suggestions. We have not thus far been able to produce a better title than the one before us today. If the hon. Gentleman were to make further suggestions, other than the one in the amendment, we would be prepared to consider them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 April 2000; c. 109.]
  That was a fair concession. The hon. Lady will have noticed another suggestion on the amendment paper, albeit not selected for debate. It gets around some of the problems mentioned by Ministers when responding to our original suggestion, in that we have not replicated one of the constituent parts of the new service, but have come up with another title again. Even if that is not the right title, I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that we are attempting to come up with a constructive alternative that will avert the danger of ridicule—which is a present danger in connection with the Government's chosen title.
  The hon. Lady wrote to me and other members of the Standing Committee on other points that cropped up in debate. Her letter dated 9 May dealt with representations that Ministers had received about the intention to change the names of probation, community service and combination orders, and it enables us to contrast her remarks and those made earlier this evening made by the Minister of State, Home Office. The Parliamentary Secretary wrote:
  most representations were in favour of maintaining the status quo.
  All along, we have argued in favour of keeping community service orders and probation orders. The hon. Lady continued:
  the majority of these were from within the probation service.
  So much for the anecdotal evidence cited by the Minister of State, Home Office: the majority of the representations to the Government originated within the probation service, exactly as the trade union NAPO said. The Parliamentary Secretary added:
  These are professionals who are already very familiar and comfortable with the language,
  but she then said that the terms were not familiar to the wider public—"shurely shome mishtake," as a well-known periodical would say. There is a difference of views even between the two Ministers present tonight.
  Weaknesses remain in the Government's case. I have no doubt that the Government will be forced to concede some of our points during the debates in another place.
  762
  We will not, however, oppose Third Reading, because we believe that the Bill contains sufficient that is valuable and a useful addition to the criminal justice system.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Dawson: It is sadly typical that in their last contribution to the debate on the Bill, the Opposition have concentrated on reworking the argument about the name of the service, trying to draw a smokescreen over their failures in 18 years during which crime doubled and they made a hash of the entire criminal justice system.
  The Bill will give us a national probation service with a new agenda for dealing with criminal behaviour and assisting the rehabilitation of offenders.
  The extremely important element of the Bill, which has received no attention so far today and which received little attention on Second Reading, is the establishment in chapter II of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. I regard that as a hopeful development. Across the country, there is a manifest concern about the position of children in private law proceedings—not criminal justice or public law—when parents separate and divorce. Complex and distressing situations occur, and subtle but extremely serious issues of child protection can arise. Private law deals with issues such as residence and contact, and specific steps and concerns that might relate to individual children in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
  It is a credit to the Government that they have brought together three distinct services—the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service, the court welfare services and the Official Solicitor. Those services are to be melded together, setting high standards of social work practice in a crucial area of policy.
  I tabled no amendments on Report, but I moved several in Committee. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary a solid commitment to children's rights and their place at the heart of the new service, and an undertaking that the service would attain high standards of practice and that there would be appropriate training and professional development activity to allow that.
  The Government also gave a commitment to the involvement of social services inspection in a form of partnership with the magistrates courts advisory service. We all received a letter about that at the end of the Committee stage. It is extremely important that there should be independent inspection based on high standards of social work practice in such an important service.
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service can be a powerful force for advocacy, giving children and young people access to effective and independent representation. I have high hopes of the service. The new organisation could be a strong force for the benefit of children and a flagship for profoundly important family policy. I wish CAFCASS well and trust that it will get the on-going support, resourcing and commitment that it undoubtedly deserves.
  11.34 pm
  Jackie Ballard: The Bill is probably the least controversial Home Office Bill this Session. It has been given proper and constructive scrutiny in Committee and on Report. I shall therefore speak briefly. At this time of night there is no football match throughout which I have to speak.
  Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Bill, especially the clauses relating to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) referred. I also welcome the further enhancement of powers to protect children in part II. Some useful work was done in Committee, especially on getting on record the key role of the probation service in the rehabilitation of offenders, about which we had a long debate.
  However, although we broadly welcome the Bill, we have serious anxieties about a few clauses. Clause 42 deals with drug abstinence orders, but does not provide for guaranteeing treatment throughout England and Wales.
  Clause 52 was not discussed on Report. It provides for testing people in police detention, and gives police the powers to test people who are charged with specific offences for the presence of class. A drugs. I expressed anxiety in Committee that that could introduce by the back door a new offence of use of drugs. The Minister assured us that that was not the case. When the Home Secretary first announced the provision, he said that it was his intention to introduce testing on arrest rather than on charge. The final provision in the clause leaves the door open for the Home Secretary to extend testing to those who have not been charged. That would have serious human rights consequences. It would also be administratively difficult for police officers to cope with the increased numbers of people to be tested when they went into the police station.
  I also oppose clause 61, about which we had an useful debate earlier. I am sure that it will be discussed again in another place. I hope that the other place will consider those outstanding matters in detail.
  We shall not oppose the Bill. Labour Members who have come to the Chamber late at night will be disappointed to hear that neither Opposition party will oppose the Bill and force a vote. The measure has already benefited from the scrutiny of this House; I am sure that it will benefit from further scrutiny in another place.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
  COMPANIES
  That the draft Local Authority (Stocks and Bonds) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.
  COMPANIES
  That the draft Uncertificated Securities (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEES
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
  Ordered,

  That Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson be added to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.
  NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS
  That Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and Mr. William Thompson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITIONS

  Hunting
  11.37 pm
  Valerie Davey (Bristol, West): I am pleased to present the petition of Bristol Anti-Blood Sports to the House. Signatures were collected in Bristol and neighbouring constituencies and totalled 28,475. I am sure that everyone who signed the petition will have been encouraged by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of Bristol Anti-Blood Sports
  Declares its total opposition to all forms of hunting with hounds.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Home Office to take urgent action to bring about the end of this so-called sport, and this unnecessary slaughter of animals.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  11.39 pm
  Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 420,000 decent, law-abiding, mainly country people, many of whom live in my constituency. They call on the Government to recognise the importance of tolerance in a modern society by rejecting legislation to criminalise hunting or other country activities. Such legislation would infringe the liberties of many people throughout the United Kingdom, destroy rural jobs, reduce people's income, seriously harm

  765
  the United Kingdom rural landscape, diminish rural community life and divert valuable parliamentary time from much needed Government measures to address the increasing problems that face the poor and the excluded in rural and urban constituencies.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of Citizens of the United Kingdom
  Declares that in a modern, tolerant democracy, legislation to ban fox hunting is inappropriate.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Office not to introduce such legislation.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Endangered species
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
11.40 pm
Mr. Geraint Davies: In 1970 there were twice as many skylarks in Britain as there are now, four times as many turtle doves and 10 times as many tree sparrows. Many of the reasons for the devastation of much of our wildlife are unknown, although agricultural intensification, decreased ploughing, fewer hedgerows, the impact of the common agricultural policy, pollution and pesticides have been cited as causes for the chronic decline of our natural heritage. The number of water voles has decreased by some 90 per cent. in the last seven years; perhaps Ratty from "The Wind in the Willows" will be extinct within 10 years.
You, Mr. Haselhurst, might ask, "Who really cares?", and I would say that many millions of people care about this issue. I am unusual in that I have been involved in environmental movements and I started a business that contributes to the continuation of the endangered loggerhead turtle by funding a hatchery. It contributes also to the protection of the endangered Lammergeyer bearded vulture. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more members than the Labour party, and the alliance of conservation groups, including Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Woodland Trust, has millions of members. Almost everyone, if asked whether they care about the future of the beloved sparrow, would say yes.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is essentially about the enjoyment of our countryside and its protection for future generations, as well as the protection of its biodiversity. Rights of access bring with them responsibilities for the protection of the countryside and indigenous species. Much has been done in biodiversity action plans, albeit on a voluntary basis, to help that process.
At the Rio summit in 1992 the biodiversity convention was signed by 150 countries, including the United Kingdom. That gave rise, in 1994, to the UK biodiversity action plan, and we now have in place 391 species plans, such as those for the water vole, the skylark, the tree sparrow and the greater horseshoe bat. There are also 45 habitat plans, such as the one for ancient hedgerows, which house endangered species. Those plans have been challenged by new CAP regulations on the size of fields that are eligible for grants. Some hedgerows are threatened but some are protected, as are lowland heathlands and upland oak woods.
That process is organised by a partnership of councils, conservationists, non-governmental organisations, the business community and well meaning members of the public. They have worked well in many cases to help to protect various species and habitats, but that is not true in all cases. Being ethnically Welsh, I have some empathy for Wales. The Countryside Council for Wales has devised 222 biodiversity action plans, but 120 of those are not being progressed because there are no funds. The simple reason for the absence of those funds is that biodiversity action plans do not have the legal status and teeth to gain the statutory priority that would provide them with that funding.

767
Biodiversity in Wales is obviously important to people in England and throughout the United Kingdom—we share our natural heritage and have a duty to protect it—but there is a strange situation in London. The only person in Britain with a statutory duty to protect wildlife through biodiversity action plans is the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is Mayor of London. That obligation is provided by section 352 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which says that the mayor has a statutory duty to publish a biodiversity plan for London. Therefore, he has the right to call for adequate resources to protect biodiversity in our capital against the forces of commercial development, be they retail, traffic or council economic or planning gain.
I would say, Mr. Haselhurst, that what is good enough for London should be good—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that slip twice. The correct term is Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I suggest that what is good enough for London is good enough for the rest of the nation, in terms of biodiversity and the value that that has for us all. Indeed, that applies not only to the adult population but to my young family—daughters aged five and three—which looks with glee at sparrows and other wildlife that is perhaps endangered by pollution and pesticide. Like me, my family does not want a future in which such birds and others are systematically and chronically eliminated. However action may not be taken on other threatened aspects of biodiversity as people are less emotionally inclined to them.
There is a system of sorts in place and we do not want to displace the voluntary and partnership system. However, I suggest that statutory underpinning would not do so. It would ensure that the means of change—largely through the voluntary and charitable sectors—could be strengthened rather than displaced. Time is running out for certain species in certain areas, cash is needed and there are glaring regional differences. I have referred to the Countryside Council for Wales, but there are many more examples of the need to take action to fulfil our international biodiversity obligations.
Part of that process constitutes the second part of the debate—recognition of local sites of particular interest and incorporating our biodiversity priorities in local authorities' planning framework. As well as some 5,000 sites of special scientific interest, there are many thousands more wildlife sites of special interest, only half of which are properly looked after. I call for a duty to be put on local authorities to establish a system of common standards by identifying such sites and taking them into account in the planning process. Such sites can benefit from agri-environmental grants, but the issue here is the public interest rather than the commercial benefit of the site owner.
London already has a voluntary wildlife site system in place and all but two London boroughs—I know something about this, having been leader of Croydon council—use a system developed by the London Ecology Unit whereby wildlife sites are adopted in the unitary development plans for individual authorities. There is an opportunity for all London to have the biodiversity action plan underpinned by such sites, among other things,
768
so that vulnerability to developers would be reduced. A local authority would be duty bound to take account of the impact on those sites when considering development applications. Therefore, the forces of scrutiny and public focus would help to counter-balance the enormous commercial pressure for redevelopment on sites in London. That is happening. It has been suggested that local sites should be incorporated more widely than London so that our wildlife can be preserved.
I know that the Government are sympathetic to those ideas. I know that they have discussed biodiversity action plans and local sites during the Committee stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I hope very much that, on the basis of that discussion, the discussion we are having tonight and the wider discussion throughout the British public—which, by means of extensive media, is being transmitted to millions of members of various organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—the Government will consider tabling amendments, perhaps when we are discussing legislation from the House of Lords, aimed at protecting endangered species. I feel that this is something that the public expect and deserve—as do our many species.
11.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has raised an important issue. As he says, we debated it during the Committee stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I said then that the Government were happy to consider, although without commitment, the question of a form of statutory underpinning for the biodiversity action plan process on local wildlife sites. No doubt we shall return to the subject later this week, when the Bill is debated on Report. In the meantime, it may be helpful for me to remind the House of a number of aspects of the biodiversity process, some of which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Through an enormous effort of co-ordination, led by the United Kingdom biodiversity group—a partnership involving Government Departments and devolved administrations, local government, conservation and land management organisations, business interests and nature conservation agencies—we now have, as my hon. Friend said, 391 species action plans and 45 habitat action plans. That is part of our commitment to implement the United Nations convention on biological diversity, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
The priority species and habitats selected for attention are those which are most at risk of disappearance or decline. Each plan identifies the current threats, and specifies the action to be taken and the agencies—public, private and voluntary—that will take it. Specific time-limited targets are also set.
I am pleased to say that there is a special plan for the water vole, in which my hon. Friend takes a particular interest. The organisations taking the lead in implementing the action plans have just completed a comprehensive reporting exercise that indicates progress so far, and the obstacles that remain. Although we still need to complete analysis of all the data, it is interesting to note that the water vole action plan suggests a continued loss of populations, but has also found previously unrecorded sites. Although populations are still

769
declining and will take some years to recover, the overall rate of decline may not be as severe as was first thought. We cannot drop our guard, but progress is being made.
My hon. Friend said that resources were a problem. Resources are always a problem in almost any area one cares to name, but implementation of the biodiversity action plan has been a priority for my Department's funding of English Nature. We have given it additional grant of more than £11 million over two years, of which about £3.3 million was to be directed specifically towards implementation of the biodiversity action plan. Some of that is given in grants to voluntary bodies which, as I have said, are significant partners in the process. Because many of the plans will be implemented through agri-environment schemes, the additional £1 billion over seven years announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the end of last year, which will be directed to such schemes, will give an enormous boost to the biodiversity process. The application of the schemes is being increasingly targeted towards biodiversity priorities.
I cannot comment directly on the situation in Wales, to which my hon. Friend has referred, as the funding of the Countryside Council for Wales is a matter for the National Assembly. However, I understand that the council is taking action on all those species and habitat action plans on which it is identified as a lead partner and which are particularly important in Wales. That is a pattern similar to English Nature's priorities. There have also been increases in the gofal, the Assembly's agri-environment initiative.
I assure hon. Members that, throughout, Government, Departments have agreed to focus on biodiversity through the adoption of a biodiversity checklist. That is a means by which Departments will consider the implications for biodiversity and for the management of their own estates of their policies and programmes, and report annually in the green Ministers' report.
Local government plays an important part. We are keen to see local biodiversity action plans extended throughout the whole of England. At present, they cover only about half the country's area and are patchy in their quality and reach. We will in many cases rely on those action plans to help us to deliver national targets. More effort is needed for two-way communication between the players at national and local levels.
The question posed by my hon. Friend is whether any of that would be better or more effective if statutory bodies were under a legal obligation to deliver. That is what the Government are considering in the context of amendments that have been tabled to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. In deciding the way forward, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I certainly do not want to put at risk the successful voluntary partnerships that have already grown up around the biodiversity process.
My hon. Friend mentions the question of placing a duty on local authorities to adopt and to maintain a system of local wildlife sites. Again, we have undertaken to consider that in the context of amendments that have been tabled to the Bill. I am well aware of the importance of local wildlife sites which are not SSSIs. Local authorities already have statutory powers to establish local nature
770
reserves and to collaborate closely with the wildlife trusts to identify and to help to manage other sites of local conservation importance.
That is why my Department set up a local sites review group with a broad range of representatives from central and local government, statutory agencies, sectoral interests and voluntary conservation organisations. The group considered the identification, protection and management of local sites. There was no clear consensus on the issue of a statutory basis for local wildlife sites, but there was a large degree of consensus on many other issues—for example, a clear framework for the identification of sites, associated support and advice and funding.
I want to put the debate in the context of the enormous wildlife conservation measures that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill already promotes and which have been widely welcomed. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have given priority in the Bill to providing for better protection and management of SSSIs—some of our finest and most precious areas for wildlife.
Four thousand or so of those sites have been designated by English Nature. It comes as no surprise that the majority of the biological SSSIs contain habitats identified as priorities under the biodiversity action plan. However, the conservation status of those sites needs improving. Part III of the Bill builds on existing provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, introducing a number of fundamentally new and enhanced measures.
Most significant is the fact that the agencies will be able to refuse consent for damaging operations. They will be able to deal with the more significant problems arising from neglect and poor management through improvements to their powers of entry to land and compulsory purchase. Increased penalties for damage and a new offence of intentional or reckless damage by other persons should send a clear message that damage to those precious sites is wholly unacceptable. Public bodies should lead by example. They will therefore, for the first time, be under a specific duty to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs.
A revision of planning policy guidance note 9, on nature conservation, will complement the strengthened regime in the Bill's provisions and deal with biodiversity in the wider countryside. Current legislation protecting threatened species wherever they exist is strong and has done much to further their conservation. However, it can make a real difference only if the laws are effectively enforced, and if the penalties for breaking the law are meaningful and provide a deterrent.
Wildlife crime is lucrative and increasingly well organised. Hence the Bill introduces tougher penalties for wildlife offences, including the option of a prison sentence of up to six months for such offences. We are also increasing fine levels, so that criminals could be looking not only at a jail sentence, but, on top of that, a fine of up to £5,000. My hon. Friend will be aware of all that because, like me, he served in Committee on the Bill.
Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend consider sympathetically the idea that the Bill should enable the prosecution not only of companies, but of directors who cause damage on those sites? Will the Government also

771
consider allowing actions to be brought not only through the Crown Prosecution Service, but directly by individuals?
Mr. Mullin: I cannot immediately recall whether the House will be considering any amendments to that effect in the near future. However, if there are such amendments, I am sure that they will be given due consideration.
The Bill strengthens police powers in a number of ways, including powers to require samples to be taken from wildlife specimens for DNA analysis.
772
Taken together, the actions clearly demonstrate the Government's determination to enhance the legal protection of wildlife in England and Wales. Whatever decision is made on whether to underpin biodiversity action plans in statute, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government are taking quite significant action to ensure the future of our natural heritage.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve midnight.

SCOTLAND

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123943]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has not issued any forms to charities or voluntary bodies since 1 July 1999, when devolution took effect. Collecting information for the period before 1 July 1999 would incur disproportionate cost.

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125168]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department's policy operates effectively, with two smoking rooms provided in Dover House and at 1 Melville crescent, Edinburgh, and access to smoking rooms in two other buildings shared with the Scottish Executive.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123807]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]In order to help to ensure that proposed policy or public information initiatives are effective and represent best value for public money, my Department commissions various research exercises every year.

  Decisions on whether to publish the results of each research project, or place a copy in the House of Commons Library are taken on a case-by-case basis. Some research reports contain commercially confidential information.

  However, copies of the results of most quantitative research reports are available on request and my Department will compile a summary list of research projects to be placed in the Library.
  432W
  Information on research projects commissioned by Departmental Agencies and NDPB's is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of his Department in the financial year 1999–2000, broken down by(a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other market research surveys; and in each case, when and where the results were published. [124631]

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of his Department in the financial year 1999–2000, broken down by(a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other market research surveys; and, in each case, when and where the results were published. [125460]

  Mr. Prescott
  In order to help to ensure that proposed new policy or communication initiatives are informed, effective, and represent best value for public money, my Department commissions various research exercises every year. Those falling within financial year 1999–2000, together with their costs, are listed below. These are either quantitative or qualitative (sometimes referred to as focus group research).

  Research linked to information campaigns

  Road Safety

  Road Safety campaign tracking research

  Quantitative

  Summer Drink Drive campaign research

  Qualitative

  Millennium Drink-Drive campaign research

  Qualitative

  Child Road Safety campaign tracking research

  Quantitative

  Young Highway Code campaign research

  Qualitative

  Cycle Smart campaign

  Qualitative

  Portrayal of driving in advertising

  Qualitative

  'Think' road safety campaign—development

  Qualitative

  'Think' road safety campaign—launch survey

  Quantitative

  Environment

  'Are You Doing Your Bit' campaign tracking

  Quantitative

  Communicating with local government

  Qualitative

  Communicating with local government

  Quantitative

  Water usage omnibus research

  Quantitative

  Bio-diversity awareness

  Qualitative

  Greater London Authority campaign creative research

  Qualitative

  'Are You Doing Your Bit' campaign creative research

  Qualitative

  Other research

  Effects of aircraft noise on sleep patterns

  Qualitative/Quantitative

  S. E. Manchester multi-modal study

  Qualitative

  Hastings multi-modal study

  Qualitative

  Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study

  Qualitative

  British Social Attitudes Survey (transport)

  Quantitative

  British Social Attitudes Survey (housing)

  Quantitative

  Social housing tenants attitudes and reactions to rent levels and rent differentials

  Quantitative

  Large Scale Voluntary Transfers—the role of the independent adviser

  Quantitative

  Views on LSVT process post-transfer

  Quantitative

  ONS omnibus survey—house price expectations

  Quantitative

  ONS omnibus survey—single regeneration budget monitoring

  Qualitative

  Drinking water quality—public perceptions in 2000

  Qualitative/Quantitative

  Citizens' attitudes towards local government

  Qualitative/Quantitative

  433W

  Research linked to information campaigns

  Attitudes of business towards local government

  Qualitative/Quantitative

  Revenue grant distribution system: Research on local government perspectives

  Qualitative/Quantitative

  Improving DVO Agency services

  Qualitative/Quantitative

  Transport Interchange Phase 2

  Qualitative

  Customers Experiences of Planning Appeals

  Qualitative

  The decision on whether to publish the results is taken on a case-by-case basis. Some research reports contain commercially confidential information. However, copies of most quantitative research reports are available on request, and my Department will compile a list of research projects to be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department spent on opinion research in the financial year
  1999–2000. [124632]

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department spent on opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000. [125475]

  Mr. Prescott
  In order to help to ensure that proposed new policy or communication initiatives are informed, effective, and represent best value for public money, my Department commissions various research exercises every year. Those falling within financial year 1999–2000, together with their costs, are as follows:

  Research linked to information campaigns

  Research

  £

  Road Safety

  Road Safety campaign monthly tracking research

  Quantitative

  154,818

  Summer Drink Drive campaign research

  Qualitative

  10,763

  Millennium Drink-Drive campaign research

  Qualitative

  17,466

  Child Road Safety campaign tracking research

  Quantitative

  6,286

  Young Highway Code campaign research

  Qualitative

  17,907

  Cycle Smart campaign

  Qualitative

  25,250

  Portrayal of driving in advertising

  Qualitative

  28,012

  'Think' road safety-development/launch survey

  Qualitative

  19,135

  Qualitative

  Environment

  'Are You Doing Your Bit' campaign tracking

  Quantitative

  274,421

  Communicating with local government

  Qual/quant

  70,500

  Water usage omnibus research

  Quantitative

  7,631

  Biodiversity awareness

  Qualitative

  9,984

  Quality mark scheme research

  Qualitative

  36,155

  GLA campaign creative research

  Qualitative

  43,096

  'Are You Doing Your Bit' creative research

  Qualitative

  52,664

  GLA communication materials research

  Qualitative

  34,685

  Other research

  Effects of aircraft noise on sleep patterns

  Qual/quan

  140,000

  S. E. Manchester multi-modal study

  Qualitative

  12,000

  Hastings multi-modal study

  Qualitative

  9,000

  434W

  Research linked to information campaigns

  Research

  £

  Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study

  Qualitative

  4,000

  British Social Attitudes Survey (transport)

  Quantitative

  28,000

  British Social Attitudes Survey (housing)

  Quantitative

  44,500

  Social housing tenants attitudes and reactions to rent levels and rent differentials

  Quantitative

  100,000

  Large Scale Voluntary Transfers—the role of the independent adviser

  Quantitative

  62,210

  Views on LSVT process post-transfer

  Quantitative

  81,050

  ONS omnibus survey—house price expectations

  Quantitative

  6,075

  ONS omnibus survey—single regeneration budget monitoring

  Qualitative

  57,600

  Drinking water quality—public perceptions in 2000

  Qual/quan

  43,727

  Improving DVO Agency services

  Qual/quan

  62,380

  Citizens' attitudes towards local government

  Qual/quan

  180,546

  Attitudes of business towards local government

  Qual/quan

  76,400

  Revenue grant distribution system: research on

  Local government perspectives

  Qual/quan

  95,635

  Customers' experiences of planning appeals

  Qualitative

  11,000

  Transport Interchange Phase 2

  Qualitative

  30,000

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the management of Connex South Central rail company on the reduced service level from Wandsworth Common Station to Victoria; and if he will make a statement. [124698]

  Mr. Hill
  I have had no discussions with the train operator about this matter, but the Franchising Director is monitoring the situation. He has agreed an emergency timetable with Connex as a rest-day working ban by drivers has meant that the original timetable could not be met. While this is a far from ideal situation, the Franchising Director agreed that it is in passengers' interests to have information on which services will run and which are cancelled. Connex are currently recruiting more drivers and services will be re-introduced as they complete their training.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the reasons for the elimination of South West Trains from the competition process for the Connex South Central franchise. [125605]

  Mr. Hill
  The shortlisted counterparties for a replacement South Central franchise were selected following the Franchising Director's evaluation of their initial proposals against the criteria given to him by the Deputy Prime Minister in his Instructions and Guidance of September 1999. In summary these are: commitment to secure better performance and customer services; the
  435W
  extent to which extra or earlier investment can be secured; the extent to which passengers will be given a greater voice in the level and standard of services; and value for money to the taxpayer. The Franchising Director has outlined in further detail the criteria for evaluating bids in his Outline Guide to Franchise Replacement of 25 May.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what directions he has given to the Environment Agency about increasing the proportion of its staff recruited from ethnic minorities; and how many board members of the agency are from ethnic minorities. [124795]

  Mr. Meacher
  No direction has been given to the Environment Agency, by the DETR, about increasing the proportion of its staff recruited from ethnic minorities. However, the Environment Agency does have its own Diversity Policy and statement and it is widening its links with ethnic organisations.

  None of the current Environment Agency board members are from an ethnic minority background. However, the DETR is taking rigorous action as part of its current equal opportunities plan for public appointments, to appoint more people from this group to the boards of public bodies as a whole. Currently 5.8 per cent. of all appointments are filled by people from ethnic minorities against the Department's present end-2000 target of 6 per cent..

  MOT Tests
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the accuracy of measures of a vehicle's emissions as part of the MOT test; and if he will make a statement. [124942]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department intends to commence further research later this year on the effectiveness of catalyst testing and to determine whether the diesel smoke test may need to be changed to enable better testing of low-smoke emission diesels. The projects are due to be completed in phases and we will be reviewing emerging findings as they progress. Additionally, the Vehicle Inspectorate has undertaken a comprehensive programme of re-training for MOT testers to ensure that they are able to carry out testing more consistently and to the standard required.

  Stone Lodge Leisure Complex
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the planning application for the Stone Lodge Leisure Complex in Dartford. [124935]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To progress with the Stone Lodge application it was necessary to seek further representations from the parties on the question of need for the proposed facilities. We have now analysed these responses and we will be informing all the parties of the outcome very soon.

  Local Government Act 1988 (Reliefs)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities granted relief under the Local Government Act 1988 in each year since 1990–91. [125070]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Every billing authority in each year specified granted at least one of the reliefs under the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the amount of hardship relief granted under the Local Government Act 1988 in England in each year since 1990–91. [125069]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested on the amount of hardship relief granted under the Local Government Act 1988 in each year since 1990–91, is shown in the table.

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1990–91

  23,941

  1991–92

  139,908

  1992–93

  758,026

  1993–94

  1,438,306

  1994–95

  1,734,622

  1995–96

  2,041,549

  1996–97

  1,972,004

  1997–98

  2,238,775

  1998–991

  1,848,208

  1 The figure for 1998–99 is still subject to audit approval

  Note:

  Figures for 1999–2000 are not yet available

  Road Accidents (A40)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2000,Official Report, column 323W, on road accidents, how many fatalities due to road accidents there have been on the A40 over the last three years (a) in total and (b) between Witney and Oxford. [124420]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]The following numbers of fatalities occurred on the total length of the A40 in the last three years for which national records are available: 27 in 1996, 28 in 1997 and 25 in 1998. On the single carriageway section of the A40, between the Wolvercote roundabout in Oxford and the eastern end of the Witney bypass at Hill Farm, there were two in 1996, three in 1997 and none in 1998.

  Byker Heat Station, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes have been made in the authorisation of releases from the Byker Heat Station, Newcastle over the years of its operation; and at whose request the changes were made. [125138]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following changes have been made in the authorisation of releases:Variation AJ3042: Changes made 15 July 1993 by HMIP.
  Condition 1.1.2—Added wood chip as a permitted fuel.
  Condition 5.1.10—Specified the composition of wood chip fuel.

  437W
  Variation AJ6955: Changes made 27 September 1993 by HMIP.
  Variation at request of operator.
  New conditions relating to the visibility of the plume were added.
  Variation AN2927: Changes made by HMIP 31 December 1995.
  Variation at request of operator.
  Condition 5.1.10—specified that spent ash and lime shall only be discharged via skips.

  In addition a number of changes have been made to the requirements to report releases.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the unquantified toxic releases to air in the 1995 incident at the Byker Heat Station posed a risk to health; what area may have been affected by this release; and if(a) the regulator required and (b) the operator undertook an investigation as to the possible health effects to workers at the site and nearby residents. [125140]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no evidence to suggest that the incident in 1995 posed a risk to health. Analysis of the incident in question suggested that a lower mass probably was released than in an equivalent period of normal operation. However, a precise estimation of distribution effects would be impracticable.

  The Agency did not require the operator to conduct an investigation into possible health effects and is not aware of such an investigation being conducted by the operator.

  Strategic Planning (London)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions he has reached following the consultation exercise on the detailed arrangements for strategic planning in London; and if he will make a statement. [125732]

  Mr. Hill
  The Mayor of London will assume responsibility for strategic planning matters in the capital on 3 July 2000. The main elements and principles of the new planning arrangements are incorporated in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. In January the Government issued, for consultation, a draft circular and statutory instruments setting out detailed aspects of the new arrangements. A copy of the consultation responses has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament and is also available for inspection at the Government Office for London.

  Following careful consideration of the responses received, we have decided that no significant changes are needed to the detailed arrangements, but some revisions have been made, mainly to provide additional clarification of the Governments proposals.

  I am pleased to announce that the Town and Country Planning (London Spatial Development Strategy) Regulations 2000 and the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 have been laid in both Houses of Parliament. Both the Regulations and the Order will come into force on 3 July.

  I am also pleased to announce the publication of the Government Office for London Circular 1/2000 "Strategic Planning in London".
  438W
  The Town and Country Planning (London Spatial Development Strategy) Regulations 2000
  These Regulations set out the minimum supplementary statutory procedures that the Mayor will have to follow when preparing the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS). They cover aspects such as the form and content of the SDS, consultation and publicity procedures, the availability of documents and the examination in public.
  A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared and copies can be obtained from the Government Office for London and a copy has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament.
  The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000
  This Order details the statutory procedures for notifying the Mayor of planning applications of potential strategic importance, and the associated power to direct refusal of planning permission. A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared and copies can be obtained from the Government Office for London and a copy has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament.
  Government Office for London Circular 1/2000—Strategic Planning in London
  The circular explains and gives guidance to the Mayor and others on the operation of the new arrangements set out in the Act and the two statutory instruments. The circular provides guidance on the purpose, scope and format of the Spatial Development Strategy. It explains the procedures for its production and advises on the implications for boroughs and others. It also gives guidance on the Mayor's role in planning applications and in representing London's planning interests.

  Transport for London
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the procedures set out by the Nolan Committee in respect of public appointments have been observed with regard to the appointment of the Director of Transport for London; and if he will make a statement. [125455]

  Mr. Hill
  Mr. Anthony Mayer was appointed as a Transitional Chief Executive of Transport for London in February this year. This was not an appointment to a public body within the ambit of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments but an appointment as an employee of the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 407 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Nevertheless, the recruitment followed a search and selection process involving the use of head hunters and an independent element. This is a temporary appointment. The recruitment of a permanent Chief Executive will be a matter for Transport for London.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for answer on 17 March on the cost to public funds of publicly owned property maintained for his private use. [125685]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the hon. Member on Friday 9 June 2000,Official Report, column 4192W.

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what has been the cost of official entertainment at Dorneywood to his Department's budget in each year since May 1997; [125679]
  439W
  (2) if he will list the occasions on which Dorneywood has been used for official purposes since 1 May 1997, listing the guests who attended on each occasion; [125678]

  (3) how many staff paid out of his Department's budget have been employed at Dorneywood since May 1997. [125684]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the terms of the endowment providing for its use by successive Governments since the 1950s, Dorneywood is maintained at no cost to the taxpayer. The same arrangement applies now as under previous administrations: no staff from any Government Department are employed at Dorneywood, and Government Ministers pay their own personal expenses on items such as food and drink when visiting Dorneywood privately.

  When Ministers from my Department use Dorneywood for official Government business, expenses are paid by the Department. Since May 1997, Dorneywood has been used for meetings with a range of Ministers and officials on a number of occasions. The approximate total cost to the Department for each year since May 1997 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  May 1997-March 1998

  3,000

  April 1998-March 1999

  2,000

  April 1999-March 2000

  1,300

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Treaty of Nice
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral discussions with other EU members are planned prior to the meeting to agree the Treaty of Nice in December. [124792]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are in constant contact with our European partners. On the IGC in particular, there has been regular contact at official and Ministerial level since the beginning of this year. Foreign and Europe Ministers discuss the IGC collectively at monthly meetings of the General Affairs Council. This will continue until the Nice European Council in December.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Sierra Leone citizens have had their fares paid to Britain by his Department since the entry of the Parachute Regiment into Sierra Leone; how many of these cases relate to asylum applications; what the circumstances were of the others; and how many were arranged on the initiative of the United Kingdom High Commission. [124836]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]All British and Sierra Leonean passport holders evacuated from Sierra Leone undertook to repay the costs of their RAF flights from Freetown to Dakar. Consular staff in Dakar provided financial assistance to enable 55 Sierra Leonean nationals, all of whom either had close family in the UK 440W
  or held resident status, to return to the UK. They all signed undertakings to repay the costs. As far as we know none of these has applied for asylum.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what medical advice his Department is giving to UK visitors to Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [125192]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]Our travel advice gives advice on safety and security to British nationals travelling overseas. Unless there are specific concerns, travel advice does not cover medical issues. Callers requesting medical advice are referred to their GPs or the Department of Health.

  At present we advise against all travel to Sierra Leone.

  Kosovo (MOD Police)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason his Department's police officers were disembarked from their aircraft on the tarmac at Stansted on 4 June, instead of flying to Kosovo; when the detachment will now fly to Pristina; and if he will make a statement. [124936]

  Mr. Hain
  It is usually the responsibility of the United Nations to finance and arrange the transport for civilian police officers deploying to Kosovo. On this occasion, the UN requested that the UK make the travel arrangements.

  The FCO therefore arranged to charter a plane for 4 June to transport the 56 Ministry of Defence police officers to Kosovo. However, delays in baggage handling and a minor technical fault resulted in the plane's revised estimated arrival time in Pristina being after 17:00 hours, the time at which Pristina airport closes.

  The police officers' departure was therefore re-arranged for 6 June (no aircraft were available on 5 June) on a different plane. I can confirm that the officers did indeed reach Kosovo on that day.

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125154]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Smoking Policy restricts smoking to designated smoking rooms and single occupancy offices. It is therefore effective in protecting all staff from the responsibility of passive smoking.

  Fewer than 5 per cent. of offices are single occupancy.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to ratify the Rome Treaty to establish the International Criminal Court. [125395]
  441W
  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 3 May 2000,Official Report, column 122W.

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the questions in the document CONFER 4743/00, prepared by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the member states for the intergovernmental conference; [124864]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the options for determining the method for fixing the allocation of seats in the European Parliament, as set out in document CONFER 4740/00, prepared by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the member states for the intergovernmental conference; [124866]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the suggested approach to the extension of co-decision procedures, set out in document CONFER 4740/00, prepared by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the member states for the intergovernmental conference; [124865]

  (4) in which areas the UK delegation has objected in principle to specific points in relation to the list of Articles suggested for an extension of qualified majority voting in Annex I of paper CONFER 4757/00, prepared for the intergovernmental conference; [124867]

  (5) if he will place in the Library a copy of the UK delegation's response to the questions asked in the document CONFER 4728/00, prepared by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the member states for the intergovernmental conference. [124869]

  Mr. Vaz
  Discussion at the level of the Preparatory Group and at Ministerial level has been based on conference papers produced by the Presidency. These papers do not require a formal response from member states' Governments, but form a basis for discussion. The Government's approach to the issues raised in these discussions is set out in the White Paper "IGC: Reform for Enlargement".

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the options for(a) the Economic and Social Committee and (b) the Committee of the Regions, set out in document CONFER 4741/00, prepared by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the member states for the intergovernmental conference. [124868]

  Mr. Vaz
  Conference papers are produced by the Presidency for discussion at both Preparatory Group and ministerial levels. They do not require a formal response from member states' Governments. Discussion so far has focused mainly on the size and composition of the Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the 442W
  Regions. For reasons of cost and effectiveness, the Government would not like to see either the Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions grow much above their present size after enlargement, although we shall ensure that the UK continues to be fairly represented on both Committees.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce legislation to extend similar protection to the value of pensions paid by the Zimbabwean Government to British subjects recruited from Britain for appointments in the Public Service of Southern Rhodesia before November 1965 who now live outside Zimbabwe, as that given under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 to HMOCS officers. [124260]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no current plans to introduce legislation to expand the pension protection arrangements under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 to former employees of the Southern Rhodesia public service.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  European Community Humanitarian Office
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if contributions to ECHO are voluntary for members of the European Union; and if she will change her contribution to ECHO based on its past performance. [121098]

  Clare Short
  No. ECHO is funded, as are other EC external programmes, from the EC budget, to which member state contributions are mandatory. The UK contribution, under a formula agreed in 1992, will be 17.95 per cent. this year.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide accounts regarding the distribution of United Kingdom public money to Zimbabwe in the 1980s and 1990s to fund the acquisition of white-owned farms; and if she will set out the number of such farms acquired, the approximate acreage of each farm, the cost of acquiring each farm, to whom ownership of each farm was subsequently transferred, and how much of the original acreage acquired remains in productive operation. [120933]

  Clare Short
  A grant of £20 million was agreed with the Government of Zimbabwe in 1981. This funded 42 resettlement projects for the benefit of refugees and landless people following the Independence war. British funds were used for land demarcation and fencing, provision of water and sanitation, construction of schools, clinics and other buildings, and also for crop packs and training. The Grant was largely disbursed by 1989; however it was eventually closed in 1996 with £3 million unspent. Over a similar period, the counterpart funds to
  443W
  £27 million in programme aid were used by the Government of Zimbabwe to fund their share of the programme.

  An ODA evaluation in 1988 found that the majority of families settled had benefited considerably through the provision of increased opportunities for income generation and the availability of services such as health and education. The programme had also been successful from the national economic perspective, having an economic rate of return of approximately 21 per cent. The Zimbabwean Comptroller and Auditor General carried out a value for money study of the programme in 1993. Despite identifying a number of shortcomings, the study concluded that the exercise was well planned in accordance with clear policies and procedures. It had benefited mainly the landless rural poor, most of whose standard of living had significantly improved.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much money has been given to the Government of Zimbabwe under the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme, since May 1997; [124335]

  (2) how many Zimbabwean families have benefited from land acquired using Her Majesty's Government funds since 1997; [124337]

  (3) how many farms the Zimbabwean Government have acquired using funds provided by Her Majesty's Government since May 1997. [124336]

  Clare Short
  In 1996 a land resettlement grant signed in 1981 was closed with £3 million undisbursed because the Government of Zimbabwe had not produced suitable plans to spend it. We have not disbursed funds for land acquisition and resettlement since. We have made clear that land reform and resettlement should be an important part of a poverty reduction programme in Zimbabwe, and supported the principles to govern a future land reform programme agreed at the Donors Conference in 1998. These include poverty reduction, transparency and the rule of law. The Government of Zimbabwe have not implemented the 1998 principles. We made £5 million available to support land resettlement initiatives led by civil society and the private sector.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Question-time Meetings
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates, and at which venues, he held question-time meetings with members of the public in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 to date. [122984]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]I answer questions from members of the public all the time.

  Queen Mother's Birthday
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will designate the Queen Mother's birthday in August as a public holiday; and if he will make a statement. [124752]
  444W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government receive a variety of suggestions for additional bank holidays to celebrate special occasions. However, it was felt that another additional bank holiday, following so soon after the Millennium bank holiday, would be inappropriate. This followed consultation with the Royal Household who were content with the decision.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will publish the Performance and Innovation Unit report on the Post Office. [125314]

  The Prime Minister
  Shortly.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will accelerate the programme for modernising the information technology of the Crown Prosecution Service to match the introduction of the new police IT for managing casework. [124913]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am pleased to report that all CPS offices, including those in Staffordshire, will benefit from a significant investment in IT in 2000–01.

  The CPS was awarded £12 million from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund in July 1999 and this money, together with existing CPS resources, will fund the Connect 42 project. Connect 42 will provide lawyers and caseworkers with access to modern PCs across the 42 CPS Areas for the first time. It will also enable the CPS to have secure electronic mail connections with its partners in the Criminal Justice System, including the police.

  A pilot of Connect 42 has been running in Sussex since March 2000. The national roll-out timetable is demanding and is scheduled to start in August 2000 and to be completed in July 2001, in advance of the new police casework system in most Areas. I understand that the detailed timetable for the new police casework system is being developed. The intention is to implement the system in police forces by the end of 2002.

  Connect 42 will be followed by step 2 of the Modernisation Programme, the Compass project, which is procuring a Managed Service through a PFI contract. This will use the IT infrastructure of Connect 42, and complement it with a case management system designed to meet the needs of front line CPS staff. It will provide the ability to work with electronic case files and allow information to be exchanged much more easily with other organisations in the criminal justice system through speedier electronic communications between computer systems.
  445W
  The CPS plans to advertise its requirement for the Compass project in the Official Journal of the European Communities in the 3rd quarter of 2000. Following procurement and development in 2001 and 2002, implementation of the system is planned for 2003. The CPS does not think that it is possible to accelerate this demanding timetable.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what was the funding of the Crown Prosecution Service(a) in real terms and (b) as a proportion of GDP for each year of its existence. [124910]

  The Solicitor-General
  The funding of the Crown Prosecution Service in real terms and as a proportion of GDP for each year of its existence is listed as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Total expenditure in real terms

  Proportion of GDP (Percentage)

  1986–87

  124,124

  0.019

  1987–88

  212,691

  0.031

  1988–89

  233,487

  0.033

  1989–90

  255,755

  0.035

  1990–91

  274,902

  0.038

  1991–92

  294,325

  0.041

  1992–93

  321,371

  0.045

  1993–94

  344,510

  0.047

  1994–95

  350,410

  0.045

  1995–96

  345,281

  0.044

  1996–97

  339,536

  0.042

  1997–98

  331,139

  0.039

  1998–99

  328,347

  0.038

  1999–2000

  323,408

  0.035

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Target

  Target

  Outcome

  Target

  Outcome

  Target

  Outcome1

  To achieve annual efficiency savings

  2.5%

  Achieved

  2.5%

  Achieved

  3.0%

  Achieved

  To recover the full operating costs for the Agency's chargeable services

  100%

  Achieved

  100%

  Achieved

  100%

  Achieved

  To achieve x% level of customer satisfaction in advisory services

  90%

  Achieved

  95–100%

  Achieved

  >95%

  95% Achieved

  To achieve x% reduction in average unit cost per chargeable hour (litigation)

  2.5%

  Achieved

  2.5%

  Achieved

  2.5%

  Achieved

  To achieve x% reduction in the average unit cost per case (Bona Vacantia)

  2.5%

  Achieved

  2.5%

  Not achieved

  2.5%

  Not achieved2

  To achieve a minimum average number of chargeable hours per full-time caseholder per year (litigation) of x

  1,100

  Achieved

  1,150

  Achieved

  1,150

  Achieved

  To achieve instructions in at least x new litigation cases

  8,000

  Achieved

  Discontinued

  Discontinued

  To achieve 20% improvement on 1998–99 level of income recovery from clients within 30 days of their receipt of a validated invoice

  —

  —

  75%

  Achieved

  90%

  Not achieved

  To increase the proportion of undisputed supplier invoices paid in accordance with terms or 30 days

  —

  —

  95%

  Achieved

  100%

  Not achieved

  1 The information in this column is provisional, pending the preparation of the final accounts for 1999–2000.

  2 Since the Key Performance Target for Bona Vacantia Division was introduced it has become apparent that the methodology used to assess the number of cases is statistically biased towards non-achievement as it makes no allowance for the differing complexity of individual cases. The target will remain as set for 1999–2000 but the baseline against which performance is judged will be assessed and, if necessary, adjusted to recognise the differing complexity of cases.

  Note:

  Further information on performance against these targets can be found in the Executive Agencies 1999 Report (Cmnd 4658).
  446W
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General by what formula the funding of the Crown Prosecution Service nationally is distributed to the area offices. [124911]

  The Solicitor-General
  Decisions on how much of the CPS's resources should be allocated to individual CPS Areas are for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Executive. They are informed by a number of analyses, including activity based costing (ABC), estimated payroll costs of staff not included in ABC analyses, accommodation costs, indicators of the type and nature of Areas, specific local factors, and the involvement of individual Areas in new initiatives.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the budget of the Staffordshire CPS. [124912]

  The Solicitor-General
  Decisions on how much of the CPS's resources should be allocated to individual CPS Areas are for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Executive. The allocation of the CPS's budget to the 42 CPS Areas is informed by a detailed analysis of the costs of the prosecution process and caseload. This analysis is used to inform decisions on the budget for CPS Staffordshire and for all other CPS Areas.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on how each of the agencies and non-departmental bodies relating to his Department performed against their key performance indicators in(a) the last year and (b) the previous two years. [125332]

  The Solicitor-General
  A summary of performance for work in England and Wales is set out in the tables.
  447W

  Government Property Lawyers

  Target

  1997–98

  1998–991

  1999–2000

  To recover the full operating costs of the Agency

  Achieved

  —

  —

  To receive at least 4,350 new instructions from its clients

  Not achieved

  —

  —

  To achieve 95 completions per case holder

  Not achieved

  —

  —

  To maintain and improve the quality of service, in particular by keeping the proportion of cases completed satisfactorily (that is, without requiring rectification by reason of any fault of the Agency) on or before the target dated at or above 99.5%

  Achieved

  —

  —

  Over the three-year period, 1996–97 to 1998–99—To achieve a reduction in operating costs of an average of 2.5% per year in real terms taking 1996–97 as the base year

  Not achieved

  —

  —

  1 The Government Property Lawyers Agency was the subject of a Quinquennial Review from November 1997 to November 1998 and no formal targets were set for 1998–99 pending its outcome. The eventual outcome was that the Agency should close by 30 September 1999 and as a result no further key performance indicators were set.

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Target

  Outcome

  Target

  Outcome

  Target

  Outcome

  Advance information

  83

  86.6

  80

  82.3

  80

  77.3

  Committal papers

  60

  62.7

  60

  51.9

  60

  50.6

  Briefs to Counsel

  80

  71.1

  80

  67.8

  80

  66.3

  Witness Expenses

  100

  97.5

  100

  95

  100

  93

  Complaints

  87

  88.3

  85

  87.7

  85

  86.7

  Note:

  Further information on performance against targets can be found in the Crown Prosecution Service's Annual Reports 1998–99 (House of Commons Paper 675), and 1997–98 (House of Commons Paper 839).

DEFENCE

  Non-deployable Estate
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the terms of reference for the review of the non-deployable estate; when he expects it to be complete; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [121940]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the continuing effort to maximise value for money from the Defence Budget, the Army is currently engaged in an internal review of non-deployable posts. The review is due to be completed in the autumn. There are no formal terms of reference for the review, which is being undertaken by the Army chain of command. The aim is to carry out an audit of military posts in the non-deployable Army, in order to inform judgments on the requirement for and priorities for the deployment of military manpower. There are no plans to publish the outcome of the review.448W
  Serious Fraud Office
  The Serious Fraud Office's key performance indicators were published on 17 December 1998 as part of the Law Officer's Department's Public Service Agreement. They are:

  (i) caseload;

  (ii) time from accepting a case to completing investigations; and

  (iii) length of the prosecution stage between transfer/committal and verdict.

  The targets set were:

  (i) to increase caseload from 73 cases per yeat in 1998–99 to 77 cases per year within resources provided;

  (ii) to reduce average time from accepting a case and completing investigations from 18 months in 1998–99 to 17.5 months;

  (iii) to reduce the average length of the prosecution stage between transfer/committal and verdict from 16.5 months in 1998–99 to 16 months.

  Outturn data which show that the Office has met its key targets are set out in the following table. Figures for the year 1997–98 are included to enable comparison.

  Financial year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Caseload

  78

  73

  85

  Investigation (months)

  19.3

  18.0

  15.3

  Prosecution (months)

  —

  16.5

  14.4

  Crown Prosecution Service
  The CPS timelines performance targets for which comparable data are available are as follows:

  Special Investigations Branch
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 67W, on the Royal Irish Regiment (a) for what reasons the report of the Special Investigations Branch of the Royal Military Police has not been made and (b) how many of the sub-sections of the Question he is in a position to respond to. [123885]

  Mr. Spellar
  The investigation by Special Investigations Branch, Royal Military Police is now complete and I can confirm the following information.

  There have been four Parliamentary Questions on this matter including this one and two Parliamentary Inquiries. The photograph was taken on Monday 12 July at Drumadd Barracks, Armagh and shows 59 Officers and soldiers from F Company the 8th Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment (8 R IRISH). The photoshoot was supervised by a Major who took some of the photographs before joining the Company for further photographs, which were

  449W
  taken by a Warrant Officer. The flag was produced by a soldier of the Company who had just come off duty. A commercial photographic service establishment in Belfast developed the film and approximately 40 copies were made and given to members within F Company. No disciplinary action is to be taken against the officer but formal administrative action procedures have been initiated.

  Photographs can be taken in all sorts of circumstances which can subsequently be misinterpreted. F Company was deployed on 12 July along with other Army units precisely in order to prevent sectarian violence and it is wrong to label a whole Regiment, or the individuals in the photograph, as bigoted. We expect the highest standards of conduct from all soldiers, and in particular that they should be aware of community sensitivities in Northern Ireland. During 1999 the Royal Irish Regiment collected over £133,000 for cross-community charities. 8 R IRISH also won the prestigious Wilkinson's Sword of Peace for its cross-community work in Armagh. These are examples of their cross-community activities and are not indicative of a biased Regiment.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2000,Official Report, columns 109–10W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124829]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]My Department had nine inward secondments of 12 months or less from the following companies:BMT Defence Systems
  Vickers
  Vosper Thorneycroft
  BAe
  Gardiner and Theobald
  Simmons and Simmons
  Defence Acquisition Group (x2)
  PA Consulting Group

  Slovenia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the extent is of joint working with Slovenia on military matters; how many UK personnel work in Slovenia on training and related matters; and if he will make a statement. [124884]

  Mr. Spellar
  Slovenia is one of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe included in the Ministry of Defence's Outreach Programme of bilateral assistance. My officials hold annual Defence Staff Talks with their Slovenian counterparts and from these discussions a programme of bilateral assistance is constructed. The main area of assistance is in English language training, but we also conduct seminars on various Defence related subjects, discussions on codification and standardisation, and arms control training. There are also VIP and working level short visits to UK by Slovenian Ministry of Defence officials and members of their Armed Forces, including 450W
  attendance on TA summer camps, and reciprocal visits by UK Ministry of Defence officials and members of UK Armed Forces.

  At present there are no MOD UK personnel working in Slovenia, however the UK Defence Attaché to Slovenia, who is currently cross-accredited to Austria and resident in Vienna, is moving to Slovenia on 13 June 2000. Additionally, an MOD civil servant is due to take up post as Adviser on Defence Policy and Planning in the Slovenian Ministry of Defence in September 2000.

  Latvia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the extent of joint working with Latvia is on military matters; how many UK personnel work in Latvia on training and related matters; and if he will make a statement. [124887]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK has an extensive programme of defence assistance to Latvia as part of the MOD's "Outreach" initiative to promote stability and security in central and eastern Europe. The UK's programme of assistance to Latvia is underpinned by English language training, defence management training and military training which is provided both in-country and in the UK. We also assist Latvia through our contribution to the joint Baltic projects: the Baltic Security Assistance forum; the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion; the Baltic Naval Squadron; the Baltic Defence College; and the Baltic Air Surveillance Network. Another substantial area of co-operation is the deployment of a 10 strong Latvian contingent with BRITFOR in Kosovo.

  Currently we have six personnel working permanently in Latvia on training and related matters, with a civil servant seconded to the Latvian Defence Ministry to advise on programming and budgeting systems and five Royal Marines working with the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion Training Team. However, Short Term Training Teams (STTTs) provide most of the military training, visiting Latvia for between two weeks to three months each summer; this year the STTTs will involve approximately 15 personnel. In addition to those involved directly in training, the Defence Attaché in Riga, assisted by an Assistant Defence Attaché, liaises with the Latvian Defence Ministry to ascertain their training and assistance requirements for each year.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been so far of UK involvement in Sierra Leone; if any of that cost will be claimed from the United Nations; and if he will make a statement. [124886]

  Mr. Hoon
  The additional costs of Operation Palliser, the evacuation deployment to Sierra Leone which commenced on 5 May, are still being established, but it is estimated that they will amount to some £8 million. As Operation Palliser is not a United Nations operation, we do not expect to claim any of those costs from the United Nations.

  Missile Defence Systems
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Exocet missile launcher has
  451W
  been removed from HMS Sheffield; what plans there are to replace it; and what similar work has been undertaken on other ships of this class. [125083]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]The Exocet missile launcher has been removed from the batch 2 Type 22 Frigate HMS Sheffield because the variant of the missile used by the RN is now obsolete and no longer in Naval service. There are no plans to replace the launcher. HMS Sheffield remains armed with a potent mixture of weapons and sensors including Seawolf Anti-Air Missiles, Stingray Anti-Submarine Torpedoes and a helicopter able to carry the Sea Skua Anti-ship missile. There are no plans to remove the launchers from the remaining batch 2 vessels in this class as, given their relatively short remaining life, it would not be economic to do so. The latest Batch (3) Type 22 Frigates carry the Harpoon anti-ship missile system.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the programme of work that is being undertaken by his Department in relation to ballistic missile defence. [125009]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]Following the policy on ballistic missile defence set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence is undertaking a three-year programme of studies known as the Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme. This programme is monitoring developments in the risks posed by ballistic missiles and in the technology to counter them. It is due to be completed next summer. The terms of reference for the programme were announced on 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 203W. In addition, we are contributing to NATO preparations for studies into the feasibility of theatre ballistic missile defence. We expect these studies to start next year.

  Project Aquatrine
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department will issue invitations to submit outline proposals for Project Aquatrine; and if he will make a statement. [125317]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with the timetable announced at the Project Aquatrine bidders conference in March this year, I expect that invitations to submit outline proposals for the initial package of the project will be issued very shortly.

  Rudloe Manor
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations other than price will affect the sale of Rudloe Manor. [125392]

  Dr. Moonie
  When selling surplus property the Ministry of Defence follows Government Accounting procedures seeking to achieve the full market value. This is usually best determined by offering the property for 452W
  sale on the open market with a specific date for the submission of bids. In selecting a preferred purchaser for Rudloe Manor, my Department also paid regard to the proposed uses, the ability of bidders to finance the purchase and their timescales for completing the sale.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he will take of the potential for job creation in his decision on the purchaser of Rudloe Manor. [125393]

  Dr. Moonie
  Rudloe Manor has been offered for sale with reference to the policy for the site, identified in the North Wiltshire District Council Local Plan and the modifications to the Draft Local Plan which the Council has agreed. It is for the Local Planning Authority properly to consider the issue of job creation, as part of any future planning application for the site.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tenders there were for the purchase of Rudloe Manor; and how many of them were within the original specification. [125394]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sixteen bids were received, all of which complied with the original specification.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reach a conclusion about the sale of Rudloe Manor; and if he will make a statement on the sale. [125391]

  Dr. Moonie
  A purchaser has now been identified for Rudloe Manor and the terms of sale have been agreed, subject to contract. Considerable interest was shown in the property and all unsuccessful bidders have now been notified.

  Asbestosis
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of compensation paid to civilian dockyard workers for work-related asbestosis contracted while working(a) on Royal Navy vessels and (b) in Royal Naval dockyards. [124934]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF St. Mawgan
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel stationed at RAF St. Mawgan have been subjected to(a) combat survival and rescue training and (b) conduct after capture courses; how many personnel have refused to participate in this training; and what sanctions have been employed to ensure participation. [125200]

  Mr. Spellar
  Conduct After Capture (CAC) training is an integral element of the current Aircrew Combat Survival Course (ACSC) held at the RAF School of Combat Survival and Rescue at RAF St. Mawgan. Attendance on the course is a mandatory training requirement for all RAF personnel engaged on operational duties that may make them prone to capture or interrogation. Since September 1992, 1,029 students have
  453W
  entered training on the ACSC at RAF St. Mawgan. Of these, five withdrew voluntarily from the practical CAC phase of the training but one returned at a later date to complete the training.

  All students on the (CAC) training phase of the course must give their written consent to undergo the training. Prior to participation, all students are made aware of what they will encounter during the training, and they remain at liberty to withdraw from the training at any time, either before participation or during it. Individuals who choose not to undergo the training, or who do not complete the course, will be moved to duties where they would not be prone to capture or interrogation.

  Medals
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer given on 22 May 2000,Official Report, column 313W, on medals, in relation to each clasp listed, what was (a) the scale of the deployment, (b) the number of people wounded and (c) the number of people killed; if troops were deployed in active service; and if the area was designated an operational zone. [125556]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Employment (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed by his Department in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside; and if he will make a statement. [125558]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are 1,859 people employed by the Ministry of Defence in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside.

  UK Imports of frozen beef by country

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Country

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Irish

  Republic2

  17.4

  1.9

  6.7

  0.9

  10.8

  1.3

  10.5

  1.2

  16.6

  1.8

  Brazil

  2.9

  0.3

  3.3

  0.4

  3.0

  0.3

  4.6

  0.5

  10.4

  1.1

  France

  17.9

  2.0

  8.3

  1.1

  4.0

  0.5

  1.5

  0.2

  4.5

  0.5

  Netherlands

  3.8

  0.4

  2.2

  0.3

  1.8

  0.2

  1.3

  0.1

  3.0

  0.3

  Uruguay

  9.3

  1.0

  7.1

  1.0

  13.3

  1.6

  6.8

  0.8

  2.5

  0.3

  Botswana

  3.3

  0.4

  3.3

  0.5

  2.1

  0.2

  1.9

  0.2

  1.6

  0.2

  Spain

  1.9

  0.2

  0.8

  0.1

  1.1

  0.1

  0.4

  0.0

  1.3

  0.1

  Argentina

  6.6

  0.7

  6.5

  0.9

  7.4

  0.9

  1.2

  0.1

  1.0

  0.1

  Germany

  2.1

  0.2

  3.1

  0.4

  6.8

  0.8

  0.8

  0.1

  0.9

  0.1

  Namibia

  1.8

  0.2

  1.0

  0.1

  1.7

  0.2

  0.8

  0.1

  0.8

  0.1

  New Zealand

  3.3

  0.4

  4.8

  0.7

  5.5

  0.6

  5.3

  0.6

  0.6

  0.1

  Belgium-Luxem.

  1.2

  0.1

  0.7

  0.1

  1.8

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  0.5

  0.1

  Italy

  0.5

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  Zimbabwe

  3.9

  0.4

  0.2

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  0.3

  0.0

  Australia

  2.6

  0.3

  4.2

  0.6

  3.1

  0.4

  3.1

  0.3

  0.2

  0.0

  Denmark

  0.7

  0.1

  0.7

  0.1

  0.3

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  D Notices
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many D Notices have been published with regard to the responsibilities of his Department in the last six months(a) relating to Northern Ireland and (b) relating to other matters. [124692]

  Mr. Spellar
  No DA Notices have been published specifically with regard to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence in the last six months. There are standing DA Notices which apply to all Departments, where matters of National Security are concerned, and these contain advice to editors and others which can be applied to any appropriate circumstances. From 1993 there were six such standing notices, until 24 May 2000 when, after revision of the Notices by the independent Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, a new set of five standing DA Notices was promulgated. Details have been passed to the House of Commons Library, and can be found also on the internet at www.dnotice.org.uk.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Frozen Beef Imports
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much frozen beef was imported to the UK by country of origin, in each of the last five years; and in each case what was the percentage of total UK consumption. [124623]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The following table shows the volume of frozen beef imported into the United Kingdom, as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics from 1995 to 1999. The import figures have been converted to carcase weight equivalent for comparison with consumption figures. The imports are shown by country of despatch which is not necessarily the country of origin.
  455W

  UK Imports of frozen beef by country

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Country

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  Imports of frozen beef ThT CWE

  Imports as a percentage of beef available for human consumption

  South Africa

  —

  —

  2.2

  0.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  U.S.A.

  1.1

  0.1

  1.6

  0.2

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  —

  —

  Other

  2.0

  0.2

  1.7

  0.2

  0.2

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  Total

  82.2

  9.1

  58.6

  8.0

  63.6

  7.4

  39.5

  4.6

  44.7

  4.8

  Total beef available for human consumption

  902.9

  732.4

  856.6

  858.2

  936.0

  1 Provisional

  2 Republic of Ireland data supplied by Irish C.S.O.

  Notes:

  ThT—Thousand tonnes.

  CWE—Carcase weight equivalent.

  1. Prepared by: Statistics (Commodities and Food) Division, Economics and Statistics Group, MAFF.

  2. 1999 and 2000 data are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Source:

  H.M. Customs and Excise.

  Farmers (Reskilling)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funds the Government have made available for retraining and reskilling farmers and agricultural workers in each of the past 10 years through the Agricultural Training Board and Lantra. [123464]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]Payments made by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food to the Agricultural Training Board, ATB-Landbase and Lantra are as follows:

  Year

  £

  Payments to the Agricultural Training Board

  1990–91

  10,349

  1991–92

  7,303

  1992–93

  6,700

  1993–94

  9,755

  Payments to ATB-Landbase

  1994–95

  4,156

  1995–96

  2,471

  1996–97

  1,611

  1997–98

  11,508

  Payments to Lantra

  1998–99

  11,333

  1999–2000

  1797

  2000–013

  1,22,328

  1 Includes payments under the Government's Sector Challenge Scheme

  2 Includes payments under the Agriculture Development Scheme

  3 Budgeted

  Payments to the Agricultural Training Board included costs associated with the restructuring of the Board prior to privatization in 1994. The payments to ATB-Landbase were for the provision of Industry Training Organisation services and the payments to Lantra were for the delivery of National Training Organisation services.
  456W
  The figures given in the table do not include funding provided by other Government Departments including Department for Education and Employment and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the devolved administrations and the European Commission.

  Agricultural Wages
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the results of the consultation on the future of the agricultural wages boards. [125170]

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's consultation on the future of the agricultural wages boards. [125398]

  Ms Quin
  The consultation period closed on 31 March and some 250 comments have been received. Independent research was also commissioned to complement the consultation exercise and the results are due later this month. We will announce the outcome of the review as soon as possible when we have considered all the responses and issues raised.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the present proportion of farm costs which are represented by labour costs. [125196]

  Ms Quin
  In 1998–99, labour costs are estimated to have represented an average of 16.2 per cent. of the total farm costs of full-time farm business in England. These labour costs include an imputed estimate of the wholly or mainly unpaid labour carried out on the farm, principally by farmers, spouses and other family workers. Estimates for 1999–2000 will be published early in 2001.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on rates of pay in the horticulture industry. [125355]
  457W
  Ms Quin
  Minimum rates of pay for the horticulture industry are set by the Agricultural Wages Board, which is an independent body. The most recent Agricultural Wages Order came into force on 1 June 2000.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the role played by Agricultural Wages Board rates of pay in the rural economy. [125197]

  Ms Quin
  As part of the quinquennial review of the Agricultural Wages Board, announced in December 1999, independent research is being undertaken to evaluate the impact of the provisions in the Agricultural Wages Order. The results will be made available when the outcome of the review is published.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of Agricultural Wages Board rates of pay on rural pay levels generally. [125199]

  Ms Quin
  We have made no special assessment of the effect of the Agricultural Wages Board on rural rates of pay in general. Over the years some rural employers have based the pay for non-agricultural workers on the rates set by the Agricultural Wages Board.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the final draft of the second report of the Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB will be published. [125172]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]The report was published on 7 February this year and copies were placed in the Library of the House, as set out in the reply, 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 80W.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what proportion of badgers trapped and killed in the TB trial in Wiltshire, in May, were lactating females; and if he will make a statement. [125258]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]Of the badgers trapped and killed in the recent trial operations in Wiltshire, 35 (5.8 per cent.) were lactating females.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources have been allocated(a) within the public sector and (b) as grants to private sector research for the development of a prophylactic bovine TB treatment. [125175]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]We are spending about £1.4 million a year on developing a vaccine against bovine TB. Research at the Veterinary Laboratory Agency accounts for approximately 70 per cent. of this expenditure; work at the Institute of Animal Health, Compton, accounts for the rest. This research also draws on significant amounts of work being undertaken in related fields internationally.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what risk analysis has been carried out on(a) the provision of a prophylactic bovine TB treatment and (b) the proposals advanced by the Krebs/Bourne Study. [125177]
  458W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]Risk assessments on TB vaccines will be carried out as part of the normal regulatory process if and when suitable candidate vaccines have been developed. Proposals which emerge from the epidemiological investigation into TB in cattle being undertaken by Professor Bourne's Independent Scientific Group will be assessed against a range of factors including the impact on public health, on animal health and welfare, on the environment and on the economy.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the intended timescale for making publicly available information arising from an audit assessing the effectiveness of the surveying and social group delineation of badger culling. [125257]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]We intend to publish the report, together with the Government's response, as soon as possible after the final report is received from the independent auditor. On current expectations, this will he during the summer.

  Fisheries Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reduction in British fishing effort has been achieved so far in MAGP IV; and what reduction he hopes to gain by the end of that programme. [124453]

  Mr. Morley
  Between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 1999 the capacity of the UK fleet was reduced by 3.2 per cent. in tonnage and 7.7 per cent. in engine power.

  Between 1997 and 1999 the effort of those segments of the fleet for which there are MAGP effort objectives (that is, pelagic, beam trawl, demersal, seines, nephrops and distant water vessels), has been reduced by 5.7 per cent. (tonnage effort) and by 8.5 per cent. (power effort).

  The UK has achieved its intermediate effort objectives and is on course in most segments to achieve its full capacity and effort objectives under the programme. However, capacity of the pelagic segment is currently some way outside its MAGP IV objective.

TREASURY

  Top-rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many top rate income tax payers(a) there were in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000 and (b) he expects there to be in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [120351]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Latest published estimates for the number of higher rate income taxpayers are in table 2.1 of Inland Revenue Statistics (IRS). The latest version of table 2.1 consistent with the March 2000 Budget is available on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/table2–1.htm.

  Estimates for 2000–01 will be published in the 2000 edition of IRS, which will be available around October 2000.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the expenditure on the Working Families Tax Credit was(a) for each month since October 1999 and (b) for the period April to October 1999, (i) in total, (ii) minus the projected expenditure on Family Credit, (iii) minus the savings on Council Tax Benefit and (iv) minus the savings on Housing Benefit; [122392]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) 15 May 2000, Official Report, column 47W, what is the average amount by which other benefits have been reduced for families with incomes of less than £12,000 as a result of the Working Families Tax Credit. [122988]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 16 and 19 May 2000]Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) were introduced on 5 October 1999. Total expenditure on these tax credits in 1999–2000 is estimated at £0.9 billion, but reliable estimates for each month are not available.

  Given the difference in income rules in relation to maintenance, and the fact that it is not possible to isolate behavioural effects (such as the number of families who may have entered work or increased their hours because WFTC provides a more generous work incentive than Family Credit), it is not possible to determine how much would have been spent on FC in 1999–2000 had WFTC not been introduced.

  The receipt of Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) cannot be determined from information processed for applications for WFTC. The receipt of WFTC by families in receipt of HB and CTB, and hence the saving in HB and CTB for these families, can be determined from the information processed for claims for those benefits. However, for some families the award of WFTC, together with other income available, will mean that there is no entitlement to HB or CTB. The general level of saving on HB and CTB for these families can only be estimated using household survey data on families receiving WFTC. Such data will become available, in sufficient sample numbers to yield reliable estimates, at some time from the second half of 2001.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for each financial year between April 1999 and April 2002 the gross actual and planned expenditure on(a) the working families tax credit and (b) the working families tax credit minus the savings on housing benefit and council tax benefit attributable to the working families tax credit. [123780]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]The total expenditure on Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) in 1999–00, and the Budget projections of expenditure on these credits for 2000–01 and 2001–02, are shown at Table C12 of the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR).

  No estimate for 1999–00 of the saving on Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) is yet available, for the reason given in a separate answer I am today giving my right hon. Friend. I understand from the
  460W
  Department of Social Security that the projections of expenditure on HB and CTB in the FSBR were net of the following savings attributable to WFTC.

  £ million

  2000–01

  100

  2001–02

  115

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of recipients of the child care tax credit in WFTC who do not use eligible child care. [124937]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care tax credit in Working Families' Tax Credit can only be claimed by people who pay for eligible child care.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the child care tax credit will relate to the reformed employment tax credit and integrated child credit. [124938]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The child care tax credit is an integral part of the Working Families' Tax Credit, and provides help with child care costs for parents who are working. It will continue to provide help with child care costs for working parents in the new generation of tax credits. The precise position of the child care tax credit within the new tax credits depends on detailed design of the new generation of credits, on which decisions have not yet been made.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are in receipt of the child care tax credit in the Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit in each(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) local authority. [124986]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that about 103,000 families benefited from the child care tax credit among the 1.03 million families with awards of the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) made to the end of March in the United Kingdom.

  There are too few cases in the 5 per cent. sample used for the analysis of WFTC awards to provide reliable estimates for each parliamentary constituency or local authority. However, estimates of the total number of WFTC awards made to the end of March in each parliamentary constituency are in tables which have been deposited in the Library following my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 17 April 2000, Official Report, column 370W.

  Diesel Fuel
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average retail price per litre of diesel fuel two weeks(a) before his 1999 Budget and (b) after his 2000 Budget; and in each case how much of the price was attributable to (i) fuel duty and (ii) VAT. [125195]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]The retail price and duty rate for diesel fuel in February 1999 are published in Tables 9.14 and 9.16 in the Department of Trade and Industry publication "Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1999".
  461W
  The average retail price for a litre of diesel fuel in April 2000 was 81.07p. The duty rate is 48.82p per litre.

  The rate of VAT for diesel fuel is 17.5 per cent..

  VAT (Youth Organisations)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of the restoration of zero rating for value added tax on(a) new scout hall buildings, (b) scout hall extensions and (c) other community youth organisations; when the decision was taken that VAT should be levied; if he will rescind that decision; and if he will make a statement. [R] [125073]

  Dawn Primarolo
  When VAT was introduced the construction and extension of any building was zero-rated. In 1984 the relief for extensions was withdrawn. Following infraction proceedings by the European Commission, the relief for constructing new buildings became restricted to only certain types of building in 1989. New buildings used by charities for non-business purposes or as village halls can still be zero-rated. Agreements with our European partners mean that we cannot re-introduce any zero rates that we have given up.

  In common with all charities Scout and other youth halls will benefit from the zero rate where the conditions for relief are met. Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations on this matter on behalf of the Scout Association.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Luxembourg on 5 June; and if he will make a statement. [125123]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  ECOFIN approved the text of the Broad Economic Guidelines for submission to the Feira European Council, with slight amendment.

  There was a discussion of the Code of Conduct group and the proposed Savings Directive. It was agreed that ECOFIN would meet ahead of the Feira European Council for a further discussion.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 3 April on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Hall. [125399]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to the right hon. Gentleman on 5 June.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Government's borrowing plans. [125981]
  462W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In light of recent developments which have increased cash receipts this financial year by £19.5 billion more than the Budget forecast, the Government are making the following changes to the Debt Management Office's gilt remit for 2000–01.

  Quantity of Gilt Sales

  The DMO will aim for gilt sales of £10 billion in 2000-01, a reduction of £2.2 billion on previous plans. There will be no further reductions in gilt sales this financial year.

  Amount and Maturity Mix of Conventional Gilt Issuance

  DMO will hold two further conventional auctions in the long (15 years and over) maturity area. DMO should aim for total conventional gilt sales of £6.5 billion for 2000–01.

  Exercise of contingency measures in the Debt Management Report

  HM Treasury will accommodate £5.9 billion of the receipts by pre-financing £3.9 billion of foreign currency debt due to mature in 2001–02 and £2.0 billion of foreign currency debt due to mature in 2002–03. This differs from the £5.7 billion figure in the Debt Management Report due to the fall in sterling against the dollar since the Budget.

  The planned Treasury Bill stock will also be reduced by £0.7 billion to £8 billion.

  Buy-backs of debt

  The buy-back programme may be increased later in the year to a maximum of £5 billion. This will be decided at the time of the Pre-Budget Report.

  Net short term debt

  The remaining proceeds (£10.7 billion before any increase in buy-backs) will be used to reduce net short term debt (the Ways and Means balance, Treasury Bills less short term assets). Given that £10 billion of the proceeds are not expected until later in the year, decisions on the composition of the reduction in net short term debt will also be made at the time of the Pre-Budget Report, also taking into account any revision to the forecast Central Government Net Cash Requirement.

  The reduction in net debt will be unwound in 2001–02 and 2002–03, reducing gilt sales during this period.

  Gilt auction calendar

  Date

  Type

  2000

  Wednesday 26 July

  Index-linked

  Wednesday 25 October1

  Index-linked

  Late November/early December1

  Conventional

  2001

  Wednesday 24 January

  Index-linked

  Wednesday 28 March1

  Coventional

  1 Exact dates subject to confirmation following the Chancellor's decision on the Budgetary timetable.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Welsh and Scottish Universities
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what incentives for collaboration between business and universities are to be offered to Welsh and Scottish universities. [121664]

  Ms Hewitt
  In addition to support from the devolved Administrations, Scotland and Wales also benefit from the LINK programme that supports collaborative R&D projects involving HEIs and business, and from the TCS Programme which supports high quality graduates working in companies, normally for two years, on technology transfer projects central to the needs of participating companies. In addition, institutions in both Scotland and Wales are eligible to participate in Science Enterprise Challenge and University Challenge.

  The Government intend to publish a Science and Innovation White Paper following the Spending Review 2000. Among other things, it will consider how we can further promote university-industry collaboration, and how we might better encourage our scientists, engineers and business people to take full advantage of the UK's expertise in science and technology, to create wealth and improve the quality of our lives.

  Assisted Areas Map (Angus)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he will take to offset the losses to Angus if the revised assisted area boundaries proposals are introduced. [123576]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. Local economic development is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what analysis he has made of the impact on the local economy of the loss of assisted area status to the four Angus wards. [123577]

  Mr. Caborn
  The needs of all areas including Angus were considered in drawing the revised assisted area proposals.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason the four Angus wards were included on the original assisted area map submitted in July 1999; and what economic factors have changed in the meantime to form the basis for their exclusion from the revised map. [123579]

  Mr. Caborn
  The exclusion of the four Angus wards from the revised assisted areas proposals did not reflect a change in the needs of those wards but rather was a consequence of changes made to meet the European Commission's concerns about our July proposals.

  ECGD
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the total sum of(a) premiums received by the Export Credits Guarantee Department and (b) claims paid out by the ECGD for each of the last 10 years in respect of defence exports; [124659]
  464W
  (2) what was the net cast outflow from the Export Credits Guarantee Department attributable to defence exports, broken down by (a) cost of interest rate support, (b) claims paid, (c) interest paid and (d) operating expenses, for each of the last 10 years. [124661]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table details Claims Paid and Premium Earned in request of Defence related business in each of the last ten Financial Years. The cost of Interest Rate supported has been estimated on the proportion of ECGD credit business constituted by defence related business. For completeness the table also includes details of recoveries of claims on defence related business.

  £ million

  Year

  Premium Earned

  Claims Paid

  Estimate of Interest Rate support

  Recoveries received

  1990–91

  16

  79

  81

  3

  1991–92

  11

  79

  2

  24

  1992–93

  44

  94

  26

  21

  1993–94

  38

  83

  -7

  9

  1994–95

  16

  92

  -1

  17

  1995–96

  23

  90

  2

  28

  1996–97

  8

  50

  1

  2

  1997–98

  12

  39

  4

  3

  1998–99

  18

  31

  3

  6

  1999–2000

  27

  152

  1

  9

  Total

  213

  789

  112

  122

  As for the further information my hon. Friend requests, I am afraid ECGD does not hold its records on a basis which would enable it to provide the level of details he has requested. It would involve disproportionate cost to produce it.

  Postal Services
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what representations Her Majesty's Government made at the Lisbon Council concerning liberalisation of postal markets; [125563]

  (2) if it is his policy to support the timescale for liberalisation of postal markets proposed by the European Commission; and if he will make a statement; [125599]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect the liberalisation of postal markets, agreed at the Lisbon Council, will have on the Universal Service Obligation. [125597]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government strongly supported the Lisbon agreement on the need to speed up liberalisation in areas such postal services. That is why we have made it a priority for the new postal regulator, the Postal Services Commission, to come forward with proposals for liberalisation in the context of maintaining the universal service. That is also why we have supported a process of phased liberalisation of the postal services market in Europe. The European Commission has now agreed and will shortly publish a new proposal proposing a framework for the scope and timing of the next phase of postal liberalisation. There can now be a substantive discussion, between the member states and the Commission, about the issues the proposal raises. In the
  465W
  UK, we have a commitment to consult with the Postal Services Commission and with other interested parties in reaching a view. Our key objective in considering this issue is to promote the interest of consumers and to ensure the maintenance of the universal service. We should oppose measures which put at risk the universal service.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his policy to support a levy on postal service licence holders to create a fund to support the universal service obligation. [125596]

  Mr. Byers
  No.

  Synchrotron
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Technology Authority has made to the(a) Minister for Science and (b) the Office of Science and Technology on the siting of the synchrotron project. [124808]

  Ms Hewitt
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has made no representations on the issue of the siting of the new synchrotron project to either the Minister for Science or the Office of Science and Technology.

  Research Council Spending
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Research Council money was spent in each region in each of the last three years for which figures are available, broken down in each case between(a) universities and (b) other organisations. [124809]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of the Research Councils' gross spend by region for the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99, analysed between universities and other organisations, mainly their institutes, is shown in the table.

  Research Council spend by region

  £000

  Universities

  Other

  1996–97

  England

  585,475

  417,469

  Scotland

  88,874

  51,229

  Wales

  18,238

  5,245

  Northern Ireland

  6,881

  326

  1997–98

  England

  630,296

  397,230

  Scotland

  88,200

  45,888

  Wales

  21,739

  6,998

  Northern Ireland

  6,204

  350

  1998–99

  England

  627,752

  407,179

  Scotland

  86,730

  46,673

  Wales

  22,243

  5,022

  Northern Ireland

  5,982

  515

  Notes:

  1. Figures are Councils' gross expenditure, financed from the Science Budget grant-in-aid and other sources.

  2. 'Universities' includes both research grants and postgraduate studentships.

  3. 'Other' is largely Research Council institutes.

  4. Overseas expenditure, international subscriptions and central headquarters expenditure are excluded.

  Science Base
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the recent initiatives that have been introduced to expand the North West science base, indicating how they relate to the development and expansion of the regional economy. [124810]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) on 9 June 2000,Official Report, column 388W.

  Razzaq v. Pala
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision in the case of Razzaq v. Pala on his plans to establish a rescue culture for companies. [125762]

  Mr. Byers
  The decision in that case is a matter for some concern and I therefore propose to undertake an urgent consultation on the issues raised by that decision against the possibility of their being addressed in the context of the current proposed legislation on insolvency.

  A consultation paper has been issued asking whether or not landlords should continue to be able to effect peaceable re-entry (without the leave of the count) while a company or an individual is the subject of a statutory moratorium in the context of an insolvency procedure. I have placed copies of that document in the Libraries of the House.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997. [123815]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]This information is not held centrally and cannot be provided except at disproportionate costs.

  The Department's Executive Agencies and non-departmental public bodies have been asked to respond separately. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Library.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 2000,Official Report, column 645W, on regeneration, where in his Department's annual report the information requested is given. [124410]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Chapter 4 of the Department's Annual expenditure Plans provides details of regional economic development expenditure. Such expenditure contributes to regional and local regeneration.

  Call Centres
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on the level of service to residential telephone subscribers of the operation of call centres. [124813]
  467W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]The Department has not made an assessment of the quality or level of services provided by the very large number of call centres in the UK.

  This is a matter for individual call centres businesses.

  The call centre industry is a relatively new one. The Trade Association for this industry—the Call Centres Association—is working now with its members to establish standards of service and operation.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans that the new regulations on employment agencies and businesses will come into force. [R] [125182]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]I expect the revised regulations to come in to force later this year or at the beginning of 2001, subject to Parliamentary approval.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many complaints were made by end-users about the imposition of temporary to permanent fees by recruitment agencies in 1999; [R] [125183]

  (2) how many temporary workers suffered detriment because of the imposition of temporary to permanent fees by recruitment agencies in 1999. [R] [125184]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]Temporary to permanent fees, provided they are notified by bureaux to hirers before they enter into a contract, are not at present regulated and my Department does not therefore maintain any systematic record of the complaints it receives about their imposition. Representations about the adverse effects of transfer fees were received from end-users, agencies, various trade associations and others during the course of the consultation last year. My Department has reason to believe that a substantial number of hirers, who have not negotiated satisfactory terms with bureaux, are deterred from offering permanent work to temporary workers because of the inclusion of transfer fee clauses in bureaux' terms of business.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment his Department has made of the impact on recruitment companies which place non-specialist manual workers in temporary contracts of the proposed four-week quarantine period included in his Department's current proposals for regulating temporary to permanent fees; and if he will make a statement; [125188]

  (2) for what reasons his Department has proposed to limit the proposed quarantine period for the regulation of temporary to permanent fees on recruitment companies to four weeks; and if he will make a statement; [125187]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the impact on recruitment companies placing information technology contractors in temporary contracts of the
  468W
  proposed four-week quarantine period included in his Department's current proposals for regulating temporary to permanent fees; and if he will make a statement; [125186]

  (4) what assessment his Department has made of the case for regulations to ensure that recruitment agencies can protect themselves from end-users, or other agencies, poaching from their contractor base; and if he will make a statement. [125185]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]Our proposal to limit the period of quarantine that bureaux may impose, to a maximum of four weeks, seeks to protect the interests of those using bureaux, to secure the proper conduct of bureaux and to promote labour market flexibility. I do not have power under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 in relation to the conduct of hirers. Bureaux will be able to protect their interests by a variety of means, such as by settling satisfactory transfer terms with hirers or by offering attractive employment terms to workers. In sectors such as IT, bureaux will continue to be able to arrange fixed length contracts with hirers and workers so that they have certainty over the period during which they may recoup costs. Bureaux supplying non-specialist manual workers will continue to be able to negotiate terms that suit them and their clients such as, for example, by providing that no transfer fee is payable once a minimum number of weeks' hire have elapsed.

HEALTH

  Disabled People
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on extending the advocacy system for disabled people to the disabled in hospital; and if he will make a statement. [121725]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are not aware of any recent representations on extending the advocacy system for disabled people to the disabled in hospital.

  Models of advocacy have been explored as part of the development of a New National Health Service Charter. This work, including the advocacy role in the NHS, is now being considered as part of the work of the Modernisation (Patient Empowerment) Action Team. The modernisation action teams will produce a National Plan for the NHS in July.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure equal access to the NHS census for disabled people through alternative formats. [125121]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the week leading up to National Health Service census day on 31 May 2000, 12 million consultation leaflets were made available at supermarkets, high street chemists and other NHS facilities. It was also published on the worldwide web. For those who may have had difficulty reading the text or completing the form in these formats, the leaflet was also made available on tape with the facility to either record responses on that tape or by dictating over the telephone.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason Mr. Yogaratnam was withdrawn from day-to-day duties in the Mead Webber plant by the Meat Hygiene Service; and what were the specific grounds for suspending him from his current post in the Meat Hygiene Service. [122050]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that Mr. Yogaratnam was released from his official veterinary surgeon (OVS) duties in the Mead Webber plant by the Meat Hygiene Service to enable him to spend more time working as a principal official veterinary surgeon (POVS) overseeing contract OVS performance in other licensed premises in the area.

  Mr. Yogaratnam is suspended pending an investigation into his performance as OVS and POVS at the Mead Webber plant.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to whom Official Veterinary Surgeon contracts have been awarded by the Meat Hygiene Service in respect of the Merthyr Tydfil abattoir. [122045]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that there is currently no licensed abattoir operating at Merthyr Tydfil. An abattoir is however currently under construction there. This has yet to be licensed.

  The contract to provide official veterinary surgeon duties to the premises has yet to be put out to competitive tender by the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions are given to official veterinary surgeons regarding the calculation of HAS scores; and what steps the Meat Hygiene Service takes to ensure the instructions are followed. [122041]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]Chapter 2 of the Meat Hygiene Service Operations Manual provides Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) with very detailed advice on carrying out a hygiene assessment system (HAS) evaluation and calculating the overall HAS score.

  Extensive training is provided to all OVSs by the MHS to promote consistency.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the status is of the HAS score recorded in Mead Webber's day book for 19 April. [122062]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that an independent investigation is to be carried out as soon as possible into the actions of the Meat Hygiene Service at Mead Webber's plant at Eardisley. This will include scrutiny of the records including comments made in the plant day book.

  It would be inappropriate to comment further until this investigation has been completed. However, the hon. Member will be informed of its outcome.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibilities Mr. Ivor Pumfrey of the Meat Hygiene Service has had in respect of(a) Mr. Yogaratnam and (b) the operation of the Mead Webber plant; and when he assumed those duties. [122053]
  470W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that Mr. Ivor Pumfrey is the Meat Hygiene Service Regional Director (Wales). He is Mr. Yogaratnam's line manager and the Mead Webber plant is one of the plants in Mr. Pumfrey's area of responsibility. As such Mr. Pumfrey is responsible through MHS official veterinary surgeons and inspection teams, for ensuring that meat that is health marked is fit for human consumption, and that animal welfare is fully protected.

  Mr. Pumfrey commenced employment with the MHS on 1 November 1994.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Meat Hygiene Service's policy is on giving explanations of HAS scores. [122061]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that full guidance notes for undertaking Hygiene Assessment System scores are included in Chapter 2, Volume I of the Meat Hygiene Service Operations Manual, copies of which are available to plant management.

  MHS official veterinary surgeons (OVSs) undertake Hygiene Assessment System (HAS) scores every month for full throughput premises and every quarter for low throughput premises. The OVS responsible for the premises is available to discuss the plant HAS score with plant management. Principal official veterinary surgeons (POVSs) who oversee the work and performance of plant OVSs are also available to discuss plant HAS scores with plant management. If plant management remain unhappy with the OVSs assessment of the HAS score he/she can appeal, and an independent POVS will review the HAS score and consider the concerns expressed by plant management.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which officials of the Meat Hygiene Service Mr. Pumfrey informed on the day of or the day after the decision to close the Mead Webber plant of that decision. [122069]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]The Food Standards Agency has advised me that the management of Mead Webber informed Mr. Ivor Pumfrey, the Meat Hygiene Service Regional Director (Wales), of their intention to close the Mead Webber plant at 8am on 20 April 2000. This was confirmed by facsimile later that morning.

  Mr. Pumfrey informed the following MHS officials on the day that Mead Webber Ltd. informed him of their intention to close the plant:
  Mr. J. McNeill (MHS Chief Executive)
  Mr. P. Soul (MHS Director of Operations)
  Ms M. Redmond (MHS Director of Human Resources)
  Mr. D. Simmons (MHS Area Resource Manager)
  Mr. L. Wood (MHS Principal OVS)
  Mr. Yogaratnam (MHS POVS and OVS at the Mead Webber plant)

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if it remains the Meat Hygiene Service's policy that Official Veterinary Surgeons, in consultation as necessary with their POVs, should determine whether it is acceptable for MHS staff to undertake minor trimming or rectification at their plants; [122058]
  471W
  (2) if minor trimming by meat inspectors is permitted by the Meat Hygiene Service as long as it does not interfere with their official duties. [122059]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]The Meat Hygiene Service policy on carcase contamination and trimming is detailed in the MHS Operations Manual, chapter 6 page 4. It states:Carcases and offal presented for inspection with evidence of visible contamination must be appropriately trimmed to your satisfaction before application of the health mark. Trimming of contamination is normally a task for premises staff working under your direction. However, you may trim minor contamination provided it does not interfere with the inspection routine. Where this cannot be done on the dressing line the affected carcase or offal must be detained for more detailed attention.

  If in doubt a plant Official Veterinary Surgeon (OVS) may discuss what level of trimming should be permitted by MHS meat inspectors with the Principal Official Veterinary Surgeon (POVS) responsible for the plant.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what time and on what day the decision was taken by the Meat Hygiene Service to suspend Mr. Yogarathnam. [122063]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]The decision was taken on Monday 26 April 2000. Mr. Yogarathnam was informed at approximately 12.40 pm the same day.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account the Meat Hygiene Service takes when undertaking checks on abattoirs of their need for repair and maintenance; and to what extent Meat Hygiene Service officials discount repair and maintenance defects when calculating HAS scores. [122044]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that during routine monitoring of the hygiene of production, the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) ensures that the structure of the premises complies with the requirements laid down in the relevant legislation. Should the occupier fail to maintain the premises in a satisfactory state the MHS will take appropriate enforcement action.

  The Hygiene Assessment System (HAS) scores are intended to evaluate the risk to meat arising from various factors. One section of HAS relates to the risk to meat from the structure and maintenance of the premises.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on relations between Mead Webber and Meat Hygiene Service staff up to 10 April. [122052]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]An independent investigation is to be carried out as soon as possible into the actions of the Meat Hygiene Service at Mead Webber's plant at Eardisley. This will include scrutiny of the working relations between Mead Webber and Meat Hygiene Service staff.

  It would be inappropriate to comment further until this investigation has been completed. However, the hon. Member will receive a copy of the findings as soon as the investigation is completed.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Mr. Richard Turner was appointed by Official Veterinary Surgeon to the Mead Webber plant. [122047]
  472W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the St. David's Farm and Equine Veterinary Practice, of which Mr. Richard Turner is a partner, was awarded the contract to supply an official veterinary surgeon to the Mead Webber plant on 10 April 2000.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the evidence and results of the inquiry into Mead Webber's closure by the Meat Hygiene Service will be published immediately on the internet. [122066]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I understand from the Food Standards Agency that it intends to publish the findings of the independent investigation of Mead Webber Ltd.'s complaints against the
  Meat Hygiene Service and that these will be made available on the internet. It is expected that the investigation will be reliant on the voluntary co-operation of the parties concerned, who will need to agree what evidence is published.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Mr. Yogaratnam's position in the Meat Hygiene Service was at the time he was appointed Official Veterinary Surgeon to the Mead Webber plant; and what his duties were in respect of the plant. [122055]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that Mr. Yogaratnam was a principal official veterinary surgeon (POVS) at the time he was appointed official veterinary surgeon (OVS) to the Mead Webber plant. He was also a POVS overseeing contract OVS activities in a number of other plants in the area.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what official responsibilities Mr. Richard Turner has had in respect of plants owned or operated by the St. Merryn's Group; and what contracts the St. David's Practice has had with the Meat Hygiene Service in respect of the provision of Official Veterinary Surgeons to plants owned or operated by the St. Merryn's Group. [122048]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that Richard Turner has had no official responsibilities in respect of plants owned or operated by the St. Merryn Group.

  The St. David's Farm and Equine Practice has had no contracts with the Meat Hygiene Service for the provision of Official Veterinary Surgeons to plants owned or operated by the St. Merryn Group.

  Northwick Park Hospital
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reasons underlay the decision to sell the waste incinerator plant at Northwick Park Hospital. [123580]

  Mr. Denham
  The then Northwick Park and St. Mark's Hospitals National Health Service Trust made a decision in 1996 to pursue the sale of its waste incinerator plant. This was based upon the view that, with waste disposal forming a non-core element of the Trust's activities, it would be prudent to explore the possible benefits of a partnership with the private sector that might facilitate the integration of clinical waste disposal into a wider and more environmentally-friendly waste management strategy.

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work of the Reference Group in respect of structural arrangements in the NHS as they affect(a) midwives, (b) nurses and (c) health visitors. [124446]

  Mr. Denham
  The Reference Group will ensure that key stakeholders (including Professional, National Health Service and Consumer interests) have an opportunity to inform the development of proposals to establish a new regulatory body for Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors prior to statutory public consultation.

  "Fit for the Future?"
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the responses received to the Centre for Policy on Ageing draft document, entitled, "Fit for the Future?" [124493]

  Mr. Hutton
  We received 1,250 comments on "Fit for the Future?" during the extended consultation period. We have no plans to place these in the Library.

  However, we intend to publish a summary of the responses shortly, along with the finalised standards for care homes for older people and a timetable for implementing them. These will be placed in the Library.

  Laron Dwarfism
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatment is available on the National Health Service for

  2000–01 health authority allocation, target and distance from target

  Health authority

  Allocation £

  Target £

  Distance from target £

  Percentage

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  321,111

  348,987

  -27,876

  -7.99

  Bedfordshire

  344,490

  358,470

  -13,980

  -3.90

  East London and the City

  545,950

  566,894

  -20,945

  -3.69

  Berkshire

  484,623

  500,470

  -15,847

  -3.17

  Barnsley

  171,018

  176,397

  -5,379

  -3.05

  Wigan and Bolton

  410,052

  422,403

  -12,351

  -2.92

  Buckinghamshire

  407,599

  419,598

  -11,999

  -2.86

  Leicestershire

  570,114

  586,393

  -16,280

  -2.78

  Coventry

  221,753

  227,926

  -6,172

  -2.71

  Cambridgeshire

  442,411

  453,098

  -10,687

  -2.36

  Nottingham

  427,441

  437,686

  -10,245

  -2.34

  Oxfordshire

  364,378

  372,544

  -8,166

  -2.19

  North Nottinghamshire

  260,428

  266,191

  -5,763

  -2.16

  County Durham

  452,736

  461,460

  -8,724

  -1.89

  Wolverhampton

  175,452

  178,762

  -3,311

  -1.85

  North Staffordshire

  334,233

  340,030

  -5,796

  -1.70

  West Pennine

  325,991

  331,585

  -5,594

  -1.69

  South Derbyshire

  375,652

  381,611

  -5,958

  -1.56

  Walsall

  179,022

  181,848

  -2,826

  -1.55

  South Essex

  463,389

  470,629

  -7,240

  -1.54

  Dudley

  200,507

  203,550

  -3,044

  -1.50

  Shropshire

  270,975

  274,590

  -3,616

  -1.32

  East and North Hertfordshire

  318,662

  322,721

  -4,059

  -1.26

  Avon

  641,970

  649,321

  -7,351

  -1.13

  Tees

  404,069

  408,692

  -4,624

  -1.13

  Rotherham

  173,727

  175,697

  -1,970

  -1.12

  Croydon

  223,107

  225,624

  -2,517

  -1.12

  Bradford

  343,313

  347,166

  -3,853

  -1.11

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  277,321

  280,211

  -2,889

  -1.03

  Sunderland

  218,745

  221,000

  -2,255

  -1.02

  Sandwell

  223,644

  225,704

  -2,060

  -0.91

  474W
  Laron Dwarfism; and what assistance his Department provides to support groups for children with growth problems as a result of this condition. [124492]

  Mr. Hutton
  Children with short stature resulting from Laron Dwarfism and other rare conditions are provided diagnostic and follow up care from paediatric endocrinologists who work closely with other specialists. Each region has such a service and for exceptionally rare disorders care can be provided from a national centre. Where growth is limited, psychological and practical support is available through the National Health Service. Voluntary organisations also play a key part in supporting children with growth problems. Although my Department does not at present provide assistance to these organisations, there is provision for them to apply under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 for assistance.

  Health Authority Funding
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities are(a) closer to and (b) further from their capitation funding targets fair share than Bedfordshire; [124475]

  (2) if he will publish figures showing how each health authority ranks in relation to their capitation funding target. [124474]

  Mr. Denham
  In 2000–01, 95 health authorities are closer to, and three health authorities are further away from, their weighted capitation target than Bedfordshire Health Authority.

  Allocation, target and distance from target for each health authority in England are given in the table. A negative distance from target denotes an undertarget health authority.

  475W

  2000–01 health authority allocation, target and distance from target

  Health authority

  Allocation £

  Target £

  Distance from target £

  Percentage

  Lincolnshire

  429,691

  433,424

  -3,733

  -0.86

  St Helen's and Knowsley

  257,406

  259,579

  -2,173

  -0.84

  East Lancashire

  384,249

  387,072

  -2,822

  -0.73

  Hillingdon

  169,434

  170,397

  -963

  -0.56

  North Yorkshire

  474,576

  477,038

  -2,462

  -0.52

  West Sussex

  513,306

  515,915

  -2,609

  -0.51

  North Derbyshire

  249,371

  250,461

  -1,090

  -0.44

  Bury and Rochdale

  275,877

  276,925

  -1,049

  -0.38

  Northumberland

  214,665

  215,326

  -661

  -0.31

  Herefordshire

  108,512

  108,830

  -319

  -0.29

  Doncaster

  216,207

  216,634

  -427

  -0.20

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  402,907

  403,578

  -671

  -0.17

  South Staffordshire

  352,315

  352,822

  -508

  -0.14

  North Essex

  555,679

  556,115

  -436

  -0.08

  East Riding

  394,083

  394,242

  -159

  -0.04

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  524,548

  524,681

  -133

  -0.03

  North West Lancashire

  352,074

  352,020

  54

  0.02

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  364,591

  364,531

  60

  0.02

  Norfolk

  504,549

  504,363

  186

  0.04

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  359,457

  359,279

  178

  0.05

  Bromley

  201,306

  201,092

  214

  0.11

  Barnet

  228,234

  227,788

  447

  0.20

  North Cumbria

  217,218

  216,784

  434

  0.20

  Solihull

  133,724

  133,228

  496

  0.37

  Enfield and Haringey

  356,859

  355,395

  1,464

  0.41

  Wakefield

  231,631

  230,600

  1,031

  0.45

  Stockport

  193,464

  192,538

  926

  0.48

  North and Mid Hampshire

  320,050

  318,438

  1,612

  0.51

  West Hertfordshire

  346,924

  345,135

  1,788

  0.52

  Somerset

  318,840

  316,997

  1,843

  0.58

  Birmingham

  749,780

  745,390

  4,390

  0.59

  Worcestershire

  329,672

  327,690

  1,981

  0.60

  Leeds

  515,080

  511,966

  3,114

  0.61

  Northamptonshire

  356,996

  353,917

  3,079

  0.87

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  364,236

  361,030

  3,206

  0.89

  South Cheshire

  443,804

  439,798

  4,007

  0.91

  Suffolk

  434,142

  430.192

  3,950

  0.92

  Barking and Havering

  281,533

  278,960

  2,573

  0.92

  West Kent

  618,824

  612,850

  5,974

  0.97

  North Cheshire

  217,660

  215,460

  2,200

  1.02

  Sheffield

  398,432

  393,746

  4,686

  1.19

  North and East Devon

  328,698

  324,303

  4,395

  1.36

  South and West Devon

  419,315

  413,317

  5,998

  1.45

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  344,828

  339,322

  5,506

  1.62

  Warwickshire

  320,497

  315,320

  5,177

  1.64

  Salford and Trafford

  339,047

  333,322

  5,725

  1.72

  Liverpool

  378,330

  371,727

  6,603

  1.78

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  455,914

  447,669

  8,245

  1.84

  Dorset

  487,298

  478,263

  9,035

  1.89

  Camden and Islington

  356,225

  349,524

  6,701

  1.92

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  636,437

  624,184

  12,253

  1.96

  South Humber

  216,561

  212,381

  4,180

  1.97

  Manchester

  378,849

  371,351

  7,498

  2.02

  Wiltshire

  380,058

  372,333

  7,725

  2.07

  South Lancashire

  206,248

  201,999

  4,249

  2.10

  Brent and Harrow

  341,633

  334,582

  7,051

  2.11

  East Surrey

  267,914

  262,137

  5,777

  2.20

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  551,376

  538,304

  13,072

  2.43

  Kingston and Richmond

  237,277

  231,483

  5,795

  2.50

  West Surrey

  401,226

  391,077

  10,150

  2.60

  East Kent

  431,841

  420,809

  11,031

  2.62

  Sefton

  211,212

  205,523

  5,688

  2.77

  Gloucestershire

  364,311

  353,746

  10,564

  2.99

  Wirral

  247,545

  240,159

  7,386

  3.08

  Morecambe Bay

  224,098

  216,807

  7,291

  3.36

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  323,694

  311,792

  11,902

  3.82

  Bexley and Greenwich

  318,047

  299,950

  18,097

  6.03

  Isle of Wight

  100,622

  94,019

  6,603

  7.02

  Notes:

  1. All figures include the additional £660 million announced on 28 March 2000.

  2. Non-recurrent funding for health authorities with health action zones is excluded.

  Air Ambulance Service
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make additional funds available to support the work of the Air Ambulance Service. [125076]

  Ms Stuart
  The need for helicopter air ambulance services is a matter for local health economies.

  Staff Accommodation (South-East)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000,Official Report, column 507W, concerning accommodation for public health care staff in south-east England, what estimates the National Housing Co-ordinator for the National Health Service has made of the provision of residential accommodation required for public health care staff in (a) the south-east region and (b) Oxfordshire. [124803]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Housing Co-ordinator for the National Health Service has contacted all National Health Service trusts in the south-east region of the NHS, to identify details of accommodation needs for their personnel. When this work is complete, estimates of accommodation requirements can be made, and details are expected to be available by the end of July.

  This information will include the needs of the National Health Service personnel in Oxfordshire.

  Hip Joints
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if metal on metal resurfacing of hip joints is available on the NHS. [124487]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]This procedure is available on the National Health Service. However, it is a relatively new and unproven procedure and as such should normally be performed as part of a controlled clinical trial. The Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures (SERNIP), run by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, is the mechanism for assessing new surgical procedures. SERNIP considered there was not yet sufficient information to make a full assessment of the safety and efficacy of metal on metal resurfacing of hip joints.

  Mid Essex Hospital Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the latest figures for the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area for(a) how many people are waiting for treatment and (b) how many have been waiting 12 months or more for treatment. [125268]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]The information is as follows:

  Total number of patients waiting and the number of patients waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at 30 April 2000

  Month

  Total waiting

  Number waiting over 12 months

  April 2000

  9,953

  986

  Source:

  Monthly waiting list return

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define the social reasons leading to a patient's temporary suspension from hospital inpatient waiting lists, in relation to the NHS Executive's inpatient waiting times data as published in the Green Book and the Yellow Book. [125468]

  Mr. Denham
  The social reasons for suspension referred to in the Green and Yellow Books published by the Department refer to situations where a patient is unavailable for admission because of family commitments, holidays or other reasons.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply substantively to the question (ref. 115126) on waiting lists tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. [125708]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply to his earlier question as soon as possible.

  Breast Implants
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and information his Department makes available to women considering breast implants. [125464]

  Mr. Denham
  We will shortly be publishing an information leaflet for women considering having breast implants.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent report he has received of adverse incidents relating to silicone gel implants; and what further action he has taken as a result. [125473]

  Mr. Denham
  In the 12 months prior to 31 May 2000, the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) received 19 reports of adverse incidents involving silicone gel breast implants. MDA have not identified any trends which suggest there is a problem with the performance of any particular model of silicone gel breast implant. MDA continues to record and review all reports of problems with silicone gel breast implants received via the Adverse Incident Centre. This information is regularly reviewed by the Independent Review Group.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has recently received that silicone gel breast implants are causing illness. [125463]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has received no new evidence recently that silicone gel breast implants are causing illness. The Independent Review Group on silicone gel breast implants continues to meet twice a year to monitor emerging scientific data on this subject. In March 2000, the Group confirmed that there was no need to revise the conclusions reached in 1998.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action has been taken by his Department through the Advertising Standards Authority implant procedure, stating the possible health and safety implications of breast implants. [125470]

  Mr. Denham
  Our response to the Health Committee's Fifth Report on the regulation of private and other independent healthcare (Command 4540) made it clear that the powers given in the 1988 Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations are adequate to control
  479W
  advertising. We were however concerned to ensure that the information patients receive in the independent sector is of an acceptable standard.

  We are addressing this in two ways. We will soon be publishing a Department of Health information leaflet for women considering breast implants. In addition, the Care Standards Bill, as drafted, will allow us to introduce regulations covering standards of information given to patients in the independent sector.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if information on the Breast Implants Register is made available to recipients of implants in(a) NHS and (b) private hospitals. [125467]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Breast Implant Registry produces an annual report which is available, upon request, to recipients of breast implants, regardless of whether they received their implants in a National Health Service or a private hospital.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to make registration of breast implants compulsory. [125466]

  Mr. Denham
  We support the collection and provision of as much information as possible and the Medical Devices Agency has increased funding of the National Breast Implant Registry to improve compliance monitoring. Any legislation would however be coercive and would invalidate the individual's consent to surgery.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the European Commission's investigation into silicone breast implants. [125474]

  Mr. Denham
  It is understood that the European Commission currently plans to review breast implants taking account of the options presented in the draft report from the Scientific Technological Options Assessment Committee (STOA) of the European Parliament. The Commission intends to give a report to STOA in November 2000. It is further understood that the investigations will involve action in three areas:Reviewing the requirements for conformity assessment of implantable breast prostheses;
  Addressing the provision of information to patients for these products;
  Possible revision of the published standards for manufacturers of breast implants.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many breast implants have been registered through the National Breast Implant Registry since 1997; and what estimate he has made of the number not registered. [125469]

  Mr. Denham
  The total number of breast implants registered on the National Breast Implant Registry (NBIR) in each complete calendar year since 1997 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of implants registered

  1997

  14,800

  1998

  16,161

  1999

  18,173

  480W
  Based upon compliance studies carried out by the NBIR, it is estimated that this represents about 60–70 per cent. of the breast implants used in the United Kingdom.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how recipients of breast implants and doctors are informed of the reporting facility of the Adverse Incident Centre within the Medical Devices Agency. [125462]

  Mr. Denham
  At the beginning of each year, the Medical Devices Agency (MDA) writes to chief executives of trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts reminding them of their obligation to report adverse incidents involving medical devices, including breast implants, to the Adverse Incident Centre. MDA also encourages trusts to appoint MDA liaison officers, whose role is to co-ordinate adverse incident reporting and the dissemination of safety information about medical devices within the trust.

  As the adverse incident reporting system is focused upon healthcare professionals and medical device manufacturers, MDA does not systematically inform recipients of breast implants of the system. Information on the system is however publicly available via the MDA worldwide website.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision he has made for the financial year 2000–01 to meet the costs incurred by the East Kent Health Authority through the provision of interpreters to assist the treatment of asylum seekers and economic migrants. [125274]

  Mr. Hutton
  East Kent Health Authority's unified allocation for 2000–01 is £431.8 million, an increase of £32.9 million (8.25 per cent.)

  It is for health authorities, in partnership with primary care groups and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the National Health Service of the provision of interpreters to assist asylum seekers, for the latest period for which figures are available; how much of this money has been refunded by central Government to(a) local health authorities and (b) hospital trusts; and if he will make a statement. [125273]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the costs of interpretation services for asylum seekers is not collected centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for North Thanet will receive a reply to his letter of 18 May 2000 in respect of the answer of 11 May 2000,Official Report, column 460W, on the General Osteopathic Council. [125682]

  Yvette Cooper
  I shall let the hon. Member have a reply to his letter of 18 May as soon as possible.

  Surgery Statistics
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of morbidity and mortality rates
  481W
  associated with surgical intervention for similar operations between (a) 10 pm and 6 am and (b) 6 am and 10 pm. [125458]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally in this way. The National Confidential Enquiry into Peri-operative Deaths, known as NCEPOD, reports each year on deaths in hospital following surgery. Their 1995–96 report "Who operates when" gives information on operative practice for three periods, between the hours of 6 pm and midnight, midnight and 8 am and 8 am and 6 pm. A summary of their reports can be accessed via their website www.ncepod.org.uk.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Performance Cost Management Unit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost is of setting up a performance cost management unit from 1 April in his Department; what are the key benefits of this; what savings to the cost of operating the Department will arise; what estimate he has made of the annual cost of the unit; and if he will make a statement. [124556]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is undergoing a fundamental review of its central and support functions in order to focus resources on delivering front line services to customers. A small Performance Management Unit (PMU) has been established within the Benefits Agency to drive out performance improvement in the Agency's 13 Area Directorates (AD) and the Disability and Carer Benefits Directorate (DCBD). The additional annual cost of this team is estimated at £100,000. There were no set up costs. In addition to the PMU, each AD and the DCBD has a Performance Improvement Action Team (PIAT) to provide support to local managers.

  The aim is to improve significantly front line service delivery within the resources already set and allocated in the Comprehensive Spending Review. Work is also in hand to see how productivity can be improved which will potentially lead to cost reduction in the medium term.

  By the end of 2000–01, this programme is expected to demonstrate improved benefit payment accuracy, better customer service and to have contributed to the reduction of losses through fraud and error.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much was spent in(a) Scotland, (b) Dumfries and Galloway and (c) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency in each of the last five years on tackling benefit fraud; [124720]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amount lost to benefit fraud in each of the last five years in (a) Scotland, (b) Dumfries and Galloway and (c) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency; [124722]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the amount lost to benefit fraud in each of the last five years in (a) Scotland, (b) Dumfries and Galloway and (c) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency as a direct result of pensions and benefits being paid via the Post Office. [124721]
  482W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Amount allocated in Scotland in each of the last five years to spend on investigating benefit fraud

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  8.35

  1996–97

  9.20

  1997–98

  19.12

  1998–99

  18.94

  1999–2000

  20.27

  Notes:

  1. Area Benefit Reviews results estimate that the level of fraud in Scotland for 1998–99 was £55 million. This figure does not include all benefits and relates only to Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  2. We are unable to provide details of all Instruments of Payment (IOP) fraudulently encashed through post offices.

  3. The estimated level of losses associated with IOPs for 1999–2000 nationally is £106.9 million. It is not possible to provide a geographical breakdown for this figure.

  4. Information is not available for anywhere less than the whole of Scotland. It is also not possible to provide the full amount spent in tackling fraud as some aspects of fraud expenditure such as Housing Benefit and organised fraud are controlled centrally.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the level of benefit fraud in the Coventry area; and what targets have been set for the relevant anti-fraud teams. [125616]

  Mr. Rooker
  Area Benefit Reviews provide a continuous measurement of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance in each of the Benefits Agency's 13 Area Directorates. The data collected are rolled up to provide a national picture.

  We are unable to provide estimates of levels of fraud for specific towns, cities or counties.

  Our target is to reduce by 30 per cent. benefit losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by March 2007, with at least a 10 per cent. reduction by 2002.

  The weekly benefit savings scheme gives local authorities the opportunity to earn a financial reward where they detect Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit fraud. Each local authority is set an individual threshold and can begin to earn additional payments of subsidy where they exceed this. Coventry's threshold for 2000–01 is £848,413.

  Benefit Delivery
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure services to the customers of the Benefits Agency are delivered effectively and that benefits are secure against fraud and abuse; how much this costs; how many people are being investigated for fraud; and if he will make a statement. [124544]

  Mr. Rooker
  In March of this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the creation of a new organisation that will radically change the way the Government provide support for people of working age. The new agency will draw together those elements of the
  483W
  Benefits Agency which support people of working age and the Employment Service. The agency will deliver a single, integrated service to benefit claimants and employers. Information on job vacancies, training, and child care will be available as well as help and support to those who, for whatever reason, are not able to work, providing a more responsive service tailored to individual needs.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has also announced the creation of a single organisation responsible for pensions, distinct from the Benefits Agency. This new organisation will be solely focused on the needs of pensioners and pensions policy.

  We are committed to improving and modernising the welfare services offered to people, and the creation of separate, client focused organisations is the next step to achieving this.

  The prevention and detection of fraud will be at the heart of he new organizational arrangement. The Government set out the strategy for tackling fraud in the White Paper "Safeguarding Social Security" presented to Parliament in March 1999.

  For the financial year 2000–01, £351,447,403 of Programme Protection Funds are being deployed within the BA to combat fraud and error. However all benefit paying processes and all the BA staff involved have a role in preventing and identifying fraud and abuse.

  On 31 March 2000, 163,138 people were recorded as currently under investigation by the Benefit Fraud Investigation Service, while between April 1999 to March 2000 there were 436 individual suspects accepted for prosecution from the Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service.

  In addition, between April 1999 and March 2000 there were in excess of 280,000 referrals for investigation identified by the datamatching computer systems; the Generalised Matching Service and the Housing Benefit Matching Scheme. This however includes cases of customer and official error as well as fraud.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 May 2000,Official Report, column 213W, on regeneration-related initiatives, if he will list the details requested for (a) New Deal for Disabled people, (b) New Deal for Lone Parents, (c) New Deal for the Long-term Unemployed aged 25 plus: 12 to 18 months unemployed, (d) New Deal for Long-term Unemployed aged 25 plus: 2 years plus unemployed and (e) ONE. [124412]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Details regarding sums budgeted and expended on these initiatives are set out in the tables.
  484W
  Under the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP), we have been piloting and testing ways in which to help Disabled People in to work. Over the coming months we will develop proposals for extending the NDDP nationally. Expenditure to date is set out in the following table.

  Year

  £million

  1997–981

  50

  1998–991

  3

  1999–20002

  13

  2000–013, 4

  24

  2001–023, 4

  13

  1 Expended

  2 Expended (Provisional)

  3 Planned (Provisional)

  4 The figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are provisional and do not include funds for the national extension of NDDP.

  5 All figures rounded to nearest £1 million, actual 1997–98 expenditure £0.175 million.

  Note:

  Over £50 million has been allocated to pilot initiatives, including the pilot Personal Adviser Service, Innovative Schemes and evaluation. We are also considering what funds will be allocated for the proposed retention and rehabilitation pilots and the national extension of NDDP.

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) aims to help lone parents on Income Support move into work. The following table details the sums expended throughout the planned lifetime of this programme.

  £million

  1997–981

  20

  1998–991

  22

  1999–20001

  336

  2000–01

  4—

  2001–02

  4—

  1 Expended

  2 All figures rounded to nearest £1 million, actual 1997–98 expenditure £0.175 million.

  3 Provisional

  4 The remainder of the national budget, based on current projections, will he spent by the end of 2001–02.

  Notes:

  1. The sum of £182 million has been made available for the NDLP national programme.

  2. The cost of implementing the NDLP in eight prototype areas was £8 million, incurred between July 1997 and October 1998.

  New Deal for long-term unemployed persons aged 25 plus—12 to 18 months unemployed

  This information refers to provision for pilot schemes in 28 different local areas. Of these, 18 are targeted at people who have been unemployed for 18 months or more, with the rest targeted at those who have been unemployed for 12 months or more. The following table details the amounts budgeted or expended on these schemes.

  485W

  Year

  £million

  1998–991

  5

  1999–20001

  360

  2000–012

  50

  1 Expended

  2 Budgeted

  3 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. The majority of this funding is from windfall tax receipts. Estimates of the allocation of the windfall tax receipts between programmes are revised and published in each pre-Budget and Budget report. Since the windfall tax receipts are to be spent across lifetime of the Parliament, funds which are unspent in one year are available for spending in subsequent years.

  2. Figures supplied by the Department of Education and Employment, who are responsible for this programme.

  3. All figures rounded to nearest £1 million.

  New Deal for long-term unemployed persons aged 25 plus—two years or more unemployed

  This information refers to provision for the national New Deal 25 plus scheme, targeted on those who have been unemployed for two years or more. The following table details the amount budgeted or expended on this programme.

  Year

  £million

  1998–991

  20

  1999–20001

  350

  2000–012

  100

  2001–022

  350

  1 Expended

  2 Budgeted

  3 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. The majority of this funding is from windfall tax receipts. Estimates of the allocation of the windfall tax receipts between programmes are revised and published in each pre-Budget and Budget report. Since the windfall tax receipts are to be spent across the lifetime of the Parliament, funds which are unspent in one year are available for spending in subsequent years.

  2. Figures supplied by Department of Education and Employment, who are responsible for this programme.

  3. All figures rounded to nearest £1 million.

  ONE Service

  ONE pilots have been designed to test the effectiveness of work focused interviews for all working age clients and to develop appropriate models for the integration and improvement of welfare services. The following table details the amounts budgeted and expended in each financial year for the planned lifetime of these pilots.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  Budgeted

  33

  Expended (provisional)

  31

  2000–01

  Available

  41

  Profiled (provisional)

  36

  2001–02

  Available

  41

  Profiled (provisional)

  36

  Note:

  Figures rounded to nearest £1 million.

  Pensions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for each financial year since 1996–97 the extra expenditure on pensions and the amount of this year's pension if the link between pensions and earnings had been restored immediately before the year in question. [124345]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is in the table.

  Year

  Assumed rate of basic Retirement Pension (£ per week)

  Gross cost (£ billion)

  Net cost (£ billion)

  1996–97

  —

  0.7

  0.6

  1997–98

  —

  1.3

  1.1

  1998–99

  —

  1.5

  1.3

  1999–00

  —

  2.1

  1.8

  2000–01

  73.60

  3.5

  3.1

  Notes:

  1. Assumed rates of basic Retirement Pension have been uprated by the higher prices or earnings growth at each uprating from April 1995 onwards. Rates have been rounded to the nearest 5p at each uprating.

  2. Earnings growth is based on the seasonally adjusted average earnings index in the three months to July of the previous year, as originally published. Price inflation is the previous September figure.

  3. Gross costs have been estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of income-related benefit savings have been estimated using the DSS Policy Simulation Model.

  4. Costs include benefits whose rates are linked to the rate of basic Retirement Pension.

  5. Costs are rounded to the nearest £100 million, are in £ billion and are expressed in 2000–01 prices.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the length of time taken between an application for ACT payment for pensions and the date when payment is received into the pensioner's bank account. [124779]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Fiona Mactaggart, dated 9 June 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary question asking what estimate he has made of the length of time taken between an application for Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) payment for pensions and the date when payment is received into the pensioner's bank account.
  Customers wishing to receive payment by ACT must fill in the appropriate form of application, which includes a declaration that they have read and accept the conditions under which it is offered.
  Applications for ACT payment can be received with new claims, which are subject to a clearance target of 60 days, or as a change to an existing pensioner's method of payment. The length of time taken has therefore been gauged from the time of processing the application, which in both instances should be the same.
  Except in the case of weekly sums under £5, which are paid annually, currently customers have the option of receiving ACT payments at 4 weekly or 13 weekly intervals. Payment is received in the pensioner's bank account on the last banking day of the 4 or 13 week period.

  487W
  If there are two full weeks or more left in the current ACT period when the application is processed a payment for that period is made accordingly. Where only one week remains this is added to the payment for the first full period. The longest time a customer must wait for payment is therefore normally limited to 5 weeks or 14 weeks.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost of implementing a national minimum income guarantee for pensioners; how he will ensure that pensioners are made aware of what they can claim; how much he is expecting to spend on public awareness campaigns; and if he will make a statement. [124547]

  Mr. Bayley
  During the lifetime of this Parliament the extra total cost of the minimum income guarantee (MIG) for pensioners over and above the cost of Income Support for which pensioners were previously eligible is estimated to be £2.2 billion pounds in real terms.

  One 29 May the MIG Take-up Campaign was launched to encourage pensioners who may be entitled to claim their MIG. Around £15 million will be spent over the course of the campaign which includes national TV advertising, writing to around two million pensioners whose records indicate that they may be entitled, and the introduction of a tele-claims centre with specially trained operators who can help complete the paperwork to claim the MIG.

  Since the launch was announced at the end of March, there have already been around 50,000 calls to the tele-claims centre, and 24,000 MIG claim packs have been sent to pensioners.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent in(a) Scotland, (b) Dumfries and Galloway and (c) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale parliamentary constituency on increasing benefit take-up in each of the last five years. [124719]

  Mr. Bayley
  No specific allocation was made to the Benefits Agency either nationally or locally for increasing benefit take-up. However, we have recently launched a national take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee. Around £15 million will be spent over the course of the campaign, which includes intense activity on a number of fronts. This includes television advertising, writing to around two million pensioners and a new tele-claims centre which allows pensioners to make a claim over the telephone.

  Benefit Costs
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost to the Exchequer would be of providing to all households with children under(a) three years of age, (b) two years of age and (c) one year of age, a weekly benefit of (i) £25, (ii) £50, (iii) £75, and (iv) £100. [124777]
  488W
  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Annual cost for families

  £ million

  Children under age of

  Weekly payment

  One

  Two

  Three

  £25

  750

  1,590

  2,330

  £50

  1,510

  3,190

  4,650

  £75

  2,260

  4,780

  6,980

  £100

  3,020

  6,370

  9,310

  Notes:

  1. Proportions of families with children in the relevant age group have been taken from the February 2000 5 per cent. scan of the Child Benefit computer system.

  2. Based on forecast 2001–02 Child Benefit caseloads.

  3. Rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  4. If there is more than one family in a household with children in the relevant age group we are assuming that they will both receive a payment.

  5. Increases are assumed to be carried through into the income-related benefits.

  Incomes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average weekly income is of mothers with children under three. [124776]

  Angela Eagle
  The average gross weekly individual income of mothers with children under three is £139. However, the majority of mothers live in families with a partner, and the latest estimate for the gross income of families with children under three is £517 a week.

  Notes:

  1. Figures quoted are derived from the Family Resources Survey and are therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. The individual income refers to the income accruing to women in their own right and includes earnings, income from self-employment, investments and occupational pensions/annuities, benefit income and income from miscellaneous and other sources. This estimate is from the Women's Individual Income 1996–97 dataset and is at 1996–97 survey prices.

  3. Family income has been provided because the majority of mothers live with a partner and it is generally assumed that there is a certain amount of sharing of income within families. This estimate is based on 1997–98 data and is set at April 1999 prices.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the rules under which mature students with dependent families have their student loan classed as family income; and if he will make a statement. [124787]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 219W.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many liability orders were sought by the Child Support Agency from courts in Scotland during the last calendar year for which figures are available; how many were(a) granted and (b) granted and subsequently registered in each relevant judicial area in Scotland; and

  489W
  what the average waiting time between submission of papers to the court and the granting of liability orders was (i) in total and (ii) in each judicial area. [125112]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Ian Davidson, dated 12 June 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  You ask about the number of liability orders sought by the Agency from courts in Scotland during the last calendar year.
  The Agency's policy is to encourage compliance by non resident parents, but where this fails, to use the full range of powers given by Parliament to enforce payment of child maintenance. Where arrears do arise, the Agency will take firm and prompt enforcement action if the non resident parent does not make an acceptable offer to pay. Each case is considered on it merits and the Agency will take account of the likely effect of enforcement action on the welfare of any children involved.
  Wherever possible the Agency will use a Deduction from Earnings Order to enforce payment. This is an administrative mechanism operated on the Agency's behalf by the non resident parent's employer and does not involve the court. Where it is not appropriate the Agency will take action through the courts.
  In the last reporting year, April 1999 to March 2000, the Agency applied to the Sheriff's Court for 686 liability order, 354 of which were granted, 26 were withdrawn, dismissed or not granted and the remainder are still undergoing Court action. The information requested regarding liability orders granted and subsequently registered and average waiting time between submission of papers to the court and their action is not collected by the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Housing Benefit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much each local authority spent in the most recent available year on Housing Benefit to tenants of Registered Social Landlords to which their housing stock has been transferred. [124878]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available. This is because the data local authorities provide on Housing Benefit spending do not enable us to distinguish between spending on tenants who live in stock that has been transferred and those who live in other stock owned by Registered Social Landlords.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will introduce employment zones; where they will be; when the greater Portsmouth area will benefit from such a scheme; and if he will make a statement. [124551]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Fifteen Employment Zones were introduced in April 2000 in Glasgow, Liverpool, North West Wales, Heads of the Valleys, Doncaster, Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Plymouth, Brent, Haringey, Newham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Nottingham, and Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland (one Zone). We have no plans to introduce an Employment Zone in Greater Portsmouth.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Elections
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when the Government will implement the recommendations contained in the report entitled, "Administering Elections in Northern Ireland"; [119565]

  (2) what measures he will introduce to counter abuse and reinforce the integrity of the Electoral Register; and if he will make a statement; [120703]

  (3) what further progress he has made on combating electoral malpractice since May 1998; [120707]

  (4) if he will introduce the electoral card proposal as outlined in the Second report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, HC 316, on Electoral Malpractice; [120706]

  (5) what improvements to electoral procedure he has announced since May 1998; [120704]

  (6) when he will establish the team to investigate applications for absent and proxy votes that was referred to in the response from the Government to the Second report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of Session 1997–98, HC 316, on Electoral Malpractice. [120705]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The report entitled "Administering Elections in Northern Ireland" contained a number of recommendations to counter the issue of electoral abuse and it is our intention to implement as many of them as is practical.

  One of the major recommendations was the introduction of smart cards for voters. This remains our objective but further work is needed before we can be confident that a reliable, cost-effective system exists that would be resistant to abuse. However, the Government have already introduced legislation to extend the time available to the Chief Electoral Officer to scrutinise absent vote applications and has extended to Northern Ireland the provisions of the Representation of the People Act which makes provision for rolling registration and hence a more accurate electoral register. Additionally, officials are exploring the role which enhanced computerisation and increased staffing might play in assisting the Chief Electoral Officer in the scrutiny process.

  Many of the other recommendations contained in the report will require legislation by bill. We would hope to find Parliamentary time for this before the General Election, but the timing of this will depend on the time of the election.

  Sellafield
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish a study into the health effects of the operation of Sellafield on the people of Northern Ireland. [120710]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A major independent study which reported in 1989 sought to identify possible links between the incidence of Down's Syndrome and
  491W
  leukaemia and radiation in the Irish Sea. The report concluded that the data examined did not obviously implicate radioactive pollution in the Irish Sea as an underlying factor in determining the patterns in Northern Ireland of the conditions studied. To facilitate ongoing research and surveillance, the report recommended that a system of cancer registration should be established. Since the establishment of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry in 1993, there is now a complete and accurate database on cancer incidence in Northern Ireland which facilitates the monitoring of the health of the population on an ongoing basis. Analysis so far continued to support the findings of the 1989 study.

  As regards monitoring of radiation levels, currently the Environment and Heritage Service's Industrial Pollution and Radiochemical Inspectorate in Northern Ireland conducts routine monitoring of the impact of Sellafield discharges on the Northern Ireland coastline. In addition, independent monitoring is conducted by District Council Environmental Health Officers under the auspices of the Norther Ireland Radiation Monitoring Committee. Both sets of monitoring continue to indicate that the levels of radioactivity measured are of negligible radiological significance.

  Travellers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what(a) reason travellers are being prevented from using the St. Christopher's Park site, (b) what attempts have been made to offer them alternative accommodation, (c) for what reasons vacating travellers are prevented from returning to the official site in Newry and (d) which bodies have responsibility for looking after the housing and education needs of traveller families. [123055]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The management of the Travellers' site at St. Christopher's Park, Newry is a matter for the Newry and Mourne District Council. As far as accommodation for Travellers in concerned, as present it is a function of District Councils to provide transit and serviced sites, while housing (including group housing) is provided through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  The Department of Education and the relevant Education and Library Board have responsibility for the education of children of compulsory school age and those who remain in school past 16.

  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Security Situation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken in the last month to reduce the security presence consistent with the level of threat; and what steps will be taken in the next 12 months. [123060]
  492W
  Mr. Ingram
  In light of the lowering of the overall threat following the recent statement by the IRA, the Chief Constable announced on 9 May that the following steps would be taken as soon as logistically possible, with work to commence within weeks:Demolition of the Cookstown base
  Vacation of Fort George Army Base and return of the land to the Londonderry Harbour Commissioners
  Demolition of the Cloghogue observation base in South Armagh; and
  Vacation of the observation posts at Broadway and Templer House in Belfast.

  He also announced that, subject to a continuing reduction in the level of threat, these steps would be followed within three months by demolition of the observation sangar overlooking the square in Crossmaglen. A further review of possible normalisation steps would be conducted in three months' time in the light of the security threat prevailing at the time and the circumstances on the ground.

  RUC
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list the criminal convictions in which statements by or evidence of RUC Officers Darren James Neill and Michael Magowan was given or taken into account; how many individuals are currently serving a custodial sentence as a result of such convictions; what mechanisms he will establish to ensure that those individuals who may be eligible to have their convictions reviewed are informed of their rights; and how many individuals are so affected; [123574]

  (2) how many officers were questioned in connection with the investigation of complaints made by Mr. Bernard Griffin; what issues of fact were established during the criminal proceedings; and how many disciplinary cases are still pending; [123558]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the convictions of Darren James Neill and Michael Magowan; [123559]

  (4) what measures have been taken to ensure that there is public confidence in the ability of officers in Oldpark RUC barracks to treat all individuals and sections of the community equally; [123560]

  (5) if he will investigate reports of an alleged breakdown of discipline at Oldpark RUC barracks in February 1998. [124414]

  Mr. Ingram
  While there have been criminal proceedings in respect of complaints made by Mr. Bernard Griffin, other legal and disciplinary actions have yet to be finalised. It would therefore be inappropriate, at this time, to place any further information into the public domain.

  11-plus
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the report commissioned by his Department, from Mr. Tony Gallagher of The Queen's University of Belfast, into the Transfer Procedure at 11 plus, will be(a) completed and (b) published; what were the costs of commissioning and producing this report; and if he will make a statement. [123872]
  493W
  Mr. George Howarth
  The report will be completed in July 2000. The cost of the research is £110,000. The report will be published in September 2000. Printing costs are not yet known. The report is intended to inform a widespread debate on selection and future arrangements for post-primary education in Northern Ireland to which all interested parties will be invited to contribute their views.

  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Ambulances
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the cost of providing ambulance services for the annual 12 July celebrations. [123889]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The estimated cost of providing ambulance services for the 12th July celebrations in 1999 was £10,760. It is estimated that the cost of providing ambulance services for this year's 12th July celebrations will be of the same magnitude.

  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what income was derived in each of the past three years by each of the district health boards from charges levied for the provision of ambulance services required for open air public events; if he will list the top 10 consumers of ambulance services and the income derived from each; and what policy considerations must be taken into account in deciding whether to charge for services provided for a particular event. [123888]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The income derived in each of the past three years in each Health Board area in Northern Ireland from charges levied for the provision of ambulance services was:

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  Eastern

  831

  13,567

  8,355

  Northern

  3,500

  3,762

  3,950

  Southern

  1,000

  —

  —

  Western

  1,690

  451

  2,230

  Charges are levied for open-air events organised and run by individuals or organisations, usually for profit or charity, on a one-off basis. No records are therefore maintained of regular "consumers".

  The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service will raise charges for private events, at which the public may be present, when the organisers request specific services such as supplying vehicles, staff or a treatment centre. Charges are based on aspects such as the skill mix and availability of staff, the number of vehicles required, an estimation of potential number of patient journeys and the potential usage of drugs and medical equipment.

  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Garvaghy Road
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many illegal gatherings, assemblies, parades and marches have taken place in the Garvaghy road area so far this year; in how many instances(a) organisers were identified by the police, (b) the gathering was dispersed by the police, (c) individuals were warned they were breaking the law and (d) arrests were made; what charges were brought against individuals; and what was the outcome of proceedings. [123890]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been no illegal parades in the immediate Garvaghy road area this year. But there have been two illegal parades involving persons parading from Drumcree Church to the bridge and dispersing. The bridge is located approximately 600m from the Garvaghy road.

  In both incidents, no individuals were warned they were breaking the law, no arrests were made, and the participants dispersed quickly themselves.

  Shootings (Weapon Serial Numbers)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the serial number of(a) the weapon used in the shooting of Private Neil Clerk in Derry on 23 April 1984, (b) the weapon used in the shooting of Martin Patten of the Royal Anglian Regiment on 21 September 1985 and (c) the weapon used in the shooting of army caterer Kurt Konig on 21 November 1985; in how many other attacks and on what dates each of these weapons are believed to have been used; and where and in whose keeping they are stored. [124326]

  Mr. Ingram
  While three persons were convicted of the murder of Private Clark, the investigations of the murders of Martin Patten and Kurt Konig remain open. To release any information in connection with them would not be appropriate, as it may prejudice any future legal proceedings.

  Oversight Commissioner
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions the Chief Constable of the RUC was present, for how long; and for which interviews, for the post of the Oversight Commissioner. [125527]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chief Constable was not present at any of the interviews.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Disestablishment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what discussion the Church Commissioners have had with the Government since May 1997 about the possibility and financial implications of disestablishment. [123705]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  None.

  Redundant Churches
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners,
  495W
  if he will make a statement on the role of congregations on deciding priorities for the disposal of redundant churches. [123706]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The procedure for settling the future of redundant Church of England churches gives priority to dioceses seeking and achieving suitable alternative uses. Dioceses are also encouraged to keep informed the local parochial church councils, which are also given the opportunity to make representations for or against the proposed use.

  Hunting with Hounds
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what action the Commissioners plan to take in response to the report of the Burns Inquiry. [123707]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I understand the results of the Burns inquiry—to which the Commissioners were not invited to give evidence—are expected to be made public shortly. Until then it is not possible to answer my hon. Friend's question, but we will look forward to seeing the report.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of the Millennium Dome after 31 December. [123681]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 16 May the Government announced that two proposals had been selected to advance to the final stage of the competition. These two bids were chosen from a strong field of five bids which had been invited in January to submit detailed proposals and indicative financial offers.

  The bids in the final shortlist are:
  Dome Europe, an advanced leisure, business and retail attraction, proposed by the Principal Finance Group of Nomura International plc.
  Legacy plc, a high technology industrial campus of workspace, leisure and retail uses, proposed by Robert Bourne.

  We are now working with the bidders to develop these proposals further, and will proceed to a decision in the summer on the winning proposal.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the financial situation of the Millennium Dome. [123693]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on 25 May 2000,Official Report, columns 579–80W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the Millennium Dome's sponsors have paid their full agreed amount of sponsorship funding. [124479]
  496W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Under the terms of the individual sponsorship contracts, sponsors are on a rolling and varied schedule of payments. The New Millennium Experience Company are continuing to receive payments.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the grant payments made from the Millennium Commission to fund the Millennium Dome including the value of those payments, and the date on which they were agreed. [124741]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about additionality in respect of the national lottery awards for health and education projects. [123685]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government remain committed to the principle of additionality and established the NOF, after extensive public consultation, to support innovative health, education and environment projects which are additional to programmes funded from taxation. The National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund has so far committed £1.5 billion to specific, time limited health and education initiatives.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support has been given by the National Lottery Charities Board to youth work in support of policy against social exclusion in(a) urban and (b) rural areas in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999 and (iii) 2000 to date. [123689]

  Kate Hoey
  The majority of grants awarded by the National Lottery Charities Board (NLCB) help to promote social inclusion, although they are not separately categorised. During 1998, 1999 and 2000 to date, the NLCB awarded the following grants to projects in urban and rural areas specifically targeted at young people aged 25 or under.

  Urban areas

  1998: 785 grants worth £32.8 million

  1999: 2,448 grants worth £87 million

  2000: 1,212 grants worth £22.3 million

  Rural areas

  1998: 933 grants worth £8.8 million

  1999: 1,864 grants worth £20.9 million

  2000: 780 grants worth £6.3 million

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that former coalfield areas receive an increased share of the proceeds from the national lottery. [123691]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Following the publication on 5 June of research into the impact of the National Lottery on coalfield areas, I announced a package of measures intended to ensure that coalfield and former coalfield areas receive more benefit from National Lottery money. My Department and Lottery distributors, who jointly commissioned the research, have set up an action team to
  497W
  consider the recommendations made in the report and to identify ways of actively encouraging applications from coalfields and other areas of low take up.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the average cost to organisations of making National Lottery funding applications. [124724]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has directed the independent Quality Efficiency and Standards Team (QUEST), which he established last year to examine issues of standards and good practice across the range of this Department's responsibilities, to look at the costs of making applications for Lottery grants and consider how these costs could be contained without compromising the demands of proper accountability in decisions about how to spend public money. QUEST plans to publish the first phase of its report, which focuses on applications for Lottery grants of up to £100,000, shortly. The second phase, dealing with applications for grants of £100,000 plus, will be published later in the year.

  Excellence in Sport
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has for the development of excellence in sport in the Eastern region. [123686]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England have made it clear that the Eastern Region will be an integral part of the English Institute of Sport. Discussions remain ongoing about the services and facilities that may be required to support the development of sporting excellence in the Region.

  Space for Sport and Arts
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects the first grants will be made to primary schools under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme. [123688]

  Kate Hoey
  Officials from my Department and the Department for Education and Employment are now in the process of working up further details about the scheme with members of the sports strategy implementation group and Lottery distributors and we hope to be in a position to invite applications in the autumn with the first grants being made in the early part of next year.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many families in the Elmet constituency will benefit from the introduction of free television licences for households with a member aged 75 years or over. [123690]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Film, Tourism and Broadcasting to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 350W.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Department is taking to liaise with the television licensing authorities to ensure that all pensioners over the age of 75 will be fully 498W
  informed of when they become eligible for a free television licence; what efforts his Department is making to ensure that pensioners are given accurate information in respect of this; and if he will make a statement. [124545]

  Janet Anderson
  Officials at both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Social Security are in regular contact with the BBC as Licensing Authority to ensure the effective implementation of free television licences for the over-75s. The BBC is providing me with regular progress reports covering a range of issues, including publicity for the concession. Progress to date includes the establishment of a dedicated TV Licensing helpline, publication of explanatory leaflets, television trailers and the start of direct mailings to all domestic addresses on the TV Licensing database. DCMS has prepared a separate question and answer guide to the concessionary scheme.

  Football (Community Involvement)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy as regards encouraging football clubs to be involved in their local communities. [123692]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government fully support the efforts of football's governing bodies and individual clubs to become more involved in their local communities, and encourages the football authorities to continue to implement the recommendations of the Football Task Force's third report, "Investing in the Community".

  School Sport
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about sport in schools in Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [123694]

  Kate Hoey
  I have received one letter recently from a school in Rotherha about the provision of a sports hall under the Private Finance Initiative. This is a matter primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, whom I am consulting. I am also aware of the series of articles which have appeared in the Yorkshire Post recently about sport and PE in schools in Yorkshire. Our sports strategy—A Sporting Chance for All—recognised that in too many of our schools sport and PE have declined, and the need to find a new approach which will support teachers, parents and young people. That is why the strategy set out a five part plan aimed at raising standards of physical education and sport in all schools to match those of the best. The plan proposes:

  (i) the rebuilding of sports facilities at primary schools with £150 million of funding;

  (ii) the creation of 110 Specialist Sports Colleges to provide the lead in innovative practice and to work with partner secondary and primary schools to share good practice and raise standards;

  (iii) the provision of £240 million to encourage and support schools in a range of out of school learning opportunities including physical education and sport;

  (iv) the establishment of 600 school sports co-ordinators in areas of greatest need which will provide opportunities for young people to compete regularly for their school and take part in a wide range of sports; and

  499W

  v) that our most talented 14 to 18-year-olds have access to the coaching and support which will enable them to fulfil their potential.

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the introduction of school sports co-ordinators. [123673]

  Kate Hoey
  As part of the aims of raising the standards of Physical Education and sport in schools, 600 School Sports Co-ordinators will be appointed by 2002. They will work in 150 'families' of schools. This means that 600 secondary schools and the 110 sports colleges will be linked to 3,000 primary schools. We aim to have the first tranche of 40 school sports co-ordinators in place by the autumn term 2000.

  Football (Youth and Amateur)
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase investment in youth and amateur football facilities. [123696]

  Kate Hoey
  I am pleased to say that the Football Foundation, a new body, which will distribute funding from the Premier League, the FA and Sport England will be launched shortly. This follows the Premier League's commitment last year to investing 5 per cent. of its next broadcasting contract for the good of the sport. It is envisaged that the majority of the Foundation's income will be used to fund initiatives designed to develop football at the grass roots.

  Museums and Galleries
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to improve pensioners' access to museums and galleries. [123697]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson),Official Report, column 499W.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to give pensioners easier access to museums and galleries. [123672]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  From 1 April free entry for the over 60s was introduced to those museums funded by my Department which currently charge for admission, including the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, the National Museum of Science and Industry, the Natural History Museum, the Imperial War Museum, the National Maritime Museum, and the Victoria and Albert Museum.

  Seaside Resorts
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to promote family-friendly holidays at traditional seaside resorts. [123687]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Later this year the English Tourism Council, which is sponsored by my Department, will be undertaking a new programme of research to examine the current provision for family holidays in England. The 500W
  research will aim to gain a better understanding of the market and to identify opportunities for growth particularly at seaside resorts.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 100W, concerning secondments, if the secondee listed was appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124823]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]The secondee listed in my response of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 100W was appointed for a period of more than 12 months.

  King Edward VII Convalescent Home
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the average bed occupancy rate was at King Edward VII Convalescent Home at Osborne(a) in each of the five years between 1989 and 1993 and (b) in 1999, broken down between (i) residents and (ii) convalescents. [125131]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Figures are not available for 1989 and 1990. The information for the other years requested is as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  Residents1

  Convalescents2

  1991

  100

  85

  1992

  99

  58

  1993

  100

  63

  1999

  57

  64

  1 Average occupancy per year.

  2 Average occupancy per week.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many beds have been available for(a) residents and (b) convalescents (i) in each of the five years from 1989 to 1993 and (ii) in 1999 at King Edward VII Convalescent Home at Osborne [125132]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Figures are not available for 1989 and 1990. The information for the other years requested is as follows:

  Year

  Residents1

  Convalescents

  1991

  15

  5

  1992

  20

  23

  1993

  21

  19

  1999

  302

  1 Any unfulfilled residents beds were offered to convalescents whenever there was demand.

  2 Registered beds reduced from 40 to 30 in 1998 with no distinction between residents and convalescents.

  Missing Works of Art
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport if he will list those works of art and other artefacts from national collections that have gone missing, been stolen or are otherwise unaccounted for in the period from 1990 to date. [125547]
  501W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have contacted the National Museums and Galleries sponsored by DCMS to request information for a reply to my hon. Friend's question. I will write to him as soon as this is available, placing copies of my letter in the Library.

  National Lottery (Computer Failures)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 96W, if he will ask the National Lottery Commission to consult with him before the best course of action in respect of unidentified income is determined by Camelot; and what estimate he has received from Camelot of the number of unidentified prize winners to whom the full amount has not been paid. [125672]

  Kate Hoey
  This is properly a matter for the National Lottery Commission as the relevant regulatory body and I do not intend to ask it to consult me before reaching its decision. I understand that Camelot estimate that 78,187 players were underpaid by a matter of pounds and 34,897 were overpaid. The total amount underpaid in prizes was £85,974 and the total amount overpaid was £94,380.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 96W, what representations he has received from (a) Camelot and (b) others in respect of the responsibility for the computer defect. [125686]

  Kate Hoey
  The only representation received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was from an ex-GTECH employee. Since then he has been kept informed of developments by the National Lottery Commission.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 96W; if, when he was informed of the defect in the National Lottery computer, he was told when the defect was identified and by whom; if he was informed of estimates Camelot had made of how long the defect affected its operation before it was corrected; and if he has been informed as to when the National Lottery Commission will complete its investigations. [125673]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was informed when the defect was identified and by whom, and was also informed of how long the defect had affected operations.

  The defect was first drawn to the National Lottery Commission's attention in a letter from an ex-GTECH employee on 29 February 2000. The defect affected operations from the start of the Lottery until it was corrected 27 July 1998.

  The Commission intend to complete its investigations as soon as possible.

  Commonwealth Games 2002
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance he has given to development of the site in Manchester and services for the Commonwealth Games in 2002. [123678]

  Kate Hoey
  Manchester has received approximately £73 million of Government assistance for their earlier Olympic bids and £115 million is currently available from 502W
  the Lottery Sports Fund for capital projects for the Commonwealth Games within Manchester; with up to a further £6 million for the redevelopment of Bisley in Surrey for the shooting events.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office is co-ordinating the Government's interests in the Games and chairs a Games Task Force ensuring a joint departmental approach to supporting the Games across Government.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police and Immigration Services (Interpreters)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the level of fees payable to interpreters per hour by(a) the Immigration Service and (b) the Metropolitan Police in respect of (i) illegal entry matters and (ii) criminal matters; and if traveling time is also reimbursed. [123900]

  Mrs. Roche
  The level of fees payable to interpreters by the Immigration Service and the Metropolitan Police are set out in tables. Neither Service distinguishes between illegal entry and criminal matters.

  Metropolitan police service interpreting rates

  Hours

  Day 0800–200

  Night/Saturday 2000–0900

  Sunday/Bank Holiday 24 Hours>

  0.50

  14.50

  21.75

  29.00

  1.00

  29.00

  43.50

  58.00

  2.00

  58.00

  87.00

  116.00

  3.00

  87.00

  130.50

  174.00

  4.00

  116.00

  174.00

  232.00

  5.00

  145.00

  217.50

  290.00

  6.00

  174.00

  261.00

  348.00

  7.00

  203.00

  304.50

  406.00

  8.00

  232.00

  304.50

  406.00

  9.00

  261.00

  391.50

  522.00

  10.00

  290.00

  435.00

  580.00

  Minimum1

  87.00

  135.50

  174.00

  1 This includes payment for travelling time, where the total time (i.e. travelling and attendance) is three hours or less.

  Notes:

  1.These rates are only intended as a guide for period of less than an hour, proportionate rates are paid.

  2.Standard Class travelling expenses are reimbursed at cost. Mileage expenses are reimbursed at a rate of 35.7 pence per mile.

  Immigration service interpreting rates

  £

  Interpreters who are also members of staff

  Interpreters who are not members of staff

  Mondays to Fridays1

  Per hour

  Minimum

  Per hour

  Minimum

  0800–1800

  6.55

  22.95

  9.85

  34.50

  1800–2300

  8.20

  28.70

  12.30

  43.05

  2300–0800

  9.85

  34.50

  14.75

  51.65

  Sundays and Bank Holidays

  13.10

  45.85

  19.65

  68.80

  1Except Bank Holidays

  503W

  Mileage rates for interpreters

  Engine size

  Rate per mile

  Up to 1500

  35.7p

  1600 to 2000

  42p

  Over 2000

  46p

  Note:

  1. These payments also apply to travelling time

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123847]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]Statistics of candidates' election expenses at United Kingdom Parliamentary General Elections and certain other associated details relating to postal voting and rejected ballot papers have been collected and published, listed by United Kingdom parliamentary constituency, in the form of a House of Commons paper. The series covers every General Election since 1883, with the exception of that of December 1918.

  Figures on the votes cast, postal and proxy voting and rejected ballot papers in the 1999 European Parliamentary Election will be published on a parliamentary constituency basis. This information will be contained in a Home Office statistical paper to be published later this year.

  No other Home Office statistics are collected on a parliamentary constituency basis.

  Departmental Policies
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what ways his Department and its executive agencies deliver services to meet the needs of the public as consumers, with particular reference to families. [124541]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]As part of the wider drive to modernise Government, the Home Office and its agencies are working to ensure that its various services fully meet the needs of the public. Supporting families is a key priority for the Home Office. When providing services we bear the needs of families in mind.Services for families: 1999–2002
  £7 million provided through the Family Support Grant for work carried out by voluntary organisations to support parenting and family life.
  £1 million funding given to ParentLine Plus to establish a freephone national helpline service capable of taking up to 500,000 calls a year. The helpline has extended its opening hours to 9.00 am to 9.00 pm Monday to Friday, 9.30 am to 5.00 pm Saturday and 10.00 am to 3.00 pm Sunday to be available when parents most need the service.
  £666,000 (part of cross Government funding of £2 million) was given to help establish the National Family and Parenting Institute. In its first year, the Institute is mapping services available to families and will report on gaps by December 2000.
  Probation Service
  The Home Office, through Probation services, also currently supports the work of Family Court Welfare Service. Where marriages or relationships have broken down the Service works with all courts dealing with family matters to ensure protection
  504W
  of children, provide relevant information to the court and work towards enabling parents to co-operate as separated parents. Much of this work is undertaken in partnership with the voluntary sector, funded through partnership grants from probation services. Partnership expenditure on Family Court Welfare related projects amounts to approximately £1 million per annum. This includes funding for out of court dispute resolution and contact centres.
  The service will be transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department from April 2001 under the new arrangements for a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS).
  Through direct grant to the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO), the Home Office supports the Resettlement Information and Advice Service. The service deals with resettlement inquiries from serving prisoners, ex-offenders, their families and from organisations working with them.
  Immigration service
  Agencies such as the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are key service providers for the Home Office. The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is responsible for providing support to destitute asylum seekers. Customers, including families, might be required to attend their offices at Voyager House, Croydon, for a short assessment of eligibility. There are no special facilities for children because, in NASS's view, the duration of the assessment interview does not warrant them. If, however, a family appeals against refusal to give support, there are play facilities at the appeal hearing centre at Christopher Wren House, Croydon.
  Grants are given by NASS to the voluntary sector to deliver Reception Service and One-Stop Services for asylum seekers. For 2000–01 these have been apportioned as follows:

  Services

  £

  Refugee Council

  6,895,619

  Refugee Arrivals Project

  1,913,351

  Migrant helpline

  2,102,975

  Refugee Action

  2,024,216

  Welsh Refugee Council

  537,864

  Scottish Refugee Council

  561,222

  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)

  41,216

  In addition, NASS will be grant-funding each organisation to provide emergency accommodation to asylum seekers pending their application for support. The annual indicative costs are estimated to be in the region of £7.2 million. This amount will of course be dependent on the numbers of asylum seekers who apply for emergency accommodation.
  IND Headquarters is currently dispersed in buildings around Croydon while Lunar House is being totally refurbished. The Public Caller Unit at the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) is at present housed in the Whitgift Centre. It offers vending machines and telephones but regrettably there is no space for a play area. There will be a large play area in the "new" Lunar House which is due to open next summer. As an interim measure, the ICD is currently collecting toys for children of parents attending for interview.
  At Oakington Reception Centre there are family facilities which include an indoor play area, a crèche with qualified nursery nurses and a collection of books and games for older children. At Tinsley House Detention Centre near Gatwick Airport a family suite is under construction. This will have a play area and computer games for older children.
  The Home Secretary makes grants in aid under section 23 of the Immigration Act 1971 to the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service to provide services of advice, assistance, and representation to those who have rights of appeal under the 1971 Act. In 1999–2000 the total amount of grants paid was £6.7 million. In 2000–01, the Home Office is also paying a grant in aid to the Northern Ireland Law Centre.
  505W
  Prison Service
  The Prison Service fully recognises the needs of prisoners' families, particularly with regard to the need for support; maintaining regular contact with imprisoned family members; and the opportunity to contribute to regimes and rehabilitation programmes. Much of this is achieved through working in partnership with prisoners' families support groups, listening to people's concerns. The Prison Service co-ordinates the Family Ties Consultative Group which includes a number of these groups and is tasked with assisting the development of policy and good practice.
  Further support is provided by way of funding to the umbrella organisation, the Federation of Prisoners' Families Support Groups, as well as to CLINKS which is working with the Service to develop the relationship between the voluntary sector and prisons. An increasing number of establishments also provide facilities for visiting families such as visitors' centres and play areas in visits rooms. The latter has been supported by funding for the lead organisation in this area, Kids Visiting In Prisons (KIDS VIP).
  Youth Justice Board
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is a Non-departmental Public Body of the Home Office that has been in operation since September 1998. One of its functions is to advise the Government on standards for service delivery in the youth justice system.
  Reinforcing the responsibilities of parents is one of the Youth Justice Board's key aims and objectives.
  Projects are delivered by youth offending teams in partnership with a wide range of specialist organisations such as ParentLine, Coram Family and Barnardos.
  Some of the projects the Youth Justice Board have sponsored include:
  an 18 month project in Liverpool to extend support for parents involved or at risk of being involved in the youth justice system. The project will focus on support provided to families with persistent young offenders and those involved in Final Warnings; and
  an 18 month project in Liverpool to help the Youth Offending Teams and other practitioners understand the impact family breakdown and change can have on young people and the functioning of their families. Project findings will be delivered to Youth Offending Teams and other practitioners.
  Services to promote racial equality
  The Home Office has recently launched a new race equality grants programme, "Connecting Communities", to help marginalised minority ethnic communities at grass roots level. The grants aim to empower communities, enabling them to have greater access to and influence over policy makers and service providers. £12 million will be made available through the programme over three years.
  The programme aims to:
  help people in marginalised communities gain new skills and combat disaffection and disengagement within communities;
  work on joint initiatives with other faith and community groups to build strong community networks;
  provide opportunities for young people to participate in seminars, mentoring and job shadowing opportunities with Home Office services, for example, the police and fire service; celebrate minority ethnic achievements to counteract racist and negative stereotyping.

  Football (Offences and Disorder)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been required to surrender their passports in connection with football events in the last five years. [124377]

  Mr. Straw
  There are currently 100 people subject to international football bans, all of whom are required to report to a police station throughout the period of Euro 2000. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999,506W
  which came into force in September 1999, includes provision for the court to require an individual to surrender their passport for designated periods as a condition of their banning order. The courts have imposed nine such conditions to date.

  The Dutch and Belgian authorities have extensive powers to refuse entry to any England supporter who poses a threat to public order, including those subject to domestic bans. Acting on information provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, police will be monitoring all England supporters at every United Kingdom exit point throughout the tournament and sharing the intelligence gathered with the Dutch, Belgian and French authorities and the English police team operating in all these countries.

  Local Authority Grants
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the funds which are available to local authorities on application, indicating those for which the Torbay Unitary Authority has successfully applied in each of the last two years. [124194]

  Mrs. Roche
  Local authorities can claim the costs of accommodating and supporting asylum seekers plus an element of administrative costs. Prior to 1 April 1999, all grants were administered by the Department of Health. That Department retains responsibility for the payment of a special grant for the support of unaccompanied asylum seeking children.

  From 1 April 1999 to 5 December 1999, costs to local authorities for adult asylum seekers were covered in a special grant report. From 6 December 1999 until 31 March 2000, these costs were covered by grant paid under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999.

  In addition, the costs incurred by local authorities in supporting Kosovan evacuees, who arrived as part of the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme, is being reimbursed under the terms of Special Grant Report (No. 49).

  The Torbay Unitary Authority has not applied for any grants from the National Asylum Support Service or under the terms of the Kosovo Special Grant Report.

  On 31 May 2000, we announced the introduction of a new race equality support grants programme—Connecting Communities—which will address racial disadvantage by helping marginalised minority ethnic communities at grass roots level. There are four support programme areas—Community Networks, Opportunity Schemes, Towards More Representative Services, and Positive Images.

  Local authorities will be eligible to bid for funding under the new support programmes, which are expected to start in October 2000.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements his Department has made for identifying suitable accommodation for asylum seekers under the Government's dispersal policy. [125116]
  507W
  Mrs. Roche
  Accommodation providers are responsible for identifying suitable accommodation. They are bound by contract to provide accommodation to certain specifications. These specifications were drawn up with other organisations, including the Refugee Council. The National Asylum Support Service check all proposed addresses for suitability of location for asylum seekers and access to Post Offices and the retail network.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the result of consultations with(a) the North West Consortium and (b) Liverpool City Council prior to the decision to award contracts to place asylum seekers in The Landmark and The Inn on the Park in Everton, Liverpool; and when these consultations took place. [125114]

  Mrs. Roche
  Officials in the National Asylum Support Service wrote to the North West Consortium, including Liverpool City Council, on 9 February seeking comments on proposed providers. No comments were received.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to monitor contracts entered into in respect of the Government's dispersal policy for asylum seekers. [125115]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has established dedicated contract managers to oversee all accommodation contracts. In addition, a dedicated contract management team oversees the contract with Sodexho. NASS also has a network of regional managers monitoring support provision for asylum seekers.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bed spaces are contracted for by the Home Office in its asylum seeker allocation and dispersal schemes in each district of the counties of(a) Tyne and Wear, (b) Northumberland, (c) Durham and (d) Cleveland; through which bodies these bedspaces have been contracted; and if he will estimate the (i) average annual unit cost per bedspace and (ii) total annual cost of these bedspaces. [125141]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of bed spaces contracted are as follows: Tyne and Wear 485; Northumberland 0; Durham 0; and, Cleveland 50. The accommodation contracts in these areas are with private sector providers Roselodge, Angel and Adelphi. To avoid prejudicing negotiations currently taking place with potential further accommodation providers, I am unable to provide information on unit costs as this is commercially sensitive.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts have been entered into with(a) local authorities, (b) the private sector and (c) the voluntary sector in relation to the Government's scheme for the dispersal of asylum seekers. [125118]

  Mrs. Roche
  Contracts have been entered into with one local authority, one housing association, one YMCA and seven with the private sector.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been received by public funds in the last five years in fines levied upon foreign lorry drivers apprehended for importing asylum seekers into the United Kingdom. [125271]
  508W
  Mrs. Roche
  Since the coming into force of the civil penalty provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, a total of £12,000 in penalties has been paid by foreign lorry drivers or their employers. In addition, a further £105,829 has been paid by foreign lorry drivers or their employers to secure the release of vehicles which had been detained pending payment of the penalty. These provisions of the Act came into force only on 3 April this year, so no sum actually fell to be paid until 4 June 2000.

  Statistical information relating to the sums of money imposed in fines on those convicted in the courts for the offence of facilitation of illegal entry does not record separately the amounts paid by foreign lorry drivers

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to police budgets, for the latest year for which figures are available, of the provision of interpreters to assist asylum seekers and economic migrants; how much of this money has been refunded by central Government to local police authorities; and if he will make a statement. [125276]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not centrally collected. The Home Office does not refund the cost of interpreters to police authorities. The cost of using interpreters is a matter for Chief Officers of police and as part of their operational activities the cost would be met from within force budgets.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he has made for the financial year 2000–01 to meet the costs incurred by Kent Police through the provision of interpreters to assist asylum seekers and economic migrants. [125272]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No specific provision has been made in the allocation of Government funding to Kent Police Authority for the cost of using interpreters. The arrangements for the employment of interpreters are a matter for the Chief Constable.

  The funding allocation for the Kent Police Authority in 2000–01 has recognised the costs to the local police of asylum seekers and other policing demands that arise from Dover being the main route between the United Kingdom and Europe. Government supported funding for Kent Police Authority increased by 4.4 per cent. or £8 million, and around 20 per cent. of this extra funding was in consequence of the growing pressures from illegal immigration and other "Gateway to Europe" policing demands on the Kent Constabulary.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he will take following the criticism made in the judgment of Mr. Justice Burton on the actions taken by police during the visit of the President of China; and if he will make a statement. [124890]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that the judgment in this case, while noting that there remained some disagreement between the parties on matters of fact, supported the declarations granted by the Metropolitan Police and considered the matter settled.

  It is for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to determine in the light of this case what changes should be made to policing arrangements for future events.

  Hereford (City Status)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has had about the future status of the city of Hereford; and if he will make a statement. [125129]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Hereford Town Council has applied for the honour of city status to be restored to Hereford, which lost its previous status as a city when the new Parish of Hereford came into existence on 1 April 2000. It is for Her Majesty The Queen, acting on the advice of Ministers, to decide whether city status should be restored. The application is under consideration.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of front-line firefighters do not hold a current first aid qualification; and what plans the Government have to increase the number who do hold such a qualification. [125002]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]Information about the number of firefighters with first aid qualifications is not held by the Home Office and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Home Office issued advice to Fire Authorities in 1993 recommending that all firefighters be trained to either 'Trained First Aider' or 'Emergency First Aider' standards. Also, there is an expectation that all firefighters are competent in casualty handling and first aid by virtue of their role.

  Fire Authorities are required to comply with the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981.

  Local Elections
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote postal ballots in local elections. [125389]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People Act 2000 contains provisions, which will shortly be brought into force, which will allow for postal votes on demand.

  Seven local authorities ran pilot schemes involving all postal ballots at the recent local elections and we are looking forward to receiving the evaluation reports of those schemes.

  We hope that more local authorities will apply to run such schemes at future local elections.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the practice of increasing the number of voting days in local elections. [125388]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Fifteen local authorities ran pilot schemes involving voting on more than one day at the recent local elections and we are looking forward to receiving the evaluation reports of those schemes.

  We hope that more local authorities will apply to run such schemes at future local elections.

  Alcohol Licences (River Boats)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason(a) trains and aeroplane will be exempt and (b) river boats will not be exempt, from obtaining a premises licence under the proposals for the amendment of licensing laws. [125447]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Paragraphs 2 to 7 of Appendix 3 to "Time For Reform" sets out the thinking behind the proposals that boats selling alcohol should require a premises licence but that trains and aeroplane should not. We shall consider comments on these paragraphs when preparing legislation.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about resources available to the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue prosecutions; and if he will make a statement. [125321]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]I am not aware of having received very recent representations from outside Government, though I have received representations in the past from the First Division Association and from staff of the Crown Prosecution Service and others about the organisation's resources. Expenditure plans for the criminal justice system as a whole in resource terms for 2000–01, including the Crown Prosecution Service, were set out in the Criminal Justice System Business Plan published on 23 May 2000.

  Passport Agency Computer System
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what software language is used in the National Passport Centre Computerisation; and if it is programmed as a totally integrated relational database. [125542]

  Mrs. Roche
  The new United Kingdom Passport Agency Computer system, ("PASS") is an integrated relational database solution using the industry-standard ORACLE Relational DataBase Management System (RDBMS). The programming language and database tools used include Oracle Forms, Sequel (SQL), Visual Basic and "C".

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on breath testing and blood sampling of individuals involved in serious road traffic accidents. [124694]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police have the power to breath test any motorist who has been involved in a car crash. We support the Association of Chief Police Officers' policy that breath tests should be carried out at all crashes which the police attend. Those motorists who fail that screening test are then normally required to take an evidential breath test at the police station. Failure of that test provides the evidence for prosecution. In certain situations detailed in the Act, a blood sample may be taken by the police in place of an evidential breath sample and it is required where the motorist is suspected of driving when unfit through drugs.

  Immigration Services Commissioner
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of the Immigration Services Commissioner. [124768]

  Mrs. Roche
  The role and responsibilities of the Immigration Services Commissioner are set out in Part V of, and in Part I of Schedule 5 and Schedule 6 to, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Act prohibits any person or organisation from providing immigration advice or services unless that person or organisation is registered with the Immigration Services Commissioner, authorised to practise by a designated professional body, or is exempt under the terms of the scheme.

  The Immigration Services Commissioner will publish the criteria for registration, will receive applications for registration and will determine whether individuals and organisations are competent and otherwise fit to provide immigration advice and services. The Commissioner will also consider cases for exemption. Exemption is likely to be sought by organisations from the voluntary, health and education sectors and the Commissioner will ensure that these organisations meet satisfactory standards.

  The Commissioner will establish a complaints scheme and may investigate and determine complaints made against immigration advisers, including members of the designated professional bodies. Remedies available to the Commissioner on finding a complaint proven include powers to require a registered person to re-apply for registration without delay, to withdraw an exemption or to refer a disciplinary charge to the Immigration Services Tribunal. The power to discipline members of a designated professional body remains with the relevant professional body, but the Commissioner has power to refer his findings to the relevant professional body and to impose a timetable for that body to consider the complaint and, where appropriate, to take disciplinary action.

  The Commissioner also has a duty to promote good practice by those who provide immigration advice or services.

  The Government believe that the activities of the Commissioner, together with other initiatives such as the establishment of the Community Legal Service, will provide a comprehensive and coherent strategy for rooting out unscrupulous and incompetent immigration advisers and service providers, while supporting those providing a quality service. In this way standards in the immigration advice sector will be improved. The Commissioner is in the process of consulting widely within the advice sector in order to formulate the rules and standards, which will govern the regulatory scheme.

  Extradition
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 76W, on extradition, (a) what is his policy on requests for consent certificates, when the requesting state has withheld information (i) which would have enabled them to have included further offences in the initial extradition request and (ii) which was relevant to the original offences and (b) what effect the Northern Ireland peace process has had on his practice in relation to extradition requests. [125557]
  512W
  Mr. Straw
  Each case is decided on its own merits weighing up all relevant considerations and excluding irrelevant ones. I am not aware of any cases in which the requesting state has asked for the rule of specialty to be waived, and has withheld information relating to either the original, or further offences. The Northern Ireland peace process has not had any effect on my handling of extradition requests.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants sought to join the Metropolitan police force in each month since January 1999; how many were accepted for training; and what the rate of take-up was for each course at Hendon since May 1997. [125270]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the tables. The selection process is a rolling programme and therefore those who have applied since January 2000 are unlikely to have completed all selection elements. The percentage take-up rates of places offered is based on those individuals who were offered employment and accepted.

  Applications and candidates accepted for training for each month since January 1999

  Applications received

  Candidates accepted for training

  1999

  January

  476

  146

  February

  652

  162

  March

  571

  181

  April

  580

  151

  May

  523

  No intake

  June

  554

  87

  July

  326

  99

  August

  268

  119

  September

  405

  109

  October

  735

  92

  November

  566

  101

  December

  459

  No intake

  2000

  January

  413

  104

  February

  443

  61

  March

  382

  65

  April

  297

  100

  May

  307

  102

  Rate of take-up since May 1997

  Month

  Percentage take-up/places offered

  1997

  May

  99

  June

  100

  July

  99

  August

  98

  September

  98

  October

  No intake

  November

  99

  December

  94

  1998

  January

  98

  February

  93

  513W

  Rate of take-up since May 1997

  Month

  Percentage take-up/places offered

  March

  No intake

  April

  No intake

  May

  96

  June

  99

  July

  97

  August

  97

  September

  99

  October

  100

  November

  98

  December

  No intake

  1999

  January

  99

  February

  100

  March

  100

  April

  98

  May

  No intake

  June

  93

  July

  100

  August

  99

  September

  98

  October

  97

  November

  97

  December

  No intake

  2000

  January

  97

  February

  97

  March

  97

  April

  100

  May

  98

  Prison Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on prisoners' wages in each of the last two years. [125339]

  Mr. Boateng
  Expenditure on prisoners' earnings in England and Wales was £20.270 million in 1998–99 and £21.210 million in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women received into prison(a) under sentence and (b) on remand who had children under the age of 18 months were given a place in a mother and baby unit in each of the last five years. [125340]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are 64 places in total available in mother and baby units at four prisons. On 5 June 2000, there were 54 mothers and their babies in the units.

  Centrally available data only give figures for the past 19 months. The information is given in the table.

  Numbers of mothers admitted to prison Mother and Baby Units for the period 2 November 1998–31 May 2000

  Number

  Remands

  22

  Sentenced

  184

  Total

  206

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison service 514W
  staff is registered disabled; how many (a) applicants for jobs and (b) employees in the Prison Service are registered disabled; and if he will make a statement. [125335]

  Mr. Boateng
  Most recruitment undertaken in the Prison Service is for unified grades (prison officers, governors) who are currently exempt from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  From the statistics gathered for the quarter October—December 1999, of those who applied for jobs, a total of 13 declared a disability and one person with a disability was appointed.

  Out of 43,683 staff in post on 31 March 2000, a total of 139 were identified as disabled.

  The Prison Service will be undertaking a staff disability survey towards the end of this year which should allow a more accurate database to be established. This, in turn, will inform decisions on the level of resources required to assist staff to carry out their duties.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many disabled people visited prisons in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [125336]

  Mr. Boateng
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to repeat the 1991 National Prison Survey in 2001; and if he will make a statement. [125333]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans to repeat the 1991 National Prison Survey in 2001. A survey of prisoners is being carried out this year for the Home Office to investigate factors related to criminality. This covers much of the same information.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per week on average remand prisoners spent out of cell in each local prison in England and Wales in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [125334]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service does not monitor time out of cell for remand prisoners separately. The average time out of cell on weekdays and weekends for all prisoners in local prisons in England and Wales for the year 1999–00 are given in the table.

  1999–2000 Average time out of cell

  Prison

  Weekdays

  Weekends

  Altcourse

  13.0

  13.0

  Bedford

  9.3

  7.5

  Belmarsh

  8.8

  7.6

  Birmingham

  6.8

  5.1

  Blakenhurst

  11.5

  10.3

  Bristol

  10.4

  8.8

  Brixton

  8.8

  6.8

  Bullingdon

  9.5

  8.0

  Canterbury

  8.8

  7.5

  Cardiff

  8.8

  5.9

  Chelmsford

  7.8

  7.8

  Doncaster

  10.3

  10.3

  Dorchester

  7.9

  6.8

  Durham

  7.5

  5.1

  Elmley

  8.1

  7.4

  515W

  1999–2000 Average time our of cell

  Prison

  Weekdays

  Weekends

  Exeter

  6.2

  5.2

  Gloucester

  9.3

  6.5

  Highdown

  7.8

  5.1

  Holme House

  9.5

  7.3

  Hull

  10.0

  7.7

  Leeds

  8.3

  7.3

  Leicester

  10.9

  9.5

  Lewes

  9.3

  6.3

  Lincoln

  10.5

  9.0

  Liverpool

  6.7

  4.1

  Manchester

  8.3

  7.0

  Norwich

  8.1

  7.8

  Nottingham

  9.6

  7.1

  Parc

  9.2

  10.5

  Pentonville

  9.0

  7.0

  Preston

  6.3

  5.0

  Rochester

  9.2

  9.8

  Shrewsbury

  9.9

  9.9

  Swansea

  8.7

  8.0

  Wandsworth

  8.0

  7.0

  Winchester

  7.2

  6.5

  Wolds

  11.5

  11.7

  Woodhill

  10.2

  8.5

  Wormwood Scrubs

  7.9

  4.8

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce privacy screening in shared prison cells fitted with integral sanitation. [125338]

  Mr. Boateng
  A significant proportion of shared prison cells with integral sanitation already have privacy screening. This work has been carried out by establishments under local management.

  The Prison Service is currently evaluating options to standardise the type of privacy screen and to extend the installation to all shared cells with integral sanitation. A decision has not yet been taken as to when this work might be carried out.

  Criminal Justice
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those measures on just processes and outcomes which his Department is monitoring as described on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01; [125621]

  (2) if he will list those measures on just processes and outcomes which his Department is monitoring, as referred to on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01. [125619]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On just processes, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and the Law Officers Department are jointly monitoring the number of cases that are dismissed because the magistrates find that there is no case to answer, and non-jury acquittals in the Crown Court.

  For just outcomes, the three Departments are monitoring the number of successful appeals against sentence; the number of successful appeals by the prosecution on the basis that the original sentence is unduly lenient; and the number of criminal cases in which there is a successful appeal to the Divisional Court by way of case stated or judicial review.
  516W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department measures the satisfaction of jurors with their treatment by the criminal justice system; and if he will place in the Library details of the opinion research on jurors mentioned on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01. [125625]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is to conduct an annual survey of jurors to measure their satisfaction with their treatment by the criminal justice system. We are placing in the Library the results of the survey conducted to inform the new measure and target for juror satisfaction.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his definition of a public disorder incident as referred to on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01. [125617]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Business Plan follows the definition of disorder used by the police service, i.e. a breach of the peace of which the police are aware, which may require police intervention or action in partnership with others. Racist or homophobic incidents and incidents involving or arising out of disturbances in public places, licensed premises or private property, drunkenness, domestic incidents, marches and demonstrations, civil disputes, neighbour disputes, public or sports events, hunt sabotage, and other unlisted types of disorder or nuisance will all count towards the total.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a decision not to prosecute or to discontinue a prosecution will count as a disposal for the purposes of meeting the Government's objective of reducing the time taken from arrest to disposal, as set out on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01. [125623]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The timeliness measure for the time taken from arrest to sentence or other disposal for all offenders is currently collected from charge. It excludes cases where there is a decision not to prosecute before the first listing at a magistrates court. Cases discontinued at or after first listing at a magistrates court are counted as disposals in the calculation of the measure; cases that are discontinued at the Crown court also count as disposals except where the indictment is left to lie on file as a result of a prosecution application before the first main hearing.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public disorder incidents, as defined in his list of performance measures on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01, were recorded per 1,000 of the population in each of the last 10 years; what the baseline figure is against which his reduction target will be measured; and when he expects that target to be achieved. [125615]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not available in the form required for the last 10 years. The baseline will be that recorded during 2000–01 and the target will be for achievement by 31 March 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the principal cities whose robbery figures will be taken into account in measuring the performance of the criminal justice system under its
  517W
  business plan 2000–01; and what is the baseline figure for robbery against which his reduction target will be measured. [125612]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following police authorities have set targets under Best Value for reduction of robbery:

  Police authority

  Percentage

  Greater Manchester

  10

  Merseyside

  15

  Metropolitan police

  15

  West Midlands

  34

  West Yorkshire

  22

  Police authorities have used the baseline year of 1999–2000. The full figures for 1999–2000 will be published on 18 July.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the baseline levels of vehicle crime and domestic burglary are against which he has set the performance targets listed on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01. [125613]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Based on the 1998–99 recorded crime figures, the baseline levels used are as follows:

  Number of offences

  Vehicle crime1

  1,077,732

  Domestic burglary

  473,352

  1 Theft of and from vehicles

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the ingredients of the basket of measures on the rights of defendants mentioned on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01; and if he will give details of the performance targets in each case. [125626]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The measures on the rights of the defendants contained in the basket are listed on page 5 of the Business Plan.

  Work is continuing on targets for the underlying measures to be in place by 31 March 2001.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his baseline figure is for public confidence in the criminal justice system against which he will measure his target, described on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01; and if he will place in the Library details of how he measures public confidence. [125627]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The public confidence measure is going to be based on questions in the British Crime Survey. The baseline figure will come from the British Crime Survey 2000. The results will become available for analysis this summer. When available, details of the calculations will be placed in the Library.
  518W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the overall cost of the criminal justice system per person(a) proceeded against, (b) found guilty or admitting guilt and (c) found not guilty [125628]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the overall cost of the criminal justice system per person is not yet available. Information on the average costs of court proceedings in 1997–98 (including disposals, but excluding police investigation, for which no unit costs were available), was published in 1999, in Home Office Research Findings 103, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the economic cost of crime in each of the last 10 years; what is the baseline against which the reduction target set out on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01 will be measured; and if he will make a statement on the methodology used in calculating the economic cost of crime. [125618]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the economic cost of crime in each of the last 10 years is not available. A baseline is to be established to enable a target to be set by 31 March 2001 and research will be published in the next few months setting out the data available and the work proposed to improve data.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has replaced the measure of reducing the long-term rate of growth of crime which he proposed in the 1999 Criminal Justice System Business Plan. [125622]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We decided that the challenging and specific crime reduction targets which we have set would provide a better focus for the work of the police, crime and disorder reduction partnerships and the criminal justice system.

  Euro 2000
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made in respect of those travelling to the Euro 2000 Football Championship. [123695]

  Mr. Straw
  In December 1999, I established a Euro 2000 Co-ordination in Group, involving government agencies, the police and the Football Association. The aim was to ensure that comprehensive and complementary measures were put in place for minimising the risk of disorder involving England supporters during the tournament. The measures taken are outlined in the Home Office report of the Co-ordinating Group's work, a copy of which was placed in the Library on 7 June.

  Global Cultural Diversity Congress
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality on the collapse of Global Cultural Diversity Congress Ltd. [125614]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The report was submitted to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 7 June 2000.

  Home Detention Curfew
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown by ethnic group of those prisoners who were(a) eligible for release on home detention curfew in the last year and (b) released on home detention curfew in the last year. [125337]

  Mr. Boateng
  A breakdown by ethnic group prisoners who were eligible for release on home detention curfew and of those who were actually released on the scheme, and the release rate for each group during the period from 1 June 1999 to 31 May 2000 is shown in the table.

  HDC eligibility/release figures and release rates by ethnic group between June 1999 and May 2000

  Eligible

  Released

  Release rate

  Total

  55,175

  16,108

  29%

  White

  48,260

  13,563

  28%

  Black

  4,122

  1,277

  31%

  South Asian

  1,405

  719

  51%

  Chinese and other

  1,388

  549

  40%

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Damages
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many responses he has received to his consultation document CP3/00 on the discount rate for levels of damages; how many were from(a) hon. Members, (b) the general public, (c) the legal profession and judges and (d) the insurance industry; in each case, how many favoured (i) a rate of return of 2 per cent., (ii) a rate of return of 3 per cent. and (iii) a rate of return of 4 per cent. or more; and when he plans to publish his proposals in response to the consultation. [124846]

  Mr. Lock
  The deadline for responses to the Lord Chancellor's damages consultation paper was 31 May. Eighty responses have been received and are being analysed. Two responses have been received from academics, one from a member of Parliament, 44 from the legal profession, 13 from the insurance industry, 11 from financial specialists and nine others. The remaining information requested by my hon. Friend will be made available to him when the analysis is complete. The Lord Chancellor expects to announce his conclusions in the early Autumn.

  Reserved Judgments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of reserved judgments in the High Court for each of the last three years,(a) what was the longest period of time between conclusion of submissions and delivery of judgment, (b) what was the average period and (c) in how many cases judgment was reserved for over one month; what guidance he issues on the length of the period between the conclusion of submissions and the delivery of judgment in the High Court; what plans he has to introduce systems to ensure the prompt delivery of judgment; how much has
  520W
  been paid, earmarked, or is estimated as likely to be paid in compensation due to delayed judgments; and if he will make a statement. [124880]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service has kept no information centrally in respect of reserved judgments over the past three years. The information could not be collected except at disproportionate cost to taxpayers.

  The Lord Chancellor does not give guidance on the length of the period between the conclusion of submissions and the delivery of judgment in the High Court. He has, however, agreed with the senior judiciary that in future they will make known to him any reserved judgment which is outstanding after three months, providing an explanation of the delay and the measures which will be taken in order to ensure delivery of the judgment.

  There has been no claim for compensation due to delayed judgments within the Supreme Court Group. However, the Lord Chancellor's Department expects to receive claims for compensation in respect of one case from the Supreme Court Group and one High Court case on Circuit. The amount of any compensation that may be paid for these two cases is unknown at present and no funds have been earmarked for this purpose.

  Tribunal System
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the terms of reference of the inquiry by Sir Andrew Leggatt into the tribunal system. [124879]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on 18 May 2000,Official Report, columns 206–07W.

  Magistrates Courts (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts closed in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [125559]

  Jane Kennedy
  Three Magistrates courts closed in Wales in 1995; three in 1996; five in 1997; one in 1998; and none in 1999. Earlier data are not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government's policy is that the administration of magistrates courts is best decided locally. It is for each Magistrates Courts Committee to decide how best to deploy its resources, in order to carry out its statutory responsibility to provide an efficient and effective service to court users. Decisions concerning the location and number of magistrates courts in their area are for the relevant Courts Committee to determine.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on how each of the agencies and non-departmental bodies relating to his Department performed against their key performance indicators in(a) the last year and (b) the previous two years. [125331]
  521W
  Mr. Lock
  A summary of the performance in 1998–1999 and 1997–98 for those agencies and executive NDPBs for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible is shown in the table. A more detailed explanation of their achievements can be found in the respective published Annual Reports. Finalised performance figures for last year will be published in the Annual Reports for 1999–2000 which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

  Summary of performance against key performance indicators

  Target achieved or not achieved

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Agency/Key performance indicator

  Court Service

  The average percentage of Charter standards achieved

  1n/a

  Achieved

  The quality of service provided to Court users

  Achieved

  1n/a

  The percentage of administrative work in the civil courts dealt with within target time

  Achieved

  Achieved

  The percentage of defendants in the Crown Court whose trial begins within the waiting time target

  1n/a

  Achieved

  The percentage of Crown Court cases that commence within target

  Not Achieved

  1n/a

  The unit cost of an item of originating process in the Crown Court

  Achieved

  Achieved

  The unit cost of an item of originating process in the civil courts

  Not Achieved

  Not Achieved

  The percentage of the cost of the civil courts recovered through fees

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Public Trust Office

  To bring to account x per cent. of receipts and payment transactions within turnaround targets

  Achieved

  Achieved

  To pay on special rate accounts an annual rate at or above the average of the agreed comparator; and to pay at least 75 per cent. of that rate on basic rate accounts

  Achieved

  Achieved

  That x per cent. of all funds which have a Dedicated Investment Portfolio will have a formal investment review

  Achieved

  1n/a

  On an annual basis, to ensure 85 per cent. of measured funds perform in line or better than their model based stock market indices

  2n/a

  Not Achieved

  On a three year rolling basis, to ensure that 80 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices

  2n/a

  Not Achieved

  To achieve 98 per cent. of Charter Standards

  Not Achieved

  Not Achieved

  The unit per cost to be £x

  Not Achieved

  Achieved

  The recovery of full costs

  Achieved

  Achieved

  522W

  Summary of performance against key performance indicators

  Target achieved or not achieved

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Key performance indicator

  Public Record Office

  Reduction in unit cost of selecting and preserving the public records per metre

  Achieved

  1n/a

  Reduction in unit cost of giving access to records per information transaction

  Achieved

  1n/a

  To reduce the backlog of records in departments reported as being over 30 years old and awaiting review

  Achieved

  Achieved

  To increase the proportion of records stored to the preservation and environmental standards recommended by BS 5454

  Achieved

  Achieved

  To reduce the running costs of the Office's support services as a proportion of overall running costs

  Achieved

  Achieved

  To meet Charter Standard targets for answering letters, delivering documents to users and reprographic services

  Achieved

  1n/a

  In user satisfaction surveys: to achieve assessments of 'excellent' on 56 per cent. of survey forms returned

  Achieved

  1n/a

  Performance in achieving specific milestone targets

  To carry out the agency review of the Office and to implement its agreed recommendations to the required timetable

  1n/a

  Achieved

  To increase revenue by 13 per cent. against the 1996–97 target

  1n/a

  Achieved

  To extend the Office's opening hours by 29 per cent.

  1n/a

  Achieved

  To implement the recommendations of the Scoping Study of records management in government to the timetable established

  Achieved

  1n/a

  To increase revenue by 3.3 per cent. against the 1997–98 target

  Achieved

  1n/a

  To produce a new edition of the PRO Guide

  Achieved

  1n/a

  HM Land Registry

  Percentage return on average capital employed

  Achieved

  Achieved

  External Financing Limit

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Cost per unit in real terms

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Cost per unit in cash terms

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Percentage of office copy and official search applications processed within two working days and

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Percentage of office copies and official search applications processed within three working days

  Achieved

  1n/a

  Time taken to process all pre-completion applications

  2n/a

  Achieved

  Percentage of all registrations processed within 25 working days

  Not Achieved

  Achieved

  Percentage of registrations processed free of any error

  Achieved

  Achieved

  523W

  Summary of performance against key performance indicators

  Target achieved or not achieved

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Percentage of customers responding to the Annual Survey who perceive the accuracy of registrations to be excellent or good

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Percentage of computerised titles in the land register

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Percentage of computerised title plans in the land register

  Not Achieved

  Achieved

  Number of scanned pages of filed documents (millions)

  Achieved

  Achieved

  Bring into force provisions of the Land Registration Act 1997 introducing new 'triggers' for compulsory first registration

  1n/a

  Not Achieved

  Implementation of concessionary fees under the Land Registration Act 1997

  Achieved

  1n/a

  Number of Direct Access account holders at the end of the year

  Not Achieved

  Achieved

  Implementation and evaluation of the National Land Information System Pilot

  Achieved

  1n/a

  Executive NDPBs/Commentary on performance in 1997–98 and 1998–993

  Legal Aid Board4

  The Board has 17 operational performance targets. In 1997–98 it met or exceeded 15 of its targets. In 1998–99, the Board's performance fell slightly and only 10 targets were met or exceeded. This drop in performance was expected as work in each of the Board's area offices was disrupted during the phased implementation of the Board's new computer strategy, the Corporate Information System (CIS). Prior to implementation, each area office was meeting or exceeding the targets. Following the successful implementation of CIS, performance recovered and stabilised. New and more challenging targets for some types of work were set for 1999–2000.

  1 Target not applicable to this year

  2 Not applicable as target discontinued

  3 Only active executive NDPBs are listed. Advisory NDPBs are not set Key Performance Indicators in the same way

  4 The Legal Services Commission replaced the Legal Aid Board on 1 April 2000

WALES

  New Deal (Over-50s)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the New Deal for the over 50s; and if he will make a statement. [125562]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a variety of issues including the New Deal for over 50s, which is a UK Government scheme. The national roll-out of the New Deal for over 50s was launched on 3 April this year at Merthyr College by the Prime Minister, although a pilot has been in operation in Flintshire and Wrexham since October 1999. Early indicators suggest that the programme will benefit 524W
  Wales and the 50-plus jobseeking community. The Employment Service will be releasing statistical information on New Deal 50 plus in September.

  Airbus A3XX
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the application for £25 million RSA grant from the Wales Assembly to the Airbus A3XX project; and if he will make a statement. [125600]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues including the Airbus A3XX project. I understand the Company has submitted a new application with a new cast for £25 million RSA. This is entirely a matter for the Assembly and I know that it will give the application full consideration and make a decision based on sound economic analysis and a set of fixed criteria.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the application by Airbus UK for £503 million repayable launch investment for the A3XX project; and if he will make a statement. [125601]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with my Whitehall colleagues and we discuss a wide range of issues including the A3XX project. I was pleased to learn of the £530 million Launch Investment decision. It is good news for the UK and the plant at Broughton.

  Assisted Areas Map
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the assisted area status map as it concerns the constituency of Alyn and Deeside and the county of Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [125603]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Assisted Areas map is a matter for the UK Government, but I have, of course, discussed the designation of Welsh areas with the First Secretary. I have also met with a delegation from Flintshire county council to hear their concern first hand.

  The Government are still in discussion with the European Commission and are pressing for early approval of the Assisted Areas map. Within the framework set by the European Commission, all concerned have tried to include, so far as possible revised proposals reflecting local and national priorities. The Government will make an announcement when the map is approved.

  Shotton Steelworks
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning the future of the Shotton Steelworks and the impact of the strength of sterling; and if he will make a statement. [125602]
  525W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am in close contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding all aspects of the steel industry. I have also met representatives from the Corns Group plc and from the ISTC and discussed a range of issues with both.

  The Government understand the difficulties that the current fall in the euro is causing for British industry. In a wider international context, it is clear that the problem is one of Euro weakness rather than sterling strength. Recently the pound depreciated to a six-year low against the dollar.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff from his Department were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and if he will list in each case the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment. [123427]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]Secondments and attachments are part of the Government's approach to interchange which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: voluntary, public and private. Interchange is a key component of the Government's agenda for Civil Service reform.

  Secondments from DfEE to other organisations generally last between three months and three years. The number of secondments from the DfEE to private sector companies, beginning in the years since May 1997, were:

  Grade

  Dates of secondment

  Private sector company

  May 1997 to April 1998: 4

  SEO

  12 January 1998–31 August 2000

  The Football Association

  HEO

  2 February 1998–24 June 1998

  The Football Association

  HEO

  14 April 1998–31 March 2000

  New Millennium Experience

  HEO

  16 March 1998–15 March 1999

  Birks Sinclair and Associates Ltd.

  May 1998 to April 1999: 16

  SCS(5)

  1 January 1999–31 July 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  Grade 6

  1 February 1999–1 November 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  Grade 7

  10 November 1998–9 November 2001

  Capita RAS

  Grade 7

  23 October 1998–1 November 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  Grade 7

  1 April 1999–31 October 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  Grade 7

  10 December 1998–31 January 2000

  Glaxo Wellcome

  Grade 7

  24 February 1999–27 August 1999

  UFI Ltd.

  SEO

  1 April 1999–31 March 2002

  UFI Ltd.

  SEO

  29 March 1999–1 September 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  SEO

  1 February 1999–31 January 2002

  UFI Ltd.

  SEO

  12 April 1999–11 April 2001

  UFI Ltd.

  HEO

  1 April 1999–1 October 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  HEO

  6 April 1999–31 March 2001

  UFI Ltd.

  IO

  18 May 1998–17 May 1999

  Bell Pottinger Good Relations Co. Ltd.

  HEO

  1 April 1999–1 October 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  EO

  22 February 1999–21 August 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  526W

  Grade

  Dates of secondment

  Private sector company

  May 1999 to April 2000 5

  SCS(5)

  1 September 1999–31 December 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  SCS(3)

  1 September 1999–26 June 1999

  UFI Ltd.

  HEO

  14 June 1999–12 June 2001

  UFI ltd.

  HEO

  1 July 1999–30 June 2002

  UFI Ltd.

  HEO

  4 May 1999–31 December 2000

  UFI Ltd.

  Notes:

  SCS—Senior Civil Service (formerly Civil Service grade 3 and 5)

  SEO—Senior Executive Officer

  HEO—Higher Executive Officer

  IO—Information Officer

  EO—Executive Officer

  New Deal
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal on employment in(a) Lancashire, (b) the North-West Region and (c) Burnley. [123556]

  Ms Jowell
  3,971 young people in Lancashire had found work through the New Deal by the end of March 2000. The equivalent figures for the North-West and Burnley are 30,921 and 260 respectively.

  It is likely to prove difficult to assess the impact of New Deal on specific localities. Independent evaluation at national level has, however, shown that New Deal helps people leave unemployment more quickly and has increased employment, and reduced unemployment, by more than would otherwise have happened. It has also suggested that the programme will be close to self-financing.

  With the help of New Deal, long-term youth unemployment has been virtually eliminated. Since April 1998 the number of 18–24 year olds claiming JSA for more than a year has fallen from 400 to 50 in Lancashire, from 6,700 to 800 in the North-West and from 12 to two in Burnley.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to alert school leavers to the availability of New Deal options. [123878]

  Ms Jowell
  General information about New Deal and the options is available to school leavers through the Careers Service. There are, however, no plans to promote options in any detail to this group as we hope that they will move into work before they become eligible to join New Deal through the help and advice offered either by the Careers Service or by the Employment Service.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) carried out and (b) commissioned into the reasons for which people leave the unemployment register while remaining unemployed instead of entering the New Deal Gateway. [123880]

  Ms Jowell
  Young people leave Jobseeker's Allowance at all stages of their unemployment duration and not just at the point of joining New Deal. Information on the reasons for leaving Jobseeker's Allowance by duration of unemployment is published monthly by the Office for National Statistics in Labour Market Trends.
  527W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what help is given to prisoners on leaving prison to enter the New Deal Gateway; and if this help is monitored; [123879]

  (2) if discharged remand prisoners, are given help to enter the New Deal Gateway. [123881]

  Ms Jowell
  Unemployed offenders and discharged remand prisoners have equal access to employment, training and education and are able to count the period of detention towards the qualifying period for Employment Service programmes. They may enter New Deal from the first day after being released.

  Separate management information is not collected on the number of offenders who enter ES programmes, so monitoring of progress overall cannot be undertaken nationally. However, the progress of individuals may be monitored locally by the Employment Service and Probation Service as part of working in partnership with each other.

  To help with the transition from custody to employment, the Employment Service have developed a National Framework Document that assists agencies to establish and develop local agreements. The National Framework has been developed in close working partnership with the Prison Service, the Probation Service, the Benefits Agency and the TEC National Council. Local agreements ensure that offenders are aware of employment, training and education opportunities open to them and their responsibility to find work.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in each month since April 1997 were unemployed for over six months but were excluded from the claimant count because they were undertaking a New Deal Option, broken down into those aged(a) 18 to 24 and (b) under 18 or over 24 years. [125179]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]Since the national roll out of New Deal in January 1998, 163,800 young people have started New Deal options. The claimant count includes only those persons claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. People undertaking a New Deal option are not in receipt of Jobseeker's Allowance and are therefore, by definition, not included in the count.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people who have completed the New Deal once have(a) re-entered the gateway to New Deal for a second time and (b) gone onto a second New Deal option. [125180]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]In the period ending March 2000, 34,870 young people had re-entered the New Deal Gateway. Of these, 10,170 had started a New Deal option.

  Specialist School Status
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications for specialist school status have been received for the current bidding round(a) nationally and (b) in the Eastern Region. [124891]
  528W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  In the March 2000 Technology and Language College competition, 77 applications were received, of which nine were from schools located in the Eastern region. In the June 2000 Arts and Sports competition, 113 applications have been received, including 23 from the Eastern region.

  Jobcentres
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what definition he uses of a reasonable distance when determining access to a jobcentre; [124667]

  (2) what percentage of the population lives (a) within one mile of and (b) over three miles from a job centre in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas. [124671]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Caroline Flint, dated 12 June 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning the distances people live from a Jobcentre and the definition of a reasonable distance when determining access to a Jobcentre. These are issues which fall within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I am afraid that we do not collect information about the distances at which jobseekers, or the population more generally, live from their nearest Jobcentre. However, with over 1000 Jobcentres nationwide, very many people will live within 3 miles of the one nearest to them.
  As to the definition of a "reasonable distance", it may be helpful to explain that jobseekers are normally required by regulations made under the Jobseeker's Act 1995 to attend a Jobcentre in person each fortnight in order to confirm that they are available and actively seeking work and that their circumstances have remained unchanged. Where, however, a jobseeker lives more than one hour, by public transport (in either direction), from their nearest Jobcentre; or if their attendance would result in an absence from home of more than four hours; or if they have a mental or physical disability which restricts their mobility, then they will be offered the opportunity to have their claims dealt with by post.
  In addition Jobcentre Managers may also exercise discretion in offering this facility to other jobseekers, even if their journey is possible within the time limits set out above, in circumstances where it would be unreasonable to expect a jobseeker to attend; for example, where they would have to use a form of transport which they could not be expected to use on a fortnightly basis, such as an Intercity train, a ferry or a plane.

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places under the National Childcare Strategy Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership have been provided in the Colchester constituency; what plans he has to extend the scheme in the Colchester constituency; and if he will make a statement. [125074]
  529W
  Ms Hodge
  Essex Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership reported that there were 20 new out of school child care places created in the Colchester constituency during 1999–2000. The Partnership also reported that 215 new childminder places were created in the Colchester borough during 1999–2000. Childminder places are not broken down to constituency level.

  The Essex Early Years Development and Childcare Plan includes plans to create a total of 2,650 new child care places across the county in 2000–01. The Plan sets out arrangements for involving Area Partnerships which cover district and borough council areas in Essex in planning places at a local level. (The North East Essex Area Partnership covers Colchester and Tendring).

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to expand the availability of training places for classroom teaching assistants in(a) Staffordshire and (b) England. [125146]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are making available to local education authorities in England £350 million over three years to recruit and train an additional 20,000 teaching assistants by 2002. In addition, we are providing Standards Funds to support the training of more experienced teaching assistants, so that they may develop their skills and further their careers. Staffordshire has received £2.109 million for this purpose in 2000–01.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what instructions and guidance have been issued to jobcentres in connection with the admissibility of job advertisements referring to the application, enthusiasm or capacity of potential applicants, in connection with their obligation to comply with disability and other equal opportunities legislation. [125400]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 12 June 2000:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the instructions and guidance given to Jobcentres in the administration of job advertisements, in connection with their obligation to comply with disability and other equal opportunities legislation. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Guidance to Jobcentre staff instructs them that job advertisements should avoid language that might unfairly discriminate against groups of unemployed jobseekers.
  However, all Jobcentres have now been reminded that terms such as "hard working", "enthusiastic", and "reliable" are normal descriptions, which can be freely used in vacancy advertisements. We have also asked Jobcentre staff to apply common sense and accept an employer's wording, unless it would be clearly inappropriate to do so.
  530W
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many limited jobseeker's agreements for disabled people and people suffering long-term illness were in force in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date. [125402]

  Ms Jowell
  Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations allow people with physical and mental health problems to restrict their availability in any way providing the restrictions are reasonable in the light of their condition. Jobseekers agree any restrictions with advisers when they draw up their Jobseeker's Agreement when they first claim Jobseeker's Allowance. By detecting health problems at an early stage we can help jobseekers who may be entitled to alternative benefits; identify circumstances which may affect their attendance and offer any help or special arrangements that are needed.

  We do not hold information about how many jobseekers there are who place restrictions for the reasons about which the hon. Gentleman asks. Statistics are available on the number of claims referred to and decisions made by the adjudication authorities, now decision makers, where there is a doubt on availability because an unreasonable restriction has been identified.

  The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that since the introduction of Jobseeker's Allowance in October 1996, the number of decisions given by the adjudicating authorities on questions of restricted availability has reduced considerably. In the year from April 1995 to March 1996, 27,851 claims were disallowed because of restrictions placed on claimant's availability. In the year to April 1997 only 17,243 disallowances were recorded. The figures for 1997–98, were 14,273; for 1998–99, were 8,627; and for year ending April 2000, were 7,906. These reductions reflect not only the fall in numbers of unemployed but the way in which Jobseeker's Allowance is underpinned by an individually tailored Jobseeker's Agreement for each client taking into account their personal circumstances.

  This information, together with statistics on the other adjudication officer and decision makers decisions and disallowance rates, is contained in a published document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers Decisions". This provides information on all main entitlement questions arising on claims. The latest information relates to the quarter ending March 2000.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on developments in reaching a common European Union approach towards improvement of the condition of disabled people as regards access to(a) employment, (b) services and (c) premises, indicating where appropriate the policy of the UK Government and the balance between common Community policy and subsidiarity of national decision-making. [124948]

  Ms Hodge
  Article 13 of the European Community Treaty empowers the European Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, and after consulting the European Parliament, to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on disability. On 25 November 1999 the European
  531W
  Commission published a proposal under Article 13 for a framework directive dealing with discrimination in employment and training on grounds which included disability. The UK welcomes proposals under Article 13 to improve the condition of disabled people in the European Union. The framework directive on employment and training, which is currently being negotiated, will set out the broad principles to be achieved, but will leave implementation to individual member states. The UK Government are seeking to secure certain changes to the drafting of the proposed directive to meet the approach and framework developed on disability discrimination in the United Kingdom. The Commission has not put forward any legislative proposals relating to the provision of services or access to premises for people with disabilities.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) each local authority with more than three 11 to 18 years schools whose sixth forms contain 50 pupils or fewer and (b) each local authority with more than four 11 to 18 years schools whose sixth forms contain 100 pupils or fewer. [124693]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requested information follows.

  Final figures on maintained secondary schools with sixth forms will be published in the Annual Statistical Volume "Statistics of Education: Schools in England (2000 edition)" in September.
  Local education authority areas in England with four or more maintained secondary schools who have sixth forms of 50 pupils or fewer1
  position as at January 2000 (provisional)

  Birmingham

  Bristol, City of

  Gloucestershire

  Hertfordshire

  Hillingdon

  Kent

  Leeds

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Nottinghamshire

  1 Derived from returns made by schools (Annual Schools' Census January 2000)
  532W
  Local education authority areas in England with five or more maintained secondary schools who have sixth forms of 100 pupils or fewer1

  Position as at January 2000 (provisional)

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Bristol, City of

  Buckinghamshire

  Cheshire

  Coventry

  Cumbria

  Derby

  Durham

  Essex

  Gloucestershire

  Haringey

  Hertfordshire

  Hillingdon

  Kent

  Kingston upon Thames

  Leeds

  Lincolnshire

  Liverpool

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Southend-on-Sea

  Staffordshire

  Surrey

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  1 Derived from returns made by schools (Annual Schools' Census January 2000)

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent by his Department on advertising in each year since May 1997. [125687]

  Mr. Wills
  Department for Education and Employment expenditure on advertising since May 1997 is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  9,992,350

  1998–99

  15,673,258

  1999–2000

  11,900,968

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

HIV/AIDS: Awareness Campaigns
Baroness Massey of Darwenasked Her Majesty's Government:
What priority they are giving to public health awareness campaigns relating to HIV and AIDS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, we are committed to funding health promotion work for groups most at risk of HIV, and the general population. A budget of £3 million has been allocated for sexual health promotion work for the year 2000–01, including HIV/AIDS health promotion.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. He may remember earlier campaigns in the 1980s on HIV awareness featuring icebergs and gravestones, some of which were fairly incomprehensible and not very relevant. Can my noble friend say how specific groups will be targeted for HIV awareness campaigns, such as young people and ethnic minority groups?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right to suggest that for any public awareness campaign to be effective it needs to be targeted at the various groups concerned. Some of the material that is being funded by the Department of Health is already so targeted. I should mention in particular the work on CHAPS for gay men and work with Enfield and Haringey Health Authority for African communities. As far as concerns my noble friend's more general point, I can tell her that the sexual health and AIDS strategy that is now being developed will of course pick up those issues.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the sexual health strategy is being combined with the HIV/ AIDS strategy. Clearly we hope that that will be produced in a very short space of time. I was lucky enough to be invited to visit a group of young people infected with HIV/AIDS. They wrote back to me saying how much they appreciated being able to meet parliamentarians and thereby understand the political processes. They also said:
"However we feel, from our own experiences, that HIV is still left in the closet' and we would like to see HIV-AIDS being taught in schools to raise the awareness of other people our age and younger".
Will the Minister include that suggestion in his plans?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a most important point. As part of the strategy that is being developed, we shall be looking very closely at the most effective forms of communication with young people. If we can give as much information as possible in as sensitive a way as possible, I believe that we can do much to remove the stigma of HIV/AIDS, which is so crucial to the success of future prevention programmes and to securing a more tolerant society.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that young people find it notoriously difficult to accept health warnings? Indeed, we know this from their reaction towards campaigns aimed at stopping youngsters from smoking. Therefore, does my noble friend agree that any campaign, or anything in the nature of posters and advertisements in newspapers, must be particularly sensitive and involve a psychological approach to young people's feelings and problems?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I very much agree with my noble friend. Past experience with health promotion campaigns over many years has shown that, unless they are developed with young people in mind, they very often fail. When it comes to young people, I am convinced that the development of our strategy will enable us to ensure that the focus is both sensitive and informative. It must also ensure that the message gets across to young people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, following the supplementary question from the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, I sat on the all-party investigation into AIDS a year or two ago. It was made very clear to us then that many of these groups have almost their own language and terminology. Indeed, literature based on such language is much more appreciated and effective. Can the Minister assure us that he will take such matters into consideration?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness may recall that too, sat on the all-party group's inquiry on AIDS. It was an extraordinary and moving occasion to have appear before us witnesses from so many different groups, especially young people. They certainly made a big impact on the Government's thinking about the way that we should develop programmes in the future. Yes, I do agree with the noble Baroness. Some of the campaigns that have already been developed—for example, the recent television advert entitled, "Clem and Lydia"—very much took the point that, if we are to get through to young people, we must speak their language.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend is aware of my special interest as president of the Haemophilia Society. Can he help me by updating us now on the number of people with haemophilia who, having been infected with HIV by their NHS treatment, have since died of AIDS; and how this compares with the number who, after being infected with Hepatitis C, have since died of cancer of the liver?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not have the exact information to hand. However, I am very much aware of my noble friend's concerns in this area. As far as concerns people suffering from haemophilia, this Government are determined to ensure that they receive the most appropriate services possible. I am shortly to meet directors of the haemophilia centres to talk through such matters with them.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, bearing in mind the rate of growth of HIV and AIDS among heterosexuals, what guidance is given to people travelling abroad, and in particular people travelling to sub-Saharan Africa?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to raise that issue. The latest figures I have for 1999 show that the number of new diagnoses among heterosexuals exceeded those among gay and bisexual men. For those who have been classified by place of infection, 77 per cent were infected in Africa. As regards any future targeted prevention programme, we shall have to think carefully about how best to get messages across, particularly in the context of people travelling abroad. That is the whole purpose of developing a sexual HIV/AIDS strategy. It is a matter that we shall clearly need to reflect upon.
Earl Howe: My Lords, am I correct in believing that English health authorities between them submit 100 annual reports to the Department of Health on the prevention and treatment of AIDS under the AIDS (Control) Act 1987, and that these reports are not consolidated in any way? Is that not unsatisfactory? Would it not be better for the Department of Health to publish a single report to give an overview of HIV/ AIDS prevention and treatment across the country as a whole?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no doubt that health authorities have a crucial role to play in the development of effective strategies at local level. Approximately £54 million is allocated to health authorities for the NHS HIV prevention budget. It is important that in reflecting on how successful those prevention budgets are, there is an effective mechanism for reviewing performance and progress. I do not wish to commit myself on whether collating the returns from health authorities in one annual report is the right direction to take. However, I am perfectly prepared to consider that. It is right to consider that matter alongside the development of the new strategy.

Animals in Transit: EU Welfare Rules
2.44 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpethasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they plan to take to persuade other European Union member states rigorously to enforce in their territory the provisions of Council
1366
Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport, in respect of lambs and sheep which are being transported from the United Kingdom to or through other member states.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the European Commission is responsible for ensuring that EU legislation on animal welfare and transport is fully implemented and properly enforced by all EU member states. High animal welfare standards are important to the Government. We continue to press the Commission to take action to ensure that it meets its obligations in this respect. We shall also take an active role in EU and other institutions to encourage best welfare practice and discuss our concerns with individual EU member states whenever it is necessary to do so.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, does the Minister recall—I am sure she must—that when the directive that we are considering was introduced in 1995 all member states in the European Union welcomed it because it suggested that at long last there would be some ease in the suffering of animals having to undergo long journeys on their way to slaughter in various parts of Europe? Is the noble Baroness aware that the responsible body, Compassion in World Farming, has recently conducted an investigation over 18 months and has proved beyond any question that most European countries ignore this regulation, and that in consequence suffering has greatly increased? The noble Baroness rightly mentioned the European Commission. I believe that it is due to review this regulation. Will the noble Baroness please ensure that when the Commission's report comes before the European Agriculture Committee, the UK will use its strongest endeavour to seek a fundamental change from transportation of live animals to trade in meat?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware of the issues that the noble Lord raises. Certainly the Government would prefer to see a trade in meat rather than live animals. As the noble Lord said, the Commission has started work on a review of the directive. We intend to press our view as regards the preferability of the carcass trade over the export of live animals. My right honourable friend the Minister wrote to Commissioner Byrne in February restating our deep concern about the failure of other member states to enforce the law as it is at present. The Commission is looking hard at ways of improving enforcement. It has initiated a series of working groups in which we have been able to stress the importance that we attach to improvements in the area. One of the groups is due to meet this week. We shall continue to emphasise the issues that the noble Lord rightly highlights.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the noble Baroness has said again that the Government are anxious to encourage carcass trade as opposed to live exports. The Government have called for that since the election

1367
and indeed well before it. Yet the Government's charging policy for inspectors of small abattoirs has the effect of closing down local abattoirs and causes animals to have to travel further, both in this country and overseas. What have the Government done during their time in office to bring about some improvement and some increase in the carcass trade?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, the review of charging policy for abattoirs is being undertaken at the moment by the Food Standards Agency. Earlier I outlined the view that we have tried to promulgate within Europe about the preferability of carcass trade. As regards trying to ensure that carcass trade is supported within this country, last week in your Lordships' House I answered a Starred Question about what we are doing to try to facilitate the export of whole unsplit carcasses to France—because that is what the market prefers—for cutting in that country. That is exactly the kind of measure which will support a carcass trade rather than any other.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, many farmers will feel that the Minister has not gone anything like far enough in her response today. They rightly feel that the farming industry in this country is penalised because farmers on the Continent can do whatever they like and no one seems to enforce any of the regulations. Can the noble Baroness say how many prosecutions—successful or otherwise—have been brought on the Continent since the regulations were introduced in 1995?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have those figures with me. I certainly undertake to try to find them and to write to the noble Lord. But I outlined the work that we have done in terms of raising this issue with Commissioner Byrne. I can tell the noble Lord that the Swedish agriculture minister has now echoed our concern by requesting a debate at the June Agriculture Council on what should be done about the widespread non-observance of the welfare-in-transit rules. We shall be supporting that Swedish initiative. Equally, the action plan on farming pointed out our recognition that we needed to do more on this issue—not only in the EU but in an international context—and that we shall look at what we can do to support those with high animal welfare standards. I do not accept the charge that we have not acted in this area.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when will the Commission complete its work in relation to the working parties that have been established? Does the Minister agree that it is not good enough that the Commission should buy time in order to deal with this urgent matter and that there is an important requirement on the Commission to produce a definitive result?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is why we are pleased that three meetings of the working groups have taken place already—there
1368
will be another one this week—to improve enforcement in this area. Equally, it is important that a review of the directive overall is undertaken. The Commission has now been stirred into taking that action. We have had a positive response to my right honourable friend's letter from Commissioner Byrne and we hope to see action taken soon. The commissioner made it clear that he, too, is unhappy with the current position as a reflection of the importance that animal welfare issues should be accorded within the EU.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, although, of course, we should be pressing the EU to make reforms, is it the case that the Government have not commissioned any study into transport issues in this country since the closure of so many abattoirs? Will the Minister consider initiating a study into animal welfare in this country before we teach our overseas friends about them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am not sure that we need to commission a study. When the review of abattoirs for the over-30 months scheme was undertaken, the issues of the effect on journey times and the importance of enforcing the strict regulations on journey times that we have in this country were considered. We have regulations in this country and we ensure that they are complied with.
Noble Lords: Next question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, we have now reached 17 minutes which, as the House knows, really means 18 minutes. I am sure that there is as much interest in prisons and pigeons, which I believe are the subjects of the next two Questions.

Prison and Probation Services Inspectorates
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet reached a decision on the future of the inspectorates for prisons and the probation service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): No, my Lords. We are considering how best to ensure that the arrangements for inspection of the prison and probation services support closer working between the services as well as ensuring that the individual services continue to be inspected rigorously and independently, as they have been. I shall be making a further statement to your Lordships on this in due course.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that there

1369
is a link between this Question and the future of Her Majesty's present Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham? At a time when there is a good deal of discussion inside all political parties about sending yet more people to prison without any evident understanding of the state of our prisons today, would it not be a mistake to take steps which silenced the voice of Her Majesty's present inspector, Sir David Ramsbotham, because he—prison by prison, report by report—tells us what is happening in our prisons in a voice which is clear and strong and, above all, independent?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's assertion that Sir David Ramsbotham has done an excellent job in reporting on the state of our prisons. He has been robust, independent and forthright. He might not always say things with which we feel entirely comfortable, but he has the honesty and integrity that should go with his post and he does a very good job indeed. It is not the Government's intention to undermine that independence of spirit in any way, shape or form. We intend simply to ensure that whatever we do contributes towards driving up standards in prisons and in the Probation Service, as in all other services. That is our intention in looking at the ways in which the two inspectorates work.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the education and training programmes, so resolutely and consistently supported by Sir David Ramsbotham as the best hope of rehabilitation, will continue to be at the forefront of government policy?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am more than happy to give that assurance. Sir David Ramsbotham has in particular highlighted those important elements in prison regimes. It is, and has been, our intention to ensure that training and education are provided. They are central to the constructive, well worked out regimes that enable offenders to return to a normal life and to take up a more honest, law-abiding existence when they come out of prison. That is our intention and our policy objective—and we are working very hard towards achieving that end.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can the Minister say how much longer Sir David Ramsbotham's contract has to run and whether he is eligible to be reappointed?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord will probably be aware that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently announced that Sir David Ramsbotham's term has been extended by a further eight months until July 2001. His eligibility to continue in post is not in question. This exercise is simply to ensure that we get the best of both worlds when looking at the future shape of the prison and probation inspectorates. That is why the two terms have been run together to conclude at the same point in time. It is for that reason that I made it clear at the outset that I would be bringing forward a further report to your Lordships' House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd? Is he further aware that any proposal to merge the prison inspectorate with that dealing with the Probation Service would be fiercely opposed by many in this House? The merger of the two inspectorates would undoubtedly have the effect of undermining the strong position of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I should reiterate the point that it is not our intention to do anything that would undermine the independence or effectiveness of the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service in any way, shape or form—or, for that matter, of the Probation Service. I suggest that the noble Lord should ponder the point that issues of sentencing, combination orders, flexible punishments, throughcare, and the CARATS programme—all regimes that attempt to address offending behaviour, and in particular the offending behaviour of those with drugs or alcohol abuse problems—are properly concerns of the inspectorate. Looking at different ways in which the probation inspectorate and the prisons inspectorate may work together with that independence and robustness of nature will help us to improve the regime in prison and the treatment of offenders outside prison.
Lord Elton: My Lords, surely the way to keep the closeness between the inspectorates is by close conversations between the inspectors, not by turning their appointments into one post. Is the Minister aware that on this side of the House, among Members with whom I am familiar, there is a strong feeling that to reduce or dilute the authority of the Chief Inspector of Prisons by giving him another job—that of looking after the Probation Service—would reduce his authority? It is most important that whoever takes the post shall have absolute security of tenure during his contract so that he may give his opinions—however unpopular—without fear.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take to heart the comments made by the noble Lord. They are both well meant and well measured. We do not wish to dilute or in any way undermine the position of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. That is not the intention of the Government. We need a robust and genuinely independent inspectorate. Sir David has done a splendid job in that regard and I trust that he will continue so to do. His reports are widely circulated; they are also widely read and well understood. Their importance should not be undermined in any way.

Trafalgar Square: Feral Pigeons
3 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Government:
What action they propose to deal public health posed by feral pigeons Trafalgar Square.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no significant risk to public health through casual contact with feral pigeons has been proved either in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere. Her Majesty's Government therefore do not propose to take any action on the issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, I should point out that his response appears totally to contradict the statement made by Dr Tim Wreghitt of the Public Health Laboratory Service, who said that 60 per cent of pigeons are infected with disease. He further stated that, "inhaling dust from dried faeces can give you an infection".
Is the noble Lord also aware that a South Yorkshire coroner has warned against people coming into contact with feral pigeons? He pointed out the particular problems caused by pigeons in Trafalgar Square. Given that the noble Lord's department issues licences to enable people to sell pigeon food, would he consider changing over to issuing licences for the sale of disposable face masks in order to help those licensees to retain their livelihoods?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, advice from our veterinary team states that although diseases are carried by birds, those diseases are likely to be conveyed to human beings only when they are in prolonged contact with pigeons; in enclosed spaces or in the presence of dust from feathers or guano; and when eating food contaminated by pigeon droppings. None of those conditions applies in Trafalgar Square. For those reasons, we do not think that the South Yorkshire coroner was right to come to such a conclusion as regards Trafalgar Square as a result of hearing a case concerning extrinsic allergic alveolitis which had been reported in the local area. Under the circumstances, no, we do not take the view that the last remaining licence for selling pigeon food in Trafalgar Square should be withdrawn. It will in any case expire on 30th September. After that the responsibility for renewal will fall to the Mayor for London.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, although I am entirely in favour of private enterprise, does the noble Lord agree that a health risk could be posed from the practice carried out by some who trap the pigeons with nets and then flog them to restaurants? I do not believe that eating Trafalgar Square pigeons can be good for one's health, or at least not for mine.
Lord. McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble Baroness suggesting that restaurants serve pigeons from Trafalgar Square?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am appalled at that suggestion. I should have thought that they would be too tough and taste too unpleasant.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that feral pigeons form as much a part of the
1372
London scene as do red buses and London taxi cabs? Surely the health of citizens and visitors is affected more by the emissions from those vehicles than by the feral pigeons?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that under any circumstances the atmosphere in Trafalgar Square would be conducive to good public health. However, the noble Viscount is quite right. In 1996 a study was carried out on the pigeons in Trafalgar Square. The recommendation at the time was that steps should be taken to reduce the pigeon population. However, there was a public outcry and any suggestion that the licence should be taken away from the last pigeon foodseller found no popularity.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, while reflecting on the situation in Trafalgar Square, is there any truth in the rumour that the Government are contemplating erecting a statue of the Prime Minister on the vacant plinth in order to test whether the feral pigeons have a higher regard for him than does the Women's Institute?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I answer serious questions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's response to the question put by my noble friend Lady Trumpington, does he know that a court case was held because a man was trapping pigeons in the square? Many felt that he should have been applauded rather than charged for so doing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that rather depends on the reason why he was trapping the pigeons. If he was trapping them for sport, I dare say that there are those sitting on the Opposition Benches who would defend that practice on other grounds. If he was trapping them to sell as food in restaurants, I repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington; it seems to be a very unpleasant idea.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as one who has been treated in a most unseemly fashion by the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, may I stand up for their right to do the same to anyone who follows in my footsteps?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for his age, my noble friend has a very fine head of hair.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after Consideration of Commons Amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on hunting with dogs.

Licensing (Young Persons) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Railtrack (Waverley Station) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Financial Services and Markets Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line numbers refer to HL Bill 32 as first printed for the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
180 After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
("CHAPTER IIA
POLICIES RELATING TO TAKEOVER REGULATION
MARKET ABUSE: BEHAVIOUR CONFORMING WITH CITY CODE
.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Authority is authorised to include in the code issued under section 110 a statement that behaviour of a person which is in conformity with the City Code does not amount to market abuse.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of behaviour which satisfies the condition in section 109(2)(a).
(3) A statement made under subsection (1) may include such conditions and limitations as the Authority considers appropriate, including conditions and limitations specifying the behaviour and the persons covered by the statement.
(4) The Authority may at any time alter or replace any statement made under subsection (1).
(5) If a person behaves in a way which fulfils the requirements of any statement included pursuant to subsection (1) in the code issued under section 110, that behaviour of his is to be taken, for the purposes of this Act, as not amounting to market abuse.
(6) In this section—
"behaviour of a person which is in conformity with the City Code" means behaviour of a person which in the opinion of the Panel conforms with the responsibilities imposed on that person by the City Code;
"the opinion of the Panel" includes any revised opinion formed by the Panel as a result of any further consideration;
"City Code" means the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers issued by the Panel as applied by the Panel and as amended from time to time by the Panel;
1374
"the Panel" means the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers.")
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
COMMONS AMENDMENT
180A After Clause 110, insert the following new clause—
PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN THE AUTHORITY'S CODE BY REFERENCE TO THE CITY CODE
(".—(1) The Authority may include in the code issued by it under section 110 ("the Authority's code") provision to the effect that in its opinion behaviour conforming with the City Code—

(a) does not amount to market abuse:

(b) does not amount to market abuse in specified circumstances; or

(c) does not amount to market abuse if engaged in by a specified description of person.

(2) But the Treasury's approval is required before any such provision may be included in the Authority's code.
(3) If the Authority's code includes provision of a kind authorised by subsection (1), the Authority must keep itself informed of the way in which the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers interprets and administers the relevant provisions of the City Code.
(4) "City Code" means the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers issued by the Panel as it has effect at the time when the behaviour occurs.
(5) "Specified" means specified in the Authority's code.").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 180 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180A in lieu thereof.
I do not propose to detain the House with a detailed discussion of the background to these amendments. It is well-trodden ground and it has received plentiful coverage in the press. However, in order to avoid any doubt, I shall reiterate the Government's full support for the work done by the Takeover Panel in overseeing the process and conduct of takeovers. The panel carries out an important job and does it extremely well. We want to see that continue.
Contrary to some misleading reports that have appeared in the press, this is not a Bill to regulate takeovers. Our amendment does not give the FSA any powers to interfere in the work of the panel nor does it require the panel to seek the views of the FSA before taking action. At earlier stages we gave careful consideration to the arguments concerning the Takeover Panel. We concluded that nothing needed to be done. Indeed, it remains our view that the Bill, as introduced to your Lordships' House, would not have affected the position of the panel. The FSA intends to adopt robust policies which will keep it out of tactical manoeuvres by parties to a takeover. We are satisfied that those policies will work well.
It is important to remember that there is at present a measure of overlap. It exists between, on the one hand, the panel's rules and the regulatory regime and criminal offences of market manipulation and misleading statements on the other. To date, this has not caused any problems. The courts have taken a

1375
strong line, refraining from interfering during the course of takeovers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, referred to that in the debate at Third Reading when he said that the courts would give no injunctive relief. We have no reason to suppose that in the future the courts will take a different view.
However, we have responded to the arguments that have been put forward in the House. In light of those arguments, we judged it prudent and sensible to propose a "safe harbour" amendment for the Bill. We did so at Third Reading. The amendment then brought forward would have allowed the FSA to provide a safe harbour for behaviour in conformity with all or part of the City code produced by the panel. However, again, concerns were expressed at Third Reading that the FSA should not be able unilaterally to impose its own interpretation, but in essence should be guided by the panel's interpretation.
We have addressed those concerns. Although we cannot allow Amendment No. 180 to remain part of the Bill, for reasons that I shall explain, we have made important improvements to the amendment previously tabled in this House.
Perhaps I may repeat what I said at Third Reading:
"Given … the nature of the [City] code and the panel's role in interpreting and applying it, I would naturally expect the FSA to take the panel's view before it decided whether behaviour fell within the safe harbour which the government amendment would enable it to provide. It would be very foolish if it did not ֵ I would expect the tribunal and, if the matter came before them, the higher courts, to attach due weight to the panel's views in accordance with established case law"—[Official Report, 18/5/00; col. 403.]
Our Amendment No. 180A will ensure that that happens. The FSA will be under a statutory duty to keep itself informed of the way in which the panel interprets and administers the relevant provisions of the code. This will mean that the FSA will have to have arrangements in place for seeking the panel's views on whether behaviour is in conformity with the City code. It will have to take this fully into account when deciding whether to act in cases of possible market abuse. The panel's views will be bound to carry a lot of weight with the FSA, the tribunal and the courts.
This issue was one of great importance in our earlier debates. I am pleased to have found a form of words which meet the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others. This the right result. To go further would be to go too far and to make the panel the final arbiter of market abuse during takeovers. Apart from being objectionable as a matter of principle, this would also have consequences for the panel which might cause it a great deal of concern if it really thought about it. Under our amendment, the decision on whether behaviour amounts to market abuse will always rest with the FSA, the statutory regulator, and ultimately with the independent tribunal to be established under the Bill. Amendment No. 180, on the other hand, provides a safe harbour for behaviour which in the panel's opinion conforms with the City code. This would give the panel the power to decide that a person has not engaged in market abuse.
1376
In another place, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, Dr Vincent Cable, having listened to the arguments on both sides, supported our approach. He said:
"If there is a conflict of jurisdiction and a choice has to be made, the FSA should prevail. The amendments make that clear so that the uncertainty and ambiguity about which Conservative Members have expressed concern do not arise".
He went on to say, before his party joined the Government in the Division Lobby, that,
"The peers' judgment"—
that is, on our latest amendment—
"was that there was no need to raise further objections because the fairness point had been accepted, the jurisdiction had been clearly defined and the work of the takeover panel had been incorporated".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/00; col. 100.]
As I have said previously, the issue of principle is simple. Should the ultimate decision on whether action constitutes market abuse, as defined in the Bill, rest with the statutory regulator, the FSA and the tribunal, or with the non-statutory Takeover Panel? The answer is equally straightforward. It must be right, in what I should expect to be the very rare event of a disagreement between the FSA and the panel, that the last word should rest with the FSA and the independent tribunal.
If Amendment No. 180 were allowed to remain in the Bill, I believe that, having taken advice at the highest level, there would be important consequences, particularly in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, which were not appreciated by those who drafted the amendment. Giving the panel the final right to decide whether particular behaviour amounted to market abuse would, in effect, give it statutory functions. These functions would involve the determination of civil rights, and even possibly what would be regarded as criminal charges under the European convention.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Opposition have rightly insisted—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has been admirably persistent on this point—that in exercising such functions the FSA should be fully accountable and that there should be the safeguard of access to an independent tribunal. We have ensured that the market abuse regime is fair, transparent and certain, with appropriate safeguards set out on the face of the Bill. These include the safeguards necessary to ensure compliance with the ECHR where what is at issue is the determination of criminal liability.
Let me make it clear that I am not questioning the arrangements for the accountability of the panel in the usual context in which it operates. This simply means that they are not appropriate here. They were never designed to deal with the determination of whether market abuse has occurred under Part VIII of the Bill. Against that background, I am sure that the amendment proposed in another place is the right one to deal with the concerns that have been expressed. Amendment No. 180A will ensure that if problems arise in this area—we are confident that they will not—adequate and effective safe harbours can be provided. That will be done without compromising the position of the panel or the single statutory regulator, the FSA.

1377
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, would like me to speak to his amendment now or to reserve my remarks until the end of the debate. The noble Lord indicates that he would like me to reserve my remarks. I commend to the House the proposed amendment made in another place in lieu of Amendment No. 180.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 180 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 180A in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 180A
180B Line 8, at end insert—
("and such provision may specify that behaviour conforming with the City Code is behaviour which is considered by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers as conforming with the City Code").
3.15 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 180B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180A.
This is a long, technical, regulatory Bill, but this is not an arid technical point. I believe—as, unanimously, does everyone who works in the City—that it is an important point of principle for your Lordships to consider. Can we preserve the well established, effective current system under which the Takeover Panel does its work? Or are we—as the government amendment would do, in spite of the Minister's eloquence—to risk undermining the panel's authority, to open the door to the disruption of the takeover process and stifle the work of the panel in the rampant bindweed of tactical legal manoeuvres? As takeover activity is a significant part of business in financial markets, the issue is one of considerable importance to shareholders, great and small.
I am well aware that the Conservative Party supports my amendment. But I in no sense raise the issue as a party-political one. I do so as a former chairman of the panel. I hope that the House will recognise that the success of the panel transcends party politics and affects the strength of City markets to which, or so I believe, all of us are committed.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of the history of the panel and its achievements. It was established under aegis of the Bank of England more than 30 years ago and has been consistently supported by the Bank. The impetus for its creation was the need to make sure that all shareholders received equal treatment during takeovers, that they were properly informed of the sometimes complex arguments and that a bid was conducted within an orderly and clear timetable. The panel has to supervise bids to see that parties comply with the well known code and it has to guard, during a bid, against market abuse such as share ramping.
Over the years, the panel has monitored some 7,000 bids. In the last full year alone, it has supervised some 300 proposals. These are not just important to the
1378
Titans of the corporate world; they directly affect pension funds, investment trusts and small shareholders. The panel has a conspicuous record of always being vigilant to see that the interests of small shareholders are not overlooked and that they are fully protected.
No one would pretend that the monitoring of takeover bids is an easy task. The bid process often represents a gladiatorial contest where there is much at stake both for companies and for their investment banking advisers. Powerful company chiefs lay their reputation and their future on the line. Behaviour is tactical. The parties to a bid, as I know from experience, will pursue any course of action within the bounds of law and regulation which may advance their cause. Advisers are paid large fees to be inventive and forceful, and the earning of those fees sometimes depends on their success. They often seek to tough it out with the panel.
In this demanding task the panel has a record of very considerable success. Its processes have been speedy, open, fair and relatively inexpensive. The panel has a tradition of giving firm judgments and properly reasoned decisions. It has always been chaired by a senior lawyer, from the time of Lord Shawcross to that of Sir David Calcutt QC, the present incumbent. It has its own appellate procedure, with an appeal panel invariably chaired by a former senior judge of high standing. The importance that the City attaches to the work is reflected by the willingness of experienced senior figures to take part and to do so at short notice.
There are other merits of the panel system. The code is interpreted flexibly to ensure compliance with the spirit of the rules and not just with the letter. The panel will give rulings in advance of proposed action so as to keep the train on the rails and not just pick up the pieces after the accident. In more than 30 years in the law I have found this the most effective process I have known for the fair and speedy resolution of disputes. Nor, so far as I am aware, has there been a shadow of a suggestion that its procedures have not complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.
May I give your Lordships one illustration of the strengths and virtues of the panel in action? In 1987 there was a contest between Guinness and Argyll, which were vying with each other to acquire the ailing business of Distillers. Some months after the bid was over, Guinness having won, it was discovered that some of its conduct raised concern that there had been market abuse through share support operations. The panel was able to investigate within a matter of months and ordered Guinness to pay almost £80 million by way of compensation. Guinness sought judicial review and claimed that the panel should have taken no action until all the criminal proceedings arising out of the incident had been completed. That would, of course, as was no doubt the intention, have held up action for years. But the Court of Appeal, presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, rumbled what the aim was and dismissed the case. That was fortunate, since both criminal and other regulatory

1379
procedures limped on for years. Only the panel was able to take clear, firm and decisive action to give prompt redress to shareholders.
I believe that it has been widely recognised that the effectiveness of panel judgments would be seriously diminished if they could not be promptly enforced. Indeed, in the well known Datafin case the Court of Appeal held precisely for that reason that the panel should not normally be subject to judicial review during the course of a takeover; otherwise, tactical litigation by parties seeking to gain time and disrupt the bid process would be inevitable. Successive governments have recognised the wisdom of that decision by speaking up firmly at Brussels in debates on a European takeover directive to preserve the panel's non-statutory status and so prevent its being sucked into the legalistic procedures of the courts.
The noble Lord the Minister made it clear the last time the issue was before your Lordships, and he has made it clear again today, that the Government fully support the work of the Takeover Panel and that they want it to continue doing the job in the way that it has been doing it. The paradox is that their proposal would in reality foul up the process. As the noble Lord said today, it would allow the panel's decisions to be second-guessed. The FSA, he said, would take them into account. The implication of that is that he is contemplating that it will be second-guessed. That means that the panel will be brought into a legalistic framework from which it has previously been healthily exempt.
That fear has been widely expressed across the City and by a virtually unanimous press in recent weeks. Any participant in a takeover disappointed by the panel's decision could—and the noble Lord appears to suggest that this is a virtue—go over the panel's head to the FSA. Once the FSA had ruled, whichever party did not like its decision would in turn take a taxi and head from Canary Wharf to seek judicial review in the Law Courts in the Strand. The floodgates would be open for tactical manoeuvring, delay and uncertainty. As The Times said very recently,
"the way will be open for almost any company that finds itself in a takeover situation to shriek 'market abuse' and head for the courts where any bid could be barred for months, even years".
The Government's reaction has been extremely curious. They were slow to respond to the panel's concerns and to understand that the argument might have any validity. They now say that they see that it does, for what they have put before your Lordships is an amendment that suggests that behaviour that complies with the City code shall not amount to market abuse. The amendment is a start, but it clearly completely misses the mark. Who is to decide whether there has been compliance? The Government say that the FSA must be the final arbiter, because it is the statutory regulator. I find that response both doctrinaire and perverse. Who will understand the takeover process better—the panel or the FSA? Who has a proven track record of success in this area—the panel or the FSA? Will the panel's authority be undermined if participants know that it is simply a staging post on the road to the FSA?
1380
Nor could the FSA decline requests to second-guess the panel, and the noble Lord does not suggest that it could. The government amendment imposes a clear statutory duty on the FSA to hear the case, and that means that it cannot decline jurisdiction; nor can it in any sense fetter its discretion by saying that it will invariably or normally uphold the panel. After that, whichever party was discontent, if there had been a division of opinion between the panel and the FSA, would seek judicial review from the successors of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
It is no wonder that on the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Newby, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, said very wisely that he supported
"a form of words that makes it absolutely clear that the interpreter of the City code is indeed the Takeover Panel—it is its code—rather than the FSA".
The noble Lord concluded:
"That is important".—[Official Report, 18/5/00; co1.406.]
I entirely agree with him. Exactly the same principle is at stake today.
When the House considered this issue a few weeks ago your Lordships accepted that a somewhat different amendment would have protected the panel's work. I do not believe that the essential mischief has been cured. My amendment seeks to improve the amendment from the other place, which, as it stands, would undermine the panel's work. I am not suggesting for a moment that your Lordships play indefinite ping-pong with the other place, but it should be given the opportunity to recognise that this amendment is appropriate and indeed necessary to sustain proper City regulation.
"unless this Bill is amended, there will be significant damage to the quality of takeover regulation in the UK. This will in turn damage the reputation of the UK financial markets for integrity and efficiency".
Are these not strong words coming from the most consistently successful of City regulatory bodies? For some time, I hoped that a government who assert that they understand and are committed to business, would respect and heed that view. I hope that the House will do so.
Moved, That Amendment No. 180B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180A, be agreed to.—(Lord Alexander of Weedon.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I agree with and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. However, I am troubled by a different point; namely, subsection (2) of the Commons amendment. It provides that the FSA cannot exercise this power under the amendment without the consent of the Treasury.
I understand from what has been said in another place and today that there is no criticism of the work of the panel. There is general agreement that the City needs the panel. It is an essential part of its infrastructure. There is general agreement that the panel must be allowed to continue to operate as it now does. I can summarise the two essential operational

1381
requirements of the panel. They are these. First, it must be capable of giving almost instantaneous rulings in the course of a bid. That is the case at present and I do not think that it would be varied by the Government's proposed amendment. The second essential operational requirement is that the rulings must not be capable of challenge in the context of the takeover in which they are given. It is that second requirement which is absolutely vital. At present it is guaranteed by the policy of the courts to which the noble Lord referred. In the context of the suggestion that a statutory body must always have more authority than a non-statutory body, I must point out that the courts were faced with a choice between exercising their own powers—they are certainly as great as those created by a statutory body, and possibly greater—and those of the Takeover Panel. They decided that as long as the Takeover Panel was confined in its proof against attack to what was done in a particular takeover, its authority should prevail.
Perhaps I may use an analogy. In effect the courts were saying that the Takeover Panel is in the same position as a referee in a tennis or football match (with which we are much afflicted at present). It does not mean to say that one cannot review what has happened by means of television and other wonders and by that process prove beyond a doubt that the referee was right or wrong. But if he were wrong, the decision stands. That is what we must have in the context of the panel.
That does not mean that a review of its decisions is impossible or would be unprofitable. That second look in a more leisurely context may enable the FSA, the panel or both to decide that there must be a change in the rules in the future. However, the rulings in the context of the bid must remain inviolate.
That is why I am troubled by subsection (2). The Government, the Treasury, might be minded to say that the panel could exercise permissive powers granted under subsection (1) in any way it likes provided that it maintains the overriding authority of the FSA. If so—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander—there will be a traffic jam between Canary Wharf and the Strand; and that we cannot have.
We shall have to see. I do not understand why this clause, of all clauses relating to the FSA panel, has to require Treasury consent. Any other provision in the code can be made by the FSA and all it has to do is to tell the Treasury. No doubt it would tell the Treasury in advance and the Treasury would have a view. But that is not the point. It could just make the code and tell the Treasury, but it cannot do so under this provision. Why not? I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in another place stressed that the FSA must be preferred in the case of a conflict because it is a statutory body. The Minister said much the same today. That is what frightens me, even if there is not an amendment today.
Lord Newby: My Lords, in considering these matters it is important to begin by recognising what the government amendment represents; namely, a major
1382
concession by the Government of the safe harbour principle in respect of the provisions of the takeover code. It would not have been introduced if it had not been possible to have close working relations with the Official Opposition with whom we have worked on a number of amendments. It is also worth reminding ourselves that on a number of key issues, whether corporate governance, the role of the practitioner and consumer panel, and other matters we in this House have successfully improved the Bill in a substantial way.
The single principle which now confronts us is not the safe harbour provision but an important matter which arrived in this House at the latest possible stage of our consideration of the Bill; namely, who decides whether the takeover code has been followed in cases of possible market abuse.
The two options are either to argue—as in the Alexander amendment—that the Takeover Panel should always have the final say; or to say—as in the government amendment—that the FSA must keep itself informed about the way in which the panel interprets the code. The government amendment recognises that the Takeover Panel will remain the principal interpreter of a code on a day-to-day basis but, consistently with their view about the primacy of the FSA—it is a view which we, on these Benches, have accepted, in particular in respect of the gatekeeper proposal which was discussed on a number of occasions in this Chamber—that the FSA will have the final word. This amendment is a significant improvement on the amendment which we considered at Third Reading because the role of the panel is recognised on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I may make one point about referees and umpires. When there is a difficult issue in Rugby League and cricket (as there were as regards a number of run-outs at Lords on Saturday) there is an immediate reference to a second, higher authority—a television replay. While it is always dangerous to take sporting analogies too far, one can argue either way in respect of best practice on the sports field.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, has the benefit of clarity which, as he kindly pointed out, I sought at Third Reading. However, the amendment inevitably cuts across the principle that at the end of the day the statutory body, the FSA, should prevail over the non-statutory Takeover Panel. The ECHR implications—the noble Lord did not refer to them—became apparent only at a late stage. They could significantly undermine his amendment.
The question before us today is somewhat broader than simply whether the Alexander amendment is technically preferable. It is whether this is an issue on which we wish to initiate a ping-pong procedure with another place. As noble Lords are aware, on these Benches, we have no aversion in principle to sending Bills back to the Commons for a second time. We have done so previously in this Parliament, and we may well do so again before this Session ends. We accept, however, that this power should not be used lightly,

1383
particularly in cases such as this where we support the principle of the Bill and wish to see it on the statute book as soon as possible.
The tests which we have to apply in deciding whether or not a ping pong should be initiated are those of principle and substance. We believe that we should only be prepared to send a Bill back to the Commons on an issue of clear principle and major substance. How then does this issue fare against those tests?
First, on the question of principle, the principle covered by this amendment is whether there should be safe harbour provisions in respect of the takeover code. That is the subject of this amendment, and that is the key concession which has been made. The question of who interprets the code requires a judgment to be made between the rival merits of two bodies—the panel and the FSA—which in any event are required to co-operate closely on the whole question of countering market abuse. In our view, that is a matter of judgment; it is not essentially a matter of principle. The issue, in our view, does not pass the test of being a matter of major principle in the context of the substance of this amendment, namely, safe harbour.
Secondly, how much substance is there in this issue and how great is the difference between the Government's amendment and that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon? It has been our view throughout the debates on this issue that too much has been made of the possible damage which could be caused to the regulatory process in respect of takeovers by the passage of this Bill. Some of the language used in support of the panel's position has, in our view, been exaggerated. I do not believe that it is unanimous City opinion that this House should die in the ditch, back and forth to the Commons, in order to get the Alexander amendment through.
The difference between the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and that of the Government will only have a significant impact on the way in which takeovers are regulated if the FSA and the panel fail to find a sensible modus operandi in dealing with potential market abuse during the conduct of takeovers. There is no reason to believe that they will not do so. We believe that when this Bill is on the statute book it will be possible for the FSA and the panel to reach working arrangements which will minimise the scope for mischievous legal action to gain a tactical advantage during takeover bids. We therefore believe that this issue fails the major substance test.
This Bill has occupied a very large amount of parliamentary time. It has been significantly improved during its passage through your Lordships' House. The time has now come to get it on to the statute book to enable the FSA and the panel to get on with their job. We shall, therefore, not support Amendment No. 180B but will support Amendment No. 180A.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Grabiner: My Lords, for good reason, a very large amount of parliamentary time has been devoted to this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned. The Bill is designed to ensure that the financial services industry in this country is properly regulated by the FSA. The FSA is to be the central building block of the new regime, and there is agreement on all sides that that is the right approach.
The essential feature of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, is that its object is to enable the FSA to delegate what are vital regulatory powers to the Takeover Panel, although the Takeover Panel is non-statutory, unregulated and essentially an unaccountable body. Needless to say, I have the highest possible regard for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, not only on this but on almost every subject. However, I believe that on this occasion his amendment is wrong in principle. The FSA should not delegate its powers to the panel.
It has been said that the Bill in its current form involves some implicit criticism of the panel or suggests that it might not be up to it. I do not believe that that is correct. Everybody agrees that over the past 32 years the panel has done an excellent job. One hopes that it will continue to provide a first-rate service. The problem is that the world has changed. Unfortunately, the days when everyone in the City takeover community knew each other have gone. Virtually all the great houses have been gobbled up by American, Swiss, German or Dutch financial institutions. The amounts of money at stake are fabulous and occasionally unpronounceable.
The powers of the panel are, as they always have been, extremely limited. For example, the panel has no direct power to enforce a simple demand for information. Many of us may regret it, but the truth is that these voluntary arrangements no longer reflect the needs of the market place. This Bill is designed to deal with the new global markets and, through the FSA, to sustain London in particular as a world class financial centre.
It has also been said that the Bill in its current form would be a stimulus to mischievous lawyers' activities. It is said that there will be numerous applications for judicial review and that unjustified or frivolous attempts to frustrate bids or to upset the workings of the market place will be made. I do not accept that there is any force in those arguments. I believe that they are more imagined than real.
The Datafin approach was admirably summarised at an earlier stage of the Bill by its inventor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, with the memorable phrase, "masterly inactivity". The FSA can hardly be convicted of unreasonableness if it seeks to achieve its statutory objectives by non-interference in the fast moving circumstances of the 60-day bid period and against the legal backdrop of the principle established in the Datafin case. The common sense of the principle in the Datafin case will surely prevail in the courts. No doubt someone will wish to test the point against the FSA. So be it. There never was any

1385
form of bullet-proof legislation which could prevent that from happening. Speaking as a professional lawyer, I am delighted that that is the case. Once tested, the validity of the approach of the FSA will, I believe, be vindicated and any uncertainties will disappear.
The other side of this coin is that there will be cases in which the FSA may take the view that it should move in the period during which a bid is taking place. Many of your Lordships will recall the Guinness scandal some 15 years ago, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander made reference. If the true facts of that case had emerged in the course of the 60-day period, that would have been an obvious example of market abuse under the Bill.
On that particular point, I digress for a moment. The noble Lord made reference to the Guinness scandal and also to the great success of the panel on that occasion. The panel's conduct in securing a sum of about £80 million for shareholders who had been swindled represented a singularly magnificent achievement in the sense that it had never previously been done nor has it ever subsequently happened. But the truth is that that part of the performance of its role by the panel took place long after the bid period had come to an end, and that is precisely the sort of thing which certainly would not now be dealt with by the panel in any event but would fall precisely within the role of the FSA in dealing with market abuse.
Another example was the bid about three years ago by the Galileo Group for the Co-operative Wholesale Society. Your Lordships may recall that transaction. In that case, an officer of the target company was filmed in a carpark handing over highly sensitive, confidential documents to officers of the predator company. An injunction was granted preventing the predator from using the documents. As a result, the lines of finance for the bid collapsed and the bid was abandoned. That was a case in which the court interfered during the currency of the bid.
It is an example of what would be market abuse under Clause 109. In such a case, one might well expect the FSA to move in the course of the bid. By contrast, it is the kind of case which the panel is not well equipped or designed to deal with, but the FSA would be because of the powers which have been granted to it—or which will be granted to it when the Bill becomes law.
It seems to me that the Bill in its current form, as amended in another place, provides a balanced solution to the problem. It will ensure active co-operation between the FSA and the panel. They will together make operating agreements; they will liase with each other; and they will share information.
I believe that in the usual case—by which I mean the vast majority of takeover bids—things will go on very much as they do today, without interference either from the FSA or from the courts. I believe that we
1386
should adopt that approach and that this House should reject the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall be suitably telegraphic. My noble friend Lord Saatchi and I have been speculating on why the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has changed his mind since Third Reading. During the past three months, my noble friend and I have much admired the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has represented his party in your Lordships' House. We dared to entertain the speculation that his decision not to continue to support was not entirely his own.
However, whatever the basis of the noble Lord's decision, I suggest that he cannot have made it on the merits of the case. The noble Lord, essentially, supported the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Alexander at Third Reading; and the Minister told your Lordships today that the Government have not changed their position on the matter.
The truth is that, for whatever reasons, the Liberal Democrats have chosen to turn their backs on this most vital question. Having heard my noble friend Lord Alexander and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, none of your Lordships can be in any doubt about the crucial importance of this issue to the City of London, with all that that entails for the economy beyond.
For the Opposition to accept the Government's amendment, that amendment must ensure that safe harbours not only provide for compliance with the text of the code, but also for compliance with the interpretation by the panel of the text of the code in any circumstances arising in the course of a takeover bid. Otherwise, no one—either bidder or defender of a bid—can have any confidence in the guidance issued by the panel.
For those reasons, the Opposition support the amendment introduced, most eloquently, by my noble friend Lord Alexander and to which he brought such authority.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no one is better qualified than the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, to launch into the encomium which he rightly made about the distinguished history of the Takeover Panel. After all, he knows much of what he speaks from his distinguished personal knowledge. We agree with what he says about the work of the panel and I made that clear at the outset. Nothing I have said, or shall say, will detract from our respect for its work.
However, the noble Lord's amendment is still subject to the same fundamental objection of principle that I have explained. Under the amendment, the FSA, with Treasury approval, would be able to decide—the word used in the amendment is "may"—that the panel should be allowed to determine whether market abuse has taken place. It will be clear from what I said at the

1387
outset that the final determination of whether market abuse has taken place is key to all our arguments on the Bill in this place. The objectionable point of principle and the convention difficulties—to which I referred and noticed were not responded to in any way by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who was so keen on the convention difficulties which he saw elsewhere in the Bill are the same as with Amendment No. 180, to which I have spoken.
I have to say that we cannot conceive of circumstances when the FSA and the Treasury would agree to take that step. We cannot and will not legislate to provide for something which we believe would be wrong. The determination of whether market abuse has been committed amounts to the determination of a civil right. On any analysis, if a safe harbour of the kind provided for in Amendment No. 180B were to be brought into force, the panel would be determining a person's civil rights.
There must be a real question whether the hearings before the panel at which such a decision was taken constitute what is required by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that is, a,
"fair and public hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
The panel's success is based on speed, informality and voluntary subjection to its rulings. We do not want to lose that and with the Government's amendments we shall not do so.
It has been argued notably and frequently by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that market abuse is criminal for convention purposes. He went much further than our belief, but nevertheless we have taken into account his arguments and provided for all the protections to convention-proof the market abuse regime for which he asked.
We have taken advice at the highest level. Last summer, we took advice from Sir Sydney Kentridge. We believe that these arguments are overstated, but we thought it prudent to introduce criminal safeguards into the FSA's procedures. If the noble Lord's amendment is carried, will the panel do the same? Will the panel introduce criminal safeguards? It is impossible to conceive how that could happen.
It is clear that the general effect of the amendment would be to make the rules and actions of the panel significantly more justiciable—more open to legal challenge—than they are now. We do not want that to happen. We support the panel's current approach to the regulation of takeovers. We are not prepared to agree to an amendment which, however well intentioned, will in due course undermine the panel. We cannot believe that when it has the chance to take a long, hard look at this latest amendment the panel will want it either.
In introducing the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said that he did not want to see pingpong between this House and another place. This is already ping-pong. This matter has been debated at length during its many stages through this House. It has been returned to another place which has had a
1388
second look at it. I put it to your Lordships that it is not acceptable for us to challenge it, particularly when we are right.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I was interested in the Minister's peroration. Much as I like him—as I do—and much as I respect him—as I do—I thought it was a bit rich of him to suggest that my amendment would undermine the work of the panel. In so far as the arguments have been put to the Government with tot al clarity, this has been a dialogue of the deaf. Even in his response, the noble Lord indicated a lack of comprehension. Perhaps I may quote from a very experienced financial commentator, who said last week:
"This is a crucial piece of legislation for the City. In particular, the survival of the Takeover Panel as the final arbiter in takeovers is something regarded as essential by the practitioners. It is an institution that works to the benefit not only of investment bankers but everyone. It must be kept".
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. Indeed, a barrister always finds it a considerable comfort when a judge with unrivalled commercial experience agrees with and accepts his argument. It was he who decided that the panel should not have its decisions regularly second-guessed. That is simply what I seek.
The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, suggested that the panel is unaccountable. That simply is not so. My amendment enables, but does not require, the FSA to say that conformity with a panel ruling is conformity with the code. It enables the FSA to withdraw that ruling if it so permits. Therefore, in terms of accountability, a clear link is created between the panel and the law. With regard to accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, surely will recollect that it is a condition of Stock Exchange listing that public companies comply with panel rulings. That is a very effective form of enforcement and accountability.
I was interested to hear that the European Convention on Human Rights was relied upon. That hare has come to the fore more prominently as the Government have realised that they do not have many other steeds entered in this race. In a cricketing analogy—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, used one—it is a longstop. Of course, we who love cricket know that the worst fielder is always put at longstop. If those fears were ever to be made good, the FSA could withdraw the authority. However, attempting to terrorise this House with the convention may not impress.
In the time that I knew the panel—and the panel has been a party to the convention during its entire existence—there was never a suggestion that its procedures, of which I briefly reminded your Lordships, were unfair.
I conclude by reference to one or two arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Of course, I do not understand the political processes to which my

1389
noble friend Lord Kingsland referred. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, perhaps I may say that the merits of those arguments were absolutely barren. He said that the government amendment recognises the position of the panel. It does not. It recognises the position of the code, but not that of the panel, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, would have had it when we last discussed the Bill, as the authority which determines compliance. The noble Lord said that the government amendment contemplates that the panel will normally give the first ruling. Where, I ask? The Bill is absolutely silent on that point.
I could go on. I speak to the noble Lord in the hope that he and his colleagues, whom I very much respect, on reflection will decide that the principle that they supported last time round is right. I certainly appeal to your Lordships to respect, if not my view, the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, the views of the City and of the financial press, and to speak for UK business. In the light of the encouragement that I have received, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 180B), as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 180A, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 183; Not-Contents, 188.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ackner, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Carrington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Ampthill, L.

Chadlington, L.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor, V.

Cockfield, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Coe, L.

Attlee, E.

Colwyn, L.

Bagri, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Barber, L.

Courtown, E.

Bell, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cox, B.

Belstead, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blackwell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Blaker. L.

Crathorne, L.

Blatch, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Blyth of Rowington, L.

Croham, L.

Boardman, L.

Cuckney, L.

Bowness, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Deedes, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Dundee, E.

Buscombe, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Elles, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Byford, B.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Erroll, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Feldman, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Flather, B.

Carnarvon, E.

Fookes, B.

1390

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Northbrook, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Northesk, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Glenarthur, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Goschen, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Griffiths, L.

Palmer, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Palumbo, L.

Hanham, B

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hanson, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Pike, B.

Haslam, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Prior, L.

Higgins, L.

Pym, L.

Home, E.

Quinton, L.

Hooper, B.

Rawlings, B.

Howe, E.

Reay, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saatchi, L.

Jopling, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover L.

Kelvedon, L.

Kimball, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Kingsland, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Kirkham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Selborne, E.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Sharples, B.

Lindsay, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Liverpool, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lucas, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Luke, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Skidelsky, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

McConnell, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stewartby, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Marsh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Marshall of Knightsbridge, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tebbit, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thatcher, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Vivian, L.

Monson, L.

Waddington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Montrose, D.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Moynihan, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wilcox, B.

Naseby, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Young, B.

Norfolk, D.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bernstein of Craigwell, L.

Addington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ahmed, L.

Blease, L.

Alli, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Amos, B.

Brennan, L.

Andrews, B.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Avebury, L.

Burlison, L.

Bach, L. [Teller]

Burns, L.

Barker, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Barnett, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Chandos,V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Christopher, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

1391

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

McNally, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Elder, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Newby, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Ezra, L.

Parry, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falkland, V.

Paul, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Peston, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gale, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gavron, L.

Prys-Davies, L

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goudie, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rennard, L

Grabiner, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Greaves, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Greengross, B.

Roper, L.

Grenfell, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sawyer, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Serota, B.

Harrison, L.

Sharman, L.

Haskel, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hoyle, L.

Stern, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Strabolgi, L.

Strange, B.

Islwyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jeger, B.

Thornton, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Joffe, L.

Tope, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Layard, L.

Varley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lipsey, L

Warner, L.

Lockwood, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Longford, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

1392

Whaddon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L

Wigoder, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
589 Page 219, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
("(4) In a case where the investigator—

(a) has reported that a complaint is well-founded, or

(b) has criticised the Authority in his report,

the investigator may include in his report a recommendai ion to the Authority that it takes steps to remedy the matter complained of including, if appropriate, by making an ex-gratin payment.").
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
589A Line 2, leave out from ("(4)") to end of line 7 and insert
("If the investigator considers that a complaint of which he has been notified under sub-paragraph (3) ought to be investigated, he may proceed as if the complaint had been referred to him under the complaints scheme.
(4A) The complaints scheme must confer on the investigator the power to recommend, if he thinks it appropriate, that the Authority—

(a) makes a compensatory payment to the complainant,

(b) remedies the matter complained of,

or takes both of those steps.").
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 589A to Lords Amendment No.589.
I hope that noble Lords on all sides will welcome the consensus that we have been able to reach on the final amendment to this Bill. The Government will agree to Amendment No. 589A, which was moved from the Opposition Front Bench in another place and which amends Amendment No. 589. Amendment No. 589A restores the power of the investigator to investigate in accordance with the complaints scheme any complaint of which he has been notified by the authority but which the authority has decided not to investigate. This is an amendment to a Lords amendment carried on a Division despite my assurances that we supported the principle that the investigator should have power to make ex-gratia payments. The amendment removes an anomaly which we believe was not intended.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 589A to Lords Amendment No. 589.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the Commons amendment which slightly redrafts the one which was before your Lordships' House. It meets all our criteria perfectly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 4.18 to 4.23 p.m.]

Hunting with Dogs
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I would like to make a statement on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales, which I am publishing today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"The House will recall that last November, I announced that there would be an inquiry into hunting and that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, had accepted my invitation to be chairman. The other members of the inquiry were appointed for their expertise in agricultural and rural economics, and in veterinary science. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and to the members of his committee, for their hard work and for the fact that the report has come in on time.
"The question of whether hunting is right or wrong is a matter for Parliament to decide. The committee was not therefore asked to recommend whether hunting should be banned nor was it asked to consider moral or ethical issues.
"The Burns report instead covers four key areas in relation to the activity of hunting. First, it considers the contribution hunting makes to employment and the rural economy as well as to social and cultural aspects of life in rural areas. Secondly, it deals with the animal-related aspects of hunting—that is, principally animal welfare and their population management. Thirdly, it considers whether drag hunting is a viable alternative to hunting. The final area covered by the report is an assessment of the consequences of any ban on hunting, and how a ban might be implemented. It also assesses how some people's concerns in regard to particular aspects of hunting might be addressed should hunting not be banned.
"The committee visited different parts of England and Wales to witness at first hand a number of hunting activities. Academics were commissioned to undertake research into various matters related to hunting activity. The inquiry attended seminars, organised by all sides of the debate. It also held a number of public meetings and ensured that working papers were placed on its website.
"This inquiry into hunting was the first official one since the Scott-Henderson inquiry reported to this House in June 1951. I have had the opportunity to read the report over the weekend. I thoroughly
1394
commend it to all Members of the House. I hope that when honourable and right honourable Members have had the same chance as have I to study the report they will share my view that it is a profoundly impressive study—cogent, and well argued, dispassionate and careful in its conclusions.
"The report needs to be read and considered as a whole, and it is hard to do justice to its views in a few paragraphs. None-the-less the House would, I think, wish me to summarise some of its key observations. They include the following.
"On employment, the report says that,
'between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs depend on hunting'.
It says that most of the employment effects of a ban could be offset in the long term, say seven to 10 years. But in the short and medium term the individual and local effects might be more serious, as they would for a small number of local communities.
"The report contains details of research commissioned in four rural communities where hunting is actively pursued and says that this suggests higher levels of support for hunting than previous surveys have indicated.
"In chapter 6 the committee considers animal welfare aspects of hunting and the relative effects on the welfare of foxes and other species of different methods currently used to kill them.
"A ban on hunting with dogs would not have any significant impact on the population of foxes in lowland areas, but could lead to an increase in numbers in upland areas.
"A number of recommendations are made about regulation and licensing if a ban is not imposed, and the committee also concludes that generally any ban should apply nationwide, without different legislative provisions in different regions of the country.
"The purpose of the inquiry was to get to the facts and so better to inform the debate. I am sure that when right honourable and honourable Members have read the report they will see that it has achieved this objective.
"Let me now turn to the arrangements I propose to the House for it to consider the report and reach conclusions on it. Right honourable and honourable Members will want the chance first to study the report. Then, subject to the agreement of business managers, I would like the House to have the opportunity, if at all possible before the Recess, of a debate on the report itself on a Motion for the adjournment.
"I should like to say what I propose should follow that debate. In our manifesto we said that there would be a free vote on hunting with hounds. The Government are, and remain, neutral on the merits of whether hunting with hounds should be banned, but we do have an obligation to ensure that the decisions of this House can have effect.

1395
"Last November, when I announced the establishment of the Burns inquiry, I therefore said that the Government would provide government time and assistance to allow this House to come to a proper legislative conclusion on a free vote on the matter. Our original plans were to take this forward with a Private Member's Bill in government time. I now however believe that it would be for the convenience of the House if there was a government Bill in government time which contained a series of legislative options on the merits on which there would be free votes. Such a Bill could, I believe, provide for a more structured debate and will better allow for consideration of a wider range of alternatives in the light of the report. The House will recall that this arrangement worked satisfactorily for the Sunday Trading Bill in 1994.
"Arrangements will meanwhile be made for the main interest groups to be consulted so that the options are set down as accurately as possible in the Bill to reflect the alternative legal regimes which could be put into force. The consultation will take place as soon as possible, and while the House will be aware it is not just a matter for me I anticipate a Bill will be introduced early in the next Session.
"I well recognise the strength of feeling on this matter. It is only right that all sides of the debate should be given the opportunity to have their point of view considered fairly and that Parliament should have the chance to come to a proper conclusion. I hope the House will agree that procedure of the kind I have described provides that opportunity. Meanwhile, I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee, and commend his report to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure is the whole House, to the Minister for repeating almost exactly the Statement which the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary made in another place.
First, I want to make it clear that this matter will continue to be a free vote for our supporters in this House, as in another place. But I remain a consistent supporter of hunting and have supported it since long before I was a Member of another place and during the whole of the time that I was such a Member. Is the Minister aware that there is strong support for the freedom to hunt among many who have never hunted at all, and from many uncommitted people, such as those who belong to the Women's Institute?
I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior and their colleagues on the committee who have produced this report. But is the Minister not ashamed of the discourtesy—I put it no stronger—to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his colleagues, wherein Ministers leaked their decision to promote a government Bill before even reading the report that they themselves commissioned? This was, I think, disgracefully premature.
1396
The Home Secretary said that Parliament should have the opportunity to come to a proper conclusion. He also said that in another place there would be a debate on the report, preferably before the Recess. Does this also apply to your Lordships' House?
When the Government put the proposed Bill before your Lordship's House, will the same options be available to this House as are available to the other House of Parliament, and, if so, how? Will the three options be fully costed as to the expense of enforcement, which is not covered as far as I can see in the few minutes I have had to look at the Burns report, particularly in terms of the heavily stretched police and the time that it will cost them? What is the position on compensation, which again the Burns committee was not asked to look into?
Will Members of another place who represent Scottish constituencies be able to vote on this matter, given that the Scottish Parliament is deciding the issue for Scotland, as is its right under the legislation that was passed, whereas the proposed Bill will apply only to England and Wales?
Lastly, will the Minster guarantee that this is not stage one, with stages two and three to cover fishing and shooting?
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches we too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. The Government commissioned the Burns inquiry, which we warmly welcomed, but it is regrettable that they made a decision to bring forward a Bill before we have had an opportunity to debate the report of the inquiry. We do not feel that that knee-jerk reaction will forward the debate in any constructive way. We shall have this debate, and indeed debates on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, before the rural White Paper. That is entirely the wrong way round. We should have had the medium and long-term strategy for our rural areas clearly laid out well before the Government began to impose changes that are bound to have a social and economic impact, whether or not we approve of those measures.
Initial feedback from the Burns inquiry suggests that some areas—albeit a few—will, indeed, be deeply affected. They are likely to be those areas already affected by the crisis in agriculture and by the strong pound affecting tourism. As it stands, people living in rural areas feel that they are the butt of other people's moral judgments. They have seen no plan for their futures and have had no opportunity to comment on them.
From this Front Bench I shall pass no personal opinion on hunting with hounds because we, too, will have a completely free vote on the issue. However, there are many of us who believe that this is another fundamentally authoritarian step from a Home Office that is intent on forming judgments on society without adequate consultation and debate.
I must ask the Minister to confirm that this House will be presented with a Bill for debate containing all the options, and not with a Bill as passed in the other

1397
place and on which we shall be able to debate all the options, bar one. Uncomfortable though it may be for the Government, this House must have the same opportunity to debate the Bill as the other place.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for their observations. I am not sure that my thanks will extend further than that, but observations they were and I shall try to respond to them as best I can. I have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that on his side the matter will be subject to a free vote. I congratulate the noble Lord on making that statement. I extend similar congratulations to the noble Baroness. The Government have made it plain from the beginning that we shall have a free vote on this matter. We made that matter clear at the outset when we discussed our manifesto. In fact, it was a manifesto commitment.
The noble Lord raised the question of leaks. There has been no leak, so far as I can determine, from the Home Office. There has been press speculation, but that of course is another matter. The noble Lord asked when there might be a debate. I should hope that there would be a debate before the Recess, but of course I cannot determine that. That is a matter to be agreed through the usual and proper channels and no doubt that will be properly processed, and the matter will be sorted out in the usual and efficient manner.
The noble Lord also asked whether the options would be fully considered in your Lordships' House. That is an interesting question. I think that probably we shall have to look at how this worked when there were options on Sunday trading. Probably Members of your Lordships' House will have a better memory of that than I. My understanding is that all the options on Sunday trading—there were very many in the end—were fully debated by your Lordships' House and were considered in the legislation. I think that that template, that model, is one which will work well in this situation.
The noble Lord made an interesting point about the position of Scottish MPs who are Members of the UK Parliament. No doubt they will express their views as Members of that Parliament. Of course, this is a matter which is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord also made the speculative point as to whether this was stage one of a process covering other matters relating to fishing, hunting and so on. This is an issue which stands on its own. It should be considered on its own. No doubt Members of your Lordships' House will have varying and different opinions on that issue, but that is how we see the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, I think perhaps somewhat unkindly, accused the Government of being authoritarian on the issue. I find it hard to believe that we are being authoritarian when we have provided an opportunity for a full debate on many of the background issues that lie behind the understandable
1398
controversy over this issue. To call us authoritarian suggests in some way that we are skewing the debate when we are providing the opportunity for debate and then proper consideration of a Bill with options. That is very strange indeed. I think that is a very strange judgment for the noble Baroness to have formed. I understand her concerns, coming from the political background that she does, and representing an interest with large rural areas and constituencies, and they are not to be dismissed lightly. I reject the suggestion that we have been authoritarian. As I said in the Statement, we intend to provide for full consultation. We intend to provide as many opportunities as can be reasonably managed within the proper processes of your Lordships' House for reasoned debate on this issue. That will make a very important contribution indeed.
Those were the points raised at the outset. I look forward to other comments and observations by Members of your Lordships' House in the next few minutes.
4.39 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could first, particularly arising out of the last part of his answer, tell the House how it will be possible to provide the amount of time that this House could reasonably request, both to debate the report and indeed to consider properly a Bill, given the enormous backlog of legislation we already have. Therefore, could the noble Lord undertake to ensure that this House is not blamed if there are delays in the consideration of this Bill when we are already overcrowded with business?
Secondly, could the noble Lord cast his mind back to the great Countryside Alliance march a couple of years ago which ended in Hyde Park and the remarkable fact that the guardians of Hyde Park did not have occasion to pick up one single bit of litter, that the law was obeyed throughout and that the guidance of the police was not only sought but followed? Would he therefore care to contrast the behaviour of those demonstrators with that of the rather more recent demonstrators round the Cenotaph and Parliament Square? Also, could he and other Members of the Government consider how sensible it is for them at this time of their remarkable popularity to alienate a section of the population which, perhaps more than any other, instinctively wants to obey the law?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his question. I understand his point about the legislative backlog but of course we are not planning to legislate in this current Session but in the next Session, providing that we can fit in all the pieces of legislation that we want to have. I make the point that I made at the outset: agreement about debate is best decided upon and worked through the usual channels. That is the most sensible way to proceed: it usually works extremely well. Members of your Lordships' House have debated many issues with opportunities being given through the usual channels.

1399
The noble Viscount makes comparisons between the members of the Countryside Alliance and those demonstrators who defaced the Cenotaph and insulted the intelligence of all of us by their poor and ill-judged behaviour, their violence and their general unpleasantness. The point is simply this: with all these things, however strongly held our views may be and however passionate our feelings on issues of the day, it is for all of us to make sure that we have a reasoned, fair-minded and open-minded debate. That is an encouragement I would offer, particularly on a subject like this which, I think we must all acknowledge, stirs up very strong feelings all round on all its different aspects. These debates are best conducted in a fair and open-minded way.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he happened to see his honourable friend, Kate Hoey, yesterday on television, when she said that surely there are more important things facing this Government than a Bill to ban hunting with dogs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I did not actually catch that particular interview, but I understand the sentiments. This is an issue which has been around for a very long time and it is not unreasonable for us to try, as a Parliament, to resolve it one way or the other. I do not pretend that it is a straightforward issue: I do not think that anybody would say that. It is a complex matter and I believe that the report will help us to get to the heart of some of the issues involved and deal with the complexities.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I agree with him that there will be many views expressed in this House. I hope that reasoned views will be expressed but may I say, as someone who has always lived in the countryside and who lives in the uplands, that, if we had to rely on fox hunting to control foxes in our area we would have been overrun long ago? May I ask him whether he has seen reports that certain hunts are breeding foxes, which seems to me to be a contradiction if they are supposed to be exercising pest control? May I ask him, if a Bill comes forward containing the various options, would it also apply to stag hunting and hare coursing? Finally, is my noble friend, like me, expressing some surprise that the party opposite now, in relation to Scottish Members, appear to be against the Union?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with a longer parliamentary experience than I do on these matters, and he also speaks with great wisdom. I am somewhat surprised by some of the observations made by Members of the party opposite. As I said earlier, this issue is one which needs to be carefully thought through and resolved. The report provides us with that opportunity and I think that we
1400
should try to concentrate our minds on that issue. As to whether foxes, deer, mink and hares will be covered, I think the answer is yes.
Lord Elton: My Lords, some of us are becoming increasingly puzzled by the mechanics of this. The noble Lord said a moment ago that we would have the Bill if it could be fitted in among all the other pieces of legislation that the Government wanted to bring in. Can he tell us whether there is actually a firm commitment by the Government to bring Bill in? Also, can he answer more precisely the question that has been asked from both Front Benches as to what sort of Bill it will be? Is it going to be a "No. 2" Bill, in which we see exactly the choices to be faced by the other place and make our decision on those, or are we merely to pick up whatever the other place have decided we should have, after having made their own amendments to whatever sort of Bill it is?
It is difficult to believe that a government who were actually ready to announce the introduction of a Bill before the report on which we thought the Bill would be based have not thought through the mechanics of how it would be handled in Parliament. I presume that the noble Lord has the answer to hand.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought I had made it reasonably clear. One can never be absolutely precise about how many Bills there will be in any parliamentary Session this far in advance: it would be unwise. A Bill with options will come to this House— that is to say, with the options preferred by the other place. That procedure worked for the Sunday Trading Bill, as I recall—I think my recollection is right— but that does not mean that this House will not have the quite proper opportunity to look at, debate and discuss all those options.
To make it crystal clear once again, we will provide in another place—and it is my hope and expectation that we shall have that opportunity here as well—the opportunity for a full debate on this report. We did not say at the outset that this report would somehow be the legislation. We said that the report would be there to provide the background and the framework for a debate about key issues which have been raised. This would lead to a better informed debate. I think that is a very sensible way forward, and we will make sure that arrangements are made for this House to look at all the options which have been considered by the other place.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, would the Minister inform us whether there is any possible objection to drag hunting? My father was a master of foxhounds and I was brought up to believe that was a noble sport. That still leaves a human point of view. Later, the cruelty to the fox has rather overwhelmed me so that I do not favour fox hunting but I do favour drag hunting. Is there any possible objection to drag hunting? Everything is fine about hunting except that it is cruel to the fox.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think it is worth putting on the record that this is an issue which

1401
was considered very carefully by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee. The report looks at drag hunting and I would simply commend the report to the noble Earl so that he can read it carefully. It goes at length into that subject. Of course, drag hunting is a popular pastime and sport and it is one of the things the report encourages us to look at more closely. It is obviously something which many people enjoy.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, do not the Government understand that there are many on this side of the House who have never hunted but who nevertheless believe that to criminalise hunting would be a gross interference with individual freedom? Have not the Government themselves said on many occasions that a tolerant society is one that respects the strongly held views of minorities, particularly minorities who are not inflicting their views on other people but who merely want to be left alone to pursue an occupation which has been part of country life for generations? Will the noble Lord please recognise that there are many like me who have actually joined their local hunt to demonstrate how much they resent the idea that a majority in another place should inflict their views on people who want to continue to follow a perfectly proper recreation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I respect and understand the noble Lord's view. The Government have no great desire to criminalise people who seek pleasure—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if I may conclude my point, we have no great desire to criminalise people. I understand entirely the strength of feeling held by Opposition Members. It is best to look dispassionately at the issue. The purpose of the report was to have more informed debate, which is an entirely sensible way to proceed.
As I said at the outset, the Government are neutral and it is a matter for Parliament to decide on a free vote. That is an entirely sensible and logical way through a complex issue on which there are many strongly held views.
Several noble Lords rose—
Noble Lords: Mallalieu.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I sense that your Lordships wish to hear from my noble friend Lady Mallalieu.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I speak with a keen interest on this matter because, if one of the Bill's proposed options were adopted, myself, my husband, children and neighbours, together with many of my best friends, would be imprisoned if they continued to behave as they do now—which we believe to be perfectly lawful.
1402
I ask my noble friend the Minister to convey to the Home Secretary the gratitude of many people for the establishment of the inquiry, which for the first time gave many the opportunity to have their say to someone they felt was listening. I pass on the thanks of all those on both sides of the argument to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team. Nobody could have spent more time, taken more trouble or shown more patience in seeing for themselves and listening.
This issue has become incredibly divisive. It is not simply a matter of town against country, as it is sometimes billed. It is a case of people against people—sometimes in the same village or family. I suspect that the Government were elected by such a large majority in 1997 because people wanted to see a nation working together. It would be hard to find something more likely to destroy that feeling than a Bill of this type.
I hope that this matter will not drag on and on. If we spend the next Session on the Bill, the result is inconclusive and people stick to entrenched positions, the battle will be carried on after the next general election—possibly for some years beyond that.
I wonder why we were not allowed to see the report a little earlier today, so that we could have some idea of its content before the Statement. The report is incredibly detailed and complex and it is likely to take up a great deal of legislative time. I hope that within it are the seeds of solutions that all reasonable people on both sides of the debate can grasp and accept. If so, perhaps we can prevent a recurrence of today's sad spectacle of people having to come from all over England to appeal to Members of both Houses to defend their rights.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I commend my noble friend's general approach. She is absolutely right to say that we need sensible, rational and dispassionate debate. She is right also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on his careful, detailed and thoughtful report. She is correct in saying that the Government seek to heal divisions. That is why we were elected. There is no getting away from the fact that this is a vexed issue. The report tries to provide useful background, to enable us to find a sensible way through. The concept of options and debate carefully constructed around them will allow us to do that. I am grateful to my noble friend for her kind comments and I will be more than happy to convey her gratitude to my right honourable Friend the Home Secretary.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are neutral but the Prime Minister said on television that he wanted to abolish fox hunting. Is the Prime Minister neutral towards his own Government? He said also that he does not have any disagreement with shooting or fishing, so he accepts that it is quite satisfactory and morally correct

1403
to kill for fun. What is the difference between the morality of shooting a pheasant and the morality of chasing a fox?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl is better at morals and the killing of animals than I am.
Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I want an answer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl is entitled to ask his question but he is in some danger of trivialising the report.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Your Lordships are entitled to disagree but that is my view. The noble Earl asked about the Government's position. I made it plain earlier that we are neutral. The noble Earl asked also about the Prime Minister's view. My right honourable friend is a Member of Parliament and clearly expressed his view. We are all entitled to express our view. The noble Earl is entitled to express his view. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, expressed his view cogently at the outset. No doubt he will continue to do so.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, could not the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, equally be applied to the maintenance of cock fighting or bear baiting? It is perfectly obvious that I am not a countryman but am I correct in thinking that most countrymen regard foxes as vermin? Does my noble friend know of any other vermin that is deliberately kept alive?
Lord Brighton of Bassam: My Lords, I may have been brought up in the countryside but do not claim to be a countryman. As to foxes being vermin, we seek to control them in different ways. Fox hunting is undertaken by some for pleasure and by some for fun. I draw no conclusion although it is not something that I particularly see as fun. The report clearly and fairly states that banning fox hunting would not make much difference to the size of the fox population. We would undoubtedly apply instead means that are commonly in use.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that foxes are the most destructive vermin in this country? They are very damaging to poultry, game and other wildlife. Hunting is the most certain and least cruel way of keeping the number of foxes down. The alternative of shooting often results in the fox getting gangrene. Poisoning and trapping are in any event illegal. Will the Government bear those points in mind before doing anything to stop fox hunting?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have heard those views expressed before and will no doubt hear them again in the wide-ranging debate on the Bill. Some people see foxes as vermin and undoubtedly that is the case. The Burns report is helpful in some of its
1404
observations on that matter. The noble Lord asks the Government to consider his points. I have made it plain that this matter is for Parliament. All parties have openly and honestly said—and have repeated this afternoon—that the matter is one on which Parliament should decide, not Government, and that there should be a series of free votes on the options. That remains the case. From the tone of debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon, it seems that people are pleased that there will be free votes on all the options.
Several noble Lords rose—
Lord Kimball: My Lords—
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball—whom I greatly respect—has not had the opportunity to contribute but we have had our 20 minutes of Back-Bench Questions. The rules of the House dictate that we should move on.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
5 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, 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 Bach.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the proceedings at this point, but I believe that I can address the House on an important matter before we move into the detail of the Committee stage. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have taken account of the strongly developing opinion against this Bill. When we debated the Second Reading a few weeks ago, it was generally true to say that the Bill was of serious concern only to the e-community, broadly speaking. However, opposition has grown much wider since that time, which means that the Bill has achieved the rare, if not unique, distinction of having The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian all call for the Bill to be withdrawn and reconsidered.
A similar rare combination of allies against the Bill has developed among business and financial organisations. Today, the British Chamber of Commerce has published a detailed report by an impressive panel, edited by two gentlemen from the London School of Economics and one from University College London—neither institution is normally known as a force of conservatism—which concludes, among other things, that the costs to service providers of compliance would be £650 million over five years, and continuing thereafter. It has also concluded that the effects on the economy would be well over £35 billion over five years in the transfer of business to overseas jurisdictions. These are very serious figures.

1405
The report also says that the Bill as it stands is entirely inadequate as a mechanism to achieve efficient and reasonable interception and surveillance and that its effect is likely to be loss of confidence in e-commerce, unacceptable costs to businesses and to the UK economy, confusion and uncertainty at numerous levels of business activity and an onerous imposition on the rights of individuals. In those circumstances, can the Minister say whether the Government are treating these growing and much wider criticisms very seriously?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for intervening in this way. I should like to thank him for giving me notice of his intention to do so. Like the noble Lord, I have read the press coverage. We have received many representations. We wish to be as helpful as we can. However, the public debate has revealed some very serious misunderstandings about the Bill. We must, first, try to correct those misunderstandings because some of them are ill judged, while others are misconceived. They are also beginning to skew somewhat the debate.
We are more than happy at all times to consider serious and properly argued amendments. Perhaps it is worth pointing out to your Lordships this afternoon that we are very much in listening mode on this Bill. However, we shall not be deflected from our course; nor shall we withdraw the Bill, as suggested in some of the wilder public comments. None of our industry contacts asks us to withdraw the Bill. They ask for it to be amended in many and various respects. We shall see what we can do in that regard.
As regards some of the misunderstandings in the media, it may be useful if I quote from a letter that my right honourable friend Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, has written in response to The Times editorial today, in which he runs through some of the myths:
"The first myth is that the Bill requires all Internet service providers in the UK to install black boxes with a link to the Security Service to monitor traffic. This is completely untrue. The Bill introduces comprehensive statutory controls for the first time governing access to data, such as billing records. Access must be properly authorised for specified purposes only. This is subject to independent oversight … The second myth is that the Bill criminalises the innocent user of technology. Again, this is wholly wrong. It targets the serious criminal. There is a sanction for not complying with a decryption notice. But the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has, or has had, possession of a decryption key. Forgetting passwords or keys is a reasonable thing to do, so the Bill includes statutory defences for such cases".
The Home Secretary then goes on to look at a third myth; namely, that companies will be required to surrender private keys to their entire network and will be prevented from divulging this. He says:
"But we have made it clear that, where legitimate businesses are concerned, we fully expect that disclosing material in an intelligible form rather than a key will normally be sufficient. The Bill reflects this. It contains restrictions on when keys may be required and when the 'tipping off' provision may come into play".
1406
We do not want to see the burgeoning e-commerce market overrun with high-tech criminals against whom law enforcement finds itself powerless; neither does industry with which we have actively engaged in consultation. So we need to update our laws. But we also need to ensure that we protect citizens' legitimate rights and that we do not overburden business. It is all about balance. I believe that the Bill strikes the right one.
As I said at the outset, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We are very much in a listening mode. We want to hear what Members of your Lordships' House have to say on the very important matters contained in the Bill. We continue to listen to points that are reasonably put to us from all sections of industry. The noble Lord made particular reference to the report of the British Chamber of Commerce, which we received today. A representative from the BCC recently visited our officials. We are more than happy to meet the authors of that report, and of other reports, in order to go through some of the serious issues raised. We are seeking to find solutions to the problems.
Much of the Bill is uncontroversial and much of it is already on the statute book in another form. However, we seek to update, modernise and make more effective those parts of the legislation that require such amendment, as well as dealing with the difficult issues surrounding encryption. That is the primary purpose of this piece of legislation.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I apologise for entering the Chamber a little late for what was obviously a well prepared response to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. This Bill seemed to start off as something of a "sleeper" in terms of public concern in that it went through the Commons stages without a great deal of public debate, although it was thoroughly dealt with in Committee in the other place. However, judging by my postbag and—dare I say it?—my e-mails, as well as comments in the editorial columns of the newspapers, there has been a growing concern since our Second Reading debate not just from civil rights lobbies, but increasingly from industry that this Bill is not good enough.
The Minister said that the Bill was "uncontroversial". That is a very generous comment for a Bill about which there is growing doubt as to whether it covers the relevant areas of technology. As I said, there is also increasing concern on the part of both industry and civil rights lobbies. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was courteous enough to tell me what he planned to do; indeed, judging by the thoroughness of the Minister's reply, I think that the noble Lord may even have given him a nod and a wink in that respect.
Rather than go through the toil and the turmoil of a Committee stage which, if the Government's complacency remains, I fear will result in some defeats for them, would it not be better to take away the Bill and perhaps hold some public hearings and obtain some more expert advice on it? I believe that the Government are heading for the rocks if they do not realise that the warnings that have been given from

1407
some responsible quarters are valid. These are warnings from people who want pornographers, drug smugglers and others to be apprehended but who do not believe that some of the provisions in the Bill address those problems and, where they do, that they give the authorities far too many powers. There are real problems with the Bill. The Government should listen carefully to the wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, before we become embroiled in a Committee stage where I do not believe that we shall make much progress.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his careful reflections. He always speaks with great common sense. However, I thought I had made it plain in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that we are aware of the growing volume of concern. Two editorials on this matter appear today in the Guardian and The Times. I have read those and I understand the arguments that are put forward. As I said earlier, I am more than happy to listen to concerns. As always, I have invited noble Lords to discuss points of the Bill that trouble them. It is an important piece of legislation. We are certainly not complacent about it, far from it, but it is a necessary piece of legislation. It makes plain—I think perhaps for the first time—that we need to have a proper regulatory framework for the interception of communications. It tries to address—I believe that it succeeds in this—the serious issue of the way in which technology is changing and evolving. That is no easy exercise. I can well understand that people may be concerned, as the noble Lord suggests.
Committee stage gives noble Lords a full opportunity to discuss the detail of legislation with a view to improving it. I recognise the strength of opinion on certain issues. We shall try to be as helpful as we possibly can as we proceed through the Committee stage. However, as I say, this is essential and important legislation. Our security services, our police service and many of the agencies covered by the Bill would be seriously concerned if we were to be deflected from our intended course of action. We should try to concentrate on resolving the serious issues of concern as best we can in Committee to improve the Bill. As I say, we are ready to listen to all views on these matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Gardner of Parkes) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Unlawful interception]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, leave out lines 38 to 40.
The noble Lord said: I have tabled a large number of amendments to the Bill. I shall try to deal with them as expeditiously as possible. In this case I think that it would be best to start with a short exposition from the
1408
Minister as to what lines 38 to 40 of page 2 are intended to achieve and a couple of practical examples of how they will be used in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I certainly congratulate the noble Lord on his—
Viscount Colville of Culross: Order! The amendment should be put.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment proposed:
"Page 2, leave out lines 38 to 40".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before I was quite rightly interrupted I endeavoured to congratulate die noble Lord on his desire to be expeditious. However, that is in the noble Lord's nature.
This, and subsequent debates today, will, quite properly, seek to scrutinise—as I suggested earlier—the provisions of the Bill, which is a complex piece of legislation. The Bill has already been improved by scrutiny in another place. I repeat that it is for this Chamber to seek further to improve it.
During our debate on each of the amendments it is worth reminding ourselves what the Bill is all about, and why it is crucial that we legislate on these matters. As we are debating Part I today I hope that no one will mind me trying to put the Bill into perspective. This legislation is all about countering the threats which are posed to our society by criminals and terrorists. I believe that that is commonly agreed. The threats exist now and, in our view, the current legislation is either out of date or the law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies have been working on a non-statutory basis which we must rectify before the Human Rights Act comes into force in October. We should bear that date strongly in mind this afternoon.
This is an important Bill. Rather than backing up that claim with generalities or poorly researched figures, I shall give the Committee some facts regarding the effectiveness of interception. Successive governments have shied away from giving too much detail about its effectiveness—for reasons which we shall debate later—but these figures give an indication of just how successful interception is.
During 1996 and 1997 lawful interception of communications played a part—often the crucial part—in operations by police and HM Customs which led to 1,200 arrests; the seizure of drugs with a street value of some £600 million; and the seizure of some 450 firearms. During a 12-month period during 1998–1999 Customs seized 1.25 tonnes of Class A drugs, and made 93 arrests in connection with those drugs, through interception. In fact, in 1998, 52 per cent of the total amount of heroin seized by Customs was a direct result of interception. The total value of drugs seized in 1998 as a result of interception was in excess of £185 million. This comes to over 10 per cent of the total sum spent on drugs per annum in the United Kingdom, an amount which could cost the country up to £500 million each year.

1409
Meanwhile, in work against alcohol and tobacco smuggling, recent Customs interception operations have been so successful that the number of staff working on interception against these targets has doubled. Just this morning I saw some updated figures on the results that interception continues to achieve. By their very nature, it is not possible to share these figures publicly and I shall not do so. However, I reassure the Committee that the results I have just mentioned continue to be highly relevant. These are important powers for law enforcement. We, the public and businesses alike, cannot afford to do without them.
The Committee will note that I have not given any figure or quantification of the success of interception against terrorism. However, I assure the Committee that it is an equally potent weapon and has contributed significantly to the prevention of terrorist atrocities, including some which would undoubtedly have caused loss of life and extensive damage to property. I have today seen the latest monthly results accruing from interception. They remain impressive and I have no doubt of the benefit which serious criminals and terrorists would derive if we were not to bring our interception legislation up to date. Therefore, while I do not wish to labour the point, we need to consider what the Bill is designed to achieve and work towards that.
As I said earlier, I have seen comment in the press today. There are some serious misconceptions around. We have tried, and will continue to try, to get our message across. But this debate must be rational and based on the facts. When all sides have considered all the facts, we can focus on specific suggestions for improvement of the Bill. I am happy to do that but before accepting any changes, I shall want those who propose them to have a full understanding of their impact.
I refer to specific points on the amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 1, Clause 1(1) of the Bill creates the offence of unlawful interception, and then goes on to provide defences to that offence in subsection (5). But through the act of interception, the interceptor may commit other offences or torts, in particular under the Human Rights Act. The final part of subsection (5) ensures that there is a defence to those liabilities.
I trust that the noble Lord understands where we are coming from in terms of this particular clause and that those few comments will assist him in considering whether he wishes to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Erroll: Presumably these three lines protect the prosecutor from the kind of case that happened recently, where judges decided that there had been an abuse of process and people who were probably criminals were released. Judges punishing
1410
the police—and, effectively, the public—by releasing people who are probably criminals because there has been a technical abuse of process, is not the way to deal with the problem. In general, we should punish the authorities for an abuse of process quite separately. That should not invalidate evidence which may well convict a clearly guilty criminal—and therefore protect the public—even if that evidence has not been garnered correctly. It should carry over from this Bill into other areas to ensure that cases cannot be thrown out on various technicalities. I know that it sounds complicated.
Viscount Astor: It may be helpful to the Minister if I intervene before he replies to the noble Earl. I apologise that I was not here at the Second Reading debate; unfortunately I was abroad. I declare an interest, which I hope will suffice for the remaining stages of the Bill. I am a non-executive chairman of a company called Streetnames Plc, listed on AIM, which is an address-related Internet domain names company. It will offer e-mail addresses to businesses and private users and, by subscription, access to an Internet-based e-mail service for sending and receiving messages and attachments, and will include automatic e-mail forwarding. Therefore it might be affected by parts of the Bill—although the Bill is so complicated that I have not yet worked out which parts. No doubt I shall find out as we go through it.
Having said that, perhaps I may make a general point. I do not think that anyone on this side of the Committee doubts that interception is successful and important to the Customs and to the police. I do not think that any noble Lords want to take away those interception powers. We are concerned with the additional powers proposed in the Bill, and it would be helpful if the Minister could focus on that element.
As to my noble friend's amendment, subsection (5) concerns conduct. The final part of that subsection, which my noble friend wishes to delete, states:
"shall also be taken to be lawful for all other purposes".
The words "other purposes" raise a question in my mind. To what "other purposes" does that refer?
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may raise a point that the Minister does not seem to have covered which concerns the words,
"(whether or not prohibited by this section)".
Since these three lines refer only to conduct specifically authorised under paragraphs (a) or (b), what is that phrase in brackets doing there? Does it not have the effect of making any conduct authorised for other purposes, even if it is not authorised for the purposes of the Bill? It seems a very odd phrase. I do not understand what it means and I should like some examples.
Lord McNally: The noble Lord and the noble Viscount have put their fingers on issues which will come up time and again. It may be useful for the Minister to deal with them. There is no doubt that where phrases such as,
"(whether or not prohibited by this section)"; "lawful for all other purposes";
and, as I mentioned on Second Reading, lots of "anys", get into the clauses, it causes concern—and the kind of blanket permissiveness which runs through this Bill is causing concern.
Going back to the initial intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, it would have been far better all round if we could have seen the code of conduct under which some of these powers will be used by the authorities. We should then have been able to make a judgment on whether or not it is wise. But at the moment we are being asked to take the code of practice on trust. I am not sure that we have had any assurance from Ministers that we will see it in this House during any stage of the Bill. It would be a step forward to at least get a timetable of when we will see the code of practice and some appreciation by Ministers that,
"lawful for all other purposes"; "(whether or not prohibited by this section)";
and all the "anys" that run through the Bill, is certainly not the kind of legislation that should be tolerated when Parliament is passing extensive powers to the executive and to the security and other services. Parliament has to be very careful.
It would probably save time as we go through the Bill if we acknowledge that we know—as the Minister emphasised—there are a lot of bad guys out there and that the authorities need powers to get after them. We want them to get after the drug smugglers and the paedophiles as much as anyone in any Whitehall department wants them to do so. But Ministers must not use the scale of the problem as a way of scaring and bouncing this House into passing slipshod or over-powerful legislation.
Viscount Goschen: I associate myself with the concerns and points raised by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Astor. Almost for the first time I associate myself with concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
The issues that my noble friend Lord Lucas has highlighted within the subsection are a motif that runs throughout the Bill. Either this subsection gives very wide powers or it is badly drafted and a number of us have misunderstood it. Either way, we need a clear explanation from the Minister as to how exactly these powers are restricted when the subsection states,
"(whether or not prohibited by this section)".
I should also declare an interest at this stage—albeit a tangential one—in that I work for a financial institution that from time to time advises companies with e-commerce interests.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may first respond to some of the comments made by the noble
1412
Lord, Lord McNally. He offered me good advice in his observations. It is not the Government's intention to try, as he put it, to bounce the Committee into accepting poorly drafted legislation because of security needs or the needs of the various law enforcement agencies. That is not our intention. Like the noble Lord, I, too, have trouble in reading and getting my mind fully round some of the legalese language in which much of our legislation is drafted. It is not an easy task. I share his frustration and the frustration of other noble Lords in doing so.
As to the noble Lord's point about the code of practice, that will be based on the existing public code which has been used and issued by ACPO. We intend to publish a draft and to provide a full opportunity for public consultation; I cannot be precise as to when. The noble Lord makes a useful point. Perhaps it is something that should be published during the course of our discussion and debates. If that is possible, we shall seek to do that. That seems to me to be reasoned and sensible.
But, to give the noble Lord a flavour, the code shall be based around the current one, which is very useful. As I said in my opening remarks, much of the legislation is not controversial in the sense that it has been incorporated into our statutory framework, but is littered across it in small pieces. What we are trying to do here is to bring all that legislation together in a coherent fashion, modernise it, update it and make it more intelligible. I apologise if it appears that we have not succeeded in achieving that, but of course that is what we are aiming to do here.
I shall turn to the comments made by other noble Lords. I am grateful to all those who have declared their particular interest as regards this issue. I believe that we all have a certain interest here. The intervention from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was well intentioned but perhaps wrong. There is a prohibition on the use of intercept material. Given that, the point that he made probably does not arise. It is worth reminding ourselves that the ECHR demands that any interference with the human rights set out in Article 8 is carried out,
"in accordance with the law".
It would not be enough to say merely that an interception warrant gives a defence to a narrow criminal offence. That is why we have set out the circumstances under which interception would be permissible. If those tests are met, the interception will generally be lawful.
I am not sure that I shall be able to provide a specific example of how that will work for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, I shall give further thought to the point he made. A description of how something will work in practice is always helpful.
This kind of provision may become more common as human rights legislation begins to kick in substantially. It is no longer right to believe that an action is lawful unless it is prohibited. That is an important point to make clear. If something interferes with fundamental rights, it is generally unlawful unless it is positively allowed. I believe that we shall all come

1413
to understand the process better once the human rights legislation begins to have an impact on the way in which we legislate.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord would make the demands of the law unreasonable. The danger of the amendment is that it could make law enforcement staff engaged in carrying out interception liable under other legislation, even if they were operating under a properly authorised warrant. There lies the danger of this amendment and, in essence, that explains why we must object to it. I therefore suggest to the noble Lord that it might be better if the amendment was withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Before my noble friend decides what he wants to do with his amendment, perhaps I may say that we are grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the code of conduct, in particular when he said that a draft may be made available to noble Lords at the earliest opportunity. It would be of enormous benefit if that is the case. Indeed, I hope that it can be made available before we consider the Bill on Report. That will be advantageous to all noble Lords and, indeed, no less so to the Government, because we shall then be able to proceed through the Report stage with a much clearer understanding of the effects of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hope that I can be even more helpful to the noble Viscount. I understand that we shall be able to publish a draft form of the code by the end of the month. When considering the timetable for this legislation, it is likely that the House will have an opportunity to look at the draft code before the beginning of the Report stage. Furthermore, public consultation is to follow.
Viscount Astor: I am even more grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, this will be to the advantage of the Government because it will mean that we shall be able to conduct a far speedier Report stage.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for answering at least one-half of my question. I am beginning to understand in general terms why we need these three lines. However, it seems an odd concept to include in legislation and I hope that the Minister will be able to write to me giving further information on why, having said that an action is lawful, we need to say that it is specifically lawful for all purposes and how we expect to see this put forward in further legislation, if only from the point of view of better understanding the Human Rights Act.
However, I do not believe that the noble Lord has addressed my question as regards the words,
"whether or not prohibited by this section".
I am still unclear as to their meaning or why it is necessary to include them here. Without those words, the clause would read:
"and conduct … which has lawful authority for the purposes of this section by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) shall also be taken to be lawful for all other purposes".
1414
That now seems to me to be reasonably straightforward. However, any conduct "prohibited" by this section is still to be,
"lawful for all other purposes".
That implies that conduct prohibited by Clause 5 is lawful for all other purposes. In any event, I cannot see the point of the wording here. If it has a point, it seems to me that it could be extremely dangerous. I sure that there is an innocent explanation, but given that I gave the Minister's officials several days' notice of what I meant when I tabled the amendment, I had hoped to receive a clear answer today.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am always willing to try again. Clause 1(5) allows only conduct authorised by Clauses 3 or 4 or by an interception warrant. That conduct can be only interception, but it may be interception that is not prohibited, for example, the interception of a private postal system. I think that I understand that. If, on reflection, the noble Lord finds that he, too, understands it, I shall be delighted. However, if on reading Hansard he is still not certain, perhaps we shall need to address the finer detail of his point in correspondence or return to it at a later stage.
The wording may be a little opaque, but I think that it is in fact more transparent than perhaps we believe it to be. Perhaps we are being a little too suspicious of it.
Lord Lucas: I shall not detain the Committee for any longer than is necessary. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord could write to tell me what would happen if the words set out in brackets were deleted from this paragraph in the Bill. What harm would accrue to the Bill? I shall then be able to consider sensibly what provision to put down when we return to the Bill on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 48, at end insert—
("and the interception is in accordance with provisions of regulations made under section 4(2) with the object of ensuring that the senders and recipients of such communications are made aware of the purposes for which, and the circumstances in which, those communications may be intercepted").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we move to one of the first areas in which concerns have been expressed about the treatment of individual rights in the Bill. We are trying to establish what might be described as the legitimate expectations of privacy for employees when they operate a private system. There is a danger that overly inquisitive employers could bug their own staff; indeed, in the past we have seen examples of that kind of behaviour, using older technologies. We need also to consider the circumstances of whistle-blowers and how they need to be protected.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the arrangements for the interception of communications in the course of transmission by means of a private telecommunications system are compliant with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1415
Again, I suspect that the compatibility with the human rights convention of some of the powers conferred by this Bill will be a recurring theme throughout our deliberations in Committee.
The European Court of Human Rights has decided that the definition of "private life" can extend to business activities and to the office. A case that comes to mind is that of Deputy Chief Constable Halford, who was bugged by her own police force. The European Convention on Human Rights requires that any interference with rights set out in Article 8 must be prescribed by law. In its current form, Clause 1(6) provides too wide an exemption when it refers to,
"The circumstances under which a person makes an interception … by means of a private telecommunications system".
However, if it were subject to the arrangements we propose under Clause 4(2), this difficulty would be removed.
This is a probing amendment to see whether Ministers have considered such an approach. However, I think that it covers a far more fundamental issue as we begin to embrace quite breathtakingly new technologies. I freely admit that the Minister and I are soul brothers in this area—when the parliamentary draftsmen meet the Internet geeks, simple souls like us need to look for protection. Nevertheless, this issue deserves clarification and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: If I happen to telephone the Minister in his office, he is in effect "bugged" in a rather old-fashioned way. The private secretary will listen to the telephone call on the extension to make sure that after the call I am unable immediately to telephone the press and say that the Minister agreed to something to which he did not agree. That practice exists for the Minister's protection.
More sophisticated techniques are used in modern offices. In my place of work—the "day job—the telephones are regularly taped on all the trading floors or in any part where business is done. That is a protection not only for clients, but for those who work in the building, so that what they say is not used by anyone else. Indeed, the e-mail system in my office—if it works properly, which it does not very often, because we keep being attacked by outside things—has a capacity for copies to be retained for certain purposes. It is perfectly reasonable for that to happen in a commercial environment.
But the noble Lord, Lord McNally, refers to a form of protection for the individual. The very least that the individual must know is that the interception is taking place. The second point relates to the uses to which the e-mail copies or taped conversations can be put by an employer or anyone else. It is a theme to which we shall return throughout the passage of the Bill. We do not need not to be frightened by the concept; however, we do need to pay careful attention to the safeguards that
1416
should be in place for the protection not only of employees but also of employers. This is an important issue. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This short exchange has been quite useful. It has set out the parameters of the debate and some of the awkwardnesses in terms of legislation with which we are attempting to deal.
The effect of the amendment would be to replace the civil liability for a person making an interception on a network that he has a right to control or use with a criminal offence unless that person had carried out the interception in accordance with regulations made under Clause 4(2). I believe that my interpretation of the amendment is correct. The noble Lord attempts to ensure that every person who may be monitored is made aware of the purposes and the circumstances in which that might happen.
The Government are as keen as anyone present to ensure that the privacy of the individual is protected—hence Clause 1(3), which enables a civil action to be brought against anyone who intercepts a communication on a private network. One of the key drivers for this legislation is that such interception should be in accordance with the law. It must be within the legal framework and for a lawful purpose—hence also the lawful business practice regulations, which will govern the actions of businesses in this context and of any public authorities which monitor calls to the switchboard or the communications of the staff. These will contain the stipulation that businesses have reasonable grounds to believe that all parties to any communication are aware that monitoring may take place.
However, applying these regulations to the general public at large is an entirely different matter. The amendment would place a legal obligation, for instance, on all parents to inform every person who called them on the telephone. The same would apply to the circumstances described by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, where ministerial conversations are monitored. In such circumstances the child, the Minister's private secretary, or any individual present might conceivably pick up a second handset and listen in. We do not believe that the amendment is either reasonable or realistic. Such communications are already protected by the civil action provision in Clause 1(3). I trust that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: I shall readily withdraw the amendment. However, perhaps I may point out to the Minister's advisers as much as to the Minister himself that I hope that the response every time we put forward an amendment will not be one of reductio ad absurdum. We are not worried about 10 year-olds listening to their parents' conversations—although I am desperately trying to stop mine doing just that! We are moving into the use of awesome new technology. The amendment attempts to express concerns about the rights of the employee in the working environment

1417
The Minister referred to the civil redress that is contained in the Bill. I shall ponder on his reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Meaning and location of "interception" etc.]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("postal").
The noble Lord said: I am interested in the word "postal" which appears twice in the Bill, where my amendments seek to delete it. The reference is to "postal items". So far as I can see, the term is not defined in the Bill; nor does it appear in the Postal Services Bill—the closest that that Bill comes is in its use of the term "postal packets".
The general sense of the interception capability ought to be that the authorities, when suitably authorised, can look at any item in the course of transmission if that item contains a communication. My amendments would make sure that anything is considered "post"—it could be a piece of heavy plant, but if there is a communication with it, the provision in the clause would apply. If the restriction is to something "postal", I should like to know what the word means in this context and why there is no common definition with the Postal Services Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I, too, am interested in the definition, which does not seem satisfactory. What it really says is that a "postal service" means any service that consists in the collection and so on of postal items. So it does not define anything at all. It is fairly obvious that the service has to do with collection and I am not sure that the definition is necessary. I accept that lawyers may think it wise to include a definition, even if the Bill does not define "postal", which is the nub of the matter.
The matter becomes difficult in relation to considerations arising out of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, at Second Reading. The noble and learned Lord complained about the definitions in Clauses 2 and 72. The Minister was kind enough to send me a copy of a letter that he wrote to the noble and learned Lord. It is undated, but is recent—I saw it this morning, therefore it may have arrived after I left at the end of last week.
In the letter, the Minister explains that,
"Part I of the Bill introduces some difficult and complex concepts relating to interception and telecommunications".
and says that,
"These are fundamental to the subject matter of Chapter I of Part I".
The Minister goes on to say that that is why it has been thought right to put them at the start.
1418
Whatever it is, this definition is not a difficult and complex concept relating to interception. It is a much simpler definition than that. I should have thought that it could well have been left in Clause 72, where there is already a reference to it in any case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: "Postal service" and "postal item" are found in two different parts of the clause. I am sure that noble Lords will have read them. On reading "postal service" I thought that it was pretty clear what it meant. For the purposes of the record, I point out that the clause says, in subsection (1),
"'postal service' means any service which—
(a) consists in the following…the collection, sorting, conveyance, distribution and delivery (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) of postal items".
Subsection (10) says:
"'postal item' means any letter, postcard or other such thing in writing as may be used by the sender for imparting information to the recipient, or any packet or parcel".
If noble Lords can find more than that defining "postal item" or "postal service", I should be most grateful if they would tell me.
As I understand their effect, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 would dramatically extend the offence of unlawful interception by applying it to any goods at all, rather than communications, as intended by the Bill. As I have said on a number of occasions, the Bill is designed to update legislation, primarily the Interception of Communications Act, in the light of new technology and legal and market developments, not to extend the powers, which would I think be harmful to the Bill. That would be the effect of the amendments.
I think that the phrases "postal item" and "postal service" cover everything that we would wish to catch within the legislation, without extending the criminal offence unnecessarily. If the noble Lord has some examples of things he thinks we have missed, I should be most grateful for further elucidation of his point, but perhaps in view of what I have said he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I had missed the fact that "postal item", rather than being in the alphabetical list in subsection (1), is stuck away in subsection (10). For the purposes of this Bill we have a different definition from that current in another Bill going through the House—the Postal Services Bill. I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would consider whether those two definitions might not with advantage be brought into coincidence.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that important point. I shall of course look at the two definitions and see whether they in any sense contradict each other in terms of effectiveness of the law. I am certain that they will not, but we shall make a further check on that.
Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of SudburyMoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, leave out lines 23 to 33 and insert—
(""private telecommunication system" means any such parts of a telecommunication system which do not comprise a public telecommunication system;").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 11, which are grouped with it. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, will speak to Amendment No. 14, which is in the same group.
I must declare an interest, to this extent: I might reasonably claim to be a highly experienced lawyer, but I am a remarkably inexperienced computer buff. Maybe that is an advantage, in that the world at large will have to grapple with this extraordinary legislation. While we all criticise it, and try to be constructive in our criticisms, I acknowledge as a lawyer that drafting this measure must have been one of the most complex and difficult jobs that the parliamentary draftsman has had to confront in many a long day.
The amendments to which I am speaking are both purposive and probing. After listening to me the Minister may say that they could be better dealt with in some other way, but the point revolves around the difference between Chapter I and Chapter II of Part I. The Committee will recognise that I am here referring to the fact that access to information under Chapter I can be gained only with a warrant and that access to communications data under Chapter II can be gained without warrant, on a self-authenticating authorisation procedure that obviously gives far less protection to the citizen.
The reason we propose these three amendments to the definition clause is that if the definitions are right a great deal of the nuts and bolts of the Bill that follow will be correct, although what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said reminded me of the point made on Second Reading about the unhappy fact that the definitions are spread around the Bill. Nevertheless, if we get the definitions right, the Bill is more likely to be right. If the definitions are inappropriate, everything else will collapse, particularly in a Bill of this nature, which is so complex and interlaced.
The points that we seek to rectify by the three amendments concern requests for information, or for what are sometimes called datagrams, which, as the Bill is drawn, will fall within Chapter II as being communications data and not within Chapter I, which covers the content. On the face of it a request for information using the huge search engines that are now a feature of this world would seem to concern what are classically communications data, rather than significant content. However, I am advised, and can readily understand, that in investigating all the requests for information from various web servers over a period of time, using one of the now commonplace analytical programmes that can draw salient points, salient trends and so on, out of a mass of detail, one has an extraordinary tool for obtaining a profile of those in respect of whom the searches are
1420
made that will build up to a highly sensitive intrusion into their lives. It will get at their life's concerns, contacts, political views, plans—all by building up patterns that emerge from analysing a thousand separate datagrams.
It should be made absolutely clear—and we believe that it is not—that that sort of inquiry, that sort of access, must be possible only by warrant, and not under Chapter II. I am told that the rate at which the technology is developing makes this point, which may seem arcane to some, one of immense importance, since most telephonic conversations will be carried by these means, by so-called datagrams, in the near future. We believe that changing the definitions in this clause, as would be done by Amendments Nos. 5, 9 and 11, would achieve our purpose.
Finally, we seek to establish that the end points of a transmission are not part of the telecommunication system—that is, that no interception warrant may require any interference with the origin or destination. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 inclusive.
The Earl of Northesk: Amendment No. 14 is in this grouping. For the convenience of the Committee, and at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I shall speak to it now.
I hope that the Minister will find it music to his ears if I tell him that it is very much a probing amendment. I am only too well aware that the phrase "general reception" in Clause 2(3) is intended to be very much wider than my substitute formulation of "reception by the general public". Nor, per se, do I quarrel with that. It merely strikes me that the phrase is woolly. It lacks clarity.
I am aware that the phrase has been used previously in drafting, I believe in recent legislation related to broadcasting. But its context in this Bill seems somewhat different. It is conceivable that messages transmitted to pagers within a closed network—let us say that of a political party—could be interpreted as falling within the terms of,
"any communication broadcast for general reception".
In the case of a properly registered and legitimately constituted political party it is difficult to imagine an occasion when interception of such communications could readily be justified, even on the grounds specified in Clause 21(2). That is all good and well.
Equally, it is possible to envisage instances—in particular in the context of organised crime—where such closed networks could be the preferred mode of communication even though they could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of "general reception". Either way it is important that the Government's intended parameters of the phrase should be more clear-cut.

1421
While I do not believe that the Bill would be improved by a copious list of the communications and broadcasts that the Government have in mind, none the less I should be grateful if the Minister can put some flesh on what are, as they stand, very bare bones.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken and for the probing nature of the amendments.
Amendment No. 5 would include within the definition of a "private telecommunication system" all self-standing private systems in the United Kingdom, and all telecommunications systems abroad, whether public or private. I think that that is the correct understanding. The scope of the prohibition on interception would be widened to include all such systems. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 have this effect only for self-standing private systems. Under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, only the interception of communications in the course of their transmission by means of a public system is unlawful. The Bill extends this to make unlawful also interception on a private system attached to a public system: for example, an office or hotel network, or the telephones in a domestic household. This extension implements the requirements of Article 5 of the European Telecommunications Data Protection Directive. That is how we see it working. That is where it comes from. That is its root.
Our understanding is that Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 would change the definition of telecommunication system to exclude the origin and destination. The noble Lord made that clear in his explanation. But a primary purpose of this part of the Bill is to ensure that wherever along the path of a communication it is intercepted, the required level of authority, handling, safeguards and oversight remain the same. It would make no sense for interception of a telephone wire in the street to require a Secretary of State warrant, yet no warrant to be required if the interception was to occur at the telephone handset. Indeed, this was the deficiency identified by the European Court in the case of Halford v. UK which this Bill seeks to remedy. An important step is being taken with this legislation.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to clarify the meaning of the phrase "for general reception". Clause 2(3) is designed to ensure that listening to a publicly available communication—for example, a radio or television programme—is not treated as interception for the purposes of this Bill. It uses a phrase which is used and well understood in other legislation. The noble Lord acknowledged that point. For example, the Broadcasting Act 1996 uses it in its definition of a "digital programme service". In Section 1(4) it states that this means,
"a service consisting in the provision by any person of television programmes (together with any ancillary services, as defined by section 24(2)) with a view to their being broadcast in digital form for general reception".
In Section 1(7), we are told that "for general reception" means for general reception in, or in any area in, the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble
1422
Lord will be reassured that the phrase here has the same meaning. I trust that with those reassurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: On Amendment No. 14, police and ambulance broadcasts were, and sometimes still are, able to be picked up on short-wave radio. People sometimes listened to them out of interest and sometimes because they were criminals wishing to ensure that the police were not headed in their direction. It became a relatively common practice. I am not sure whether that counts as "general reception". It is no fault of the person that he or she receives the broadcast. But is it an offence not to retune immediately one's radio should one come across such a broadcast? I am not sure whether that would be a new offence. It would be of interest to know the position.
Lord Lucas: From the Minister's remarks and the definition he cited from the Broadcasting Act 1996, my noble friend Lord Northesk has hit the nail on the head. "General reception" means anything that is intended to be received generally. In the case of television, that includes signals intended to be used only by people who have paid the fee to unscramble them, or the pay-per-view fee. "General reception" clearly includes signals broadcast generally which are intended to be used only by those who have paid the fee or fulfilled specific requirements.
Under the Bill, even if I were to intercept and make use of a signal for Sky Sports 1, I would not be committing an offence under this Bill. However, if that technology is to be legitimate under this provision—under the definition given by the Minister it is—then, as my noble friend Lord Northesk said, interception of a signal to a pager or to a mobile phone, both of which are broadcast for general reception but are intended to be decrypted by an individual or group of individuals, falls within the definition and falls outside the prohibitions in the Bill. Therefore tapping mobile phones and pagers is not covered. It is an area that the Minister should consider. His own definition compounds the difficulties that my noble friend Lord Northesk outlined.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps the Minister will undertake to give the matter firm consideration. We seem to have unearthed a problem that we have not encountered previously.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that we have. We can debate this issue further under Clauses 20 to 24.
Perhaps I may clarify the point on pagers. It is clear that to intercept pagers would need a warrant. The noble Lord seemed to think that one would not be needed; we take the view that it would.
We do not agree that communications for reception by a closed network come within the provisions for general reception. We are clear that the term "general" means available to all. However, it specifically excludes those on a closed network. Noble Lords will need to understand that precise point.

1423
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, makes a useful contribution. We can have further debate on the issue on Clauses 20 to 24. On reflection, perhaps he will be satisfied with the definition as we have sought to explain it.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I can ask the Minister a question relating to his reference to "general reception" and the fact that pagers are not included in this. Where does that leave subscription broadcasting, and indeed encrypted broadcasting? Where does that fit into the definition?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his intervention. I shall need to take further advice on that point. I am sure that the noble Viscount will appreciate that it is rather more complex than is perhaps usual.
Lord Lucas: In case the noble Lord wishes to wind up, this is very much getting at the same point, a point which we should not leave alone now until we get a firm commitment from the Minister to deal with it very seriously. The size of a private group does not have any bearing on its status under this Bill. If I send out a signal which is receivable by two or 200 pagers, that is not something which is relevant under this Bill. If I send out a television signal which is intended only for the 200,000 people who have paid but is actually receivable by everybody, the definition that the noble Lord has just quoted refers to "general reception". Therefore, it is for general reception whether the group happens to be 200,000-strong or 200-strong. In other words, pagers—and I suspect mobile phones, even though they comprise only a singular group, which is none the less mathematically a group, as any mathematician will doubtless acknowledge—are by this clause as currently drafted (using definitions in other Bills, because there is no definition in this Bill) excluded from the effects of this Bill. The noble Lord has demonstrated that with his own words. None of us wishes that to be the case, but we must take this absolutely seriously.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I agree that we need to take it seriously. However, the noble Lord is perhaps taking the reductio ad absurdum argument to its nth degree here. "Broadcast for general reception" has a fairly obvious meaning. It could not possibly refer to pager messages to a closed group. A pager network is a full part of a telecommunications network and, as I have made plain, pagers are clearly caught by Clause 2(2)(c). I therefore do not quite understand that particular difficulty about the definition. I believe that we are in the right territory here in terms of how this should work. I simply invite the noble Lord to reflect on some of the observations that I have made. If there are further questions or points to be raised in relation to this matter, we can, of course, deal with them at a later stage.
Lord Lucas: I should prefer it if the noble Lord did the reflecting. General reception is exactly what pagers are about. The pager system has no knowledge whatsoever of where an individual pager is. It sends out a signal over the whole of the United Kingdom and it is just picked up by my pager. Mobile phones know, within a cell, where somebody is within a few hundred yards or a few miles, but within that area of the country the signal is again sent out for general reception. "Reception" merely means that I am all owed to receive it, that I do receive it. My pager is at this moment receiving every single message sent out on that system. My pager is not operating on a unique frequency. All sorts of messages are being received by my pager at the moment. It does not happen to be buzzing, because they are not for me, but the signals are sent out for general reception and they are received generally; they are just not acted on by my pager. There is no difference between the technology employed in television and the technology employed in pagers so far as transmission and reception are concerned. The two clearly must fall within the same box.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before I make a few short observations, I want to add to the comments of those who have already spoken on Amendment No. 14; that the dubiety expressed on the issues debated this afternoon gives the lie to the Minister's confidence that this is a clearly defined phrase.
I thank the Minister for his comments on Amendments Nos. 5, 9 and 11. He dealt with the origin and destination point. However, he did not touch at all on my main concern relating to how datagrams or search requests will fall in this Bill. Will they, as I think the drafting now intends, be treated as communications data, or will they be treated as communications having content entitling them to warrant prior to search and access? I should be grateful if the Minister would think about that. I believe that it has a very wide and deep significance for the Bill as a whole.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure how wide and deep that significance might be. However, I acknowledge the noble Lord's point that perhaps my comments have not covered his observation that one cannot look at each communication, each piece of data, separately. The noble Lord made the point that one needs to look at it cumulatively, that one can detect patterns and that although there may be an analysis that applies to patterns, one can in fact detect something else. I entirely understand that point, and I undertake to reflect further on it. However, I do not believe that it poses to us a general problem that we have not already thought through in terms of the way in which the legislation is intended to work. I undertake to give further thought to that issue and to how this piece of the drafting affects that point.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 25, leave out from ("which") to ("there") in line 30.
The noble Lord said: This amendment picks up a general question on the drafting of this part of the Bill. As it is expressed here, I am concerned that it fails to catch particular kinds of communications systems. First, if I choose to connect my private telecommunications system through a dish on my roof to a satellite, that appears to fall outside the Bill because under subsection (a), which I seek to delete, it is no longer attached directly or indirectly to a public telecommunications system, because public telecommunications systems are only those systems which have equipment in the UK.
My second point is that we appear to be in danger of having a definition of what falls within a private telecommunications system which will not mesh with similar definitions if they are employed in other countries, and thus leave loopholes where there is not total coverage of what can and cannot fall within similar legislation in other countries. From the point of view of the prevention of international malfeasance, that is a bad idea. It seems to me that our jurisdiction should depend on whether there is apparatus in the United Kingdom. If there is no apparatus in the United Kingdom, we clearly have something which is entirely outside our jurisdiction; but if there is apparatus in the United Kingdom, it ought to fall within our jurisdiction. I therefore propose that simplification. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Some businesses have an internal telephone system which is free-standing and is solely the internal system, whereas in other businesses the more modern practice is to have an internal telephone system which is also connected to the external system. I cannot understand why there should be a separate regime, with regard to interceptions, for these two different types of internal telephone system. But if the words which my noble friend seeks to leave out remain in the Bill, a totally free-standing internal telephone system would be treated differently from one which happens to be connected to the public system as well. I cannot see the reason for wanting to treat them differently.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand that Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 would widen the scope of prohibition on interception to include interception of entirely self-standing private systems. I hope that that is a correct understanding of the amendments.
Under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, only the interception of communications in the course of their transmission by means of a public system is unlawful. The Bill extends this to make unlawful also interception on a private system attached to a public system; for example, an office or hotel network, or the telephones in a domestic household. This extension seeks to implement the requirement of Article 5 of the European Telecommunications Data Protection Directive.
1426
Framing the terms of the extension has not been without difficulty and we have done so cautiously in order to avoid inadvertently making any legitimate activity unlawful; for example, criminalising a teenager for picking up a second handset in his or her own home. I know that one might consider that to be somewhat fatuous, but it could happen and we could have the ludicrous position of criminalising that activity. We do not seek to do that. There is no legal requirement for the scope of unlawful interception to be further extended; while to do so in a way proposed by the amendment would include the interception of walkie-talkies, garage door and video player remote control systems and a whole host of other freestanding systems which we do not believe it would be right to make unlawful in this context. I am sure that the noble Lord, in moving the amendment, did not seek to make it unlawful in that context.
I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and I look forward to hearing his reflections on those points.
Lord Lucas: I suspect that that convinces me. I shall certainly read Hansard, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("for the purpose of ") and insert ("one of the purposes of which is").
The noble Lord said: I want to pick up the singularity of purpose in the Bill that telecommunication must have,
"for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications".
At times in my house I have used electrical cable for doing that because baby alarms are commonly sold on that basis. Indeed, wider networks are based on it, as are other means of communication. For instance, if it were not broadcast for general reception, the teletext system would be just such a communication system. There is the possibility of putting communications down other conduits and I suggest that one of the purposes should be telecommunication but not the sole purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: We see where the noble Lord is coming from. The Bill does not state "sole purpose"; it states "for the purpose of". We would say that that probably implies the major purpose; not necessarily the only one, but the major purpose.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to widen the scope of the definition of a telecommunication system, to be found at Clause 2(1), to include systems only one of whose purposes is to facilitate the transmission of communications. We believe that the existing wording already provides for this. Perhaps by example I may put to the noble Lord the proposition that were technology in the future to be developed which permitted the National Grid to be used as a means of transmitting telecommunications, various adaptations

1427
to the grid would need to be made, such as the addition of routers and so on. The grid would become part of a system which had as one of its purposes facilitating the transmission of communications. As such, it would then fall within the definition in subsection (1).
Viscount Goschen: Will the Minister therefore confirm that he is confident that, for example, an e-mail system based in interactive TV and using TV signals would be counted as a telecommunication system rather than anything else?
Lord Bach: I should be far from confident in agreeing that, as the noble Viscount knew well when he posed the question. However, it is such an interesting question that I should like some time to consider it and will let him know whether I have the confidence that he requires me to have.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may suggest that if the Minister is not confident he should accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Lucas: I hope that we shall persuade the Government to do that in due course. It will not have escaped the Minister's notice that interactive TV also involves signals broadcast for general reception, but intended to be received by only one person.
In this area, I accept what the noble Lord says is the Government's opinion, but I draw his attention to the many pieces of legislation in which the opposite view has been taken. I hope that he will give that some consideration. We have heard of "general purposes", "principal purpose" and many similar phrases in many pieces of legislation. If they have been unnecessary, I do not know why we have passed them. Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to take further advice, but in the mean time beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 12 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 13.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from first ("if") to end of line 12 and insert ("he does anything so").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. The amendment is intended to make the set of definitions in the Bill general, rather than the complicated triplicate. If that turns out to be wrong, Amendment No. 13 is intended to leave out the third paragraph because it appears to me already encompassed by the first two paragraphs.
What I am really after is an explanation of why this particular set of definitions has been chosen. It looks as though the Government are trying to close a loophole, to paper over a crack, in the basic definition in which my Amendment No. 12 would result. As I cannot see what the crack is, I am disturbed that the
1428
Government should be able to see such a lacuna in the Bill and I want to ensure that what they are doing by way of this rather odd and complicated definition cures the problem that they see. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that the noble Lord is seeking riddles within riddles, but I shall try to help him. Amendment No. 12 would extend the definition of "interception" to include any action which made a communication available to a third party in the course of its transmission, rather than simply the narrower list of actions contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I can understand that this more concise approach is at first sight attractive and has the advantage of simplicity. However, as with our extension of the tort of unlawful interception in Clause 1, the current wording reflects the care we have tried to take to avoid making innocent activity unlawful. Subsection (3) is another example of this. It ensures that the ordinary use of a radio receiver or television in a home is not made unlawful.
We are concerned that by extending the definition in the way the amendment proposes would catch a great deal of innocent activity. We do not want to do that. For example, I am advised that passing on any files sent to a computer to a third party would be made unlawful by virtue of subsection (7). In short, we are concerned that the offence of unlawful interception bites only where it should and we believe that the current wording achieves that aim and objective.
I suspect that Amendment No. 13 would have the reverse effect by trying to narrow the definition of interception to exclude the monitoring of transmissions made by wireless telegraphy. This limb of the definition is necessary to ensure that interception of mobile communications between two microwave dishes and of point-to-point radio communications is caught. We are obliged by the European Telecommunications Data Protection Directive to prohibit that.
I hope that that explanation enables the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It seemed to me that the Minister said that if a file were received by me, for example, and I forwarded it to someone else, in being forwarded, the file would not be covered by the definition that he outlined. Having read the definition, I am not sure that I agree with that, but it is extremely complicated and I should not want to be cross-examined too closely on whether or not such cover is included.
I believe that if a file is forwarded by the communications system, it should be covered by the provision as much as one that is received. After all, it is a perfectly normal occurrence and is, in any case, just as much a transmission through the telecommunications system. If forwarded files were not covered by this

1429
legislation, that would be a loophole because one would have only to use that method in order to escape interception.
Lord Lucas: I very much agree with what my noble friend has said. I find myself in the position of not having understood to any degree the answer given by the Minister. I do not want to go on at length about the amendment in front of the whole Committee. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would ensure that I receive a written example of what harm would accrue if Amendment No. 12 were passed; in other words, what undesirable effects would be caused by the passing of that amendment?
I should also be grateful for some justification in writing as to why paragraph (b) of Clause 2(2)—
"so monitors transmissions made by … the system"—
does not cover the items in paragraph (c). Paragraph (b) seems to me a perfectly straightforward and sensible general clause which covers paragraph (c) in every respect. What is it about the items in paragraph (c) that means that they are not covered by paragraph (b)? Surely that raises the question as to what else is not covered by paragraph (b).
If the Minister is unable to provide it now, I believe that both those points deserve elucidation at length in writing. I hope that the Minister will confirm that he can provide that clarification.
Viscount Astor: Before my noble friend sits down, is he aware—I am sure that he is—that, as I understand it, coverage is needed on e-mail because an e-mail system which uses, for example, a terrestrial digital system sends only a general signal that says, "You have an e-mail". However, collection of that e-mail by the recipient is carried out through a dial-up process within a box. Therefore, subsection (2)(b) must cover not only the transmission of that broadcast to the individual, but presumably it must cover also, either via a cable or a telephone, the link to collect it. Therefore, my noble friend must consider how that fits in with the point that he makes.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure how much more helpful I can be in relation to this matter. There are many clever pieces of elucidation bouncing around the Chamber. I shall pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I believe that I had made it fairly plain. In phrasing the legislation, we must be terribly careful that we do not catch everything when, in fact, we want to catch something more precise. I believe that that is what we are trying to achieve in the drafting of this particular part of the Bill. I take the point that has been made by the noble Lord. If we are able to provide further information which will be of help and will perhaps persuade him that he does not need to return to this particular group of amendments, then, of course, we shall try, as ever, to be helpful.
Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 20, leave out from first ("if") to second ("the") in line 21.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 18. I am concerned about the scope and reach of the Bill. To my understanding, my amendments would make a more seamless and watertight join with the likely regimes of other countries. I believe that it would be more simple if I were to listen to the Minister's reply first, rather than trouble the Committee with a lengthy explanation as to why I believe that the amendment provides an improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, adopts a novel approach to the moving of amendments. I shall try to live within the spirit of that.
As we understand it, Amendment No. 15 would, crucially, remove the words "and only if" from line 20. The words are used to make it clear to the reader that he should look only to subsection (4) of Clause 2 in order to understand the meaning of the phrase "in the United Kingdom" in the context of the interception of a communication. Without that restriction, there is a danger that the reader may look elsewhere in addition to this subsection in order to understand the phrase. For example, the words "in the United Kingdom" appear alongside the words "whether wholly or partly" in the definition of a telecommunications system in line 2 of page 4. I believe that the draftsman has used a similar device at line 9 of page 16, where the reader is directed to Clause 14(4) alone for a definition of the phrase "the authorised purposes".
Amendment No. 16 would criminalise interception carried out in another country which had effect in the UK. The criminal law must be precise, and this test is imprecise. An important question is: where does the interception of a wireless communication have effect? It is almost impossible to answer that question, and interception currently is not prohibited by the Interception of Communications Act 1985; to do so would make a criminal of anyone anywhere in the world who undertook the interception of a communication in the United Kingdom. We have no evidence that it is necessary to extend the scope of the offence world-wide. Generally, criminal law is limited to the jurisdiction of this country.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would extend the definition of interception "within the United Kingdom" to include any interception of any communication anywhere, provided that the interception was carried out in the United Kingdom. As drafted, the Bill follows the precedent set by the current interception Act, which outlaws only interception of communications within the United Kingdom. As I mentioned previously, in the context of private telecommunications systems, we are cautious

1431
about extending further the scope of the offence, especially when there is no evidence that the existing scope is problematic.
I have explained our view of the noble Lord's amendments. I hope that in putting our response, he will now feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 15.
Viscount Goschen: I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. In respect of my noble friend's Amendment No. 16, can the Minister clarify the point further? With the globalisation of telecommunications equipment, it is possible to envisage that someone may sit behind a desk in Singapore and intercept an e-mail sent from Milton Keynes to Portsmouth. Conceivably, they will have injected a virus into the ISP. However, I defy the Minister to tell me that that cannot be done. If it cannot he done now, I am sure that such an act will be possible next year.
Therefore, it is important to test how far the Bill can be taken with regard to the interception of communications. Clearly, we do not want to create a loophole where illegal activity could take place in havens. We want to ensure that the Bill tackles areas where criminal activity takes place and that proper sanctions can be taken against such criminals.
Lord Lucas: I would have asked the same question but would have phrased it less well.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not a technocrat nor a technophobe, but I am sure what the noble Viscount says is right. If the technology to do precisely as he wishes does not exist this year, it will exist next year. I am sure we are all familiar with the Internet and the systems that are accessible.
The problem with Amendment No. 16 is that, if it were accepted, it would criminalise interceptions carried out in another country which had an effect here in the United Kingdom. The Government are trying to ensure that the criminal law is as precise as it can possibly be, notwithstanding the important point that both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, I suspect, are making; namely, that, obviously, communications systems are global.
As I said earlier, the Government have no evidence that extending the scope of the offence world-wide is necessary. Our criminal law must surely be limited to the conduct of our own jurisdiction. That seems to be sensible, right and proper on the basis on which we conduct our business.
Viscount Goschen: I suspect that technology moves faster than the draftsman's pen on this issue. This legislation has to be made as future-proof as it possibly can be. Is the Minister seeking to ignore that such a problem could occur?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not saying that the problem could not or would not occur. The problem is very real. I am saying that the Government are trying to act within the limit of our own legal system, understanding that only those matters occurring within our own jurisdiction may be criminalised.
1432
I appreciate the noble Viscount's point. I myself have had access to a K-World system which sends e-mails all around the world. I can quite see the problem that the noble Viscount described. The Government think that in terms of their own legislation that this is the best that can be done and that at this stage there is no need to seek to criminalise interceptions carried out in another country that might have an effect here.
Viscount Goshen: I accept the purpose of what the Minister is seeking to achieve here, but I do not accept his degree of confidence that this might not create a substantial legal loophole.
I understand that we are limited within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. But perhaps further thought could be given to the definition of the conduct; that is, where the interception actually takes place. If one could not phrase it in terms of intercepting a transmission domestically, I would urge the Minister to look at that issue quite seriously.
Viscount Astor: Before the Minister rises, perhaps I may ask one simple question. If somebody was in France and using a system there that intercepted an e-mail which had derived from this country, had been sent within this country and had been received by someone in this country—therefore, the interception was carried out abroad—would that be an offence under this Bill in this country? Would it be an offence in France? Is there an EL aspect to this? Have we consulted our European neighbours? One can dial up by telephone anywhere in the world and then plug into a computer. Therefore, it is where the person sits who is using the keyboard which is important. I realise that the Minister may not be able to answer this question immediately, so perhaps when he writes to my noble friend he will include an answer to my question also.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that the noble Viscount was going to ask me a simple question. It is believed that it would not be an offence because the conduct would have to be committed here. I understand that to be a general principle in criminal law. I am not a lawyer (although I live with one) but I believe that to be the case.
I am interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said on this. If what he said highlights something we have missed, I shall be very interested to know the noble Viscount's remedy. Perhaps there is some scope for further discussion on that point. But the Government must look at the criminal law in the light of our own jurisdiction where conduct is undertaken.
Of course, the noble Viscount is right and this legislation has to be made as future-proof as it can be. That is why the Bill is as complex as it is: the Government have tried to create a framework within which it can operate for a long period. As noble Lords will appreciate, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, though only 15 years old, has rapidly been overtaken by advances in communications. That is the problem we are attempting to tackle.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: I regard future-proofing as very important. But does the Minister regard international compatibility as an aim of this Bill? That is a concern. We may be inventing crimes that are purely national for a system that is obviously global.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes a very important point. Of course we have to operate in an international environment. We live in a global telecommunications/communications system. The noble Lord will have detected that I have referred to various articles relating to the European directives. We are advised by them and by the internationality of the nature of the beast with which we are dealing. Those things have been reflected on in drafting the legislation. I do entirely accept the point the noble Lord makes.
Lord Lucas: There is a point here that requires further consideration. To take the obvious parallel to that, an alleged action by two Libyan gentlemen in putting a bomb on board an aeroplane in North Africa is a crime in Scotland because that is where the consequences occurred. The fact that those gentlemen were not extracted for a long time from Libya to stand trial is surely beside the point. If an action is a criminal action, and the important part of the action takes place in this country, it should be something which is subject to prosecution in this country. The fact that people are difficult to get at is a matter for other aspects of international law.
I give an example of something that might occur under this clause. Someone in France, and without leaving France, through his own clever devices, plants a bug in the communications system of a merchant bank in London. He is thereby able to follow the course of takeover transactions and to extract valuable information which is then made use of. Under this Bill as it now stands, I believe that he is not committing an offence, but surely that should be the case. If we are faced with difficulties in getting hold of and extraditing him, that is a different question.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that the noble Lord has added anything new to the debate. I am not sure that the Lockerbie example is necessarily the right one. I shall think more about that, but ultimately the offence was conducted in the air space over Scotland. Although it has taken us a long time to get to the position we are presently in, I think that it was right that we followed the approach we did in seeking to try that particular case. I shall reflect further on the noble Lord's words, but I cannot promise to go any further than that.
Lord Grabiner: On that point, the conduct that we are concerned with is the interception of a communication. The concept of interception is defined in subsection (2). If the modification or interference with the system took place in the United Kingdom, which, on the noble Lord's example, it would have done because the bug would have been placed in a
1434
merchant bank in London, I believe that that is conduct which would plainly be caught. It would have happened in the United Kingdom. Another part of the exercise is to tap in, and in the example given that is done in France. Such an example would be caught fairly and squarely by the terms of the Bill as now drafted.
Viscount Goschen: I suspect that that may be so, but deliberate online interference would not be caught. That is not physical interference—that is, planting a bug—but rather someone sitting at a desk in Singapore sending a virus over the line to the RSB which, in turn, sends information on.
A clearer and more probable example is that provided by mobile telecommunications. For example, a man may travel from South Africa to England with a South African mobile phone. We could be standing two streets away. I could call his mobile phone and that call may be routed via South Africa although we are both in the United Kingdom. However, that transmission could be monitored in South Africa.
There is a problem here to which we should certainly return at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for all the efforts by Members on the Benches opposite to clarify this question. I shall read Hansard with great interest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 28, leave out from ("communication") to ("do") in line 30.
The noble Lord said: Here I seek a short explanation from the Government as to why they want to use the concept "in the course of its transmission" rather than just "interception of a communication" full stop. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 19 would extend the applicability of the communications data exemption in subsection (5) to all references in the Bill to "the interception of a communication". For example, the conduct authorised by Clause 3(1) (interception with the consent of both parties) and by Clause 3(3) (interception by a telecoms company for service provision purposes) would include interception of the content of the communication, but not of its address. Those subsections would no longer be effective for authorising interception in order to acquire communications data.
Such a change would be disastrous for public telecommunications operators seeking to trace the originator of abusive phone calls by examining the communications data associated with such calls. Their behaviour would be rendered unlawful. The acquisition of communications data would be

1435
unlawful under Clause 3(1) too, even if both parties to the communication had agreed that this should take place.
The phrase,
"in the course of its transmission by means of a postal service or telecommunication system"
has been carefully chosen by parliamentary counsel to cover a particular set of circumstances. The course of transmission begins where a postal service or telecommunication system first begins to transmit a communication. In a telephone, the sound waves from the human voice first begin to be in the course of their transmission by means of a telecommunication when they are received by the microphone in the handset. They continue to be in the course of their transmission until they are emitted by the speaker.
Such phraseology ensures that one is not technically intercepting a communication if one is in the same room as someone using a telephone, and one happens to overhear what is being said. In the same way, listening to a voice from a speakerphone is not interception: the sound waves have left the telecommunication system on which they were transmitted, and are hence no longer technically in the course of their transmission. That is what we have in mind and why we have used that phraseology. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: I thank the Minister for that extremely helpful explanation. I shall be able to look at the Bill in that context. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert ("and where no use whatever is made of any other information which a person may need to have access to in order to obtain addresses and other data so comprised or attached").
The noble Lord said: This is one of the great nubs of the Bill as it is presently drafted; namely, the danger posed to all our civil liberties by giving government unfettered access to what they have smilingly called "communications data".
With so much of our life becoming electronic and with so much of that life consisting of movement from one address to another to obtain predetermined information, the picture of a person's life which can be built up with access to communications data goes way beyond anything which we have traditionally allowed people to obtain without a warrant. The point of the exemption here is to allow communications data to be obtained without a warrant.
The particular point which I am addressing in this amendment is that in order to obtain communications data, one very often has to obtain a great deal of other data too, particularly if one is trying to intercept a package-switch system. I am concerned that the freedom from the restrictions from this part of the Bill should not apply if there are not proper safeguards in place to make sure that that part of the information which is not communications data—that part of the information data which should properly fall within
1436
Part I—is safely handled by whoever is seeking to escape from the necessity for a warrant under this subsection of the Bill.
We shall doubtless return to many aspects of communications data. This is merely the opening shot in that war. But I hope that the Minister recognises the problem; namely, that if information is transmitted in "clear", we are allowing people to look at a great deal of information just in the course of gathering communications data which should be visible only with a warrant. If we are to allow such a process, proper safeguards must be in place. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I rise only to agree with my noble friend. I emphasise the fact that one of the difficulties with the Bill is that it collects an enormous amount of information and is not targeted on the precise information which is required for the purpose of the police, the security service, the Customs and so on.
I accept entirely that that is in part because of the nature of the Internet and the way it works, particularly as regards such matters as package-switching and so on and the way that that works. It may be impossible to design a system which does not collect a lot of additional information. But that means that we should be even more careful about what happens to that additional information, what use is made of it and that it is properly protected. It is not information which is necessary for the main purpose of the Bill; that is, for catching criminals, terrorists and so on.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: From these Benches, we associate ourselves with the general purport of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as I tried to indicate in relation to the earlier amendments which I moved.
We agree that this matter goes to the heart of one of the most worrying aspects of the Bill. My only concern about the amendment is whether it is back to front. We should prevent information reaching people who do not need it at all. But it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that we are fishing in the same pool and that we are not a million miles apart in terms of our intent. It requires us to think more generally across the legislation.
Amendment No. 20 would expressly prohibit the use of any information incidentally obtained in the course of identifying addresses and other data under subsection (5). In practice we believe that the current wording of the Bill already achieves that objective. I draw the attention of the Committee to subsection (5)(a) which states expressly that the conduct described must provide a person with only,
"so much access to a communication as is necessary for the purpose of identifying addresses and other data so comprised or attached".
Let us say that a person is obliged, in the course of his duties, to programme his computer to scan through the content of a series of e-mail packets in order to

1437
isolate those which contain addressing information. In scanning through other packets, he has access parts of the communication other than those which contain addressing information. So far so good. This is clearly permitted by paragraph (b). However, let us imagine that he now decides to retain those other packets which he has scanned through, or worse, to read them. In doing so, he has taken more access—I think we would all agree—to the communication than the Bill entitled him, and subsection (5) does not provide a defence for his conduct.
Certainly we recognise and understand the issue. It has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in an earlier debate. But we think that the way in which the legislation is drafted captures the issue that noble Lords have, quite rightly, attempted to address in this amendment, and the comments made thereto. Therefore, we do not think that it provides for unfettered access. It certainly closes off any line of defence. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by that. I look forward to listening to his comments.
Lord Lucas: It seems to me that we are getting into a technical and legal definition of "access" here, which is not something to which I pretend to have immediate access, or to the arguments for or against. If the status is, as the noble Lord has expressed it—that making use of data to which you have access is actually further access rather than something separate—the Minister's argument stands and I am satisfied. Between now and Report stage I shall consider whether I really believe that to be the case. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert ("or
( ) any conduct in relation to anything which has been delivered, without any deliberate intent by any person, to a final destination other than a final destination intended by the sender").
The noble Lord said: It is unclear to me whether under the exceptions we are allowing the innocent third party, or someone to whom a communication has been delivered in error, to deal with the matter in a way which is convenient and sensible to them without incurring the risk of liability. If a letter or fax ends up in the wrong place, one may well wish to read it to discover to whom it should be sent back. I should like to be assured that that sort of conduct in relation to a communication is not caught by the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that my explanation will make it plain that we do not seek to create a problem here where really there should not be a problem at all. We are confident that the Bill as drafted has the effect of providing the exemption from the interception offence where the communication is delivered to a wrong address. The definition of "interception" is limited to interception of a
1438
communication in the course of its transmission by certain means. To take one example, a letter which has been delivered through a letterbox and is lying on a doormat is no longer in the course of its transmission—it has, after all, arrived—because it is no longer being delivered by the public postal service into whose care it was entrusted. Should it have been misdelivered, readdressing it and sending it on could not possibly constitute an interception under the Bill.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that comfort. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (5) the reference to data comprised in or attached to a communication for the purposes of a telecommunication system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted includes a reference to any communication or part of a communication consisting of signals for the actuation of apparatus comprised in a telecommunication system by which they will be or may be received.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 22 and 83 are designed to address a deficiency in the law highlighted by the recent House of Lords case of Morgans. They will ensure that there is legislative provision to allow the investigation and prosecution of dial-through fraud on telecommunications networks.
Dial-through fraud is the illegal accessing of outgoing telephone lines by using switch facilities to place calls at reduced or no cost to the caller. The primary motivation is to obtain telephone calls without having to pay. But there are further reasons: to avoid detection by call tracing; to facilitate computer hacking, which would otherwise cost a great deal in telephone charges; to exchange information with other protagonists by abusing voice mail; and to perpetrate other fraud-related action such as call-selling or premium rate service fraud.
The prosecution of dial-through fraud requires the evidence of dialled digits from a protagonist's telephone line. We think that monitoring those digits, both under the Interception of Communications Act and Part I of this Bill as currently drafted, amounts to interception. It follows therefore that the activity needed to monitor these digits should be warranted and will not be capable of evidential use by virtue of Clause 16. Clearly, it is in everyone's interests that such prosecutions can take place. The intention of these amendments is to ensure that they can.
It has also been brought to my attention that these amendments have caused some concern in relation to the Internet, with one interpretation being that they would allow the content of e-mail communications to be treated as communications data and therefore allow interception of e-mail communications to take place without the need for a warrant authorised by the Secretary of State. Although I do not agree that this is a valid interpretation of the wording, I want to place on the record that this is not the intention—I repeat the word "not"—of these amendments and that the Bill

1439
will require Secretary of State warranting for the interception of e-mail communications. I offer my assurance that the code of practice will clearly spell that out so that there can be no misunderstanding on that issue.
There is also the question of the point at which a visit to a website becomes a communication with the website. That is an interesting issue. Although I think that few would argue that the fact that I visited an airline website is the equivalent of me dialling the airline booking service and that the data should be treated in the same way, what I do when I am on the airline website is clearly more private and equates perhaps more closely to the content of the communication when I am through to the airline booking service. We think that this distinction is reflected in the amendment. It is clearly a difficult distinction in practice, and my officials are already in dialogue with industry representatives on that point to find a technical solution. This specific point will be addressed in the code of practice. I can offer that assurance to the Committee.
On Amendment No. 74, removing subsections (2) and (3) would leave both the investigating agency and the provider of communications data open to criminal or civil liability in respect of any actions they carried out under an authorisation or notice. The most obvious area in which actions may be taken would be under the Human Rights Act. But it is possible that, for instance, a customer could sue his communications service provider for breach of contract or breach of confidence if there was no cover provided by the Bill.
Regarding Amendment No. 75, I do not believe that adding the word "expressly" makes any material difference to this subsection. A person either is authorised or he is not. If he is not, any actions carried out by him under this section are not lawful, and it leaves him potentially liable under civil and criminal law, including actions under the Human Rights Act.
Although Amendment: No. 77 would apply the definition of "communications data" to Part I in its entirety, rather than just this chapter, the term "communications data" is not used in Chapter I, so this amendment would have no effect.
I believe that the intention behind Amendments No. 78 and 80 is to restrict the types of data which may be collected under this chapter. I think that there are two important points to make here: first, the whole point of this chapter is to place on a clear statutory basis that which already occurs. The Data Protection Act already allows holders of communications data not restricted by any definition to supply it for certain purposes. Secondly, this Bill is not about making communication service providers start to collect data which they do not already have the capability of collecting. This is what Clause 21(7) is designed to achieve, and it was drafted in response primarily to industry concerns.
Amendment No. 79, as I understand it, would tighten the definition of communications data so that it could not indicate any of the content of the communication. But if a person phones an airline
1440
booking service, does that not indicate that in all likelihood the communication will be related to airline bookings? This amendment would mean that the telephone number of the airline booking service could not be treated as communications data and restrict the use of the data so tightly as to be effectively unworkable, which I am sure was not the intention of the amendment.
Amendment No. 82 seeks to restrict the third category of communications data (i.e. not addressing information or usage information) to data which serve to identify persons to whom the communication service is being provided. While this category of data may not in itself identify anyone, it may well provide an invaluable lead which would enable the person to be identified. This is necessary, in our view, because it is so easy for those who seek to evade the law to purchase communications services without giving a name, address or other contact details.
I trust that what I have said will help noble Lords who are moving other amendments and that, having heard my responses, they will feel able to withdraw their amendments and accept the Government amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: First of all with regard to dial-through fraud, the noble Lord the Minister may recall that I mentioned this at Second Reading. It is important for this issue to be tackled, but at the same time I am not absolutely sure that it has been fully tackled in a satisfactory way by the Government amendments. The noble Lord himself said that the amendments in themselves have not proved enough to reassure some people who are concerned about this matter, but that the code of practice would go further. That may be so. We are not at the moment in a position to judge that because we have not seen the code of practice, but the Minister almost promised that we would see the code of practice before Report stage. I think that would be most helpful. The Minister nods "yes" from a seated position, and I take that as confirmation that we shall see the code of practice later and be able to return to the matter if we wish to.
There are two amendments in this group standing in my name. The first one, Amendment No, 77, concerns an extremely small point and is no way comparable to the government amendment. It attempts to extend, as the noble Lord said, the definition of communications data to make it apply to Chapter I as well as to Chapter II. The Minister seemed to be under the impression that the phrase "communications data" did not occur in Chapter I and therefore did not need to be defined. I did have a number of instances of it, but I have lost all but one of them for the moment! However, if the noble Lord will look on page 8 at line 30, he will see communications data referred to there. There are other examples, but I do not think the expression is defined elsewhere.
This whole definitions business is difficult, as has already been mentioned. With regard to Amendment No. 79, the Minister is entirely correct in suggesting that I would not wish to cause the difficult effects that he has mentioned. I shall therefore not press that

1441
amendment, and I am grateful to him for the explanation he has given. It will be necessary to make sure that the wording is satisfactory.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: If I may, I should like to address a few comments to Amendments Nos. 22 and 83, which have been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. They really come back to what I was seeking to impress upon the Minister in talking earlier about Amendments Nos. 5, 9 and 11. It seems from these two amendments—I should be grateful if he would correct me if I am wrong—that it is the Government's intention that HTTP requests, which I understand are hypertext transfer protocol requests for individual pages from a web server or interrogation of search engines, along the lines I was referring to in connection with earlier amendments, are now to be considered as communications data matters and not as issues relating to content, which would bring into play Chapter I of Part I of this Bill.
I am sorry that this matter has to be put in such technical terms, but, if that is so, we would say that is a really massive breach of the privacy entitlement of citizens of this country, while well understanding that the ills—dialled-through frauds and the like—towards which these amendments are addressed are very serious matters which do indeed need to be contained by effective legislation.
I do not for a moment pretend that it is at all easy to strike the balance between, on the one hand, cutting out those sorts of ingenious fraud, and, on the other, not engaging in the sort of discretionary intervention in the facts pertaining to individual citizens in the way apparently permitted by these amendments, but I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that these amendments would confine the two matters of the HTTP requests for individual pages from the web server and the interrogation of search engines to the lesser category of communications data.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: Picking up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and referring to the distinction which the Minister sought to draw between visiting a website and having address information and actually communicating with that website, could the Minister offer the Committee his views on whether the exchange of so-called cookies or pre-packaged information between a visitor to a website and the website itself would fall into the first or second category? There would seem to be something of a middle ground.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will try to find the answer to that one for the noble Viscount. His question is a very good one. I must say that this debate is very helpful because we are getting more and yet more pieces of technological verbiage. They grow by the hour. "Cookies" is one of them and HTTP is another one.
1442
To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, regarding my explanation that there were no mentions of "communications data" in Chapter I, I think he will find that it is only in the reference to "related communications data". That is to be found in Clause 19.
Referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, as we understand it, the term "interrogation of search engines" is a communication, and HTTP requests are also included in the term "communications data". I hope that clarifies the point. I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that I will write to him on the subject of cookies. We will try to sort out that very interesting point.
Lord Lucas: I apologise for prolonging the debate, but it seems to me that we must bear in mind that we are not seeking in any of our discussions to deny the Government access to this information. All we are discussing is under what conditions this information—to which, as I understand it, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all seem to be able to have access—requires a warrant. It appears that under Amendment No. 22, which is drafted to deal with a real and specific ill, it is quite likely that this Government have opened up to inspection by all sorts of people a whole wealth of information which was not otherwise intended to be open in this Bill. That seems a wrong-headed approach to the individual's rights and civil liberties. If such information is required, the Government can obtain it through a warrant. That may a little tiresome but can be done. The Government should suffer a little inconvenience in obtaining warrants to safeguard the civil liberties of the vast majority of people going about their ordinary business and messing about on the Web. They should not have their private affairs pried into by all sorts of government officials on their own recognizance.
The Government are getting the balance wrong. There is an ill to be dealt with but the Government do not seem to recognise that the consequences they are inviting far outweigh the benefits of not having to be troubled with obtaining warrants. One has always thought of the Labour party as having liberty somewhere at its heart. Surely there is a spark of that left in the Government and they recognise the damage they are doing adopting a cavalier disregard for individual liberty in order to pick off a small number of pestilential malefactors. That attitude should not be part of any government—let alone one made up of the Labour party.
Lord McNally: We are asked not to move Amendments Nos. 74 and 75. The Bill introduces more draconian concepts than any of the existing legislation that it is supposed to consolidate. I speak as a layman. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen are operating from the best of technical grounds but I worry when I read, at Clause 20(2):
"Conduct to which this Chapter applies shall be lawful for all purposes if—
(a) it is conduct in which any person is authorised or required to engage by an authorisation".

1443
Our amendments, which we will not press at this stage, are an attempt at some tightening. The Minister seems strangely impervious to the criticisms uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in a rather robust way but felt in all parts of the Committee. The Government seem to be taking some very large sledgehammers to the nuts they want to crack—and we are not sure that in every case, those nuts require such a draconian approach.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take to heart the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and McNally, but it is a question of balance. I cannot agree that the nuts we seek to crack are worthless. They are real problems. Looking at the history of the interception of communications, perhaps it has not been sufficiently regulated in the past. We are trying to achieve balanced regulation that protects the civil rights and liberties of the individual. I come from that stream of philosophy within the Labour party and have argued that course throughout my political life.
There is another side. We have to deal with evil and nuisance. The interception of communications that the Bill seeks to permit addresses precisely those matters. We need those powers to be effective. The narrowing sought by some amendments would undermine the important and powerful needs not just of the Intelligence Service but of the police and a range of other agencies. None of your Lordships would seek to render that activity beyond use or of little value. After considering the case for these powers and the controls and checks on them that the Bill contains, I am entirely convinced that we are getting into the right territory.
Throughout, we are informed by the Human Rights Act and its impact. That framework will serve us well and protect the individual's rights, freedoms and liberties. Sometimes one can see more conspiracies than exist—but we are right of think of them because they are the worst-case example. I invite noble Lords not to move the linked amendments. The spirit of getting the balance right is one we all share.
Lord Lucas: Before the amendment is put to the Committee, I want to point out that the Government already have the power they want in Amendment No. 22. It just requires a warrant.
On how many occasions in the past year—or whatever period for which the Minister has data—did the Government use, or might they have used, the powers in the amendment? If there were 1,000 or 10,000 occasions, it might be reasonable not to plague the Home Secretary with that number of warrants in future. But if such a warrant was issued only 20 or 30 times a year, a few extra interception warrants under Part I would be a small price to pay for not endangering the liberty of the citizens to look where they have wandered in their travels through the Web.
Given that a large part of the Web is composed of unsavoury if not illegal material, a substantial proportion of our citizens must visit such sites from time to time. I am sure that the Minister has never done such a thing. To place such data on public files and make them available to all sorts of people—as if every visit one made to a X-movie or an Ann Summers shop
1444
were recorded—would be entirely inappropriate. One might consider doing so in the case of a major evil but if such occurrences are relatively minor, the Committee should not think of passing Amendment No. 22.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I respect the integrity with which the noble Lord posed his question but I do not have those data in my back pocket. I will see whether I can provide some useful information further to elucidate the matter. The noble Lord's request is not unreasonable on the face of it, so I shall reflect on his point.
As to whether I would wander into a website other than where I might want to be, I am not sure that I have the competence—but perhaps that is an admission too far. I will ascertain what information we have and whether we can reasonably disclose it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That Amendment No. 22 be agreed to. As many who are of that opinion will say, Content.
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary, Not Content. The Contents have it.
Lord Lucas: Not content. I am not content that the amendment should be moved. The Governmmt have provided no proper justification for it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That Amendment No. 22 be agreed to. As many who are of that opinion will say, Content.
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: To the contrary, Not Content. The Contents have it.
Amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

National Health Service
7.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringeyrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what response they have to the issues raised and recommendations made by the Commission on the National Health Service, chaired by Mr Will Hutton, and published as New Life for Health in April 2000.

1445
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, say how nice it is to see what I assume to be a select team of noble Lords in your Lordships' House this evening, given the rival attraction of the England versus Portugal match. I am particularly pleased to see that this evening's short debate has attracted two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, adds to the list of distinguished noble Lords from a local government background, as leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Calderdale Council. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would have had a much more distinguished local government career had she not had the misfortune to stand against me in the Hornsey Central ward of the London Borough of Haringey some years ago. I am sure that both of tonight's maiden speakers will make many more speeches in this House and, perhaps on future occasions, to rather more listeners.
I shall start by declaring an interest. New Life for Health is the report of an independent commission set up by the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. The decision to set up the commission was taken while I was still employed as director of the association, although that decision was not in fact actioned until after I had left.
It is, of course, an appropriate time to examine the issues of the public interest in the NHS and how best to achieve a full and effective system of accountability. The NHS remains enormously popular. A poll reported in the commission's report found that 63 per cent of people regard the NHS as the most valuable institution in the country, compared with a mere 12 per cent who feel the same about Parliament.
Nevertheless, the NHS is in need of modernisation. As other public services respond to changing expectations of their users, so must the NHS. That is why the Government are so keen to promote new initiatives like NHS Direct and walk-in medical centres. It is crucial also to change the balance between the professional and the patient. Patients should not only be empowered, but should also be full partners in the decision-taking concerning their own care. Yet at present, although the vast majority of patients believe that they should have a lot of power over the treatment that they receive, only one-fifth of them believes that they do so in practice.
No doubt greater flexibility in services to meet patients' needs will be part of the Government's new national plan for the NHS. To ensure this, the Government announced their intention to fund the largest sustained real increases in resources to the NHS ever—at the end of the five-year period, we will have seen a one-third increase in the funding of the service in real terms after allowing for inflation. No one should underestimate the impact that this will have, particularly if it is accompanied by a greater emphasis on clinical outcomes, disease prevention and a reduction in inequalities in health status.
However, I rather suspect that the NHS may still remain a rather paternalistic structure, doing what is deemed to be best for people rather than listening to what they want and responding accordingly. A
1446
national plan does not suggest that we shall be moving towards a decentralised locally-accountable model of health provisions. Indeed, the centralist versus the localist debate has been present throughout the history of the NHS, but centralism has always won in the past. So much so that Nye Bevan promised that the sound of a dropped bedpan would echo all the way to the Secretary of State and that, in practice, Ministers would be accountable for all within the service.
New Life for Health identifies a series of weaknesses in the accountability structure of the present NHS, most of which will be familiar to your Lordships; for example, the commission's report talks of the limited powers of the health service ombudsman, the weakness of community health councils as the local patients' watchdogs and the failings of the NHS complaints procedure—long-winded, confusing and, apparently, biased against the interests of those with legitimate grievances. It also mentions the issues surrounding appointed boards at local level answerable to the region or to Quarry House, not to the local community, and so on.
New Life for Health also makes a series of proposals to remedy this democratic deficit. These are, inter alia: that the NHS should have a written constitution (a sort of mission statement dressed up as a Bill of rights), including clear commitments to openness and to equal opportunities and incorporating the central elements of a patients' charter; that the NHS itself should become a public corporation, operating at arm's length from Ministers with an independent board—a sort of super-quango, and even then perhaps not a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation but a totally autonomous non-government organisation; in fact, a "tango".
The report also proposes that there should be a new system of democratic accountability at local and regional levels, perhaps involving direct elections to the relevant bodies; that CHCs should be strengthened; that complaints should be dealt with by independent review panels; that parliamentary scrutiny should be strengthened, as should the powers of the NHS ombudsman; and that there should be greater lay representation on the Care Standards Commission, the General Medical Council and other bodies.
While I broadly welcome and support these proposals, I believe that there is some logical inconsistency here. It is difficult to reconcile a public corporation structure with greater democracy and accountability. Parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers may not be as rigorous and as searching as it might be, but it is better than nothing. An autonomous public corporation would, in practice, be subject to only the most limited accountability. Unless its boards were directly elected—a New Life for Health does not suggest such a step—it is difficult to see how the structure would be more accountable than the present arrangement. Moreover, the locally and regionally elected structure that the report proposes would have to operate within a framework laid down by an unelected and unaccountable public corporation. That does not seem like a happy arrangement to me.

1447
Nevertheless, this inconsistency is not a reason for the Government to dismiss New Life for Health and its recommendations. However, I fear that I can guess the response that we shall hear from my noble friend the Minister at the end of the debate. I can almost hear him now: "This is an interesting report. A welcome contribution to the national debate about the future of one of our great institutions", and so on. "It raises big issues, important issues and even fundamental issues", et cetera. "It is, however, unreasonable to prejudge the outcome of the consultation; specific responses will have to await the publication of the National Plan. The Government are grateful to the commission for its work", and so on—and everything would perhaps be lodged neatly in the long grass. It is possible that I misjudge my noble friend and his officials. I certainly hope so.
If this debate is to be considered as an early part of the consultation on the national plan, perhaps I may conclude by making some practical suggestions for inclusion in that plan. I am assuming that the plan's main burden will be to make the NHS more responsive to the needs of individual service users; and that will be welcome. However, the issues raised in New Life for Health about the democratic deficit within the NHS must also be addressed. Accordingly, the national plan should set out a very clear statement of what the citizen should be able to expect from the NHS and what redress there will be if those expectations are not met. In essence, this will be the constitution for the NHS called for by New Life for Health. If the redress arrangements are sturdy enough, they will remove some of the trend towards litigation that we currently see.
There should also be a commitment to strengthen the patient voice—stronger and better resourced CHCs, acting as effective advocates for the interests of individual patients and for the needs of their local communities. There should be a dominant lay presence in all the key institutions of the health service, including—if not especially—those historically dominated by the professions. There should also be a new seamless one-door complaints system, which has as its core an adjudication system for disputes that is independent of the service providers and of the professionals.
As noble Lords will have gathered, I am not convinced of the case for an arm's length public corporation. However, there should be a board overseeing the NHS, one which involves not only Ministers and senior managers but also some independent members appointed on proper Nolan principles. This board should be answerable to Parliament via a strengthened Select Committee of another place and a parallel Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
There should also be a commitment to integrate the NHS regional structures with the nascent regional bodies being set up around the country. In London I believe that the Mayor should be able to appoint a chairman and board for the greater London region of the NHS. For those who think this is a frightening proposal I point out that the Mayor already appoints
1448
the London Development Agency, whereas elsewhere in the country RDAs are appointed by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore, it is possible to have separate institutions directly accountable to a regionally elected structure.
Finally, at local level, those responsible for the NHS should be directly elected. There is provision in the Local Government Bill, currently in another place, for a variety of forms of local governance. One that has so far excited little comment would involve a directly elected mayor and two or three other directly elected executive officials—perhaps the local commissioner for education and for social care services. Why could we not have a locally elected commissioner for health services, directly accountable and directly answerable? Such an arrangement would strengthen the NHS, reinforce links with the public it serves and would at a stroke eliminate that democratic deficit so eloquently identified in New Life for Health. Hook forward to my noble friend's reply.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I cannot say that I have exactly been looking forward to making my maiden speech. But the kindness that has been shown to me from all quarters of this House has reassured me that perhaps I shall survive.
I have been struck by the extraordinary courtesy shown in the debates in your Lordships' House. The staff, too, have been outstanding. I have no idea how they do it, but they seemed to know me before I even reached the door. They gently lead me back from some corridor's dead end; they steer me where I should be going. Your Lordships may soon see me sneaking in my three young children because I live in hope that if at least a little of such courtesy and kindness rubs off on them, life at home would be quite transformed.
I used to teach 20th century history of medicine at University College London. I am therefore especially grateful for the chance to speak in this debate today. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for this opportunity. As he knows, I have followed his career with great interest for many years, for I am a resident of Haringey, where he was leader of the council.
It is also a privilege to speak in the same debate as the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Many years ago I was appointed as a member of Camden and Islington Family Practitioner Committee. I attended a training weekend at which the noble Lord, in his role as chair of the National Association of Health Authorities, took a leading part. I admit that I was most impressed by him. I thought that he was someone who should go far. Little did I realise how far that would be!
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was, of course, the chair of the Association of Community Health Councils. We must congratulate the association for commissioning this study, itself chaired by another formidable Haringey resident, Will Hutton. The report begins:
"The NHS is Britain's greatest and most prized national institution".

1449
I could not agree more. But for the chance of history, the NHS would not have come into being at all. Those at home in the Second World War looked to a brighter future which included freedom from the fear of destitution when ill. Then morale boosting propaganda encouraged similar expectations among the troops. But, just as importantly, the voluntary hospitals, so often in financial difficulties prior to the war, came during it to rely upon the state. Many young and ambitious doctors began to climb the medical tree not through appointments at home but in the state-rewarded army medical service. These unique circumstances brought about the NHS. If we allow it to crumble, we shall not reinvent it.
So I welcome the report's assumption that there can and should be a comprehensive healthcare system. It is not a matter of how best to take a scalpel to it. The report points out that the NHS is cost effective by continental or American standards. And yet, as we all know, the NHS has serious problems. The NHS took on all the patterns of pre-war years—over provision here, no provision there. It has never been universally comprehensive. Throughout its 50-year history a major task has been simply to try to even out these problems. Change has been difficult, especially because it has not been lubricated by sufficient funds. Decisions are made in secret; patients often feel excluded, ill informed, powerless. The staff know only too well how debilitating constant, ill directed change and vague threats can be.
Will Hutton and his team argue for a written constitution for the NHS to make more explicit what the NHS stands for and what each citizen is entitled to. They also recommend that the NHS should be at arm's length from governments, incorporated perhaps like the BBC.
Neither of these proposals by themselves will solve the long-term problems of an underfunded service. Who will make best use of that constitution? Probably not those receiving the poorest care. The BBC may have greater freedom than the NHS to develop its own strategy, but it has scarcely been protected against the vagaries of under-resourcing.
Assessment, audit and evidence-based medicine are some of the tools for the future improvement of the service. But that too means adequate resourcing. The establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is welcome, but it will not make a difference if there is not sufficient investment in it. As yet it has reported only on one drug, Relenza.
If the National Health Service is to remain a much loved public service, it must tackle the problems of indifferent standards, lack of transparency and inequalities of access. It must see rising expectations as a positive not a negative challenge. I welcome the commission and its report, with its imaginative proposals for the future of the NHS. But in the end such changes would be to no avail unless the NHS is adequately funded.
1450
I thank noble Lords for their kindness and patience in listening to me today. I look forward very much to participating in other debates on health and the NHS in the weeks and months to come. I am sure that there will be a great deal that we shall wish to discuss.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, on her maiden speech. It is not long since I delivered my maiden speech. I assure the noble Baroness that it seems like a long time ago, such is the rapid assimilation into your Lordships' House. I realise that the noble Baroness will have much to offer from her wealth of experience and that her stimulating speech was just a taste of things to come.
The noble Baroness has had a distinguished career, having been a researcher, academic, negotiator, politician, parliamentary candidate and a member of a myriad of organisations. She is currently chair of the Women's Liberal Democrats. She has also found the time to have three children. I am told by a reliable source on the Liberal Democrat Benches that she once presided over a conference debate when she was eight and a half months pregnant. The topic was population explosion! She must also have a keen sense of irony!
I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for tabling and introducing this debate in his customary vigorous fashion. I admit some surprise that this report has not been so widely publicised as I would have expected. It certainly deserves, in the words of the report itself, a "healthy public debate" of longer duration than our allotted time this evening.
I read New Life for Health on a plane returning from work in a central Asian country, part of the former Soviet Union. In comparison with the problems of that country, with its health and other services crumbling, the problems of the NHS seem light indeed. However, as the report points out, we have high expectations of the NHS and a growing tendency to complain and speak up if we feel that we are not being well served.
The report states:
"A gap has opened up both between what the NHS is able to deliver and the expectations and needs of its users, and between its original principles and current practice".
This is strong criticism. The report rightly focuses on accountability and on developing structures appropriate to individuals and to communities. My noble friend Lord Harris discussed that issue.
There is much to say, and much has been said. I want to confine my remarks and questions today to the issue of inequalities in health, an issue to which the report referred at several points. The earlier report Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation also emphasised the inequalities following the Acheson inquiry of 1998.
Inequality in health exists due to several factors: standards, policy, priorities and so on. All this is well known and fairly obvious. Florence Nightingale's Notes on Nursing recognised that,
"the same names may be seen constantly recurring on workhouse books for generations…death and disease are like the workhouse: they take from the same family, the same house or the same conditions".

1451
Things have improved, but we can still predict morbidity and mortality to a certain extent. They relate to inequality.
It is clear that no single agency such as health can improve people's lives without collaboration with a whole range of other agencies, both statutory and voluntary. Individual lifestyle also counts, and the greater emphasis in recent years on prevention of illness is to be welcomed.
I want to highlight some of my concerns about the inequalities mentioned in the report. In doing so I shall refer to the health improvement programmes set up in consequence of the White Paper The New NHS: Modern and Dependable. Following a Royal Society of Medicine symposium held in 1998 to consider the implementation of these programmes, a report was produced. One chapter considers learning from experience in the NHS, termed "the good, the bad and the ugly". The "good" includes a free and comprehensive service; the "bad" includes the NHS as an illness service rather than as a service working in partnership to tackle wider health determinants; the "ugly"—this is where I return to my theme of inequalities —relates to the wide variations in health, healthcare and clinical standards.
It seems to me that the eradication of inequality in health requires stated government commitment and determination, which we have. The previous internal market, with its lack of consideration for equity, has been dismantled, but there are still problems with allocation of resources and budgets within the NHS. There are problems with assessing needs and performance; national data need to be supplemented by local data. I understand, for example, that information according to ethnic group on waiting lists is not available nationally. This seems to me to be inverse racism. We need to know about issues specific to particular groups in order to plan and monitor interventions. We need to involve these groups in planning.
Delivering equity in health demands good relationships between partners at a local level. Accountability is all very well, but local government has problems with getting people to stand for election, getting representative samples of candidates and getting people to vote. Changing structures is not enough; this is about changing mindsets—and that can take a long time. It is essential that primary care groups and trusts have good representation from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and from diversity in society. It is essential that the voluntary sector, with its expertise on specific groups and issues, is involved.
An improved Patient's Charter is suggested in the report, together with an effective complaints procedure and greater participation in decision making. I suggest that for some individuals and groups, support and advocacy from community health councils or civil society organisations will be essential for this to work. Community health councils are key institutions; they have a wealth of experience in research and advocacy for vulnerable groups such as the elderly, those with disability, children, and ethnic minorities. They are well linked to local communities.
1452
In conclusion, I feel that the report raises many issues of importance for one of our publicly recognised great institutions. I look forward to the Minister's comments on the following issues: needs assessment; structures and policy; training; advocacy; support; and in particular on how all this relates to equity in health, so that, in the words of the report, equity does not remain,
"subordinate to the desire to promote a narrow concept of efficiency".
7.54 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, it seems that at the start of a maiden speech the traditions of this House are such that one has to do certain things—that is, to give some idea of first impressions and to give a little insight into the speaker.
As to first impressions, a series of hurdles from a visit to Garter, to the introduction, to today. It then gets more and more serious. The warm welcome from all sides of your Lordships' House—as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—is quite incredible; the clear possibility that there can be fundamental disagreements in a spirit of personal friendship; the kindness and support given by the talented, interested and enthusiastic staff of the House is something which comes so clearly to the new Member. The insights in regard to me will no doubt evolve over the next few minutes, not least in the matter of declaration of interests.
Before proceeding I must also pay tribute to my family, who have been such a source of strength to me over the years: to my 95 year-old mother, Ruth, who is keenly interested in what is going on from afar; to Margaret, my wife of 35 years standing this very day; and to my children, Christine, Richard and Andrew.
Moving to the document before us, New Life for Health was commissioned by the Association of Community Health Councils in England and Wales. But the commission itself saw fit to commission an opinion poll and sought funding from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Limited. I now declare an interest as a director of that non-charitable grant-making trust. In so doing I should say that that association over the past 25 years—and membership of its sister trust, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust—has given me a tremendous personal interest and insight into many constitutional and democratic issues. Joseph Rowntree's generosity in 1904 has been good for democracy.
Like many other maiden speakers I feel a certain trepidation about today—even more so when the subject is health. It is not a subject that I have made my own; it is one that I have rather shied away from. But I do not shy away from democracy.
The report contains the words, "This popular institution". Within its 132 pages the book refers to the whole panoply of the National Health Service—the trusts, the committees, the groups and so on; there is barely a wasted page. It suggests several substantial reforms that one might call "root and branch". In principle, it contains ideas to which I am naturally

1453
attracted—such as issues of greater accountability, the regional dimension and, indeed, proportional representation.
But three issues stand out. In line with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I query the creation of the NHS as a public corporation. I query, for example, the very important decisions that the Government have made to increase resources by 6.1 per cent per year over four years. Would this have happened had it been an independent public corporation? Would there have been the clout for that to happen? I am not certain about that. Indeed, when the Human Rights Act comes into effect and when eventually the Freedom of Information Bill becomes law, they will have a fundamental effect.
The second issue relates to the consumer, normally referred to as the patient. On page 28 of the book it states:
"No longer can doctors, clinicians, health managers and politicians decide what they consider to be the public interest in health behind closed doors with only nominal consultation, and expect their decisions to remain unchallenged".
That is true. But the representatives who are the challengers will face an increasingly difficult task ahead. There is a suggestion about holding specific health authority elections. Are there sufficient people who would be prepared to stand for public election to these posts? Not only do we have problems with turnout in, for example, local government elections, but we also have problems in persuading people to stand for election. It seems to me that a greater awareness of citizenship and a sense of civic duty will be needed if those ideas are to come to pass. I declare a further interest as the treasurer for the Institute for Citizenship.
Thirdly, we come to elected bodies. My final declaration of interest is that I am still an elected member of the Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council representing the ward of Greetland and Stainland. I have fought 15 elections. It would be interesting to know, in this unelected House, how many elections the 700 or so Members have contested.
Can we sustain local government elections and local health authority elections? Can we stand that specific tier? In my view, local government has been debilitated year on year over very many years. Powers have been in decline, whether through Acts of Parliament or transfer of resources such as SRBs—single regeneration budgets. Even over the past few years we have seen the plethora of partnerships that are now taking away resources from local authorities and the accountability of the members.
As far as the new local government is concerned, the jury is still out. However, one feature which I believe may do well in that new local government is the formation of the new scrutiny committees. The community health councils could well be strengthened on that model.
In conclusion, structures in a complex undertaking must be understandable and accessible to the people; namely, consumers who are patients, and their relatives, at their most vulnerable time.
1454
New Life for Health is a valuable contribution to this debate in your Lordships' House. I trust that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will say, in his final remarks, that "This work is not in vain".
8.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I know that I speak for your Lordships' House as a whole in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, both on his 35th wedding anniversary and on his notable and most interesting maiden speech. The noble Lord comes to this House with a wealth of experience in local democracy, in local government and in public service in Yorkshire.
He also brings the particular perspectives which come from his membership of the Society of Friends, a body which makes a contribution to the good health of our society out of all proportion to the size of its membership. We look forward to hearing from the noble Lord again, not least on issues of democracy and accountability, about which he has spoken today.
At the centre of Will Hutton's report are the issues of accountability and ownership. At the local as well as at the national level, how are communities to be enabled to feel a sense of ownership and therefore of responsibility for the services they use? In speaking about one episode in the history of the health service in Birmingham, I must declare an interest; indeed, an interest in more than one sense of the word. I am a non-executive director of the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust.
For at least 20 years, health planning in Birmingham was deadlocked. Everyone knew that radical changes were needed, but no one could agree on what ought to be done and all the structures for consultation were dysfunctional. Sectional interests were pitted against one another. In the city there were no fewer than five district health authorities. The regional health authority had lost the confidence of local government. The local press whipped up campaigns to save this or that institution, to which people were understandably, if often short-sightedly, attached. The result was gridlock with decaying buildings, wasted resources, mounting deficits with increasing dangers of clinical risk and all going nowhere.
Change came at last two years ago. The Birmingham Health Authority, after yet again setting out its stall for change in a consultative document, set up an independent commission to take evidence and to make recommendations in response to its proposals. That commission was admirably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, before he held his ministerial responsibilities with the Department of Health. The membership was drawn from the three main political parties, from the various religious and ethnic communities in the city, from academia and from the media.
Under the noble Lord's leadership, the positions of the various interest groups were publicly and vigorously scrutinised, as were the proposals of the

1455
health authority. The outcome was a report which took an independent and comprehensive view of the health needs of the city as a whole. It was a constructive and sanitary change from the usual kind of consultation exercise in which each interest group responds in isolation from all the others. The thing then never adds up.
The commission's report, entitled Simply the Best, was published in the summer of 1998. By using its methods, it succeeded in breaking the log-jam. Furthermore, it helped the community as a whole to take responsibility both for the inherited problems and for finding solutions to which all would be publicly committed. The health authority, the various hospital trusts, the university medical school, the medical profession, the city, the media and the politicians are now working together in a way in which even a few years ago seemed quite impossible.
I have already mentioned the part played by the chairman of that independent commission. However, the other person to mention is the former chairman of the Birmingham Health Authority, Mr Bryan Stoten, who had the political wit to see that the only way to make progress was by way of putting consultation into the hands of a manifestly independent and truly representative commission which was free to form its own judgments and make its own recommendations. I commend that exercise as a model of what can be done if people in charge will sometimes have the courage to let go.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on initiating this debate on New Life for Health and, indeed, on being originally responsible for commissioning the report itself. Tonight he has introduced the subject very lucidly to the House.
It is a great privilege to be taking part in a debate which includes not just one, but two maiden speeches from the Liberal Democrat Benches. That certainly demonstrates our continuing interest in matters that affect not only health, but also democracy, accountability and transparency. I very much look forward to future contributions in this House from my two noble friends.
The polling undertaken for the report clearly demonstrates that the NHS is still immensely important to the British public. Some 63 per cent of those polled considered the NHS to be the UK's most valuable institution, a percentage far ahead of that for the police service, the BBC or indeed the Royal Family. However, 56 per cent of those polled considered the NHS to be remote and hard to influence. Their diagnosis of the body that constitutes the NHS was very eloquently set out by the commission. Over the years there has been a steady erosion of local discretion. There is massive patronage by the Secretary of State. Today we have a highly centralised NHS. After the 1990 reforms, NHS regional executives are only an arm of the centre. The Health Select Committee argued in autumn last year
1456
that the NHS needs to transform an ethos that is too defensive, inward-looking and locked in a blame culture.
Indeed, there is little accountability in the system, and even less transparency. The existing systems for accountability and complaints are too weak. The current accountability watchdogs, such as community health councils, do not have observer rights to all NHS bodies; they are often poorly trained and their members are on occasion de-motivated; and they have no systematic access to legal advice. The former Secretary of State for Health, Mr Dobson, acknowledged that the current NHS complaints procedures were inadequate. He stated:
"The present system is really a bit of a shambles … and at the end of it none of the people concerned is satisfied".
That very much echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, had to say on the matter. The health ombudsman, for instance, can only make recommendations based on individual cases and cannot enforce any course of action. All in all, the commission rightly concludes that there is no framework of accountability within which complaints can be dealt with.
Generally, the conclusion of the commission and its chairman is that the NHS is the,
"least accountable of Britain's major institutions,
and that as a result,
"we fear that there is a trust gap opening up between the public and the NHS".
That is not surprising, since all power is now increasingly held at the centre of the NHS, whether this is over budgets, including the modernisation fund, or the priorities to be followed by the NHS.
Yet by its very nature, despite the growth of external audit bodies, the centre has not been able to avoid cases such as those of Shipman and Rodney Ledward, or the Bristol case. It is clear that the NHS cannot be effectively controlled from the centre.
The report's central proposal is to improve openness and accountability through a constitution for the NHS, creating operational independence and moving away from day-to-day ministerial control. Under the model proposed by the commission, the NHS would become an independent institution and would be charged with carrying out government policies within the resources allocated. The report rightly cites the huge advantage of being able to debate with government in a "process of open negotiation", with wide consultation and informed public debate. It responds to the fact that we now have a much more questioning culture.
It is debatable whether the new body should take the form of an executive agency—such agencies have not hitherto been noticeably independent—or a body such as the BBC or the Bank of England, with its own accountable boards. The second principal recommendation is that health authorities should be made more democratic and that direct elections to them should be held. However, like my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland, I query whether that would be the best way of giving local government

1457
responsibility. I believe that a better model would be to give local government responsibility for a combined health and social services remit. Whatever the precise model—and we clearly need to debate these models—more local democracy will be popular. In a poll carried out by the commission, 75 per cent of those questioned were in favour of elected or partially elected local boards.
Precedents for the constitutional reform of major institutions have already been set by this Government. Both the Bank of England and the Competition Commission have been given more constitutional independence. The advantages are clear: greater transparency around resourced allocation, making it easier to determine where the true problems lie. The Government would be forced to make difficult and potentially unpopular policy decisions about the future direction of the NHS without resorting to "behind closed doors" management. By re-establishing trust and increasing the transparency with which new funds are used, the constitution could well serve to legitimise increased taxation as a means to fund the NHS.
Other reforms are suggested by the commission. All need debate, and many are extremely valuable suggestions. As regards regional government, what a missed opportunity the setting up of the GLA was. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Regional government on an elected basis should be responsible for strategic development of the health services in the regions. We need also, as suggested by the commission, to consider getting rid of the contracting approach. That would obviously have major consequences for structures.
The one downside is the question of timing. How much more change can the NHS stand in the short term? Could we really get rid of PCGs at this stage, for instance? Above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, underlined, we need to redress the balance of power in the NHS between patients and managers and professionals. The Government are clearly going the wrong way in combining the job of the NHS chief executive with the role of Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health.
It is not all gloom and doom. We very much welcome devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is also the requirement that health authority members should be locally resident. I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will consider the report seriously and not plunge into further centralisation without being absolutely sure that that is right for the NHS. Indeed, I hope that they will now start to take on board some of the principles and policies advocated by this excellent report and include them in their national plan, which is due to be published in July.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, following the excellent introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and after two distinguished maiden speeches, we can say with
1458
more than our usual degree of warmth how grateful we are to the noble Lord for having tabled this Unstarred Question. It is a fascinating and important subject, and one that deserves more time than the cramped confines of the dinner hour to be considered properly. However, whenever I read that a spokesman for the Department of Health has welcomed something or other as a "useful contribution to the debate", I know that an icy blast is likely to follow from the same quarter. It would be surprising if the challenge from Mr Hutton's commission is one that the Government wish to seize with both hands and run with enthusiastically. But I hope at least that the Minister's criticisms, if criticisms he has, will be constructive in character.
This is a report with a great deal of substance. Its starting-point is to seek ways of putting the patient at the heart of the NHS. It sets about this by posing the question of how well the NHS pursues the public interest, not in terms of its clinical outcomes but rather in terms of its responsiveness and accountability to the public. On those counts, the conclusion it reaches is that the NHS falls badly short of the ideal. The governance of the health service is becoming increasingly centralist; and that is watering down and weakening the ability of the patient to obtain redress for a grievance or even to understand the basis for managerial decisions. The system is opaque and seemingly impenetrable. Worse still, it is sometimes obstructive to the interests of natural justice. The central theme of the commission, in other words, is greater empowerment of the patient.
That is a theme that should resonate with all of us. If you were to tell the most experienced graduate of Harvard Business School that his next job was to be the manager of an organisation consisting of 1 million employees, I suspect that he would tell you straight away that it was beyond him. Yet this task is exactly what is currently demanded of the NHS Executive. The difficulty is compounded by the way in which Ministers choose to involve themselves in the minutiae of health service planning. Nye Bevan's prediction of Ministers being answerable for every dropped bedpan is not far from being a reality. The consequence of this centralisation is a weekly avalanche of paper descending on hospital trusts and health authorities in the form of directions, guidance, targets and new requirements.
One hopes that even Ministers are capable of stepping back slightly and acknowledging that somewhere the plot has been lost. That is not to say, any more than does Will Hutton, that the Secretary of State's answerability to Parliament should be done away with or seen as irrelevant. That would be equally absurd. In fact, contrary to Will Hutton, I believe that the Secretary of State should remain answerable to Parliament on the large political issues such as public health policy, standards and quality of care and the budgetary settlement for the health service. But it is

1459
ridiculous to expect government Ministers to micro-manage the NHS. The aim of government should be to devolve decision-making about the allocation of resources to a point as close to patient care as possible and thereby ensure that the data underpinning those decisions are sensitive to local needs.
Of course, there is also a need for strategic co-ordination; and there is a legitimate debate to be had about how that strategic dimension is achieved and about the balance to be struck between local autonomy and direction from above. It is the policy of the Conservative Party to redefine the relationship between politicians and the management of the health service. The risk of imposing too many political priorities on the NHS from Whitehall is that patients are treated as averages rather than individuals. Our view is that clinical priorities, not political interference, should govern the way in which the health service is managed.
The way forward suggested by Will Hutton's commission is that the NHS should become an independent public corporation with its own constitution, fulfilling government policies within its budget, but essentially free from the shackles of the Department of Health. In a week when the Government have announced that the successor to Alan Langlands as NHS Chief Executive is to be the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health, I cannot imagine that the idea of independence for the NHS has found any favour whatever with Ministers. Indeed, we witness in that decision a still greater politicisation of the NHS than we have been used to, even by the standards of this Government. But the need for greater transparency in the NHS, which Will Hutton rightly identifies, is no less powerful.
The commission's view is that a written constitution for the NHS will solve the accountability deficit at a stroke. I am open-minded about this idea, but I have yet to be convinced by it. It seems to me that a codification of the principles by which the NHS should function may be a useful tool, but it will not of itself deliver the benefits that the commission identifies. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it also appears to remove too much accountability from the Secretary of State.
There is another deeper problem for me, which is that the sort of patient empowerment to which these proposals are meant to lead is a negative kind of empowerment: redress of grievance, more effective processing of complaints, guarantees of rights and so on. Those, in my view, are secondary to the kind of empowerment that really matters for most people, which is the ability to receive the best and most appropriate treatment when they are ill.
The one obvious word missing from the commission's report is "choice". The rigidities introduced into the NHS by the Government's recent reforms have reduced patient choice. This in turn has reduced the incentives for poorly performing hospital trusts to do better. But that is a debate for another occasion. I look forward with more than the usual interest to hearing what the Minister has to say.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for instituting it. He was a very distinguished leader of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales. I applaud the courage that he and the organisation showed in commissioning Will Hutton and his commission to undertake this import ant work.
I also pay tribute to both our maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, both of whom made extremely effective maiden speeches, drawing on wide experience in the public service. I very much hope that we shall see them again in future debates on the National Health Service.
The report produced by Mr. Hutton and his colleagues is extremely interesting and stimulating, and indeed a good read. My noble friend Lord Harris tried to anticipate what I would say. Only the leader of a local authority could come out with town hall "bureaucratese" like that. We are far more enlightened in the Department of Health. This will not be kicked into the long grass. It is a very important report. The national plan is due to be published within the next four to six weeks. That cannot be described as being kicked into the long grass. Indeed, we have been criticised by many for the speed with which we shall produce the plan.
We recognise the key importance of many of the issues discussed in the report and debated today by noble Lords. Improving patient and public empowerment within the NHS in its broadest sense is at the very heart of what we are seeking to do with the NHS and the national plan. I assure noble Lords that we shall look very seriously at the issues in the report and in our debate tonight—and not simply in relation to the future role of community health councils. The wider issues of patient involvement and accountability are also being considered.
Tonight's debate goes back to the origins of the National Health Service in 1948. My noble friend Lord Harris and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, made that point clearly. It was in the post-war Labour Government that Morrison argued for the health service to be run by local authorities. Bevan argued that that would produce a patchy, second-rate service, and Bevan won the argument. In a sense, that tension is still at the heart of our debate. I believe it would also be true to say that for much of its 52 years, at least until May 1997, the NHS found that tension a considerable challenge. Certainly, the Government in 2000, as in 1948, believe passionately in equal opportunity for all. That is why we created, and continue to support, a national NHS, where accountability runs upward to the relevant Secretary of State and thence to Parliament.
I believe that such a central line of accountability provides a clear national focus for the service. As a Minister, I certainly feel accountable to this House for the activities of the NHS. Alongside that, when we look at the impact of the Public Accounts Committee

1461
and the role of the National Audit Office, the Audit Commission and the ombudsman, we see that there are endless mechanisms under which that accountability is discharged.
One of the ironies is that, while the 1948 settlement put hundreds of hospitals and other services under one banner, the NHS has never operated according to clear national standards. I agree with the noble Baroness that variations have dogged the NHS since 1948. They were considerably exacerbated by the introduction of the internal market. There is no doubt that there are many unacceptable variations in NHS performance across the country. A recent interim report that the Government published alongside our work on the NHS national plan shows that average waiting times for elective admissions vary between health authorities from two months to over four months; that day case rates for cataract extractions range from under 40 per cent to over 90 per cent; and that emergency hospital readmission rates vary more than tenfold. One of the most striking facts about the health service is that the care and services one receives still depend too much on where one lives.
We have done much to address that matter. The creation of the Commission for Health Improvement and the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence are designed to remove the situation that we inherited of the "postcode lottery" of wide variations in services. Clearly, there is much more that we have to do. When it is published in July, the national plan will include a commitment to work with doctors, nurses, therapists and managers, and of course with the public, to develop clear national standards so that patients everywhere receive a first-class, consistent service.
It is very much worth making the point that the NHS transcends many of the traditional local barriers and agencies, because the whole point about the NHS is that we are developing, and wish to develop, a seamless approach to services which cuts across primary, secondary, tertiary and highly specialist care. In that context, national accountability is perfectly appropriate.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, argued against what they described as over-centralisation. The noble Earl talked about increased centralisation and the noble Lord argued for more local democracy. However, in two years, both as a Minister and a Whip, I have had the pleasure of listening to the many contributions of both the noble Earl and the noble Lord. Local decentralisation has not particularly been a theme of what they have put before the House. How many amendments have they put forward in relation to the powers of health authorities and local authorities where the Bill states "may" and they have wanted "shall"?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene, having been provoked by the Minister. The noble Lord will remember an amendment we put
1462
forward for merging responsibility for health and social services in the Health Bill. That is a commitment to local democracy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as regards the arguments put forward on such Bills, if we were to amend in that way it would so constrain the role of local authorities that they would hardly consider the position democratic. How many times has the noble Lord argued that "guidance" should be statutory guidance? I do not seek to make a political point. I simply seek to show that most of the pressures on Government in relation to the National Health Service are to ensure national consistency and high standards of services. That is what we wish to achieve: national consistency, national standards and a National Health Service. However, within that—I agree with many of the contributions made—we have to allow space at local level for people to innovate and lead change.
While I do not think that we should alter the fundamental principle of central accountability, we understand that as well as modernising the health service we must modernise the decision-making process. We have to open up that decision-making process at national and local level. We have to involve the public in decisions not just about their own care but also about health policy at local level generally. The creation of modernisation action teams as part of the national plan allows us to look specifically at how we can better involve patients and the public.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris about the need to avoid paternalism and to listen seriously. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham explained one of the new innovative techniques which can be used in trying to reach consensus at local level about a major change in services. Clearly, we have to do more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned complaints. We have commissioned an independent evaluation of the complaints procedure. That is now over half way through. It would be premature to begin implementing any changes in advance of the final report of the evaluation team, which we shall consider carefully.
The question of openness was raised. We are committed to openness in the National Health Service. That is why one of the first actions of the Government was an instruction to trust boards to ensure that their meetings were in public. I applaud the activities of CHCs, which have also encouraged a greater degree of openness in the dialogue between themselves and the NHS.
My noble friend Lady Massey raised important points in relation to inequalities in health issues. I believe that Our Healthier Nation, the health improvement programmes, health action zones and the new flexibilities in terms of partnerships between the health service and local government will allow us to address many of these troubling issues.
A study by Ziggi Alexander identified the issue of statistics in relation to the Department of Health. It is a matter we are considering carefully.

1463
The appointment of an NHS chief executive is to ensure that at the centre we have a co-ordinated approach to the way in which we discharge our accountability and manage the National Health Service. Far from creating the centralist impetus that noble Lords fear, it will enable us to get the right leadership at national level which then allows more space for people at the local level to lead change and innovation.
The clock is against me. In relation to community health councils I recognise the extremely important role they have played over 25 years. But there is a widely held belief, not least among the CHCs themselves, that they need to change to bring them up to date with the new, modern NHS. The patient empowerment modernisation action team which is working in relation to the national plan will consider patient empowerment, public involvement and the future role that CHCs might play.
In conclusion, I believe that Will Hutton's report is extremely interesting and stimulating. I can assure the House that it will not be kicked into the long grass. It will he part of the important discussions we are having in relation to empowering the patient and the public. At the end of the day, the Government need to ensure true, equal access to consistent services. I and the Government will continue to argue for the principle of equality and the pursuit of national standards just as passionately as Nye Bevan himself did in 1948.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
8.35 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I indicated that I wished to speak to this Motion, and to Amendments Nos. 212, 214 and 218. The effect of the three amendments, taken with the proposal that Clause 2 shall not stand part, would be to move all the subsections in Clause 2 into Clause 72.
Noble Lords who were present at Second Reading, or have read the debate in Hansard will know that it was marked by a most interesting and unusual speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. From his great legal background, he criticised the fact that there are two general definition clauses: Clauses 2 and 72. He said, rightly, that in most Bills there is a general definitional clause at the end of the Bill, and that other phrases and words are defined in the clauses in the parts of the Bill to which they relate so that they can be seen in the context of the Bill. However, the general definitions are given usually in a definitional clause at the end for the convenience of those who use Acts of Parliament.
I agree with that. It was a powerful speech. It moved the Minister to express sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord said. He undertook to consider the
1464
matter. Since then there has been an exchange of correspondence of which I have seen part; I may not have seen all of it. The Minister did his best to justify the inclusion of these definitions in Clause 2 on the grounds that they were important to the understanding of Clause 1 and the basic approach to the Bill; that they were fundamental and of great importance. I accept that some of the definitions in Clause 2 could be regarded in that category although others seem somewhat basic. As we discussed earlier, the definition of "postal service" means the transmission of postal items.
I see very little reason why the large part of the definitions in Clause 2 should not be more conveniently put into Clause 72. I will not go into the detail that the noble and learned Lord did at Second Reading, except to draw attention to the fact that quite a lot of the words and phrases are again redefined in Clause 72 as having the meanings given to them by Clause 2. That is perhaps a useful indexing, but it also demonstrates a certain duplication of effort.
In the years when I was a Minister in another place, and since I have been here, I have many times admired the work of parliamentary counsel, and I entirely agree with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who said what a huge challenge it must have been for parliamentary counsel to face a Bill of this character, with such a complex technical background, such as the Internet, and reduce it to workable legal prose. But at the same time I have also had occasion over many years to become frustrated with the complexities of the legal drafting that we see in these Bills. It sometimes seems to me to be totally unnecessary.
We had a brief exchange earlier on, which I did not press, because I did not want to take up the time of the Committee, over the definition of "communications data". It is defined in Clause 20 as:
"In this chapter 'communications data' means any of the following—"
I suggested that it might be preferable to say, "In this part". In Chapter I "related communications data" is defined as:
"so much of any communications data (within the meaning of Chapter II of this Part)"—
so one finds oneself going backwards and forwards from one part and one chapter to another in order to find the definitions that one needs.
My noble friend Lord Renton many years ago wrote an excellent report on the drafting of Bills which made a whole series of recommendations, very few of which have been consistently followed since then. One of them was about where to find definitions and how it was easier to have definitions in a place where they could be found. I do not believe that it matters very much whether that place is habitually at the beginning of Bills or habitually at the end of Bills. It would not matter. If the habit was to have them at the beginning of Bills, that would be fine. We could define all the words and then say what the Bill means.

1465
Our habit has been—and it is an alternative approach to the system—to have all the definitions at the end of the Bill and to approach it in that way. That has been our habit, and it is one to which we should broadly stick. It is inevitable in a Bill of this complexity that some definitions and some important items shall be incorporated in the body of the Bill in order to be able to follow it and explain it. However, if parliamentary counsel with much more experience of the drafting of Bills could go through these Bills and look at the definitions, they could be improved no end.
To give another example which came up earlier, why is "postal service" defined by reference to "postal items" in Clause 2(1) of the Bill and "postal item" is not defined until Clause 2(10)? It means that one has to look for it and almost read the whole of the Bill in order to locate the bits which define other matters. They are not in a neat place, where one can put one's finger on them without difficulty.
I accept all the difficulties that are involved in the drafting of a Bill like this. However, I also believe that if the parliamentary counsel paid more attention to the users of Bills and trying to get a uniform system of placing the definitions, in this case, in a convenient place, it would be to the benefit of us all.
Before I sit down, I have to confess to your Lordships that when I was a Minister handling Bills in Parliament, I found myself on a number of occasions in a situation of arguing with parliamentary counsel in an effort to make the wording a little more straight forward. There were a number of occasions on which I had some discussion on the matter with the relevant lawyers—usually the departmental solicitor, because it is quite difficult to get through to the parliamentary counsel themselves—and I almost invariably lost. It may be that the Minister has lost on this occasion. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, had a very good point.
8.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has obviously come back from dinner in a mellow mood. He has had a few kind words to say about parliamentary counsel; he is sympathetic to the problems of the Minister; he has made a few confessions from his own days as a Minister. I suspect that it all bodes well for the next four or five hours. I had hoped that he would have come back in a slightly more robust mood, which would perhaps indicate that we were not going to send this clause back because of the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Although they are valid reasons, I believe that the definitions could be put together in a clearer way.
What this definitions clause has revealed is the true nature of this Bill. The real problem—and I suspect that it will recur for the Minister—is that this is a pantomime horse of a Bill. The front end is consolidation, as he has referred to it a number of times, and that is why we get constant references to telecommunications and postal systems which all hark
1466
back to legislation that is 15, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years old. At the back end of the horse is an attempt to deal with new technology. I suspect that one of the problems that we will continually encounter is the fact that the definitions, the scopes, the powers are either carryovers from old technology or attempts to address the new ones. I must say that, even at this early stage, the joining is beginning to show. It might have been better for this clause to be taken back so that the definitions which are already shown to be inadequate could be better defined.
The approach, which is not technology neutral but technology inadequate, could be better shaped up, so that we would get a better sense of what was termed before the dinner hour as "future proofing". It is a concern of many of those who have advised us that we are agonising over powers and the contents of this Bill which may not last more than a few months in terms of the development of the technologies of the industries that we are trying to control.
I would therefore have been keen to look at these definitions and this whole section as covered by Clause 2 with a much greater view to the future, to make sure that, even as we speak, technology is not bypassing the legislation, and to ensure that, in allowing it to bypass us, we are not at the same time adding cost to industry and putting our faith in obsolete ways of trying to deal with these problems. Law enforcement perhaps has to come to terms with a new regime of transmitting information which is not susceptible to the old interventionist ways of controlling it, and I believe that future proofing may need a different approach.
In case that provokes the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to call a Division at this stage, I must say that I believe that we should do better to keep our powder dry for a time in the future when we may look at the clause again to see whether it is worthy of staying in the Bill.
Lord Lucas: These are old technology and obsolete practices indeed! We should be looking at a Bill written in hypertext, as it would be and should be on the Web—it is not—so that one can click straight to the definition. No one will then care one fig where the definitions are; they could be peppered in every other clause but the whole thing would have the same meaning.
The Government have promised to be entirely Web-based by 2005, but their progress so far has been distinctly unimpressive, particularly as regards this House. I hope that the Government can assure us that we are looking at publishing Bills on the Web in hypertext—and the Home Office should be at the forefront of that—so that definitions can be found exactly where they should be, which is next to the word that is defined.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a general question in respect of Clause 2, but it could probably be asked about every other clause. In terms of the definitions, the specific offences, exemptions and so forth, can he give the Committee a further explanation of the efforts that have been made to try to develop a multi-national approach to such

1467
legislation? A number of Members who have spoken tonight have remarked on the importance of not going off on our own in an industry which must be the most multi-national.
I believe that in order to make the legislation credible we must have an integrated approach with colleagues in other governments. The party opposite has been keen on integrated government, on an integrated transport policy and on integrating everything under the sun. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain how his approach to this legislation will fit in with our colleagues in the EU, the US and beyond.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall begin by commenting on the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. I am loathed to enter into a lengthy discourse on the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill, but I believe that the noble Viscount has made a good point. Perhaps we should try to contextualise the discussion around this legislation. We have been working closely with our European partners and are looking at ways in which we can do so with the Cyber Crime Convention, the Telecommunication Data Protection Directive and the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention.
Perhaps I am not as familiar as I should be with all of those, but, together with our commitments in this legislation and on e-commerce generally, they give an indication of our concern to ensure that we get right the legislation and the quality of regulation and provide the right kind of framework for business and enterprise. Therefore, it is proportionate and part of the debate around this legislation. I take the noble Viscount's point. I am not sure that I want to enter into a debate, but perhaps the House should have such a debate because I am sure that it would be useful and wide-ranging.
Tonight, it is my intention to recommend that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill and to set out some of the background relating to it. In doing so, I shall attempt to address the points made in this short debate. The clause sets out the definitions of telecommunications and postal services and systems relevant to the Bill. The purpose of the clause is to interpret the meaning of "interception" and related items.
The Interception of Communications Act 1985 contained no definition of "interception", an omission which the Bill rightly seeks to rectify. These definitions seek to reflect both current and future technology. These are not easy matters to set down in legislation, but this set of interlocking definitions certainly takes us forward from the position which we inherited with the 1985 Act.
Part I of the Bill introduces some difficult and complex concepts relating to interception and telecommunications. These are fundamental to the subject matter of Chapter I of Part I. As these are matters of great importance, they appear at the beginning of the Bill in Clause 2. This clause has been positioned with the substance of the matters to which they relate.
1468
It is quite usual to define the basic concepts for a legislative proposition in the main part of a Bill and in this instance the Bill has a signal point of reference at Clause 72 for expressions that are defined for all the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, we have two clauses for that purpose. Clause 2 relates particularly to the important issues which are dealt with in Chapter I of Part I and Clause 72 has a definition which relates to the generality of the Bill. That is why we have two definitional clauses.
I know that that creates complexities, but it means that in Clause 72 we have an index to the expressions to be found in Clause 2. This Bill, and Part I in particular, contains a great deal of complex and interlocking concepts and definitions are contained in Clause 2 to assist the reader who wishes to demystify, to understand more precisely, Clause 1. That is why we have the juxtapositioning of those two clauses. That is the main reason for the way in which the Bill is set out.
Perhaps I may take an example raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on Second Reading. The word "modification" receives two treatments, in Clause 2 and in Clause 72. However, subsection (6) of Clause 2 simply amplifies the phrase as it is used in a very specialist sense in subsection (2). It does not contradict or undermine the definition which is found in Clause 72.
I have tried to answer the valid points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on Second Reading. There are good reasons for the definitions included in Clause 2. While I retain some sympathy for his point, I believe that on balance it is more helpful to see the definitions there than to see all of them at the end. I think it makes for a better understanding and demystification of Clause 1. The reader of the Bill will find that Clause 2 definitions are carefully cross-referenced in Clause 72.
Today I received further correspondence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I am extremely grateful to him for writing because he does so from his hospital bed. He has suggested some small changes which I am happy to take away and consider. In the mean time and with that explanation, which I think is clear, I commend Clause 2 to the Committee.
9 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am, as it were, formally grateful and, in part, genuinely grateful to the Minister for what he said, although I am not entirely convinced. So far as concerns the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, obviously we shall have to wait to see how the later stages of the Bill turn out.
However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, believes that Clause 2 contained wider issues, and I agree with him. He referred to the Bill as being rather a "pantomime horse" because it adds technological aspects to the traditional controls over interception. Of course, the problem with that is that it makes the Bill extremely difficult to amend. It seems to me and to many commentators outside, as we have already discussed, that the provision deals only with the

1469
difficulties of the over-exaggeration of some of the technological clauses littered throughout the Bill. Whether the difficulty in amending the Bill is deliberate or accidental, I am not quite sure. However, it is the fact of the matter and it leads some people to say that the Bill should be taken away and reconsidered.
My noble friend Lord Goschen raised an important point with regard to the international dimension. That produced the interesting comment from the Minister that the Government are working closely with European partners. In the circumstances, that seemed to me to be a rather provocative remark. Our nearest EU neighbour, Ireland, is in the middle of proposing a Bill which, in some respects, is flatly the opposite of this legislation and provides protection for some issues which we are attempting to open up. However, that will be considered at a later stage.
A general criticism of the Bill was made by the Government's own adviser, Professor Turner, who is also connected with the Institute of Directors. He said that the Bill was an attempt to deal nationally with a problem which should be dealt with internationally. I have a great deal of sympathy with that approach, and it was reflected in what was said by my noble friend Lord Goschen.
We, and our Government, are not alone in wanting to catch criminals. However, for the moment among similar countries we are almost alone in trying to advance this particular set of propositions regarding how one deals with the Internet in this respect. But at this juncture I shall not press the Committee to oppose Clause 2.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Lawful interception without an interception warrant]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 33, after ("place") insert ("only").
The noble Lord said: This amendment requires only the approval of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 25 seeks to ensure that under this subsection postal and telecommunications service providers are not at liberty to carry out interception for purposes other than those connected with the issues described in paragraph (b). The few words in question here are copied directly from Section 1(3)(a) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, a provision which we believe, as I consider noble Lords opposite believe, has worked really rather well over the years and is well understood by the industry.
A provider may intercept a communication if it takes place for purposes connected with the issues listed. The question arises as to what effect the Bill might have where a provider intercepts for a number of purposes, some within the scope of subsection (3) and others not. Do the legitimate purposes provide an excuse for others? That is certainly not how the equivalent provision in the current interception Act
1470
has ever been understood; nor, for that matter, do we believe that that view would carry weight in court. If someone carries out interception for purposes other than those listed, this subsection does not authorise that conduct.
That is our understanding of the amendment. I believe that I have described fairly its effect. We are relying on something that has worked well in the past, and I trust that with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will feel more than able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that explanation and am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("enactment") to ("that") in line 4.
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes some words and seems to me to leave the clause saying exactly what it said before. Therefore, the words should be removed. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Lord has moved an amendment which is helpful, although I may be wrong. It seems that Amendment No. 26 seeks to tidy the wording of Clause 3(5)(c). However, the wording as it stands maintains a distinction between enactments contained in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and any other enactment. First, all the enactments contained in the Wireless Telegraphy Act are to be deemed relevant. Secondly, only those enactments which relate to wireless telegraphy are relevant. The wording as it stands preserves that distinction.
We believe that it is important that all enactments in the Wireless Telegraphy Act are included in this subsection and not simply those which relate to interference. From time to time, the Radio Communications Agency is required to carry out interception in the course of investigating unlicensed use of wireless telegraphy apparatus (that is rather old language; nevertheless, I am sure that it will serve), including use outside the terms and conditions of a licence. That is an offence under Section 1(1) of that Act and its detection and prevention would not fall within the terms of Clause 3(5)(a) of the Bill. Furthermore, Section 5(a) of that Act prohibits the use of radio equipment to send messages, such as a hoax 999 call. We do not believe that the Radio Communications Agency should be left without the legal capability to prevent that kind of activity.
I am sure that the noble Lord will understand the points that I have made and I trust that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: Now that I understand, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power to provide for lawful interception]:
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) The conditions to be prescribed by paragraph (1)(d) above shall require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the rights in that country or territory provided by the domestic law of that country or territory for a person who has had his communication intercepted shall he no less than those set out in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.").
The noble Lord said: As we said earlier, this Bill is international in its consequences. It may affect legislation in areas where individual human rights are not so well respected as in the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 27 is simply a probing amendment to find out how the Government view such areas. It ensures that safeguards for individual privacy rights in other jurisdictions are taken into account when activating the powers in the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I was rather intrigued by this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, because, as I understood from reading it, it seemed to be stating that, whatever we do in this country, we should not break the law in another country if to do so would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. I am not quite sure if that is what the amendment said. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is shaking his head so perhaps that is not what it says. The amendment perhaps raises a more general issue. We have talked about the international effects of this Bill. Do the Government believe that the effect of this clause will mean that we shall end up breaking the law in other countries—for example, other European countries—or not? I believe that, if we are to have an international solution to what is after all a world-wide problem, we should take care on this matter.
I may have got the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment slightly wrong, but in any event I should like the Minister to explain his view is on a slightly wider point. I refer to how this provision fits in with our EU obligations.
Lord McNally: Perhaps I may clarify this point. It is not to give licence to break the law but, where we may be co-operating with jurisdictions that do not respect law and human rights in the way that we do, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that he is not meeting requests from jurisdictions and regimes that do not respect the convention.
Lord Bach: On behalf of the Government, I wonder whether the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is going to speak to Amendment No. 40 which is grouped with Amendment No. 27 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I do not want to encourage the noble Viscount if he is not planning to do so.
Viscount Astor: If it will help the noble Lord, I shall speak to it. Looking at the groupings, I realise it is connected but perhaps only vaguely connected.
1472
Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment. Page 9, line 5, paragraph (j) refers to the interception of warrants and then goes on to state a person who,
"for the purposes of … an international mutual assistance agreement by the competent authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
It may be helpful to the Committee if the Minister would say what type of person is referred to and in which countries. What is an "international mutual assistance agreement"? Is it an Act of Parliament agreement with other countries? Is it an EU convention? Are there any other conventions or Acts that the phrase encompasses? The amendment has been tabled to raise a general question relating to how this provision fits in with our international obligations. I should be grateful if the Minister would throw some light on the Government's thinking as regards Clause 6.
Lord Bach: The United Kingdom has recently signed up to a mutual legal assistance convention on criminal matters. One of its provisions will allow one member state to ask another to intercept someone's communications. This may be because that person, while committing a crime in the member state, is actually communicating from the requested state; or because the requested state is the best place to intercept the communications.
Amendment No. 27 raises the concern that the United Kingdom could be asked to intercept communications on behalf of a country with a poor human rights record. Obviously, everyone will appreciate the motives behind the amendment. No one could disagree with them.
The Minister of State in another place said that the amendment would represent an unnecessary addition to the statute book and went on to explain the reasons further in a letter to Committee Members and offered to consider a government amendment to ensure that the regulations referred to in paragraph (d) are a precondition for bringing Clause 4(1) in to force. That amendment was then introduced on Report and can be found in the Bill before us at Clause 4(1)(d).
Since that provision cannot come into force until the regulations have been made and since Section 6 of the Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for the Secretary of State to act in a way which is incompatible with the convention right, the regulations will have to be ECHR compliant.
In the letter to which I referred, the Minister of State gave the following assurances. First, in the first instance, we shall apply Clause 4(1) only to member states of the European Union for the purpose of implementing Article 17 of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Secondly, we shall bring Clause 4(1) into force only in parallel with regulations which limit its effect to member states of the European Union.
Thirdly, in the event that the Government may wish to extend the regulations under Clause 4(1) in the future to cover non-EU countries, I can give an assurance to the Committee that we shall look very

1473
closely at their interception regimes to ensure that those regimes are consistent with ECHR principles before introducing any regulations.
I hope that that may go some way towards persuading the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we are as concerned as he is about those matters and we have already taken some steps to make sure that the provisions cannot be abused.
Amendment No. 40, spoken to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, would remove the ability of a competent authority to make an application for an interception warrant under an international mutual assistance agreement. But our country has now signed up to the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention and I shall say a few words about that in a moment. So there must be a mechanism by which interception warrants are sought.
Routing the application through one of the persons already included on the list—Clause 6(2)—would not add any value to the process since the offence would not be occurring in the United Kingdom and it would make the process unnecessarily bureaucratic.
The draft convention on mutual assistance and criminal matters is currently being negotiated. The draft convention is intended to improve co-operation against serious and organised crime by improving the procedures for mutual legal assistance.
The convention provides that, in general, assistance should be given in accordance with the procedural requirements of the requesting member state, whereas the current presumption is that the law of the requested member state shall prevail. The convention will also provide a basis for co-operation in the use of modern methods of investigation; for example, controlled deliveries and use of modern technology—hearing by live video link and interception of telecommunications.
The mutual legal assistance regime operates in the following way. The convention makes clear that the requesting member state must always satisfy its domestic law before making a request. In practice, that means that requests from the UK would be based on a warrant issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with the same criteria which apply to applications from UK law enforcement agencies for serious crime warrants.
When requests are made under the convention, the target of the interception will be protected by the domestic laws of both the member state making the request and the member state in which the target is present. That is the double-lock system, as it is called, of safeguards endorsed by the European Communities Select Committee in its report on the draft convention in 1998.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: By the sound of it, that double-lock system is based on the theory of law in each country. Does it have any regard to the practical implementation of laws in both countries? In particular, I am thinking of a state whose legal
1474
protections may nominally be as good as ours but which, as a matter of fact, has a corrupted system which has been penetrated by criminal elements.
Viscount Astor: The Minister referred to the mutual legal convention and regimes in member states. Is he referring only to the EU or outside?
The Earl of Northesk: I am not sure that I have the correct place in the Bill, but I note that the Bill applies itself to the British Islands. Part of the explanation from the Minister thus far on the amendment is that the UK is obliged in this area because it has signed up to a mutual assistance agreement. As I understand the matter, the Isle of Man is not actually a signatory to the EU treaties, so can the Minister confirm that both the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have been appropriately consulted about the content of the Bill? That is to say, is the constitutional position sound and secure? In asking this question, I should perhaps declare my interest as possessing a number of interests on the Isle of Man.
Lord Bach: There were a number of interventions then. All of them were equally helpful, if not all equally easy to answer. Regarding the double-lock point, as I understand it, the target of the interception, the alleged wrong-doer, will be protected by the practical domestic laws of both the member state—be it the United Kingdom making a request— and the member state in which the target is present. If one of those systems of law—and of course it is not the one in the United Kingdom, and, I venture to suggest, it is unlikely to be the one in the EU—was corrupted in the sense the noble Lord refers to, the double-lock would come into play and the rights of the target would be protected by our law. I do not know if that answers the question the noble Lord posed.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I hesitate to interrupt again. However, I am grateful for the invitation to do so. I was trying to get beneath the skin of the law as to how it was implemented in practice. How, for example, if the foreign country was making a request here for an intercept, would we have regard to the practical expression of that requesting country's laws, which might, as I say, be far less than we would wish in terms of compliance with their own legal system, let alone ours?
Lord Bach: I am sure we would have regard to it. I think that this issue may come up later on in our discussions and perhaps I may return to it then. The answer regarding the convention is that it is an EU convention. So far as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are concerned, the Bill does not extend to them, although they have been consulted regarding its contents.
Perhaps I may finish off what I was saying about the draft convention. The convention itself will only actually enter into force when eight member states have ratified it. That may take another two or three years. We have signed up to the draft convention.

1475
The Parliamentary scrutiny committees have been sent all formal texts of the draft convention and have recently cleared the latest text of the interception provisions from scrutiny. I have given quite a long answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, because he wanted, quite rightly, to know more about the draft convention that we are signed up to.
Viscount Astor: I am extremely grateful for the explanation of the Minister. It poses a number of questions. The first point is that he said this is purely an EU matter and it is dependent upon eight countries signing up. If anyone reads Clause 6(j) it is not clear that this is just an EU matter. It merely talks about "any international mutual assistance agreement". I find that misleading, which of course was the reason why I asked the question. Perhaps the Minister, between now and Report stage, may like to consider whether there might be some wording which might make it more explicit that this is not something that relates to the EU but something wider. It then begs the question whether under the existing legislation the Government can add other countries that are not in the EU. For example, one would think that the USA is a natural home for some form of international agreement, because after all the USA is at the leading edge, the cutting edge, of technology, and whatever is invented in this form of technology is usually invented there.
Therefore it would be very helpful if the Minister could say whether, if the United States is not included under the present wording, there is any intention to carry out any form of negotiation with the USA on this, so that there could be some sort of mutual assistance agreement, to use the Minister's words?
It seems to me it would be very helpful if the Minister could put it in the context of "we have heard how this relates to the EU, but how is it going to relate to other non-EU countries? Can they be covered by the wording in Clause 6(j) as it is now worded?" Is it, on the other hand, merely intended to refer to EU countries? If so, perhaps we could improve on the drafting. If it is intended that this could be expanded to non-EU countries, it would be very helpful if the Government could say how they would propose to deal with it. After all, the United States of America is just one example. I think it would be enormously helpful to the Committee if the Minister were able to give some answers to those questions.
Viscount Goschen: Before the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, tell the Committee how they intend to proceed with their amendments, I should like to ask the Minister one very straightforward question for elucidation. I am sure there is an equally straightforward answer, probably involving precedents or other legislation. Referring to Amendment No. 40, in Clause 6(2) there is a list of people who are permitted to provide the application. Could I just ask why the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the chief constable of any police force maintained under or by virtue of Section 1 of the Police
1476
(Scotland) Act 1967 are shown there, but not other chief constables within the United Kingdom? It would be helpful to know the answer.
Lord Lucas: Might I ask the reverse question? What is the position going the other way? What rights have we, as a country, to extract this kind of information from other countries? As I understand it, we have a reciprocal arrangement with the European Union and in that case is it always on this Part I warrant-to-warrant basis, or could we find people who are after communications data under Chapter II, having a right to communications data that, say, I may have generated while on holiday in France? Is that something they could ask for and, if so, would they get it on a similar basis as applies in the United Kingdom or would they have to apply for a French ministerial warrant to get it?
The Earl of Northesk: I hope the noble Lord the Minister will permit me to come back on die Isle of Man and Channel Islands point. Clause 5(5) states categorically that,
"A warrant shall not be considered necessary on the ground falling within subsection (3)(c) unless the information which it is thought necessary to obtain is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British islands".
I am happy with that drafting, but my understanding is that the Interpretation Act defines the British Islands as Crown dependencies. To a very major extent the Bill does impact upon the Crown dependencies, i.e. the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
Lord Bach: Before the noble Lord, Lord McNally, speaks, perhaps I could deal with several issues that have arisen. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked about the European context. The Bill says,
"for the purpose of any international mutual assistance agreement".
So it obviously does not include just the convention that we have signed up to. Your Lordships will remember my earlier reply that in the event of the Government wishing to extend the regulations under this clause in future to cover non-EU countries, we would look very carefully at their interception regimes to ensure that they are consistent with ECHR principles, before introducing any regulations.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the chief constables of other forces in England and Wales are not mentioned because all England and Wales interceptions, apart from those of the Metropolitan Police, are through the National Criminal Intelligence Service—a national body covered by the clause. Special Branch is covered through the Metropolitan Police and the Scottish police through the Scottish Office.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but it is not the Scottish Office that

1477
covers Scottish police but the chief constables of Scottish constabularies, who differ from the chief constables of England and Wales.
Lord Bach: I will return to the noble Lord's point.
As to the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, the Bill does impact on the Crown dependencies, in the sense that it gives them special protection and treats them like the UK in that respect—but it does not apply as a matter of Manx law. That is the best I can do for the noble Earl tonight.
I referred earlier to the Scottish Office but the reference should have been to Scottish Ministers in the devolved government. No doubt it is through Scottish Ministers that the matter reaches the chief constables to which the clause refers—not the Scottish Office in London but Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord again but Clause 5 states that the Secretary of State may issue a warrant. That might be the Secretary of State, Home Department or the Secretary of State for Scotland but the Secretary of State may issue warrants—not Scottish Ministers.
Lord Bach: It is not a question of who issues the warrant but who should apply for one.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes. As far as concerns an application, that may be done in Scotland by the chief constable of any police force. An application cannot be made by the chief constables of an English or Welsh police force. They can only apply through NCIS. That is not quite what the noble Lord said.
Viscount Astor: To give the noble Lord the opportunity to receive further advice, I thank him for his helpful explanation about Clause 6(2)(j). He clearly said that it includes the European Union and any international mutual assistance agreement—and could be added to by regulation. I will not press the point now but it would be helpful to the Committee if the noble Lord would send me a written explanation of the regulations required to add new countries and how that mechanism will work.
Lord Bach: I have not quite finished my response because I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I shall be writing to him in answer to his question.
Perhaps I may return—it is to be hoped, for the last time of asking—to the Scottish police; not the Leith police, but the Scottish police. The Scottish police forces apply to the Scottish Ministers by way of a devolution order made under the Scotland Act. The Secretary of State's powers go to Scottish Ministers. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, is right: it is the
1478
Scottish police chiefs who make the application, but the decision is reached by Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Can my noble friend confirm that the reason for this is that there is no National Criminal Intelligence Service in Scotland?
Lord McNally: I wanted to intervene earlier in the debate because I wished to withdraw my amendment. I did not wish to do so for the spurious reason that I intended to bring it back later. It may be just the Minister's presentational skills, but what he said about the area that is at the centre of my amendment sounded to me to be rather reassuring.
We have heard much about the horrors of the Internet, but we should all welcome the fact that this will make it much more difficult for totalitarian states to keep their people in ignorance. It will also make it much more difficult for those concerned to run totalitarian regimes. But, alas, not all totalitarian regimes are unfriendly states. Therefore, the intention of my amendment was to ensure that we did not get into the habit of helping out friendly but, nevertheless, unacceptable regimes (in human rights terms) in controlling their legitimate dissidents.
I heard the Minister spell out the assurances made in the other place and the comments that he made tonight. That seems to me to be the Government's intention. I shall, of course, read the Hansard report carefully, but if what the Minister said was such a tightening assurance, I very gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 29 or 30.
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 27, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Lord said: It has been suggested that we should discuss Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 with this amendment. Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendment No. 31, which is extremely small. Again, this is another amateur effort of mine at parliamentary drafting. However, if Members of the Committee will refer to line 15 on page 7 of the Bill, they will see that it says that prison,
"has the meaning given by subsection (8) of this section".
It promptly goes on in the next line to establish what prison means. It seems to me that line 15 is entirely unnecessary; indeed, it just clutters up the page. This is a small point but one which I thought was worth mentioning.
By comparison, Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 deal with a much more important point of principle. The former seeks to leave out subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 4 which provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising legitimate business practice as far as concerns interception, and so on.

1479
It is extremely important that businesses should be able to do a certain amount of interception during the course of their normal and perfectly respectable business, as is suggested in paragraphs (a) and (b).
However, I am much less happy about the fact that this should be achieved by way of regulations, subject only to the negative procedure, which will be produced at some future date. I hope that the undertaking given by the Minister earlier—namely, to produce information on the codes of practice before the Report stage—might apply also to these regulations.
As I said, this Bill is quite damaging to business. These regulations are potentially extremely restrictive in terms of carrying on normal business. However, I feel sure that eventually the Secretary of State will provide some satisfactory regulations—at least, I hope that he will. We in this Chamber, and Parliament generally, will not have the opportunity to do much about that if they take the form only of negative resolutions. We can, of course, debate them, but we cannot amend them or do much to them. In practice, it is extremely difficult to tinker with any regulations which may be produced on that basis.
Amendment No. 28, which seeks to delete subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 4, is an attempt to persuade the Government to tell us what the regulations will contain and to produce them before we reach Report stage.
Amendment No. 29 seeks to delete "may" and insert "shall" to place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce regulations of the character we are describing. If he does not do so, businesses will not be able to indulge in the perfectly acceptable practice of keeping a record of transactions that employees and others are undertaking on their behalf and of other communications relating to their business. This is frequently done and is a perfectly legitimate and correct practice essential to business. The idea that the Secretary of State may, or may not, introduce regulations is quite wrong. He should introduce such regulations and, what is more, he should produce them before Report stage so that we can consider them. I shall not discuss Amendment No. 30 which stands in the names of Liberal Democrat Peers. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It may be appropriate for me to say now that Amendment No. 30, which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and myself, should be withdrawn. We wholly approve of what the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has said with regard to his amendments. I add only that the Delegated Powers Committee had some stringent things to say about the Bill, quite a bit of which concerned the extensive power retained to the Secretary of State under its measures to bring forward regulations. I shall confine my comments to that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 28 deals with the monitoring of corporate and government networks for business practice reasons. Without the
1480
regulations for which subsections (2) and (3) provide, such monitoring would become unlawful by virtue of Clause 1.
We can give an undertaking that a full draft of the regulations will be available before Report. I hope that that will help noble Lords' deliberations. As I have said before, over the next few months we shall wish to consult fully with all those who are likely to be affected by the Bill. I give an undertaking here and now that we shall carefully consider any responses to that consultation.
I understand entirely the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The intention of his amendment is, quite rightly, to avoid any excessive regulation on business—we have no desire to impose excessive regulation on business—and that is an aim with which I entirely concur. However, I am not convinced at this stage that providing a blanket permission on the face of the Bill is the right way forward.
As we have already discussed at length today, interception is an intrusive tool. I think that we well understand that. We do not believe that it should be undertaken lightly in any circumstances. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights lays down clear requirements that any interference with privacy must be in accordance with the law and be necessary in a democratic society. In other words, the law must set out the circumstances in which interception may take place with a reasonable degree of specificity. The regulations which the Bill permits the Secretary of State to make will achieve that.
We intend to consult widely with all parties with a view to making regulations which establish the general circumstances in which interception may legitimately take place for business practice reasons, but which do not contain so much detail that they tie up businesses with red tape. We have already received positive reactions to this initiative from industry, from Oftel and the DTI.
Turning to Amendment No. 29, if this amendment were agreed to, it would oblige the Secretary of State to make regulations under Clause 4. I am pleased to say that my colleague, the Minister of State at the Home Office, made a clear commitment during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. He said:
"Later this year, we shall consult widely with all parties likely to be affected, with a view to making regulations that establish the circumstances in which interception may legitimately lake place for business practice reasons".
The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are in place before Part I of the Bill commences. The Department of Trade and Industry will begin the consultation process on their content shortly. We do not believe that it would be acceptable to put businesses or the Government in a position whereby they will be completely prevented by law from monitoring their own communication networks in the way described in Clause 4. I hope that the noble Lord will understand that and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I shall turn now to Amendment No. 30 and then make a brief reference to Amendment No. 31. As I understand it, Amendment No. 30 is consequential

1481
upon Amendment No. 2, which would have made a change to Clause 1(6) to require any person described by that subsection to carry out an interception in accordance with Clause 4 regulations. As I explained during our debate on that amendment, we do not believe that the requirements these amendments would impose upon the public at large would be either reasonable or realistic. I trust that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment No. 30.
We can gratefully accept Amendment No. 31. No doubt the noble Lord has helped us to improve the quality of the legislation. I am very happy to say that we can accept Amendment No. 31. Progress has been made and we have come to something that we can all agree.
I hope that with those explanations, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: First, may I express my deep gratitude to the Minister for accepting the most inconsequential amendment that I have moved or spoken to. It is extremely minor, but I am glad to have made a small contribution to the clarity of the drafting.
So far as concerns the more important Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, of course I am in favour of consultation about the detail of what the regulations should contain. I do not object to this being in regulations as opposed to being in the Bill. The Government made the point in their memorandum to the Select Committee on Deregulation that business practices change and it may be necessary to modify the regulations in this respect in the future.
The Minister said that the Government would begin consultation shortly; he also undertook that a draft would be ready for Report stage. It will help us to forecast the business of the House if the consultations are just beginning and will be completed in time for Report stage. I should perhaps emphasise that I was talking about seeing a draft of the regulations—not necessarily the absolutely final form—so that we know what we are talking about when we come to consider this clause again at Report stage.
The Minister also spoke of excessive regulation of business and his wish to avoid that. That would of course apply only if the regulations were unduly onerous in prescribing the business practices that would be permissible under the clause. I hope that they will not be too onerous. However, we shall be able to make a judgment on that when we see the draft regulations.
If I noted it correctly, the Minister also stated that, if amended, the clause would "commit" the Secretary of State to making regulations. It would not. It would only "permit" the Secretary of State to make regulations, which was the point behind Amendment No. 29. However, when he used that phrase, he did, in effect, accept Amendment No. 29, even if he did not say that he will do so in actuality, as he did with
1482
Amendment No. 31. Bearing in mind the progress that we have made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, leave out lines 14 and 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Interception with a warrant]:
Lord Phillips of Sudburymoved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a judge").
The noble Lord said: I am not sure whether I still have the spirit to move this amendment, having heard about England's defeat by Portugal by three goals to two.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: A nation mourns.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: However, the show must go on and the Bill must be scrutinised.
The nine amendments in this group all address a single, simple point; namely, whether the issue of a warrant under this clause, as specified in Clause 7, should be undertaken at the behest of the Secretary of State or at that of a judge.
We are all aware of the status quo contained in the Interception of Communications Act—if one may call that a status quo. That legislation provides for the Secretary of State to undertake this onerous task. I believe that I am right in saying that on average he has to deal with something in excess of seven warrants on each working day.
It is not my proposition, nor that of these Benches, that the Secretary of State is "unfit" in the normal sense of the word to undertake the task. However, it is our belief that times have moved on and that a considerable body of informed opinion in the country now believes that this task would be better undertaken by a judge, in particular in the context of a Bill containing the most wide-ranging and extensive powers of intervention in the private lives of citizens and organisations of the state. Again, I emphasise that there is no wish or intent on our part to suggest any bias or intentional abuse, shall we say, of the rights and duties which the issue of warrants would bestow on the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill.
However, the world that this Bill will control is one which comes ever closer to the private citizen in more and more dimensions of his or her life. As I have said, we are of the view that, whereas in the past it may have been satisfactory to continue with a system in which the Secretary of State had a monopoly of power in this regard, now the time has come to recognise that a separation between the Secretary of State and the powers to issue such warrants is desirable.

1483
I say that particularly in light of the fact that we are dealing here with issues of human rights that are of considerable import. We are dealing with them in a context where the Secretary of State will be exercising these powers in secret, without the citizen concerned ever knowing that those powers have been exercised. The burden on the Secretary of State will inevitably be greatly enlarged by the Bill. This may indeed be one matter which he or she would be happy to hand over to a judge.
As to accountability, it may be said that nothing is better than the present circumstance. I venture to doubt that proposition, given the covert nature of the exercise of the power, and given that. I do not believe that a busy Secretary of State can reasonably be expected to give case by case consideration to warrants when they are pouring on to his or her desk even at the current rate, let alone the rate that is to come.
Other states with which we have close relations, such as Germany, give this power to a judge—except, in the case of Germany, where national security is involved. We all ought to consider this matter carefully. There is a great deal of public concern about the nature of the Bill, particularly its human rights dimensions. For those reasons, I commend the several amendments in the names of myself and colleagues. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 are also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 41 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 42. For the sake of completeness and accuracy, perhaps I should also offer an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, because his name is spelt wrongly. It should of course be "Lord Phillips of Sudbury", not "Lord Phillips of Subdury"!
Viscount Astor: I am sure that the mistake is entirely unintentional.
My Amendment No. 47 is grouped with this one. Before speaking to it, however, perhaps I may add a comment on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. We agree with the Government on this amendment. We believe that the Secretary of State should have this power. The Secretary of State is able to have a wider view and take more points into consideration. It is important that the Secretary of State is burdened by these decisions—that is why he is there.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, spoke of the covert nature of some of the decisions. That provides an even greater reason why the Secretary of State should be required to take these decisions. Frankly, I am nervous of giving this power to judges. The Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament. I am happy with that: Ministers are answerable to Parliament; judges are not.
In recent times, under governments of both parties, legislation passed by Parliament has been interpreted by judges in a way that no one ever expected. That is further reason why the power should rest with the Secretary of State. That is the correct place. I am
1484
against extending such power to judges. That would be wrong. The Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament on such issues.
My Amendment No. 47 relates to Clause 9(1)(b), which states that a warrant may be renewed by the Secretary of State,
"or, in a case falling within section 7(2)(b), under the hand of a senior official".
As I have said, Ministers should be answerable to Parliament. I am therefore nervous also about the idea of this power being transferred to a "senior official". I regard it as a retrograde step. I do not know whether it should be the Secretary of State or, indeed, any other Minister in the department. I do not know the real definition of a senior official. Is it purely someone within the Home Office, for example? It does not say so. Officials are not accountable to Parliament.
There is a definition in Clause 72, on page 78:
"'senior official' means, subject to subsection (6), a member of the Senior Civil Service".
I am sure that there is a definition somewhere, lurking in a Sir Humphrey-type way, of who is a member of the Senior Civil Service. It would be useful to know how many members of the Senior Civil Service there are in the Home Office. Are there two or are there 222? I have no idea what those definitions are. It would be useful if the Minister explained.
What really concerns me is that the definition says "subject to subsection (6)", because subsection (6) states:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary to do so in consequence of any changes to the structure or grading of the Civil Service, he may by order make such amendments of [he definition of 'senior official' in subsection (1) as appear to him appropriate to preserve, so far as practicable, the effect of that definition".
The nice way of looking at that is to say that someone changes the grades and there is an extra grade—grade six or seven or whatever it happens to be, and that is it. But the worry is that a Secretary of State can say, "We wish to lower this decision-making to a much wider group within the department" and may add a vast number of people. That is why I am fundamentally against the principle.
Ministers should be answerable to Parliament. It is an unfair burden to put on senior officials. I am extremely concerned about the idea that the Secretary of State can change the definition at almost any time he wants, for whatever reason. I am sure that he would consider doing it only for the right reasons, but the fact is that the power is there; he can do it whenever he wants and for whatever reason.
The power should rest with Ministers. It follows the logic of the Government's case that the Secretary of State, not judges, should have the power. That follows naturally, and therefore I would hope that the Minister will consider my amendment very carefully. I regard it as being of enormous importance, because it affects the Government's answerability to Parliament. We regard that as being extremely important, particularly in the House of Lords.
10 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I did not participate in the Second Reading debate. That was not primarily because I had to be elsewhere; it simply reflected my abysmal ignorance of the subject matter of the Bill. I was born into the age of the carrier pigeon. But some of the principles that the Committee has been debating today are matters that can be understood even by those of us who do not follow all the technology involved.
I intervene at this stage for a particular reason. I am privileged to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired with great distinction by Mr. Tom King. There are members of that committee who have a great deal more expertise in this field than I shall ever claim to have. In fact, almost every other member of the committee would be in that position. But they were precluded from participating in the debates in another place because the authorities, in their infinite and unfathomable wisdom, scheduled the Report and Third Reading debates in a week when the committee was 4,000 miles from the Chamber. Therefore, some at least of the comments that the committee had wanted to make fall to me to make at this stage.
I believe, first, that the Government have responded handsomely to some of the representations that the committee made. The committee was anxious that that should be placed on the record. Secondly, the committee has an interest in this debate because, among other things, it believes that the Government have the balance about right.
It has been stated repeatedly today, I believe without contradiction, that the powers which are being regulated by the Bill are necessary if the public is to be protected from a whole spectrum of serious crime but that they can be used obtrusively, and can be oppressive, and it is important that they are properly regulated.
That being so, the Government have addressed the issue by the following scheme. The application has to be made by someone who is listed in Clause 6. I understand that the Committee will debate that clause a little later. It has to be someone responsible in both senses of that word. That is the first stage.
The second stage at present is that it is to be considered by the Secretary of State or, in certain narrowly defined circumstances, by the senior official. I believe that that is right. I believe that it should be considered by someone who is a member of the executive, answerable for the execution of law enforcement and who is close—I say only close; I do not attempt to define it more than that—to the agencies which have the responsibility for operation. I can say from my own knowledge that Ministers who have that kind of responsibility take it very seriously. In a somewhat different context, I had to sign warrants at one period. They were manageable in number. I made all necessary enquiries before I signed them. I have spoken to many colleagues who have held high office, in particular as Secretary of State for Home Affairs. They have assured me that the same has been
1486
true of them. I think that the Secretary of State is the best person at that stage in the balance which the Government have arranged.
The third stage is that the Secretary of State's decision can be reviewed by a commissioner. I understand that the commissioners will be selected from the senior judiciary. It is at that stage that one has a judicial scrutiny. That is the way in which, constitutionally, we have normally arranged our affairs. It is at the stage when it reviews what the executive has done that the judiciary intervene.
Perhaps the Committee will permit me to say in parenthesis that there is a fourth stage. There is a tribunal to ensure that the proper procedures have been carried out. If I may wear a hat which I discarded last year, it is in accordance with the normal advice of the Council on Tribunals that there should not be a proliferation of tribunals. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing all the relevant tribunals under one umbrella. I believe that the Government have the right series of stages to ensure that the powers which are being regulated in the Bill are not in danger of being abused.
In agreeing with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, perhaps I may make one further remark. As I understand it—no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm it if true—the intention of having an official considering the application is narrowly defined, I suspect, for a situation where it will not be easy to find a Secretary of State, or even a middle-ranking Minister. There may be occasions—I believe that they would be rare—where that situation may arise. It would be a great pity if a major crime were not prevented because there was no one in a position to consider and grant the application. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says about that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may mention this. He referred to the power of review. Does he accept that it is a general power of review and not a case by case review?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I understand from the commissioners who operate at present that they consider individual cases. If they think that a problem is arising in relation to individual cases, they report accordingly.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's support. There was never a case, so far as I am aware, where a Minister was not on duty at or very close to the Home Office. I accept the point that it would be wrong for a document not to be signed because no one was available. But in practice there is always someone present in the Home Office.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: The noble Viscount's experience of the Home Office is probably greater than mine. It would be a pity if I fouled up my noble friend's

1487
reply to this debate by saying something with which he may not agree. It may be better, therefore, if I subside at this stage.
Lord Lucas: Can the Minister take the opportunity to explain Clause 7(2)(b)? It appears that there is an exemption from the Secretary of State having to sign a warrant in a case where we are likely to know as little as possible and have the least reason to trust the person who has asked for the warrant, that is when it comes from overseas rather than from someone with whom we are generally used to working. There is a very odd provision in Clause 7(2)(b)(ii), which says,
"the interception to which the warrant relates is to take place in relation only to premises outside the United Kingdom".
If it relates to premises outside the United Kingdom, why is it within our jurisdiction?
Lord Bach: The intention of Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 37, 38 and 41 is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue interception warrants. Instead, this power would be handed to the judiciary, specifically a circuit judge in England and Wales, a sheriff in Scotland and a county court judge in Northern Ireland.
This serious debate has, of course, a long history and was certainly discussed at some length at both Committee and Report stages in the other place. We accept, of course, what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that this is not an attack, veiled or otherwise, on the Secretary of State. The motive behind these amendments is absolutely clear.
The arguments put forward by those who advocate judicial involvement do not at the end of the day persuade the Government that that is the right course to take. We maintain the view that authorising interception involves particularly sensitive decisions that are properly a matter for the executive. This involvement by the executive has historically reflected the very high level of scrutiny which this particularly intrusive means of surveillance has attracted. The warrant-issuing process is a key part of the line of accountability from the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to the Secretary of State. Any alternative means of authorising interception would need to show that it will be an improvement upon a system which has proved to be remarkably effective over many years.
I can reassure noble Lords, however, that all interception warrants have to pass through highly experienced staff in the warrants unit who are able to identify any errors at an early stage. This process adds consistency to the way in which warrants are handled and provides a degree of oversight prior to the Secretary of State being presented with a warrant for consideration.
Of course, there is an important, vital place for judicial involvement. That comes, as my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell said, in the independent judicial oversight provided by the commissioners and the tribunal, who are there to provide a remedy if the executive has acted outside its
1488
statutory powers. We do not believe, however, that judges can reasonably be expected to make decisions on what is or is not in the interests of national security.
The European Commission of Human Rights has endorsed the present practice of executive authorisation—for example, in the case of Christie v United Kingdom. In addition, and importantly, the current system was recently endorsed in the last report of the previous Commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Nolan.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to one further aspect which is relevant to the discussion that we shall have on Clause 12. Requiring the Secretary of State to authorise interception means that he or she keeps a close eye on the demands made of communication service providers in respect of the interceptions they are asked to effect. That is particularly the case because in practice only a small number of Secretaries of State perform the function. It is limited normally to the Secretaries of State at the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Northern Ireland Office and, previously, the Scottish Office. It concentrates knowledge of the burdens placed on industry. Once the requirements of industry are established under Clause 12, it will be very important that the Secretary of State keeps an eye on the use made of the capability. This cannot easily be done if individual interception warrants are authorised by judges.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Listening to that argument, I was intrigued to hear him say "previously" by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps he could tell me who under the Bill will be the relevant person as regards Scotland.
Lord Bach: As soon as I mentioned Scotland and saw the noble Lord in the Chamber. I knew that someone had made a mistake! I understand that it is Scottish Ministers in Edinburgh by way of devolved government. If I am wrong about that, I shall return to the matter later in my remarks.
I was grateful for the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. He speaks with great authority on these matters and the Government are reassured by his support. He has a most distinguished record not only in the area of intelligence and security but as a former Solicitor General of great distinction.
The other amendments in the group have been tabled in order to remove the role of a duly authorised senior official to issue a warrant under certain circumstances. These circumstances, which are most specific, are when a warrant application is urgent or when a request has been made under the mutual legal assistance convention. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was sceptical about that last issue.
It might be helpful if I explain the procedures which must be followed in urgent cases. First, the senior official who signs the warrant must be expressly

1489
authorised to do so by the Secretary of State. Secondly, the express authorisation must be in relation to that particular warrant only. Thirdly, the official who signs the warrant must endorse on it a statement that he has been expressly authorised by the Secretary of State to sign that particular warrant. So even when the urgent procedure applies, the Secretary of State must have given personal consideration to the application in order to give instructions to a senior official for the signing of that particular warrant. An additional safeguard is that in such circumstances the warrant is to last for five days only. I hope that that goes some way to assuring Members of the Committee that these provisions have been looked at carefully and that the authorisation and actions required under such circumstances are strictly prescribed.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for whose support of the main part of the amendment we are grateful, will be satisfied by the fact that under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 provision was made for the signing of a warrant in an urgent case by a senior civil servant; an Assistant Under-Secretary of State. As regards urgent cases, that has been the case since 1985 and I do not believe that that power has ever been misused. Therefore, we are not making up new law; this has already been on the statute book for 15 years.
The other circumstance which allows for a senior official to issue a warrant relates to a request made under an international mutual legal assistance agreement. Here, the interception subject, or the premises where communications are to be intercepted, must be outside the United Kingdom. In such circumstances, a warrant may be issued if the competent requesting authorities have already issued an interception order against a subject of interception. Therefore, by the time it reaches us, an interception order will already have been issued against the subject of interception. As we are making no decision on the merits of the case, and the purpose of the warrant is solely to provide technical assistance—in other words, with a satellite interception or a telephone interception on foreign territory—we consider it appropriate for the warrant to be issued by senior officials rather than by the Secretary of State. I hope that that answer goes some way to satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
I was asked what was meant by a "senior civil servant". A senior civil servant is someone who is at grade 5 and above; in other words, an Assistant Secretary or above.
In a recent and telling intervention, I was also asked about Scottish warrants. According to the Bill, they are issued by the Secretary of State. However, a devolution order under the Scotland Act will transfer that function to Scottish Ministers—in practice, the Scottish First Minister—in matters which involve serious crime. I hope that that answers the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
1490
I hope that the comments that I have been able to make on these matters have satisfied the noble Lord who moved the amendment and that he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I want to return briefly to the Scottish matter. We discussed it a little on an earlier amendment and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish intervened on the matter again during debate on this amendment. Is it the case that under a devolution order which, according to the phraseology used by the Minister, is to be signed, Scottish Ministers—in practice, the First Minister—will be involved? That is an interesting contrast with the position in England where signing is carried out either by the Home Secretary or by an official. In Scotland, it would appear to be done by the First Minister or a more junior Minister.
Lord Bach: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. It will be done either by the First Minister or by the Deputy First Minister, neither of whom, I believe, can be called "junior".
Lord Cope of Berkeley: I accept that. However, it seems to me that if that is the case and it is the established case, it would be much better if the Bill said so. The Bill is specific. It states that it is under the hand of the Secretary of State. That is not simply a generalised reference. It is a specific reference to a warrant being issued under the hand of the Secretary of State. I suggest that it would be advantageous if there were a reference on the face of the Bill to the fact that in Scotland the regime is to be different and is to be restricted, as the noble Lord said, to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord replies, we are well into devolution; the Scotland Act is well on the statute book and the Scottish Parliament is up and running. Why are we still writing new legislation which is couched in terms as though it were still to come about? Should not the new legislation state quite clearly that the reference is to the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister of the Scottish Executive? We are going through the pretence that reference is to the Secretary of State and we are then depending on a piece of secondary legislation, which is still to be signed, to say that in the case of Scotland it should be the First Minister.
We are experiencing this problem with a raft of government Bills. It just so happens that this evening this one has come to my attention. However, some of the noble Lord's colleagues are in exactly the same position. They appear to be writing legislation as though devolution has yet to happen, when in fact it has already happened. They should be writing new legislation to take account of the fact that the reference should be to the Scottish First Minister.
I have no difficulty with the fact that the Scottish First Minister signs the warrants. I am not entirely sure that the Liberal Democrats, who may not be happy with the warrants, will be happy with the idea that the

1491
Deputy First Minister, who is a Liberal Democrat, will be asked to sign the warrants in the absence of the First Minister. The First Minister, who is a friend of mine, although not in political terms, is recovering from a serious heart operation at the moment, so I have little doubt that it is the Liberal Member who is going to have to sign them.
Why do we go on and on writing UK legislation, ignoring the fact that the Scottish Parliament and the Executive are now up and running? Should we not be doing that now and not depending on secondary legislation?
Viscount Astor: From an English point of view, is there not an extraordinary difference here? In Scotland it would be the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister, but in England it would be the Secretary of State or a senior official. What is wrong with the senior officials in Scotland? What is wrong with the Ministers of Slate in the Home Office?
Lord Bach: The same point has been made in very different ways by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Mackay. It is a good point. It is one we will take away and consider carefully.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: No one can exceed my respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, whom I have known and admired for over 30 years. I am very affected by any argument he produces on this matter, particularly in view of his experience. However, occasionally it is forgotten that it is not always right or best to ask those who have fulfilled a particular role (or even still fulfil it) as to what is the best way forward in a new era. He mentioned closeness to the police and other agencies as being a virtue of the Secretary of State's procedure. I view it as a defect, and I believe the public does.
The noble and learned Lord also mentioned a review of the Secretary of State's decision. I view that as a defect compared with an independent judicial decision, and the review in any event, as I attempted to draw from him, will be a general review and will be unlikely to cover a particular case. Later in this debate we will come back to haunt the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Bassam, on the inadequacy, as we see it, of these new arrangements, but that is for another evening.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested to us that judges are often out of step with Parliament. This is a Bill we are passing. It is an Act which will need to be construed judicially or quasi-judicially. If the judge or even the Secretary of State is out of step with Parliament that will be because they have been trying to apply this measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, talked about the sensitivity of the decision which would be reached by the Secretary of State; maybe too sensitive, too sensitive to the pressing consideration which will surround the Secretary of State when he reaches those decisions, particularly as there is immense power of regulation under this Bill.
1492
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, then suggested that there are highly experienced staff to carry out these measures, and that is true. But no one is as experienced nor as competent as judges in the consideration and interpretation of complex legislation such as this. Indeed, in opening, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was so honest as to say that the amazingly complex web of law that is this Bill is perhaps beyond all but an experienced lawyer really to understand in all its dimensions.
These Benches are not at all satisfied with the outcome of this part of the debate. It has been acknowledged in the amendment that urgency would still be dealt with by the Secretary of State. It is accepted that national security measures are better dealt with by the Secretary of State. But, ultimately, public confidence is the judge of all that. Public confidence is not increasing as regards government, Parliament and administrations. Rather, I am sad to say, the reverse is true.
In the age of the Human Rights Act when, on 1st October, we are about to launch into an era undreamt of even 10 years ago, we should be much better, bolder and more right were we to accept the purport of the amendments. But this is not an occasion on which to attempt to take the matter further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 8, line 6, at end insert ("and
( ) that any information obtained will only be used for the purposes for which the warrant is granted").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 speaks for itself. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: I believe that the answer speaks for itself but I had better say a little about it. The intention behind this amendment is to limit strictly the use to which information gained by means of an interception warrant can be used. I sympathise with the noble Lord's intention but the result of accepting this amendment would be, in certain circumstances, unintentionally to hamper our fight against serious crime.
For example, it is certainly possible that an interception warrant that has been granted for the purpose of national security might pick up information that would prevent or detect serious crime which falls under one of the other purposes. I stress that the information used in such a circumstance would still have to be for one of the few warranted purposes, and could not be used for a purpose that could not achieve that level of seriousness. But it would seriously hamper our tight against serious crime if the unintended result of this amendment were to prohibit any action being taken in such an instance.
However, I understand the reasoning behind the noble Lord's amendment. He wishes to ensure that the information received by means of warranted

1493
interception is not abused in any way. We have introduced into Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill a large number of safeguards to protect warranted information and to restrict the uses to which it may be put. Those include the requirement to ensure that the distribution and disclosure of intercepted material is kept to a minimum; and that all intercepted material is destroyed as soon as it is no longer necessary to retain it for any of the authorised purposes.
So, although we sympathise with the intentions of the noble Lord, we believe that the unintended consequences of his amendment—restriction of the ability of the intelligence and security agencies to act on information, even if only because the information received would fall under the grounds of a different warranted purpose—are not ones that he would wish to see in place.
Viscount Goschen: In terms of the restrictions on the warranted information, perhaps the noble Lord will go a little further. Will he explain to the Committee what would happen, for example, in a case where the intelligence services found that they had been pursuing the wrong man but, by accident, they stumbled upon a relatively minor crime or misdemeanour?
The noble Lord said that the information would be destroyed as soon as it was no longer necessary to pursue the cause of the original warrant. But what would happen in the case that I have just described?
The Earl of Northesk: Does the noble Lord accept that the phraseology of my noble friend's amendment is entirely consistent with the Data Protection Act? Therefore, there is existing legislation which almost obliges the Government to comply with what my noble friend's amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Bach: I can really only repeat to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, what I have already said on this point. If the warrant is taken out for a particular purpose and another warrantable purpose is discovered—for example, serious crime—then it would be ridiculous to shut one's eyes to that other serious crime. But the authorities would not be allowed to take advantage of a warrant obtained for one purpose if what was discovered—I use the noble Viscount's words—were some minor misdemeanour. It will not be possible to use the warrant to achieve justice in that case.
Lord Lucas: I am comforted by the words of the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McNallymoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: In introducing this amendment let me say what a pleasure it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in his
1494
place. I am glad that he has come for the night shift. He is probably jealous that this is not a DTI Bill because then he could have had all the fun.
These are probing amendments which look at the terms "national security" and "economic well-being". National security and economic well-being are vague and subjective ideas. The Bill defines neither. If activity is so great a menace to society as to justify interference with the fundamental rights of the citizen, one would expect it to be prohibited by the criminal law, with the definitional certainty that that attracts. Subject only to well-defined exceptions, prevention or detection of serious crime should be the sole ground for authorising interception.
In the field of national security, crimes of espionage, terrorism and conspiracy cover an enormous range of harmful conduct. In the field of economic well-being, offences covering fraud, evasion of fiscal and Customs regulation, insider dealing, false accounting, counterfeiting and so forth, prohibit an equally broad range of objectionable activity. If Parliament has not judged an activity sufficiently grave or insidious to justify bringing it within the criminal law, then it should not generally be regarded as a legitimate basis for interception or surveillance.
It is as to why these vague terms are inserted into the Bill that we probe. In case Members of the Committee think that this is just the concern of the civil liberties lobby, I was interested to receive a fax from the Alliance for Electronic Business which consists of the Computing Services & Software Association, the CBI, the Direct Marketing Association and the Federation of the Electronics Industry. It says that the clauses which provide that,
"the Secretary of State to have access to information 'for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom' … would give the government an unprecedented right of access to information on legitimate business activities. We believe this proposal could damage the UK's ambitions to becoming the global leader in e-business.
The generic use of 'economic well-being' in this context is potentially a highly onerous burden upon business, allowing the Secretary of State to force an intercept requirement on a business on spurious grounds.
It is essential that there is clear guidance, for example in the Code of Practice. We believe the only circumstances in which such a power should be exercised would be to carry out regulatory activities already authorised under existing legislation, for example, Financial Services legislation. It is absolutely vital that the guidelines have clear criteria to ensure business understands what is a legitimate requirement".
There we have both from the civil liberties lobby and from business a concern that there have been slipped into the Bill two very vague terms of "national security" and the "economic well-being" of the United Kingdom, which could be used as "catch-alls". We probe to find out why they are there.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: As far as I am concerned, I think that warrants can readily be justified if necessary in the interests of national security. That is covered by Amendments Nos. 35 and 122. I am not sure where national security is defined. It is not defined in the Bill. By definition, it would seem to be national security not involving serious crime, because serious crime is

1495
covered under Clause 5(3)(b). So it is national security of some other character. There are national security considerations of another character essentially covered in the jargon, as it were, by the word "spy" as opposed to "terrorist activity", which involves potentially serious crime. I am content with that.
Where I start to wonder what it is all about is when we come to (c), the subject of the second of the two amendments in this group, Nos. 36 and 123. It talks about safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. That is an enormous phrase. When I was a Member of the other place I had a great deal to do with the aircraft industry and from time to time we were concerned about whether defence orders from the UK and from overseas went to British companies or to American or other companies. A great deal of time was spent on trying to make a case on behalf of our constituents and for neighbouring constituencies as well, in order that the UK could gain from these defence orders.
I believe that it was, and still is, in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom that these orders should have gone to UK companies. It would have been of great advantage to the companies concerned, and indeed of the Government in some respects, to have known what overseas firms were doing in respect of such contracts. To have a warrant to inquire into that kind of thing seems to me entirely consistent with the permission being given in this subsection. I hasten to acid that I do not think that is what this Bill should be all about: it should be about combating terrorism and serious crime. However, they are already covered by (a) and (b) and do not need covering by (c).
These days there are other considerations, like exchange rates and other financial matters, in which it would be greatly to the advantage of British interests, both in the national sense and in the sense of British companies and institutions, to know some of the things that were happening in respect of foreign financial institutions. Safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the country is extremely important. One can argue about things like exchange rates, the euro and so on, but I am not going into all that. Is interception to be used for this purpose? Is that what is intended by safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the country?
It is not only a question of interception which is covered by Clause 5 and the first of the two amendments. Intrusive surveillance might also be used, and that is covered by the second of the two amendments. If it is thought by foreign companies that if they had a British partner, whether to do with defence, aerospace, finance or anything else, they might be subjected to the interception of their e-mail and so on, they would be much less inclined to have a British partner as their own interests might be placed in jeopardy.
1496
It seems to me that this is an extremely wide power, going well beyond what this Bill should generally be about. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister will be able to reassure us.
Viscount Goschen: May I associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Cope with regard to (3)(c)? We can see what the Bill is driving at, but the way it has been drafted is incredibly broad. There is a very substantial power here for the Government to intervene, not necessarily where they see lawlessness taking place, but for the purpose of safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. That could take into account a broad variety of circumstances. For example, one can think of currency speculators acting against the pound, or of bugging Mr Greenspan's conversations and so on. One thinks of serious takeovers involving national interests, employment and so on. One does not have to stretch one's memory back too far to think of serious corporate activities in the United Kingdom in the past year or so that would have fallen within the scope of the Bill.
The Government must be more specific and tighten Clause 5(3)(c). One difficulty that the financial community and industry have with the Bill is the prospect that it may drive commerce overseas. Clause 5 has that risk written all over it.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising his probing amendments in the way he did, to flesh out concepts.
Threats to national security change over time and, as yet, Parliament has not enacted a definition, It may help if I describe our understanding of the term "national security", which has been the subject of numerous debates in Parliament over the years. Ministers and parliamentarians have defined threats to national security as any substantial threat to the nation as a whole; matters that relate to the survival or well-being of the nation; protecting the security of the nation and safeguarding its economic well-being from outside threats; any contribution to the protection of the nation's security that is clearly necessary; and the protection of freedom for us all.
Other definitions might include the safeguarding of the state and community against threats to their survival or well-being; defence of the realm and of government defence and foreign policies involving the protection of vital national interests in this country and abroad; and defence of the realm against potential enemies.
The term "national security" can refer only to matters relating to the survival or well-being of the whole nation, not political, sectional or lesser interests. As we see it, the term is concerned with espionage, terrorism and subversion, and with the acquisition of intelligence in support of the Government's defence and overseas policies. We take it that "national security" includes, but is not necessarily confined to, protecting against threats of espionage, terrorism and sabotage; the activities of agents of foreign powers;

1497
and actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means. Those may all reasonably be described as being in the interests of "national security".
Similarly, the term "economic well-being" could include identifying warnings of threats to the supply of energy, commodities and raw materials on which the UK is particularly dependent; identifying attempts by rogue traders or others to manipulate commercial markets, especially when such actions could undermine confidence in the City or affect the stability of financial or other markets; and developing better government understanding of events and trends that could have a serious effect on the UK economy.
The meaning of the phrase was debated at length during the passage of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and the description used then by Ministers remains valid. Safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom does not mean industrial espionage or intelligence gathering on behalf of UK companies. In all cases, the aim of work carried out under this heading is to allow the Government to take such protective actions as are appropriate and consistent with obligations under national, EU and international law.
It is a crucial part of the UK's foreign policy to protect the country against adverse developments overseas which may have grave and damaging consequences for our economic well-being and future. Therefore, by definition, the matter must be one of national significance and cannot be what one might accurately describe as being of a trivial nature—
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister for a moment. In his description of the definition of,
"the interests of national security".
the Minister used the words "economic well-being". If "economic well-being" comes under national security, why do we need paragraph (c)? The noble Lord also described "economic well-being" as being of national significance. If that is the case, we can all understand the phrase "economic well-being" when it is connected to national security. However, when the Minister puts the phrase on its own, that raises all sorts of connotations. I do not understand why we need paragraph (c), when what the Minister said about paragraph (a) as regards national security actually covers the term "economic well-being".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My explanation would probably go something like this. I tried to set out an explanation giving various interpretations of the meaning of the term "national security". Part of that explanation relates to economic well-being. In itself, the latter is of importance and significance. Therefore, it is considered useful to have it set out separately.
In putting forward his probing amendments, the noble Lord has tried to flush out what we might consider "economic well-being" to mean, and how
1498
that might be best interpreted and understood in the context of this legislation. I tried to provide a reasonably coherent set of explanations to that end.
I was about to make a point on the report of the all-party Intelligence and Security Committee. Its annual report in 1996 said:
"We reviewed the subject with both the intelligence producers and consumers, and came to the overall conclusion that intelligence work in support of economic well-being is an important, valuable and, on the evidence we have taken, properly conducted area of the Agencies' activities".
I believe that to be a very useful observation on the term.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked, essentially, what the extent of "economic well-being" might be, where it might lead us and what kind of subjects it might cover. It has been a fairly long-standing practice not to go into too much detail in such matters. However, in his 1991 report, the then Interception Commissioner, Lord Lloyd, stated that there had never been more than a few warrants issued on the ground of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. I believe that I can confirm that that is still the case. It would not be right for me to comment on particular examples, other than those that are commonly understood.
It must be a matter of national significance; indeed, that must be clear. It cannot be something trivial. The emphasis has to be properly on protective action—that is to say, action that is protective of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, it is the case that the intelligence work that is currently carried out for this purpose has been endorsed by the Intelligence and Security Committee as being of particular importance. Ultimately, the decision as to whether it is right in each case must be a matter for the Secretary of State; and, of course, there is accountability here.
The Secretary of State's actions are reviewable by the commissioner. If, on consideration of all relevant factors, the Secretary of State took the view that the economic well-being of the country was under threat, and that interception in a particular case was both necessary and would be a proportionate action to take, he could authorise any such interception by means of a warrant. I believe that that makes good sense in those circumstances.
I hope that that explanation has furthered the debate. I hope that it has satisfied in part at least the intent of the probing amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I should have made it clear that threats to the country's economic well-being may overlap with national security—I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, mentioned that point—but it is, nevertheless, a legitimate purpose in its own right. The Committee may wish to reflect on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have listened to the Minister's reply. I have absolutely no problem with the provision relating to the interests of national security. I suspect that I am one of three noble Lords present in the Chamber who have signed warrants. I suspect that

1499
the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has signed many more than I have. I believe that my noble friend Lord Cope may have signed one or two in his time. As I say. I have no argument with that point.
However, I was worried by the Minister's comments on economic well-being. I believe that he said that the measure might help in the better understanding of events which relate to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. Many companies in this country are part of multinational groups. Often decisions taken by those multinational groups considerably affect the economic well-being of this country. For example, the recent decisions taken by BMW could be considered to have affected the economic well-being of this country. Would it have been legitimate for the Department of Trade and Industry, which seemed to be in almost total ignorance of what was going on, to seek a warrant to intercept the considerable e-mail and telephone traffic which must have taken place between the high command of Rover in this country and BMW in Germany? The Government could thus have kept track of events which were clearly of enormous economic significance to this country.
When we go down these difficult roads we must be sure what powers we are giving to government. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, my noble friend Lord Cope, myself and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, if he has had to sign a warrant in the absence of Mr Straw, have taken that duty extremely seriously. However, to sign a warrant on the ground of economic well-being seems to me to go miles beyond the basis of any warrants that I was expected to sign. I suspect that is true as regards the noble Lords I have mentioned.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It would be unwise for me to be drawn into whether it is right for us to authorise warrants to tap into e-mail systems, the contents of which may or may not relate to recent events at BMW and Rover. That would be quite wrong.
However, the Committee is entitled to an explanation of the extent of the term "economic wellbeing" in this context. I thought that I gave an honest and straight interpretation. I said quite plainly that we sought to develop a better government understanding of events and trends. I explained that the power had been used extremely sparingly and that the interception commissioner, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, had considered that where a threat or potential threat was posed to economic well-being, the power might be used in certain circumstances. No government would wish to set aside the opportunity in those extreme circumstances—few as they may well be—to authorise a warrant. That would be very foolish indeed and would do little to sustain the confidence of industry and commerce. I invite the noble Lord to reflect on that.
No doubt when he was a member of a government, that government would have used the opportunity from time to time, when it was necessary, to authorise warrants where it was properly felt that the economic
1500
well-being of the United Kingdom was being undermined. It would be a foolish government indeed that set that opportunity on one side.
11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is all right as far as it goes. All of the warrants that I was asked to sign were clearly designed to do something about the Irish Republican Army and its threats to the law.
The problem with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is that when he tries to be helpful he makes me more worried than I was at the beginning. He said that he did not want to comment on my example. Did he not want to comment because he did not think that my example was relevant, or because he did not want to get into that ground? That requires a "yes" or "no" answer. I postulated the circumstances of an international company and I mentioned BMW. But the circumstances could relate not only to BMW but to many other companies which, over the past 20 or 30 years, have had to do rather difficult things with their subsidiaries in the United Kingdom so far as concerned the well-being of this country; it could have been any of those companies.
My question is whether it would be right in those circumstances to intervene on their electronic and telephonic traffic in order to obtain a better idea of events. The answer is either "yes" or "no". They are not doing anything illegal; they are not doing anything which threatens national security. Arguably they are doing something which threatens the economic wellbeing of at least a part of this country and perhaps a considerable workforce, but is that a sufficient definition to obtain a warrant? It is a clear question which requires a "yes" or "no" answer. If I were confronted with a request for a warrant of that nature, I would have severe difficulty in signing it.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may help the Minister by giving an example. He will no doubt remember the dark days when the pound fell out of the ERM and a number of currency traders—notably Mr Soros—supposedly made a huge amount of money out of betting against the pound. If, in the future, someone chose deliberately to run the currency either up or down—the direction does not matter—and ther to bet on it, would that kind of action be subject to a warrant being considered on the grounds of economic wellbeing? The Minister may remember that the government of the day resisted the trend going against them and it cost them a lot of money. If anyone has a go against the currency, is that regarded as an area that the Government would consider relevant?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The danger of trying to legislate by example in this way—which is what both noble Lords are seeking to draw me into—is that one does exactly that. It is wrong to declare exactly what kind of examples may or may not be included within the overall term that we are seeking to understand better. Examples do not always necessarily make for a better interpretation.

1501
As I said, there may be occasions—it has to be termed in that way—where it is right to authorise a warrant for interception to protect the economic wellbeing of the country. We have to make a judgment when such circumstances arise. In all honesty I said that it might cover events and trends. However, I think that it would be best to leave it at that because I do not think that it would be helpful to pursue these hypothetical examples. I believe that it is right to provide for this power and authority. It is subject to a form of accountability and, of course, the intelligence commissioner will have an interest in these matters.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. We are trying to seek his view on this, in his role as a Government Minister. I accept that my noble friend Lord Astor and I have put forward hypothetical cases here, but they are hypothetical examples that nevertheless reflect two very real situations.
A simple answer could be given in the case of the currency speculation that took place when the pound fell out of the ERM. Does the Minister believe that such a situation would constitute an attack on the country's economic well-being sufficient to merit the issue of a warrant to intercept the telephones or e-mails of certain speculators?
As regards the situation I outlined, does the Minister believe that, if the Bill had been enacted as it stands, the Government should have used the powers conferred to intercept e-mail traffic between BMW and Rover in the days leading up to BMW's decision? Surely the noble Lord can give me a simple "yes" or "no" answer. There is little room for equivocation, given that these were real situations that are now part of our history.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can see that the noble Lord is becoming rather excited about this point. However, as the noble Lord well knows, in government these situations are not painted in black and white and do not always respond well to "yes" and "no" decisions. Grey zones apply in such cases.
The question for the Secretary of State to consider in such circumstances would be whether it would amount to a sufficiently serious threat to the economic well-being of this country. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State would then have to consider whether the issue of a warrant was necessary. The matter is simple and turns on a proportionate reaction to a given set of circumstances. The element of proportionality would form an important part of any decision reached by the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord spoke of the kind of warrants he has had to sign as they related to terrorism. In some senses, a parallel can be drawn here. In those situations, the noble Lord would have had to come to a decision whether, in exercising those powers, the decision was right and proportionate to address the seriousness of the threat. Surely he will accept and understand that a black and white, "yes" or "no" response is not always
1502
appropriate. To try to come to a decision on whether it would be right and proper to issue warrants by responding to examples put across the Dispatch Box would be the wrong way to proceed.
Lord McNally: I am about to withdraw the amendment. Before I do so, perhaps I may say in response to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on the management of the economy at the time the pound came out of the ERM, that there is absolutely no evidence that intelligence of any kind was shown at the time. He should rest assured on that point.
As regards an attempt to break into BMW's communications network, we know that the Americans would have got there first if we had tried to take an action of that kind. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has demonstrated the benefit of being well rested and coming late to a debate of this kind. The noble Lord appears to have the energy of a Portuguese substitute tonight. He has been all over the pitch and he is in dazzling form.
Nevertheless, the Minister should take note of the concern expressed in the fax sent to me from the CBI and in other evidence from those at the sharp end, that leaving in the Bill a general catch-all power might have implications for British companies and for our future e-commerce. If nothing else, we shall return to that point later in the proceedings on the Bill. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Application for issue of an interception warrant]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 4. at end insert—
("( ) the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency;").
The noble Lord said: This is another matter that was discussed in another place. The amendment nevertheless makes a valid point, as the answer given by Ministers there was not satisfactory.
The clause specifies who may apply to the Secretary of State or the First Minister for an interception warrant. Most of the people listed are obvious: the Director-General of the Security Service, the senior policeman—a provision which received a certain amount of discussion in the other place—and the Chief of Defence Intelligence. But one notable exception is the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency.
I am not supposing that the Benefits Agency will wish to use these powers and apply for warrants for individual cases of small benefit fraud. There is quite a large number of such cases and considerable effort is made to try to catch up with them. I do not believe that such cases would be an appropriate use of this provision. However, there is in addition some major fraud involving the Benefits Agency. It involves

1503
criminal conspiracies on quite a large scale and many millions of pounds, and is large enough to justify an application for a warrant of this character.
Some of the frauds are managed from overseas. I got to know about one in particular—a large fraud that took place some years ago. It was extremely difficult to pursue, partly because much of it was managed from overseas; but it also involved dealing with people in this country. In that case, interception warrants would have been very valuable. I cannot recall whether interception warrants were used in that case, but in some circumstances they would certainly be justified.
It was said in another place that the police tend to become involved if the fraud is large enough. However, it is the Benefits Agency that has ultimate responsibility for stopping fraud in the benefits system and for combating such crimes. Of course, the agency receives assistance from the police from time to time, and some of the powers which only the police have can be necessary in the course of such investigations. But such frauds are complex and involve details of the benefits system which the Benefits Agency knows much better than the police do. It is right that the agency should be in charge of the investigation of such frauds, just as it is right that Customs and Excise should be in charge of investigational matters that come within its purview and which can involve large criminal conspiracies, as I know from my experience in the department. Therefore, given the scale of some benefit fraud, it seems odd that the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency is not included in the list.
The one practical benefit of the discussions on the matter in another place was to narrow down the fact that the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency did appear to be the right official to include, rather than others who were suggested at an earlier stage, such as the Permanent Secretary. I believe that to be the case. It would be right to include this official among those listed in this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I support my noble friends in this amendment. We all know why the Government have resisted this modest addition to the list of those empowered to make an application for an interception warrant. It is because there is a presumption that instances of benefit fraud will be subject to criminal investigation, and the fact that the police are already listed in Clause 6(2) obviates the need for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency to be added to the list. I am bound to say that I find that a singularly lacklustre defence.
I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister, in preparing for scrutiny of the Bill, will have delved into our proceedings on the Data Protection Act 1998. One of the salient features that emerged from our debates on that measure was that there should always be a presumption against making the exceedingly powerful analytical tools of the new technology, such as data matching, available to government departments without statutory authority. Indeed, that premise has its roots in consideration of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1996—my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish may remember it—
1504
when the previous administration accepted the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewtown. I shall quote from each.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said:
"In principle we welcome data matching so that local authorities and DSS managed benefits share a common IT architecture along the lines of project accord. But we shall want to take great care that it does not unreasonably invade the privacy of tenants and, of course, the national and international rules about data protection".—[Official Report, 17/2/97; col. 465.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said:
"the sharing of personal information and data matching between two or more organisations, crucial as it is, raises fundamental principles of data protection, including the principle th, it personal information should only be used for the purpose for which it is collected … There must be a balance between the use of data matching to detect fraud in order to protect public funds and the individual's right to privacy".—[Official Report, 17/2/97; col. 490]
The difficulty with the Government's response to the amendment is that it runs against the grain of those views. It implies that data matching and other analytical tools should be freely available to the investigative authorities across departments, but without being rooted in statutory sanction. My interpretation is that it is important that the Benefits Agency be given specific statutory authority to be able to make use of its databases for the detection of fraud, rather than relying on the conferment of an inferential grant to the police.
In effect, not only is the amendment of my noble friends important and significant in terms of its contribution to the needs of law enforcement, but, as important, it affords the individual citizen an additional check and balance against possible arbitrary and inappropriate use of the analytical tools of the new technology.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am intrigued by the noble Earl's comments. They seemed somewhat adjacent, rather than directly related, to the area that we are considering. I shall study Hansard with great interest.
We take the view that the amendment is entirely unnecessary, although I understand and sympathise with its intention. We all want to see an appropriate and proper measure to combat benefit fraud, but providing the Benefits Agency with the power to apply for an interception warrant seems to us neither appropriate nor necessary.
I should like to take the police as a comparable example. If the police wish to intercept a communication when the cases they are investigating are serious enough, they must approach the National Criminal Intelligence Service to apply for a warrant:. Individual forces are not able to apply in their own right. Similarly, if the DSS is working on a serious fraud inquiry with the police, it can either apply through the police or via NCIS for an interception warrant, or it can apply to NCIS directly itself.
Therefore, we see no need for the Benefits Agency, as a body in its own right, to be added to the list. It does not in any event possess the technical capability to

1505
intercept communications, nor have we received any formal request or pressure, or interest, from the DSS or the Benefits Agency to be considered as an intercepting agency.
We have to take steps and measures which are proportionate, appropriate and necessary. This proposed addition to the list is entirely unnecessary. If it were made it would not add any extra weight or strength to the investigatory effect of the Benefits Agency. Not having it there in no way hampers the agency's work in detecting fraud nor its important fraud detection work with the police service. As with other agencies, all it has to do is to apply through the police, via NCIS, or make a direct application. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Before my noble friend sits down, I note that the Inland Revenue is not included in the list. Has it ever suggested that it needs to be included specifically? Alternatively, is it content to work through NCIS?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that it, too, is content with the arrangements set out in the Bill. It is content to work through NCIS. That seems to us appropriate. We believe that the Benefits Agency will work in the same way.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: The Minister suggested that there was a comparison between individual police forces and the Benefits Agency. I do not think that that is relevant. I agree that individual police forces in England and Wales, although not in Scotland, cannot apply; in Scotland they can. It is no part of this proposition that individual benefit offices or areas of the Benefits Agency should be able to apply. The analogy is more direct with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, for example.
As regards the Inland Revenue, perhaps it might be considered for this list alongside the senior revenue department of Customs and Excise. I do not press that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to
Clause 7 [Issue of warrants]:
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Contents of warrants]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 10, line 2, after ("person") insert ("(with or without such other persons as may be associated with him)").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is unnecessary because the definition of "person" on page 77 includes,
"any organisation and any association or combination of persons".
That raises the question as to why Clause 8(1)(a) is in the Bill. If a "person" includes any combination of persons, there is no restriction on those to whom it
1506
applies. It can apply to all Members of the House of Lords, or any other connection, or disconnection, of people one chooses to think of. There is no restriction in personal terms as to who the warrant can apply to. It can be any grouping one cares to think of whether or not there is any logical connection because a "person" can be any combination of people.
I should like to know why Clause 8(1)(a) refers to "one person" when there is no restriction on the persons described. Given the ability to sweep up a whole county or a kingdom in a single warrant, why is the provision restricted to "a single set of premises"? It seems odd to have this dichotomy, with no restriction on the number of people, but restricting the provision to "one single set of premises". I beg to move.
Lord Bach: I do not think that I can assist the noble Lord on the questions he poses. The expression "one person"—it can cover one person or, because of the way in which it is defined in Clause 76, a number of people—is precisely the right way to draft the provision.
Lord Lucas: I think that there is a move to go to bed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bachmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 10, line 9, after ("identifying") insert ("the communications that may be or are to be intercepted.
( ) Any factor or combination of factors set out in accordance with subsection (2) must be one that identifies").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I hope that I can be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, when moving his amendments.
Clause 8 sets out what an interception warrant must contain. For example, the name or description of the interception target is described on the face of the warrant. Attached to the warrant is a schedule which identifies the communications which are to be intercepted.
Government Amendment No. 46 improves the drafting by splitting subsection (2) into two parts. It is solely a technical alteration. There are no policy changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Duration, cancellation and renewal of warrants]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Implementation of warrants]:
Lord Cope of Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 13, line 8, at end insert ("except for particulars which are necessary to identify the target of interception for the purpose of ensuring that conduct is in accordance with section 5(6)").

1507
The noble Lord said: This clause is all about the implementation of warrants. Subsection (3) provides that a warrant that is served on a person can, to the extent that it is allowed to be so or is agreed by the person to whom the warrant is addressed, omit some of the schedules to the warrant. This amendment seeks to ensure that the particulars which are necessary to identify the target of interception are not omitted. It makes particular reference to Clause 5(6), which relates to the conduct which is authorised by a warrant.
It seems to me important that anyone who has a warrant of this character served on them must understand and must be able to know from the warrant exactly what is the target of the interception in order to be enabled to carry it out with precision. This is one element of the warrant that should not be omitted or obfuscated in any way on the warrant— hence the reason for this amendment.
There are clearly some aspects of the warrant which might be omitted, bearing in mind that we are dealing with intelligence matters and so on. Perhaps some aspects should not be omitted, but it seems to me that these are some aspects which should never be omitted. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: The intention behind Amendment No. 48 is to ensure that if a warrant is served on an individual to assist in an interception request and the schedules attached to the warrant have been modified, they are not modified to such an extent that the individual cannot adequately action the request and therefore, as the noble Lord has just said, fall foul of the duty of conduct provisions in Clause 5 of the Bill.
I hope that after I have clarified the warranty implementation process, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, may feel in a position to withdraw the amendment.
Each warrant contains a cover document which names or describes the person or set of premises which is the interception target. The warrant will also comprise one or more schedules which will list the communications factors to be intercepted; for example, the postal address, e-mail address or phone numbers used by the interception target. Each schedule will contain only factors, not the names of any target. Different schedules may be served on an individual telecommunications operator or individual Internet service provider.
The intention of subsection (3) is to ensure that the information needed by an individual served with an interception warrant is the minimum necessary to carry out the interception requirement and no more. We do not believe that it is necessary or good practice, for example, for a telecommunications operator also to be provided with a schedule listing the other interceptions that have been carried out, perhaps by the postal service or perhaps by an Internet service provider.
We have allowed for the interception agency to be able to remove one or more schedules from the warrant so that the information provided is no more than is necessary to conduct a particular interception
1508
by a specific communications service provider. There is simply no need for a single provider to see all the various schedules which may form part of a single warrant. Each will see the front sheet with the name of the target. I hope that that explanation will go some way towards satisfying the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: When the interception being affected is made by means of a piece of equipment which the Government have placed on the premises of an Internet service provider, and that piece of equipment is operated remotely, say, from GCHQ to adjust the email addresses which are being intercepted from time to time, on whom will the warrant be served and what information will it contain?
Lord Bach: I find it difficult to answer that specific question. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me time to consider it and return to the matter. I am not sure how it relates specifically to Amendment No. 48.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: With respect, it is relevant. I am not sure where the Internet service provider comes into all this, but, judging by the Minister's response, it does. Presumably the warrant will be addressed to the agency or the Director of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Under the 1985 legislation, the warrant was addressed to British Telecom or whoever was to conduct the telephone tapping. But I understand that that will no longer be necessary. If the black box system works, the ISP will not know what is going on. It will only have installed the black box and maintained it. I understand that the warrant will be served only on the police agency or whichever agency will carry out the surveillance via the black box. The provider will not need to see it at all.
Lord Lucas: I suspect that that is an excellent answer and I look forward to the time when my noble friend Lord Cope is answering for the Government.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: It seems that whether or not the answer was satisfactory, it is all we are going to get.
Lord Bach: The noble Lord is quite right.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: No doubt the Minister will write to us. He is acknowledging that he will do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill
Monday, 12th June 2000.
The Committee met at half-past Four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Appropriation in aid]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: I rise to oppose the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. I do so in a probing sense as Clause 2 raises various points that ought to be considered before we agree that it should stand part of the Bill.
Perhaps I may make one or two preliminary remarks. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on his stamina, if not on his versatility, as the Bill is not totally dissociated from that which was debated on the Floor of the House a few moments ago. As we know from Second Reading, the Bill is unusual. Some of the legislation with which it is concerned dates back to 1866. In that context I am slightly unnerved to see the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in his place as it is probably a quarter of a century since were opposite each other in a committee of either House. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the briefing which he has provided for myself and others on what is clearly a technical Bill and one on which, broadly speaking, there is agreement as to the basic purpose, which is to
CWH 2
introduce into our parliamentary proceedings resource accounting and resource budgeting. Having said that, there is also broad all-party disagreement on a number of aspects of the Bill to which one will be able to return a little later in our proceedings.
I turn immediately to Clause 2 and raise a detailed point. Your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber and a number of the points we shall be considering are ones which have already been considered in another place. My concern about the clause relates to appropriations in aid. This procedure goes back into the distant past and probably has rarely been questioned. However, having read the Explanatory Notes, which I should also say are extremely helpful, the proposals which are made with regard to Clause 2 raise one or two particular points.
It is pointed out that, under resource accounting, appropriations in aid will be recorded on an accruals basis—that is to say, it will be recognised when the income is earned—rather than on a cash basis, as is the case at the moment, and additional provisions are required to deal with the cash effects of appropriations in aid. I am not clear what is the rationale for this, because we are going from a cash to an accrual system; but if we look at this clause and the one that follows it would seem that, having decided to do so, we then take proposals that will reverse that and reinstate the original proposition. At all events, there is some concern about the idea that one should have appropriations in aid and effectively net off the amounts of revenue that a department happens to come into before reaching a net figure that Parliament has then approved. One has to ask what precisely is the justification for this arrangement, particularly, as I understand it, we are moving towards a computerised system. If the department receives money, it might be better simply to pay it straight into the Exchequer and, if amounts have to be approved for future expenditure, to have a movement in the opposite direction.
There are other problems. If we are to have a system where cash flow is achieved on an accruals basis, again the case for appropriations in aid seem to be difficult to appreciate.
A final point that needs to be made is the extent to which under the new system, any movement of the kind that is now proposed will have an effect on the PSBR—presumably not on a vast scale, but none the less to some extent. That is a detailed point. Many of the others that we shall consider are of much greater importance, but it is worth raising the question of why we are perpetuating a system of appropriations in aid when it may be simpler to deal with the matter more directly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for the explanation of his challenge to Clause 2. I want to try to answer him, although I am slightly puzzled by some of the points that he makes. Perhaps the best thing is for me to set out what Clause 2 does and then seek to answer the points that he raised.

CWH 3
As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, recognises, under resource accounting appropriations in aid will be recorded on an accruals basis. It will be recognised when the income is earned, in contrast to the current system where appropriations in aid are recognised on a cash basis when the cash is actually received.
The new system and the clause is considerably more complex than the regime it replaces. As well as introducing accruals appropriations in aid it has to include additional provisions to deal with the continuing cash effects of appropriations in aid. It is perhaps those provisions that have caused the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to say that there appear to be movements in the other direction, which is not the case.
The current process whereby the Treasury directs, by Treasury minute, what can be used as appropriations in aid will be retained. Under resource account budgeting it will direct that income on a resource basis may be applied as appropriations in aid of resources authorised by Parliament to be used for the purposes; that is, "the service" of a particular year. This is subject to the overall limits on the amounts of appropriations in aid that have been approved by Parliament and are set out in the relevant appropriation Act.
Special provisions are needed to deal with the cash consequences of resource amounts that have been authorised for use as appropriations in aid. Timing differences between the recognition of appropriations in aid on a resource basis and the actual receipt of cash require special provisions for dealing with the cash.
Subsection (4) applies in the situation—which should apply in the great majority of cases—where cash is received in the same financial year as the resource appropriations in aid is authorised. In this case the cash can be retained by the department, provided it is used for the purpose authorised in the Treasury direction. If it cannot be used in that way, subject to the timing differences dealt with in subsection (5), the associated income being in excess of the amount authorised as appropriations in aid, then the cash must be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund.
Subsection (5) applies in cases where cash is received in a year other than that for which the related resource appropriations in aid is authorised. This might happen where the time between the recognition of the income inclusion as resource appropriations in aid and the payments by the debtor straddle the end of the financial year; or, similarly, where payment is received in advance of the department carrying out the service to which it relates—the resource appropriations in aid will not be recognised until the service is carried out and the income thereby earned—and these events falling into different financial years. Under those circumstances, subsection (5) will enable the cash to be used towards the authorised purposes of the year in which it is received. If that is not possible, then it will be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. The ability to use this cash will affect the department's cash flow
CWH 4
for the year—and therefore allow it to make payments early or alternatively reduce the amount it has to draw out of the Consolidated Fund—but it will not increase the level of resources available to the department in that year.
This is a complex clause. However, the regime which it will put in place is consistent, in principle, with existing appropriations in aid arrangements and will enable a vital element of the RAB—the recognition of income on an accruals basis—to be put into place while also ensuring continued parliamentary control over a department's income.
The noble Lord said that parts of the clause, and perhaps parts of the succeeding clause—I am not quite clear on that point—appear to go in the other direction and appear to move from resources to cash. I cannot find them so perhaps he will be able to help me on that point. Before he does, perhaps I may say a few words about the appropriations in aid being netted off. That cannot happen. Parliament approves appropriations in aid and the amounts of appropriations in aid are voted on and approved by Parliament with no loss of parliamentary approval.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. One would obviously wish to read it very carefully as this is an extremely technical point. None the less, I am not clear even now—we have probably not considered it for many years—what the argument is for proceeding on an appropriations in aid basis rather than simply paying into the Consolidated Fund whatever is received and allocating funds in the opposite direction.
I take the Minister's point in relation to cash flow. However, we seem to be getting into a situation where the old system is being changed to an accruals basis and one is then making adjustments to get back to the point where one takes account of when the cash is paid. The arrangements proposed in the Bill seem to have some implications for the cash flow of individual departments. If we are to move to a system where cash flow is given greater prominence, then I am not clear what the advantage of that is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two alternatives. One is under subsection (4) when the money is received in the year for which it is authorised, in which case the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, may agree that there is no problem. The other is when it is received in a year other than that for which the appropriation in aid is, or is to be, authorised. In that case, we are saying that it is retained and applied as a use of resources authorised under the appropriation Act for the service of the year in which it is to be received. If that is not possible, or if it is not the right thing to do—in other words, if there is a surplus—it goes into the Consolidated Fund where, presumably, it earns interest for the Government.
If we had anything other than that division between those two sections, Parliament would be continuously allocating and authorising in dribs and drabs. By dividing it into those two sections, in and out as it were, we are avoiding the need constantly to refer back to

CWH 5
Parliament for cash for specific purposes. At the same time, we are achieving the control which Parliament needs to be sure that a department is receiving only what it needs within a year for the expenditure that has been authorised or, if it is receiving it out of the year, that there is a control of it in the sense that it is held for the purposes authorised by the appropriation Act. If that is not appropriate, it is put into the Consolidated Fund.
There does not seem to be a meeting of minds on this matter. I had better write to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about it between now and Report stage.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: It may be helpful to have that as a separate discussion outside the Chamber before Report stage. On that basis, I would not wish to pursue the matter.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Payments out]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 16, after ("requisition") insert (", request").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. These amendments provide for a new clause to replace Clause 4 and minor consequential amendments to Clause 3. The amendments have been agreed by the National Audit Office.
They would permit the Treasury to repay, with the agreement of the Comptroller and Auditor General, money which,
"should not or need not have been paid into the Fund".
"The Fund" is now defined to include the National Loans Fund as well as the Consolidated Fund.
A specific statutory power is needed to make any payment out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund. In addition, all such payments, except for transfers between the two funds, require the prior approval of the Comptroller and Auditor General, technically known as "credit", or authority to pay. This presents a problem when sums are credited to either fund in error and ought to be repaid.
As the law stands at present, there is no power to repay any sums of money that are paid into either the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund but should not have been—I do not know how we have got away with that for so many years but perhaps my noble friend Lord Barnett can enlighten me on that point—so any such sums are effectively imprisoned inside the fund concerned. This has occasionally caused problems, so the Government believe that it would be sensible to provide a power to refund such sums from the National Loans Fund as well as the Consolidated Fund.
As our original intention was simply to modernise the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 relating to the Consolidated Fund, we originally sought only a power to repay sums credited in error to the Consolidated Fund. The main example we had in mind was where departments
CWH 6
surrender receipts that they believe are surplus to their needs, but which subsequently they find they need in order to avoid incurring an excess vote. However, other payments could be credited to the Consolidated Fund in error, so we sought a general power to repay sums credited in error to the Consolidated Fund. That is what the present Clause 4 provides.
We now wish to change this for two reasons. First, there is a need for a similar power for the National Loans Fund. Secondly, discussions with the National Audit Office and our lawyers have led to the conclusion that the term "as the result of an error" would not have provided the desired degree of flexibility—hence the new formulation,
"should not or need not have been paid into the Fund."
I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: The Committee is grateful for that explanation, but it really brings us back to the point we were making a moment or two ago. Would it not be much easier, instead of having appropriations in aid, which are then sometimes hung onto wrongly and sometimes remitted wrongly and in error, simply to allow that whenever there is an amount going from one department to the central Exchequer, even if one needs the money to meet something which has been authorised by Parliament, one does so. It does seem rather complicated to have these amendments. I accept that they have been, apparently, approved by the National Audit Office—that does not worry me at all. The fact that they are approved by the department's lawyers may worry me a little more. It does seem that this is a very complex way of dealing with a problem with which perhaps one could deal in a simpler manner.
I do not wish to oppose these amendments. None the less, it is a strange situation. I am not at all clear what happens to anyone who may have made such a payment in error and whether any penalty is imposed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in being somewhat surprised at the sheer complexity of these procedures. We certainly would not oppose this element of modernisation, but I would ask this question. In subsection (2)(a) of new Clause 4, is there any specific reason why the word "requisition" is used rather than "request"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We use both words: "requisition" appears in subsection (2)(a) and "request" appears in subsection (3)(a). In practice there is no difference between the two words but they are used in preceding legislation. It is probable that if we changed them now we would have to change all kinds of other parts of the preceding legislation. The Committee would not wish us to table more government amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 21, after ("requisition") insert (", request").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Payments in by error]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 4. and insert the following new clause—
PAYMENTS IN BY ERROR
(" .—(1) Where—

(a) money is paid into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund, and

(b) the money should not or need not have been paid into the Fund,

all or any part of the money may be paid out of the Fund in accordance with this section.
(2) In the case of the Consolidated Fund—

(a) the Comptroller and Auditor General shall on receipt of a requisition from the Treasury grant a credit on the Exchequer account at the Bank of England (or on its growing balance), and

(b) an issue shall be made on orders given to the Bank by the Treasury in accordance with a credit granted under paragraph (a).

(3) In the case of the National Loans Fund—

(a) the Comptroller and Auditor General shall at the request of the Treasury grant a credit on the National Loans Fund, and

(b) a payment out of the Fund shall be made by the Treasury in accordance with a credit granted under paragraph (a).

(4) A payment or issue made under this section shall be recorded in—

(a) the daily account under section 15(5) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866 (Consolidated Fund), or

(b) the daily statement under section 1(2) of the National Loans Act 1968 (National Loans Fund).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Resource accounts: preparation]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 42, leave out from ("year") to end of line 1 on page 3 and insert ("providing—

(a) a statement of income and expenditure of the department for the year,

(b) a balance sheet showing assets and liabilities of the department for the year which complies generally with accepted accounting practice,

(c) a cash flow statement of the department for the year highlighting the significant components of cash flow in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice, and

(d) a statement of the department for the year showing, as regards each voted item, any amount authorised to he used in the year, the amount actually used, and an explanation of any difference between authorised use and actual use.

(1A) A statement of income and expenditure provided under subsection (1)(a) shall give a true and fair view of the net income and expenditure of the department in the year to which the statement relates and a balance sheet provided under subsection (1)(b) shall give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the department as at the end of the year to which the balance sheet relates.").
The noble Lord said: We come now to Clause 5 which is obviously a very important provision. In moving Amendment No. 4 it will be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. Clause 5 is concerned with the preparation of resource accounts. Effectively, we suggest that as drafted the clause, which extends to almost a whole page of the Bill, includes some very important aspects. If I may turn to the main part of the Bill, as opposed to the technical matters which we debated earlier, I should like to make one or two rather general points. As I said at Second Reading, there is here a missed opportunity. Although the Government put forward proposals on resource accounting, in a number of instances in this and subsequent clauses they could well have incorporated other ideas, particularly with regard to auditing. At Second Reading the Minister said that a study group was to be set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. That in turn will report to a group which consists of the Chief Secretary, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and presumably others, to deal with these specific points. At this or perhaps a later stage the Minister may be able to indicate whether the terms of reference of that body are yet known; and, if so, what they are.
Even at this early stage of the Bill perhaps one may ask for an indication about timing, which is important. We welcome the fact that the Government are to proceed with resource accounting. However, they are subject to a fairly tight schedule. One is aware from the reports of the Public Accounts Committee that a timetable has been set. There are doubts as to whether the provisional timetable will be met. For that reason I said at Second Reading that there might be a case for considering whether the changes proposed in particular by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee should be incorporated in this Bill. The noble Lord was kind enough to express the view in writing that, because of the timetable relating to the technical aspects, it would be inappropriate to delay the passage of the Bill in order to ensure that some of the proposals which might be made by the study group under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, by the Chief Secretary and by the chairman of the PAC were incorporated in the legislation. I understand his concern about that matter. However, the Committee might be assisted to have the Minister's view on timing.As far as concerns this particular set of amendments, we suggest that the Bill, as drafted, is not quite as specific as perhaps it might be. Our proposals suggest more specific terms for the way in which the departmental accounts might be prepared in line with commercial accounting practice, but with any necessary adjustments.
The Bill as it stands, and in particular most of page 3 of the Bill, would seem to be somewhat incomplete with regard to the specification of the way in which the accounts will be prepared. We will return to consider who might reasonably define the various accounting concepts involved. Having said that, there would be some case for amending the Bill in the way in which the three amendments to which I have referred seek to do.
There is also the question of cash. Clearly cash control remains a vital aspect. It is one matter for the House to have the advantage of resource accounting, but cash will remain a key control. We are not precisely clear how that will operate within the context of Clause 5. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is accepted I cannot call Amendment No. 5, which will have been pre-empted.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in regretting the timing of the Bill. It is somewhat unfortunate that the Sharman committee is being set up at a time when the Bill is being pushed through, but I also understand that the Government are anxious to see the Bill on the statute book and in many senses feel it is long overdue on the statute book. If I may say so, it has taken quite a time to get through.
On the specific amendment, one of the features of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, is the wide interpretation that can be put on some of the words that are used. We are moving over to accruals accounting and yet the terms used in Clause 5(1)(a) are,
"resources acquired, held or disposed of by the department during the year".
It is so wide, so generalised, that I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, which seeks to make the provision far more specific. Indeed, what is interesting is that the Explanatory Notes on this clause ask what resource accounts are. Resource accounts consist of five major statements, including a statement of out-turn, an operating cost statement, a balance sheet, a cash flow statement. This is precisely what we are seeking in the amendment. In other words, the amendment fleshes out the words in the Bill, using the structure suggested in the Explanatory Notes to flesh them out. That seems to be a thoroughly good thing to do.
The aim of the Bill is to bring government accounts into line with modern accounting practice. Terms such as statutes, income and expenditure, assets and liability, balance sheet, are very well understood. When this matter was discussed in Committee in the other place, it was suggested that these are not words that the general public understand. If I may say so, the general public understand these words far better than they understand the words "resource accounting", or the broad term the,
"resources acquired, held or disposed of by the department".
It seems sensible to call a spade a spade and put in precisely what we mean rather than not.
At the centre of all this is the concept of cash flow. We are in the process in the Bill of abolishing appropriation accounts, which is essentially cash expenditure against the supply vote in cash. The latter has not been abolished and we need a very clear statement, therefore, of cash flow. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
CWH 10
It is not good enough simply to say, as in the other place, when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury responded with the words, "This is what we are going to do anyhow". If that is the case, let us have it on the face of the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Naseby: I very much support Amendment No. 4. I do not wish to add to the points that have been made as they were put succinctly. Nevertheless, I wish to add my voice of support. When the Minister responds I hope that he will deal with the points made from both sides of the Committee. I am mindful of the fact that when they were Members of another place three noble Lords were involved in preparations for and revisions to the National Audit Act 1983. The degree of consultation at that time was very considerable. Although there was argument on some of the final details, the preparation for that legislation, and the consultation on it, was quite extensive.
My worry is that, as I understand it, the Sharman committee is to report towards the end of this year and yet the Bill is likely to be on the statute book before the Summer Recess. The difference is only a matter of months. If some important points emerge 1rrom the steering group which address the matters raised by the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee, it must be in the interests of Parliament that they are implemented. I ask the Minister how they are to be implemented, bearing in mind that legislative time is always restricted. One wonders, therefore, whether there should be a statement from the Government either that there will be a very short, amendment Bill or that the whole matter will be rolled over to the next Session with a commitment on all sides that the issue be dealt with speedily. However the Minister responds, it is of great importance that whatever comes out of the Sharman review gets onto the statute book quickly, since it is likely 10 be of significance to Parliament in its control of public expenditure.
Viscount Bridgeman: I very much support what my noble friend Lord Naseby has just said about the timing of the report of the Sharman committee. We made that point quite forcefully at Second Reading. At this stage it may be appropriate to consider the question of the valuation of Ministry of Defence assets. Perhaps the Committee will permit me to read paragraph 3.2.13 of Resource Accounting and Budgeting:
"The normal basis of valuation may not be appropriate if a modern substitute is markedly different in its cost, life or output, or where technological advances have resulted in likely replacements having significantly improved quality or quantity of outputs. Under such circumstances, it will be necessary to undertake a 'modern equivalent asset' calculation to arrive at a replacement cost for the asset".
While that is an acceptable accounting treatment, the problem with Ministry of Defence assets is that potentially modern substitutes for military equipment vary enormously in nature, cost and timing depending on the particular defence needs of the country at the time and the military capabilities of potential

CWH 11
aggressors. For example, a new tank developed by a potential enemy could well render obsolete virtually overnight anti-tank weaponry, and if there is any question of involvement in Star Wars expenditure one is talking about huge numbers. I also refer to intellectual property exchange which is a big feature of co-operation, in particular with the United States. There is also the complicated question of sharing expenditure with other countries whose treatment of it will be markedly different one from the other.
My noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are concerned that, as presently drafted, the Bill gives the Treasury wide powers to determine accounting treatment. Ministry of Defence assets are a particular case. It is our strong wish that that appears on the face of the Bill. This is a knotty problem which must not be swept under the carpet.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before I turn to the amendment, I should like to comment on some extraneous matters relating to the Sharman report which were raised first by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. These are the matters relating to the Sharman report. The Sharman group will report to a committee which consists not only of the Chief Secretary and the chairman of the PAC, but also other members. Those other members are now being approached and, as soon as we have agreement as to who they will be, we will publish all the details.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked also about the terms of reference for the group. It has only been in being for a short time, but the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, is working on it. Terms of reference are being agreed and will be made public as soon as possible.
As to when the group will report, we are working on it being towards the end of the year. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will appreciate that, if we were to delay the Bill even by the six months between now and the end of the year, we would in effect lose a whole year of moving towards resource accounting. Not only that, but we would also lose a whole year in which nothing could happen, and we might possibly even have to go backwards because these are cumulative, incremental steps towards the changeover. We cannot simply take a year out and say, "Hold your breath for a year", and hope that it will all work out afterwards. It is important that we go ahead with this Bill, even though the Sharman committee has not yet reported.
As to what action we should take afterwards and whether or not there would have to be separate legislation, that depends of course on what the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, says. We simply do not know what he will recommend. He may say that his report is about government audit and not about resource accounting; he may say that everything is wonderful and that there is no reason for any change. In that case it would be rather foolish of us to indicate now what legislative or other action we would take as a result.
CWH 12
I turn now to the amendments. The Government already have a robust and professional framework for determining the accounting requirements for resource accounts. This Government also believe that we have put in place important improvements in the amount of available information on departmental performance. These amendments seek to replace general and unchanging references—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, does not like them but they are perfectly clear—to,
"resources acquired, held or disposed of",
and resources used. That seems to me to be entirely clear and it is deliberately more general than current accounting practice. The amendments seek to replace those general and unchanging references with a specific reference to current accounting statements. They freeze the Bill with the accounting standards at the date of Royal Assent.
We assume that this legislation, once passed, will last for a long time. The amendments would mean that it could become outdated as accounting standards change and the accounting statements mentioned may not be appropriate to all resource accounts in the future. The Government are committed to following best accounting practice, but they do not have a great deal of freedom to manoeuvre. The financial statements prepared under resource accounting will, as far as is possible taking account of the specific circumstances of departmental accounts, follow the requirements of generally accepted accounting principles. Those can change over time, as shown by the Accounting Standards Board's recent consultation on reporting financial performance. It has been consulting on the proposal to combine the profit and loss accounts with a statement of total recognised gains and losses. If that were to be adopted, the amendment would immediately be out of date and refer to a standard which was no longer generally accepted accounting practice. We never want to find ourselves in a position where we are unable to follow generally accepted accounting practice in order to comply with the requirements of this code.
Having said that, the Government were sympathetic to a number of the proposals contained in Amendment No. 4 when it was originally proposed in Committee in another place. The Government brought forward amendments at Report stage in another place to make the necessary changes to the Bill.
Paragraph (d) of Amendment No. 4 would require differences between the amounts authorised in the estimates and those actually used to be shown and explanations of the variances given. That is, in effect, a restatement of the current requirements as set out in Section 26 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866. The Government brought forward an amendment at Report stage to reintroduce it as a legal requirement in Clause 5(3)(c). The amendment would also require the income and expenditure account and the balance sheet under resource accounts to show a true and fair view. The Government have always accepted that they should and indeed we go further in believing that the accounts as a whole should show a true and fair view.

CWH 13
We have not proposed making this a statutory requirement as we believe that it was implicit in the requirement in Clause 5(3) that resource accounts should comply with G.AAP. However, following the discussion on the matter in Committee in another place, the Government brought forward further amendments at Report stage requiring the resource accounts to show a true and fair view. This is now Clause 5(3)(a) of the Bill.
The Government believe that the existing provisions of Clause 5(3), which require resource accounts to show a true and fair view, comply with GAAP—subject to the adaptations necessary in the context of departmental accounts—and explain variances between estimated and actual amounts, will ensure compliance with best accounting practice while retaining sufficient flexibility to enable resource accounts to adapt as the requirements of GAAP change over time.
I am not at all sure what Amendment No. 5 is intended to achieve. The requirements in Clause 5(3) that resource accounts show a true and fair view and follow generally accepted accounting practice—modified only as necessary—ensure that best accounting practice will be followed. I can assure the Committee that the Government will determine their accounting policies with regard to accounting for liabilities in accordance with relevant accounting standards—in particular Financial Reporting Standard 12. The accounting policies will have to pass the scrutiny of the Financial Reporting Advisory Board and the accounts prepared following the policies will be subject to audit scrutiny by the National Audit Office.
Amendment No. 7 is even more puzzling. I have explained how the requirements of Amendment No. 4 have been achieved by government amendments that introduce Clause 5(3). Amendment No. 7 would take out Clause 5(3). It is this subsection which, for the first time, will place a statutory duty on departments to follow best accounting practice in preparing their accounts. Leaving it out would have the effect of giving the Treasury almost unfettered discretion—which is what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, thought we had—to determine the form and contents of the resource accounts; precisely what I thought concerned Opposition Peers.
Ultimately the accounting policies adopted by departments must be consistent with the Resource Accounting Manual and will have to stand up to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General who will, of course, be free to report to Parliament—and, if necessary, to qualify accounts—where he does not consider a particular accounting policy to be appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me about cash control. He is, of course, right that cash will remain a key control. Parliament will continue to vote on an overall cash requirement because it has to raise revenue for that purpose. The initial out-turn against that overall requirement is reported in schedule 1 of the accounts, the statement of out-turn. In addition, the accounts will include a cash flow statement.
CWH 14
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked me about Ministry of Defence assets. Accounting policies for these have been agreed by the National Audit Office. They must be in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice and they ensure that the accounts show a true and fair view. I appreciate the difficulty of valuing physical assets owned by the Ministry of Defence, but we have taken the right approach in ensuring that we are compliant with accounting standards. I hope that will help noble Lords in considering what to do in future on these amendments.
Lord Higgins: We are grateful to the Minister for that reply. He referred rather pejoratively to extraneous matters. As I understand it, one cannot be out of order in your Lordships' House, as one might have been in another place had they truly been extraneous, but it seemed that, given what was said on Second Reading, it would not be inconvenient for us to ask where we had reached.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Extraneous was not in any way a term of abuse, apart from the subject matter of the amendments themselves. It is entirely proper for noble Lords to raise these matters, as they have done. I hope that I have given a suitable answer.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins: We are grateful for that explanation of the particular expression which the noble Lord used. In that context, therefore, perhaps I may ask whether we are likely to get the terms of reference before Report stage. I think there is no reason why we should not, and it would certainly be helpful if we were to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall try.
Lord Higgins: I thank the noble Lord. We hope he will be successful. As far as concerns the other point which the noble Lord made of a more general nature in reply to the points that I raised as regards the timing, we have asked whether the matter should be delayed in order to incorporate into the Bill the recommendations of the Sharman committee.
We have taken note of what the noble Lord said about that, but what we are not really clear about—and perhaps the noble Lord could now enlighten us—is whether the programme is on schedule. That is to say, the reports of the Public Accounts Committee suggested that the arrangements for introducing resource accounting had been introduced more easily, or preparation for the matter had been carried out more successfully, in some departments than others.
Is the noble Lord now confident that the programme which the Government originally envisaged, despite the setbacks which they appear to have experienced, will actually be completed on time? Obviously his argument about timing turns crucially on whether the Government believe that they can go ahead with their programme on the original schedule.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord. Lord Higgins, leaves that point, he will recall from the

CWH 15
Second Reading debate and from all the discussions that we have had that there has been a whole series of triggers. This is a process that goes back to the previous administration and arises not just under a Labour Government. There has been a whole series of triggers such as, for example, the completion of the register of assets. Until we had reached and achieved the triggers, we could not move on to the next stage.
We have reached and achieved on time every figure that has been set down so far, and in that sense we are confident that we are not falling behind. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee met last Wednesday. It has taken evidence and will be reporting, although it has not yet done so. Clearly we will take very seriously what the Public Accounts Committee says about the readiness of departments. As matters stand, we have no reason to suppose that, for the first time in the whole process, we are falling behind our targets.
Lord Higgins: I am sure the Committee will be grateful for that. The two points are, of course, interrelated. If, indeed, the programme falls behind time, the case for incorporating whatever the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, may say—if indeed he does say something quite specific—falls into a different time framework.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord in regard to the specific amendments. I must say I was puzzled by what he said. He seemed to be saying that if we accepted Amendment No. 4, rather than the wishy-washy contents on page 3, it might set things too much in concrete and would then be inconsistent with subsequent changes which one wished to make to the concept involved. Our amendment simply says that there should be a,
"statement of income and expenditure of the department for the year".
I find it very difficult to believe that that will suddenly be overtaken by events and some other policy will be introduced.
Paragraph (b) states:
"a balance sheet showing assets and liabilities of the department for the year which complies with general accepted accounting practice".
It is very difficult to see how that will suddenly be overtaken by events or how it sets everything too much into concrete. It does, of course, set it more into concrete than the Government's proposals. However, at the same time it seems to us to be more specific and sensible. As far as I can see, it concerns a cash flow statement by the department which highlights the significant components. It is difficult to see what sudden, dramatic accounting change may overtake us which makes this too specific to adjust for any future alterations. As far as concerns voted items, the same argument applies. As to "true and fair view", that reflects the Government's intention, although it relates specifically to the balance sheet, as the noble Lord pointed out. Therefore, I have difficulty in understanding the noble Lord's objection to Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 5 may have been
CWH 16
more appropriately grouped with the next series of amendments, because it refers to the national accounts commission.
As to defence, in general it is the not the intention of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and myself to speak to every amendment, which the Committee will be pleased to hear. However, in this case I believe that it is appropriate for my noble friend to deal with this matter which arises out of the amendments that we are considering. Other than that, our Front Bench will divide up the Bill between the two of us. My noble friend was also unhappy about the reply received. As far as I understand it, we are unable to deal with the matter now. We must take into account some of the points raised by the Minister which appear to be plausible. We shall return to this matter when we come to Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("National Accounts Commission").
The noble Lord said: We come to an important series of amendments. Our concern is that the Bill as now drafted gives far more power to the Treasury than it should have. In financial matters such as these Parliament should be supreme in determining the definitions at a simple level. If we are moving towards a more commercial basis, clearly it is not the case that individual private or public companies can decide what the accounting rules should be. They should be decided by an independent body. It appears that if we go along with what the Government now propose there is a danger that the Treasury will produce rules with which Parliament is not entirely happy. However, the Treasury will be given power to do that if we accept the Bill without amendment.
We suggest, therefore, that a separate body—the so-called national accounts commission—should be set up in order to reach an impartial view as to what definitions the Government should use. We propose that the Comptroller and Auditor General should determine the duties of the commission, which will include the definition of standards of national accounting practice to be applied to all departmental accounts and also in the context of the Bill as a whole.
One of the reasons for our concern is the extent to which under the present arrangements it is possible for the Government—I hesitate to use the expression but it is the simplest one to use—to fiddle the figures. That was certainly the case as far as concerned the working families' tax credit which was suddenly redefined by the Government in such a way as to present something as a tax reduction rather than an increase in public expenditure, even though general bodies outside—for example, the OECD—had expressed the clear view that it should be defined in the opposite sense.
We argue that the Government should be subject to an independent body, and Parliament should be able to ensure, through the workings of the Comptroller

CWH 17
and Auditor General and the NAO, that that independent body achieves the objective. It may be the case that there are alternative bodies—rather than set up a so-called national accounts commission—which could perform this job adequately. It would, however, quite understandably have to adjust normal accounting practice to conform to the reality of the situation; namely, that the Government as such are not a profit-making, normal commercial organisation. None the less, the need for an independent body to do so seems overwhelming.
It is the case, of course, that the Government could say that the Financial Reporting Advisory Board is sufficiently independent for this purpose and we on this side of the Committee would accept that. However, it would not achieve the objectives that these amendments seek to achieve because it is simply a consultative body. It is not empowered to set down definitions in statute or under a statutory regime, which would ensure that Parliament rather than government should have the power to decide the accounting framework within which the national accounts and the department accounts are produced. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the series of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The key issue here is parliamentary control of the Executive. The Treasury could be seen as the guardian of the budget which Parliament votes, whereas in many senses it should be the guardian of parliamentary control. Its power over other departments in the Executive derives from its being answerable to Parliament for what is spent. It is, therefore, able in many ways to discipline the other departments because of its powers.
We in the Liberal Democrats would argue that over the course of time it has perhaps abused this power and gone beyond it, to create a grossly over-centralised regime which extends well beyond the moneys voted by Parliament itself. However, that is not directly at issue here.
What is at issue here is the fact that the Treasury may be a guardian, but quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—who guards the guardians? One answer is that it is the Comptroller and Auditor General—the parliamentary watchdog—but what good is a watchdog if the Treasury is setting its own rules? That is precisely the proposal in the Bill. Under Clause 5(2):
"Resource accounts shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury".
As we have made clear, resource accounting is itself a great step forward and long overdue. However, there remain many issues to be decided within the context of resource accounting. How should public sector assets be depreciated and over what time frame? An issue that comes up later in the Bill concerns public finance initiatives and public and private partnerships and contingent liabilities in this case? What about investments in software? Are these to be seen as an investment to be depreciated over time or as a very large expense? These issues are not clear. Guidelines
CWH 18
have to be laid down. Should this be done by the Treasury itself through Resource Accounting and Budgeting or by an independent authority.
In the private sector we expect to have independent authority; we have the Accounting Standards Board, which lays down standards for the private sector. The Public Accounts Committee called in 1994–95, 1996–97 and 1998–99 for a national accounting commission to be set up. The Government cannot argue that they have not had time to think about it. The Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to the need for an independent commission, not for him to set the guidelines himself. CIPFA has also called for a national accounting commission to be set up and for what could be considered as proper accounting standards for public bodies. CIPFA has also concerned with the whole range of local authorities. In Clauses 23 to 28 we will look further at the extension of those powers to local authorities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, it is possible to argue that the Financial Reporting Advisory Board is sufficient and, while Opposition Peers agree that it may be seen as being an independent authority, it is only advisory. We do not feel that it is strong enough to be able to lay down these guidelines. Therefore, we support these amendments, and feel it is an important issue within the context of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have to say at the outset that we do not accept the need for a national accounts commission. The amendments are presumably designed to ensure independence in the standards-setting process. Indeed, both the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, have said that.
The Government cannot have made it sufficiently clear that the existing provisions of the Bill ensure that the Treasury has little discretion in the setting of accounting policies. That is in contrast to the present system of appropriation accounts where the Treasury has almost total freedom to determine the policies to be followed.
We believe that our proposals provide a robust and professional framework for determining accounting policies. They require resource accounts and whole of government accounts, which are not covered by the amendment, to follow generally accepted accounting practice, modified only as necessary to take account of the specific context of departmental accounts and to present a "true and fair view", That really means that the Accounting Standards Board, which is the guardian of GAAP and the "true and fair view", sets the rules, not the Treasury.
All accounting policy issues are subject to the oversight of the independent Financial Reporting Advisory Board. I was pleased to have the recognition of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it is indeed independent. This process is designed to ensure that any adaptations to GAAP are fully justified. It provides a further check on Treasury discretion.

CWH 19
The FRAB prepares reports on its own activities, setting out its views on Treasury proposals that have been put forward. Those reports are submitted to Parliament—this is the issue raised in relation to parliamentary scrutiny—so that all Members can see how the process has been working. The Treasury agreed—again, I am not sure whether we made this adequately clear—that in response to a recent report by the Public Accounts Committee, the FRAB should submit its reports directly to the PAC and Treasury committees rather than through the Treasury.
The requirement that resource accounts present a "true and fair view" is the benchmark against which the Comptroller and Auditor General undertakes his independent audit, providing a further scrutiny of the detailed accounting policies. In order to obtain unqualified audit opinions, accounts will have to satisfy the Comptroller and Auditor General that they meet the highest standards.
The amendment involves the setting up of a new accounting standards-setting body which would be in competition with the Accounting Standards Board. We do not believe that a separate standards-setting body or separate statements of national accounting practice are needed. The Government are content to follow, as far as possible, the standards issued or approved by the Accounting Standards Board, which already apply to all private sector bodies and many parts of the public sector. Introducing separate standards for any government accounts could lead to confusion and a divergence between the requirements placed on departments and those placed on other bodies—precisely the situation that the RAB is intended to end.
The suggestion that the Comptroller and Auditor General should determine the duties of the commission—which is what the amendment requires—would give him powers which it would be inappropriate for an auditor to possess and would threaten his independence. Responsibility for the preparation of accounts must lie with the bodies preparing the accounts. In the case of government departments and whole of government accounts, the responsibility must lie with the Treasury to ensure consistency across departments and the wider public sector.
To abrogate that responsibility to the proposed national accounts commission—which I have already argued is unnecessary—would lead to a confusion of responsibility. It would result in conflicts between the requirements of budgeting and public expenditure control operated by the Treasury and accounting requirements.
Lord Higgins: It is not clear how the giving of this power to the National Audit Office would endanger its independence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does the noble Lord mean the national accounts commission?
Lord Higgins: This amendment enables the National Audit Office to determine how the national accounts commission operates. I am not clear how that would jeopardise the NAO's independence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not the responsibility of the auditor to prepare the accounts; it is the job of the people who sign off the accounts in the first instance. It is then the job of the auditor to consider whether the accounts have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice and they present a true and fair view. However, responsibility for preparing the accounts in the first place—this is true of both the public and private sector—must rest with the body whose accounts they are rather than the auditor.
Lord Higgins: Does the Minister agree that here we are talking about who should determine the actual accounting framework? We suggest that it should be an independent body. If the noble Lord wants the Accounting Standards Board to set the structure for the Government as well as for private institutions, fair enough. We had thought that it would be helpful if the NAO expressed how the commission should operate, but I fail to understand how that could endanger the NAO's independence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord makes two different points. He appears to believe that it would be satisfactory if the Government accepted the Accounting Standards Board as the body to set the standard, and that is exactly what we have done. That is why in this Bill we are committed to generally accepted accounting practice and the presentation of a true and fair view. Those two commitments tie us irrevocably to the Accounting Standards Board, which is an independent body. The national accounts commission, which the amendment creates, would simply be another independent body. We already have the Accounting Standards Board, and for the interface between public sector and private sector accounts we have the Financial Reporting Advisory Board.
Lord Naseby: In reply to my noble friend the Minister said that the Treasury would, by and large, respond to the Accounting Standards Board. He did not say in his response that the Treasury would definitely abide by the decision of the Accounting Standards Board. A degree of clarification is required here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I cannot remember using the expression "by and large"; if I did, I apologise. I said that our proposals required resource accounts and whole of government accounts to follow a generally accepted accounting practice, modified only as necessary to take account of the specific context of departmental accounts and to present a true and fair view.

CWH 21
Everyone, including the Accounting Standards Board, accepts that there are differences between the public and private sectors. To take the most obvious example, there are no shareholders in the public sector and, therefore, some of the provisions of the Accounting Standards Board as they relate to the private sector do not apply. No one claims that they are exactly the same, but the fundamental basis on which the Accounting Standards Board operates is generally accepted accounting principles and a true and fair view. We have tied ourselves in this Bill irrevocably to those standards. That represents independence and accountability to Parliament, and that is what the Bill does. The amendments to set up a national accounts commission do not take us any further.
Lord Lyell: The Minister has done a great service by pointing out the difference between accounting and auditing. At the start of his first comment, and before my two noble friends intervened, he mentioned the Accounting Standards Board. I recall that at the end of his first substantial reply he said that we could not have the Accounting Standards Board as a second level. He seemed to believe that the Accounting Standards Board would be a second set of examining authorities in addition to the others. In his concluding remarks he spoke about "true and fair view". I think the true and fair view is not to do with accounts; it is the view of the auditor. We will certainly come to that, and I have a point in that respect on the next page of the Bill. I do not see a "true and fair view" as being in the Accounting Standards Board. I do see that it is in the auditor's report.
The Minister was clear in pointing out a true and fair view, but it seemed to be that every time he mentioned "true and fair view" he was attempting to ride the two horses at once, both accounting and auditing. In my opinion, and as far as I have been educated, true and fair view is especially an opinion presented by the auditor. The Minister was clear that the true and fair view is not necessarily presented by those making up the accounts, the Treasury, or anyone else.
As the Minister said, the Accounting Standards Board has pointed out the difference between presenting reports in public and private sectors, but I wonder to whom is the auditor reporting? If it is the private sector, we know it is covered under the Companies Act, but if it is under this Bill, to whom is the Comptroller and Auditor General reporting? As my noble friend pointed out, it is to Parliament.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is part of the same process. The accounts must be prepared to show a true and fair view, and the job of the auditor is to report as to whether or not that is the case. The auditor—in this case the Comptroller and Auditor General—reports for departmental accounts to the Treasury, and the Treasury reports to Parliament. We have parliamentary scrutiny of everything that the Comptroller and Auditor General does. We have it through the Treasury in terms of aggregating the
CWH 22
departmental accounts, and we have it directly from the Comptroller and Auditor General through the Public Accounts Committee.
As I said, we have agreed that the Financial Reporting Advisory Board shall report directly to the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury committees rather than to the Treasury. I do not see how much further we can go in ensuring the independence of the accountancy to audit procedure. It is all part of the same thing.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches would be happy if the Accountancy Standards Board was seen as being the independent authority. What disturbs us is the wording of Clause 5(2). It gives a good deal of discretion to the Treasury because it is in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury. I accept that the Treasury say that they are going to present a "true and fair view", that it is going to be according to generally accepted accounting standards, and so forth, which are those set up by the Accounting Standards Board. But the Minister has also said, quite rightly, that as there are significant differences between the private sector and the public sector there would have to be a different set of accounts.
We would be very glad to see Clause 5(2) read:
"resource accounts shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines issued by the Accounting Standards Board".
That would suit us very well. We are worried about the interface and interpretation between those guidelines set by the Accounting Standards Board and the interpretation placed on these by the Treasury.
Lord Higgins: It may be convenient for the Committee if I intervene at this point. I was going to make exactly the same point as that made by the noble Baroness. We are all agreed that the FRAB is independent but does not have statutory authority. The Minister is arguing that we should not worry as it is all right and the situation is set by the Accounting Standards Board. But, of course, that relates to the normal commercial accounts. What the Accounting Standards Board is not doing—and, as I understand it from the Minister, he does not propose it should do—is to set the standards for the Government.
If the Government are prepared to go along with saying that standards in government shall be set by the Accounting Standards Board on the assumption that they would be prepared to take on this rather onerous task, that would be a very considerable step forward. The Minister says that we should not worry because the restraints on the Treasury under the Bill in terms of deciding what standards should be adopted within government, within the framework of general accounting standards, is very severe. There are a number of points where I do not see that to be the case. To give the example of Clause 5(2),
"Resource accounts shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury",
not in accordance with directions issued by the Accounting Standards Board or a framework established by the Accounting Standards Board. No

CWH 23
doubt the Minister can tell us where else, if not in that instance, the Treasury is restrained in this or that way. It seems to us that this ought to be a matter for an independent body to determine, not the Treasury.
Of course, it is the case, as the Minister rightly says, that the accounts are produced by the Treasury, in this case, and are audited by the NAO, as my noble friend said in his contribution a moment ago. The reality is that there is still a considerable degree of discretion so far as the Treasury is concerned.
I refer, again, to the question about which I have some more specific knowledge as far as the working families tax credit is concerned. If we were to have the Accounting Standards Board setting these standards I do not believe they would enable £15 billion to be shifted away from determining whether or not it should be treated as public expenditure or a tax cut. That example shows clearly that, for the moment, the Treasury has too much discretion and it does not seem to us on this side of the Committee that, without an independent body, that is the case.
If the Minister is prepared to go along with the Accounting Standards Board carrying out the task for the Government as well as the private sector, I gather we would have the Liberal party's support on this and it is worth pursuing at a later stage. However, I really do not understand what the Minister is saying.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Clause 5 is under the heading—I believe it is called chapeau—Departmental Accounts. Clause 5(1) states that a government department shall prepare accounts, known as resource accounts, which will detail the,
"resources acquired, held or disposed",
or used. We have dealt with that with the previous amendment. Clause 5(2) states:
"Resource accounts shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury".
That is because the Accounting Standards Board does not want to have one degree of supervision of MAFF, another degree of separate supervision of the Ministry of Defence and a third degree of supervision of the Department of Trade and Industry. It wants the Treasury to set directions in accordance with subsection (3) —and I have to remind the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that one of his amendments would have taken out subsection (3). It has to present a true and fair view, conform to generally accepted accounting practice and accord with guidance issued by the Treasury about the inclusion of an explanation of the difference between an item appearing in a department's estimate and a corresponding item appearing in a department's resource accounts. In other words, is it reflected in real life?
When I say that the resource accounts are prepared in accordance with the directions issued by the Treasury and that the Treasury is working in accordance with the fundamental rules of the
CWH 24
Accounting Standards Board, where is the difference between us? The only difference is that the Treasury is responsible for ensuring that there is consistency between the accounts of one department and another, and that seems to be an entirely proper job for the Treasury to do.
This is a quite separate point from the point of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which we have argued many times over the past year about working families tax credit. The Bill requires resource accounts and the whole of government accounts to show a true and fair view and to conform to GAAP. So there will be a legal obligation on the Treasury and the department to follow best accounting practice, and there are two additional safeguards which do not exist at the moment for statistically-based national accounts. First, any proposal to depart from GAAP would have to be discussed with the Financial Reporting Advisory Board, which can report to Parliament if it disagrees. Secondly, resource accounts and the whole of government accounts are subject to audit by the NAO. If it disagrees with an accounting treatment, it will qualify the accounts and report to Parliament accordingly. The Treasury is bound hand and foot!
Lord Higgins: There are three separate levels. The accounts are produced by the department and the NAO audits them, but it is all done within a hierarchy whereby someone is setting the overall situation. The Minister is saying that it is done in accordance with best accounting practice. However, we know that best accounting practice in the public sector cannot be the same as that in the private sector. An independent body ought to decide the best accounting practice for the public sector. For the purposes of debate we suggested the commission mentioned in the amendment. However, as stated earlier, we would probably go along happily, if it was prepared to take it on, with the Accounting Standards Board deciding what the standards should be in the public sector. There is at the moment a lacuna that simply to say "best accounting standards" does not in fact make the point; there are bound to be variations that are not determined by an independent body.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what the FRAB is for. It is apparent that I am not making myself clear.
Lord Higgins: The FRAB is no good for this purpose because it is only advisory. We want somebody with sufficient authority to make sure that its recommendations are accepted, not by the Government, but independently and in turn by Parliament. Subject to anything further that the Minister wishes to add, this is clearly a matter to which we ought to return at Report stage and I welcome the support that I have received on both sides of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("(3A) All directions issued by the Treasury under subsection (2) shall be—

(a) subject to consultation with Parliament, the Financial Reporting Advisory Board and any other bodies the Treasury deems appropriate;

(b) published when issued: and

(c) compiled and published at the start of every financial year in a document to be called "the Resource Accounting Manual".

(3B) The Financial Reporting Advisory Board shall review and report to Parliament on the Resource Accounting Manual every third year after its publication.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is really a fall-back position for if the process of setting up a national accounts commission fails. Essentially, it puts on the face of the Bill what we have been told is the process by which the standards are set. The process set out in the amendment, however, is precisely how the Treasury claims to set standards in this area. In effect, it spells out the detail of Clause 5(2) and puts on to the face of the Bill procedures that are already followed. It refers specifically to the role of the FRAB (the Financial Reporting Advisory Board) and of the manual, Resource Accounting and Budgeting. Both are vital components in the Treasury's present procedures and should be referred to on the face of the Bill.
In discussion in Committee in the other place, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury argued that this amendment was unnecessary. Clause 5(3) obliges the Treasury to follow the generally accepted accounting practice, modified as necessary to take account of the specific departmental requirements. Clause 5(3)(c) would mean that it also had to follow the resource accounting manual directions. Moreover, it was unnecessary to put it into the legislation since there may be more than one way to achieve compliance with generally accepted accounting standards. Other bodies, besides the FRAB, should be consulted. The FRAB already conducts ongoing reviews of Resource Accounting and Budgeting and has reported more frequently than the three years envisaged by this amendment. That was another reason that the Government could not accept the amendment.
That may be so, but none of those arguments seems sufficient. If the Government reject the case for an independent commission setting up the guidelines by which Resource Accounting and Budgeting is set, it is all the more important to have, written on the face of the Bill, the procedures which the Government themselves claim give assurances to Parliament and the general public of independence of action. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness pointed out, quite rightly, that this is a fall-back position from the matters which we were discussing on the previous amendment. I am now hopeful that we shall succeed
CWH 26
with the previous amendment at a later stage. If, however, that fails certainly there is much to commend the observations of the noble Baroness. Lady Sharp.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government and Members of the Committee seek the same end. We seek to improve the transparency of the accounting standard-setting process. The only difference between us is whether or not it should be statutory. Our view is that the non-statutory system works well and does not need to be enshrined in legislation.
Before I reach a final conclusion, I should like to make clear that the directions in Clause 5(2) are not as important as is envisaged in this amendment. They are not detailed documents which set out accounting policies but simply the means by which the Treasury formally instructs departments that they must prepare resource accounts as required by the Bill. Although the mechanics have not yet been finalised, it is possible that in relation to resource accounts there is only one omnibus direction that applies to all departments. The direction is unlikely to say anything other than that the resource accounts must be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the resource accounting manual, which is the concordance between private sector and public sector accounting. In view of that, the requirements within the amendment for consultation on the directions and their publication are unnecessary.
The real issue is whether we are sufficiently transparent in disclosing the accounting practices to be used for resource accounts. That is the purpose of the resource accounting manual which is a publicly available document. Updates will be published annually so that the accounting policies in force in a particular year will always be in the public domain. The resource accounts themselves will, as required by generally accepted accounting practice, contain a detailed note setting out the major accounting policies under which the accounts are prepared.
The amendment would require the Financial Reporting Advisory Board to review the manual and report to Parliament once every three years. Since its creation in 1996 the board has already issued two reports to Parliament, and I understand that a third is in preparation. It is intended that the boa rd will report to Parliament annually and, as the Committee is aware, the Government have already agreed to that. In practice, the board adopts a more rigorous reporting schedule than would be provided for by the amendment.
We are committed to following best accounting practice. The accounting practice policies to be followed by departments will be publicly available and will be in the published accounts themselves. We believe that those are adequate commitments by the Government to transparency and, as at present advised, there would be no advantage in placing them on a statutory basis. I am willing to listen to any representations that may be made on the point,

CWH 27
without any commitment, to see whether there is any way to improve our mutual understanding of a shared objective.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: As the Minister says, it is a question of transparency and accountability. We believe that at present the Treasury will pursue matters as it has stated it will. To put something on the face of the Bill has the advantage that it is there for a long period of time. Over the past century or so legislation dealing with public accounts has not been frequent. Sometimes there are advantages in putting matters on the face of a Bill. For example, at times national statistics have not been all that we would expect them to be, and matters have been hidden which ought not to be hidden. It is only for the reason—perhaps a cynical one—that we do not have total faith that these things will be done, as the Minister claims, that we should like to see them on the face of the Bill. This is very much a fall-back amendment. We will have to see how things work out when we come to deal with the national accounting commission at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3. line 16, at end insert—
("(4A) A department shall send to the Comptroller and Auditor General, with the resource accounts sent to him under subsection (4), a performance statement analysing the performance of the department in achieving (by the use of the resources to which the accounts relate) its measures and targets for the financial year in question.
(4B) Departments shall prepare performance statements under subsection (4A) in accordance with guidelines laid down by the National Accounts Commission.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 11 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. With this amendment it may be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 13, 17 and 19. I have a sense of dèjá vu about these amendments. We are seeking to ensure that performance measures are established by the Government and by individual departments to show what is achieved as a result of the expenditure of public money on any operation. The argument about such performance measures has been going on for many years, but we have not yet achieved that objective. This is a rare opportunity to put it into practice.
The matter fits in with the general structure of departmental-related Select Committees in another place that has now been in operation for some time. The ambitions of those committees are set out admirably in the first report of the Liaison Committee, published on 2nd March, entitled Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive. It is, of course, the case that the Select Committees in another place are concerned with the policy, administration and expenditure of the departments that they have the task of monitoring.
CWH 28
The interests of the Select Committees in policy and, to a lesser extent, administration, far outweigh their normal enthusiasm for looking at the expenditure. I hope that that is not interpreted as a criticism—it is simply that they are burdened with other matters. This is something that committees would be able to do with greater efficiency if they had set performance indicators. Some progress has been made on this as far as departmental reports are concerned. I am slightly out-of-date on that. When they were originally published they mostly featured pictures of the Secretary of State of the day and not much else. Certainly they ought to include this sort of data and, against performance data, targets should be set that the department should seek to achieve.
Will the Minister tell us whether, if we are now to have resource accounts in the form proposed, they will appear as an appendix to the departmental reports or be entirely separate? There is much financial data in the reports as they stand, but the precise relationship between what is now proposed by the Treasury for resource accounts and the departmental reports is something about which I am not entirely clear.
What is surprising is that much of the argument for resource accounting, budgeting, and so on, has been that we shall then be in a position to appraise the performance of individual departments. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendment, but at the moment that link has been broken. We are seeking to have it restored.
In addition, it is no good having performance measures if they are not validated. Clearly it is important in that context that the NAO and the PAC should take that into account, as well as the departmental-related Select Committees. It is true to say that the NAOs venture some years ago into value for money has been very fruitful, but achieving the aim of the amendment—namely, the establishment of clear measures of performance—will be of considerable value to Parliament.
There are a number of areas—not least in social security, with which I am otherwise concerned when I am not preoccupied on these matters—particularly the lone parent initiative and a number of other measures. We need to know exactly what the Government intend to achieve if there is to be any sensible spin-off from the introduction of resource accounts. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give us a forthcoming response on this point, which is clearly regarded both by the PAC and the NAO, and indeed by those of us on this side of the Committee, as important.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on this issue. The amendment he has put forward fills an important lacuna in this Bill as it is at the moment. As he made clear, the whole point of resource accounting is to link resources to performance. The purpose of parliamentary control of supply is to ensure that the public are getting value for money with high quality and effective delivery of public services. Performance measures provide an independent validation that this is being achieved. The whole idea of resource

CWH 29
accounting is to bring the two sides of the equation—the resources on the one hand and performance on the other—into focus, yet this Bill is totally silent on this issue.
The Government have indeed proceeded with setting up a number of performance indicators. We have public service agreements which set up many measures across many departments—arguably too many, with something like 6,500 since the Government came into office. Various performance measures have been introduced over the past three years and some departments now feel that they have rather too many. Indeed, I believe that the Treasury is also beginning to rail back a little on these burgeoning performance indicators.
At the moment there is absolutely no linking between the two, which is what we are concerned about. There is also an anomaly that, so far as local government is concerned, it is now rigorously audited on performance standards. The Audit Commission has been expanded very considerably to take account of this work. It provides a check on performance standards and external validation of the standards that are set. We believe that the National Audit Office should be doing exactly the same for Government departments. It is very odd that what we are preaching at local government we are not actually carrying through in central government.
The Government response, when this was debated in Committee in the other place, was totally inconsistent. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that those out-turn statements would be included in departmental reports and under resource accounting and budgeting, alongside departmental accounts as planned. She then went on to say that the amendments would break the essential chain of accountability by requiring performance indication to be included with the accounts and prepared by the accounting officer. I feel that she was muddled and inconsistent in her reply at that time and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, says we need to know exactly what the Government want to achieve. I may turn this back to him. He also says he has a sense of dájè vu about these amendments. Indeed, I have a sense of dájè vu. Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 arise from Committee in another place; Amendment No. 19 was put forward by Mr David Davis at Report stage in another place; Amendment No. 17 was put by Mr Davis to me in a letter in April of this year, which I received in May of this year. I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which of them he wants. I am not saying that he can have any of them, but rather than having three or four alternatives it would be easier if we were debating a single proposition from the Opposition.
Lord Higgins: I believe in choice, but this is also a team effort, so it may well be that these are not entirely original compared with some of the other amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Be that as it may, they would all require departments to produce
CWH 30
performance information. In the case of some of the amendments, they would require the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine that information.
As I have made clear, we have already committed ourselves to reporting annually to Parliament and the public on out-turn against performance targets. We shall be doing this through departmental reports and the Government's annual reports, published in the summer. The structure of reporting will be that, in the spring, there will be the publication of forward-looking information, including performance data and estimates. Then in the autumn, there will be the backward looking information including performance data. It cannot really be said, therefore, that we are doing anything other than enormously improving the quality of the reporting to Parliament from departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that some earlier departmental reports consisted of the photograph of the Secretary of State and not much else. I am reminded of the grand old man of advertising, David Ogilvy, who said that,
"If the client moans and sighs,
show his logo twice the size.
If he still should prove refractory,
show the picture of his factory. But only in the direst case
should you show the bastard's face!"
Anyway, in the light of what we are actually going to do, there is no need to make it a statutory requirement and doing so would lead to inflexibility. For example, Public Service Agreements relate to a three year period, mirroring spending plans, so performance assessments tied narrowly to a particular financial year may not be as useful as giving Parliament the very latest outturn.
We recognise that for public service agreements to have the effect on accountability and in raising public service performance that they are aimed at, the information which supports them must be credible. The new, independent, statistics commission has been set up with the express purpose of commenting on department systems and commissioning independent audits in areas of concern. It is likely to cover a wide range of performance data and its new role should be firmly established before consideration is given to introducing a similar role in statute for the Comptroller and Auditor General.
We are currently drawing up a performance information strategy—
Lord Higgins: Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to repeat his last two sentences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. We have set up a new, independent, statistics commission with the express purpose of commenting on departmental systems and commissioning independent audits in areas of concern. It is likely to cover a very wide range of performance data and its new role should be firmly established before consideration is given to introducing a similar role in statute for the Comptroller and Auditor General. We are also drawing up a performance information strategy and

CWH 31
we are looking at the future need for validation of performance data. National Audit Office officials and others from outside government are being involved in this work. There are a great many issues to consider, including what data should be validated, what validation should entail, the right timescale for introducing changes and the best bodies to carry out validation.
I am very reluctant to impose a new requirement on departments when the role of the new statistics commission is not fully established and the nature of validation and the burden this would impose has not been fully thought through.
I hope I have shown that we are moving very actively in the direction in which, I am sure, noble Lords wish to move, but that it is premature to introduce any statutory requirement at this stage.
Lord Higgins: We seem to have the usual problem, which we have had on other issues, as to whether or not it should be a statutory requirement. I have obviously listened carefully to what the Minister said about the new statistics commission but the NAO has now had experience over a decade or more—in fact, probably two decades—of value-for-money inquiries, which were in a sense related to the question of performance measures.
I am not clear why the Government consider it better to have a statistics commission with no statutory basis, rather than have it dealt with by the NAO with all the experience that it now has in this area; also the case for saying that they will validate the actual figures. My understanding is that the statistics commission will not actually have the task of validating whether the performance measure has been met, but merely what it is. No doubt the Minister can clarify that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I should not seek to clarify that now. I will instead write to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about what the statistics commission will actually do. It does meet the requirements of the amendment but that ought to be clarified in writing.
Lord Higgins: We are grateful to the Minister and look forward to receiving his comments in writing. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Resource accounts: scrutiny]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Higginshad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 14. at end insert—
("(3A) The Comptroller and Auditor General may examine any performance statement which he receives from a department under section 5 and report thereon.").
CWH 32
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move Amendment No. 13.
Lord Lyell: The Minister and his department have been extremely kind in providing some helpful notes on clauses. There is one particular aspect on which the Minister may be able to enlighten me; if not today perhaps, helpfully, in writing, although I hope not at a later stage of the Bill. Clause 6(2) provides:
"If resource accounts appear to the Comptroller and Auditor General to suggest that a material use of resources required but did not receive the authority of the Treasury—

(a) he shall inform the Treasury, and

(b) if the Treasury sanction the use of resources, he shall treat it as always having had the Treasury's authority".

I immediately thought that there was something odd here. However, the Minister and his advisers and "winged counsel" will see that the Explanatory Notes to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill are most helpful. Paragraph 34 on page 7 contains an explanation of subsection (2) which goes back to the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. The paragraph states:
"The Treasury cannot use this power to authorise illegal or improper expenditure—it can only retrospectively authorise expenditure that was itself legal and proper but which required Treasury approval".
Can the Minister explain whether Treasury approval is part of the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General? If so, I believe that paragraph (b) of subsection (2) somewhat negates the power of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If he discovers something that he believes requires the sanction and approval of the Treasury he is expressing his views when he reports to the Treasury. Paragraph (b) seems to suggest that the Treasury can say that something is all right because it has approved it. It may be that it has done so, and perhaps that is the case under the 1921 Act. However, can the Minister explain to me what the Comptroller and Auditor General then does as part of his job as auditor? Does this not cut the legs from under his examination of the matter as part of his duties as auditor? Perhaps the noble Lord can explain the matter to me—if not today than at a later date.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has gone a long way to answering his own question. The role of the Comptroller and Auditor General is that of a whistle-blower. He states that something has been spent here for which there is no Treasury approval. If that happens there are two possibilities. The first is that it should not have been spent, in which case all hell breaks loose. The department is brought to account and all the procedures which apply when departments overspend begin. The second possibility is that the Treasury says that it is legal and proper expenditure which should have had Treasury approval but by an oversight it did not receive it. If that is the case it will be approved retrospectively. I believe that that is all right.
Lord Lyell: The Minister is very complimentary towards me. I did not believe that I had necessarily answered my own question. He referred to the

CWH 33
possibility of the Treasury suggesting that something should have received approval but by an oversight had not. In that case, what is the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General? In an earlier reply, the Minister said to me that the Comptroller and Auditor General reports to the Treasury. If he is a whistle-blower, he cannot do the two things. To whom is he reporting as Comptroller and Auditor General?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: He is reporting to Parliament.
Lord Lyell: What is the purpose of paragraph (b)? If he is blowing a whistle, he should say to Parliament, "I think there is a problem here"; that should be part of his audit report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is like the signs on the buses. If you have a complaint about the service, you first try to resolve that complaint with the bus company and, if you are not satisfied, you go to the London passengers committee. The same applies here. The Comptroller and Auditor General finds something that, on the face of it, is wrong—in other words, money has been spent without Treasury approval. The first thing he asks is whether it is a formal technical problem and the Treasury omitted to approve something which was itself legal and proper—in which case that is the end of it, and no doubt there can be rapped knuckles for failing to obtain Treasury approval when there should have been Treasury approval. The Comptroller and Auditor General can report on that to Parliament if he wants to. The more serious case is the money should not have been spent at all., which is where he reports to Parliament through the Public Accounts Committee, and it is Parliament that has the ultimate responsibility.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Other departmental accounts]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("Treasury") and insert ("Comptroller and Auditor General").
The noble Lord said: I shall add only one brief postscript to the previous remarks. It is some while now since the accounting officer paid up where there was improper expenditure; and perhaps that is rather sad. A sanction of that kind would encourage accounting officers not to do the kind, of thing that seems to be envisaged in the previous clause.
Turning to Clause 7, I forget the amount but I believe that at the time it was quite large; allowing for inflation, £12,500. Here we have a fascinating clause, in light of the remarks that were made earlier by the Minister; namely, that the Treasury is bound hand and foot by this situation and there is no need to have an independent commission and so on, because one has only to look at Clause 7(1) and (2) which states:
"(1) The Treasury may direct a government department to prepare for each financial year accounts in relation to any specified matter.
(2) Accounts under subsection (1) shall be prepared in accordance with directions issued by the Treasury".
CWH 34
This, of course, relates to other departmental accounts. However, once again it gives the Treasury considerable powers and, while we would be prepared to accept that our amendment is not perfectly drafted and that perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General may not be the best person to issue such instructions, nonetheless there would seem to be a case for some independent body to do so rather than the Treasury which, so far as this clause is concerned, seems to have complete discretion as to how it sets about the matter. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We come here to the same difficulty that we had in relation to earlier amendments. To agree to these amendments would be compromising the responsibility of the preparers of the accounts for what is contained in the accounts, and we would be giving the Comptroller and Auditor General powers which it is inappropriate for an auditor to possess and which threaten his independence. In private accounts the directors of the company prepare the accounts and they submit them for audit and the auditor audits them. If the auditor has been involved in the preparation of the accounts and what is contained in the accounts, how can the auditor provide an independent view of whether the accounts provide a true and fair view of the circumstances of the organisation? The Treasury can consult the department and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Surely therefore it is best placed to know what accounts are required and to determine the most appropriate and useful format for them. The Treasury and the preparing department can then be held responsible for the accounts. If the preparers of the accounts have no role in deciding what accounts they should prepare, or what information is included in them, they cannot be expected to take responsibility for them.
Auditors must be able to comment independently on the accounts they audit. For them to be made responsible for determining what accounts al e to be prepared and the basis on which they are to be prepared is simply not acceptable. It compromises their ability to take an independent view.
I should also point out that these amendments are inconsistent with the proposal for a national accounts commission. Why should there be a national accounts commission which sets out the standards for departmental accounts, but allows the Comptroller and Auditor General to determine them for those departmental accounts covered by this clause?
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that Clause 7 is too widely drafted. It is indeed true that the Treasury has discretion. That is because the clause is designed to cover accounts which are not covered elsewhere. They may be cash accounts as well as resource accounts, so it is not appropriate to refer them to the generally accepted accounting practice or the true and fair view. Directions issued under the clause will, of course, be agreed with the National Audit Office before they are issued.
Lord Higgins: The Minister is right in saying that this is the same problem as we had before. Perhaps the

CWH 35
amendments are rather confusing inasmuch as we have in this case suggested that the matter should be decided by the Comptroller and not the Treasury. For that we must obviously take responsibility. But it is still the case that the Treasury is going to decide the form of the accounts. That does not happen in normal private or public companies. The form of the accounts is decided by the various accountancy bodies, not by the company. What is lacking here is an independent body which will decide that. Of course the auditor does so within that framework. But we are on much the same point as before and we will delay the Committee unnecessarily if we go over the same ground again.
It seems to us that the Treasury has virtually unfettered discretion in this case and, except for the Minister's final few words, we are not happy about it. However, I do not wish to pursue this matter and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCIES' ACCOUNTS: SCRUTINY
(" .—(1) This section applies to any public service agency of the sort described in subsection (8). unless otherwise provided in any enactment passed after this section comes into force.
(2) On the prescribed date, for each public service agency to which this section applies subsections (3) to (6) shall apply to that agency.
(3) Every public service agency shall prepare accounts in respect of each financial year and shall send them to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
(4) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine accounts sent to him under this section with a view to satisfying himself—

(a) that the accounts present a true and fair view, and

(b) that any public money provided to the agency has been expended for the purposes intended by the body by which the money was paid.

(5) Where the Comptroller and Auditor General has conducted an examination of accounts under subsection (4) he shall—

(a) certify them and issue a report,

(b) send the certified accounts and the report to the Treasury, and

(c) if he is not satisfied of the matters set out in subsection (4)(a) and (b), he shall report to the House of Commons.

(6) The Treasury shall lay accounts and reports received under subsection (5)(b) before the House of Commons.
(7) Subsections (3) to (6) do not apply to any body to the extent (but only to the extent) that any of its accounts are or become subject to audit—

(a) by the Auditor General for Scotland, or

(b) by the Auditor General for Wales.

(8) "Public service agency" means a body—

(a) which is not a government department or comprised within a government department,

(b) which exercises public functions of a governmental nature which might otherwise fall to be exercised by central government, and

CWH 36

(c) as respects which an accounting officer has been designated,

but does not include a public service agency which is a company registered under the Companies Act 1985.
(9) In this section "prescribed date" means, as regards each public service agency, the first day of the first full financial year of that agency commencing after the expiry of the term of appointment of the person who is the auditor of the agency when this section comes into force.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. It is concerned with the extent to which the existing arrangements will cover public service agencies of the kind described in Clause 8. It effectively relates to whether or not the National Audit Office will be able to extend its remit to cover executive non-departmental public bodies. At the moment the situation seems to us to be arbitrary and illogical. A substantial minority are audited by auditors other than the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the decision of who will audit each newly established body is made by the sponsoring department when the body is established. It does not seem to us that that is appropriate. There is a lack of consistency in the information provided to the department, and waste and duplication of audit effort.
The new clause seeks to say that, given the vast change that has happened in the quangos and non-departmental public bodies of one kind or another, the Comptroller and Auditor General ought to be appointed as auditor for all such bodies, both those already in existence and those which are newly created. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
This is effectively a tidying-up exercise, and it is the view of Opposition Peers that it ought be done on a uniform basis. There are a number of examples on which one could expand. Housing receives around £1 billion a year, while English Heritage and the Environment Agency receive £100 million a year. But they are three of the biggest spenders outside of the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit and they are not subject to the same degree of public scrutiny. Given that they receive public money, there is a strong case for extending the remit of resource accounting to bodies of this type on a universal rather than a selective basis.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Although my name is not attached to the amendment I support it because it is a key issue. It relates to the question that we have previously debated of the extent to which Parliament is able to control the Executive. The National Audit Office is the eyes and ears of Parliament if it is to achieve proper scrutiny of public affairs. The problem arises because of the vast range of providers of public services today that are paid from the Exchequer.
In the old days it used to be simpler. One had Government departments and they were normally the providers of services. Today, with the division between purchasers and providers, there are a range of contractors working for government departments which are being paid with public money and it is necessary for us to make sure that we get good value

CWH 37
for the benefit of the public. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has already mentioned the Housing Corporation; Camelot is another. Issues have arisen where the National Audit Office has looked at further education colleges where there have been difficulties.
Such non-departmental public bodies should, like departments, be answerable to Parliament. Therefore the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General should have access to and scrutinise their accounts as they do departments of state. There are at the moment big gaps in public scrutiny and the Bill is an opportunity to fill them.
The arguments raised against that in Committee in another place were that the Bill is not an audit Bill, but merely transposes existing accounting arrangements into resource accounting space and that it is therefore an inappropriate vehicle to make good gaps in the current range of public scrutiny. That does not stand up well. This clause repeals Sections 16 and 17 covering the audit in the 1866 and 1921 Acts and to a degree it throws the powers of the Comptroller General and Auditor into doubt because it deliberately confines the National Audit Office to departmental walls. The Government did not need the Bill to introduce resource accounting. They could have moved ahead without it. They themselves are introducing an extraneous affair in the sense that the latter part of the Bill deals entirely with the PFI and the PPP arrangements.
Last, and by no means least, Bills on public accounting seem to emerge approximately once every 50 years. Therefore, it is appropriate to take the opportunity provided by the Bill to make good any gaps. The Government's arguments do not stand up. They also suggested that the matter had been raised too late. Although I have come to it fairly recently, I have done some homework and find that it is something that the Public Accounts Committee has been raising for many years, so the Government have therefore had plenty of notice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: To adapt what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has to a considerable extent answered her own argument. She acknowledged that the amendment is nothing to do with resource accounting. It is about provisions for government audit and she is entitled to argue that since we do not often have legislation on government audit, it might be argued that it should be included in the Bill, as has Partnerships UK. But we have, of course, also set up the Sharman review. This is certainly one of the matters into which the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, will be looking and we will have to take his views on it very seriously. I deny, however, that there are any big gaps in public scrutiny because some non-departmental public bodies are audited privately rather than by the National Audit Office. All national non-departmental public bodies are accountable through ministers to Parliament and it does not matter whether the accounts are audited by NAO—they are still laid before Parliament by Ministers. That is their statutory responsibility. It is not a matter of parliamentary scrutiny but whether it is indeed
CWH 38
appropriate to adopt a "one size fits all" policy for audit of non-departmental public bodies. I assume that the amendment means non-departmental public bodies—the phrase used is "public service agencies", which is not a phrase with which I am familiar.
I do not deny that the Chief Secretary said, in another place, that the present situation is a hotchpotch. Historically, it cannot be justified, although I should point out that it is a hotch-potch that has been inherited from the previous government and this Government, for all new NDPBs set up, has appointed the Comptroller and Auditor General as the auditor of these departments. At least we have been consistent. even if we have not thought it necessary to change what happened in the past.
It is a fairly good conservative principle: "fit ain't broke, don't' fix it". What is actually wrong with what happens at the moment? There is nothing wrong in terms of accountability to Parliament. It is not claimed that there is anything wrong in terms of the quality of audit. The amendment proposes a nationalisation of a considerable part of the accountancy profession and I would be interested to know whether the accountancy profession generally would be sympathetic to that view.
We are not convinced that it would be right in principle to make the Comptroller and Auditor General automatically the auditor of all executive NDPBs. For example, some departments think the competitive tension secured by the periodic tendering of audit appointments can bring better service, or that the NAO may not have the depth of specialist expertise to handle a particular audit. Reference to thy:: list of NDPBs, and at how specialised some of them are, shows that it is not necessarily true that all auditors have the expertise to do it.
The Comptroller and Auditor General may subcontract commercial auditors in order to deal with particular aspects of an auditing assignment, but this may not provide the best solution for the department, who may find it cost-effective for related services to be carried out during the audit of a particular NEIPB for monitoring purposes. It is not the case that private sector auditors are unable to audit for regularity and proper conduct—private sector auditors are quite capable of providing assurance on these matters. Their letters of appointment require them to report every year on regularity and propriety within the audit and the Auditing Practices Board has done a great deal to ensure that they are alert to these issues.
The new clause goes much too far in making the Comptroller and Auditor General automatically the auditor of all NDPBs which are not companies. It would be wrong in principle to rule out the option of appointing private sector auditors, which is why the Bill contains a provision to meet this concern.
I am sorry to give what might seem a rather conservative—with a small "c"—reply but the amendment is looking for consistency at the expense of common sense.
Lord Higgins: My right honourable friend in another place, Mr Hague, has made it clear that we are

CWH 39
all in favour of common sense. However, it is very often common sense to be consistent. It seems to me that the Minister's reply is not only conservative, but excessively so. I am surprised, therefore, at his reply on this particular amendment.
It was a very strange reply. No one is proposing to nationalise the accountancy profession. The Minister has pointed out that all the new bodies that have been set up under government have been subject to the NAO. It is true, as he rightly says, that the previous Government did not extend the NAO's remit to all such bodies. There is no reason, given that we have Bills like this so rarely, that we should not consider now whether it is appropriate to be consistent in the matter. These are non-departmental but nonetheless public bodies. They are not private plcs or whatever. It seems to be an argument—to use the Minister's phrase—for "one size fits all". As I understand it, basically the auditors report to the Minister and the Minister to Parliament. The NAO is not in the loop so far as concerns a number of these bodies. It would seem important that he should be in that loop.
The other point seems to be that on many individual cases the Comptroller and Auditor General has to become involved in negotiations as to whether or not he will be responsible in a particular case, which does not seem satisfactory. We will not pursue the matter now but a degree of consistency is needed. Otherwise, the control which Parliament exercises in some instances of non-departmental public bodies—I accept the point made by the Minister about the inadequacy of our drafting, which we will try to put right by Report stage—is something which is of importance and where the role of the NAO should be extended to include all such bodies. Subject to those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Comptroller and Auditor General: access to information]:
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause 8, and insert the following new clause—
COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL: ACCESS TO INFORMATION
(" .—(1) This section applies in connection with the examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the accounts of any government department or other body under or by virtue of—

(a) any enactment, including this Act, or

(b) in the case of a body other than a government department, any arrangement which provides for the accounts of that body to be subject to examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(2) Subsection (3) applies only to the following records, that is to say—

(a) records which are in the custody or under the control of the department or body to which the examination relates, or to which that department or body has or can obtain access;

(b) records of a receiving body to which any paying body has or can obtain access.

CWH 40
(3) In connection with such an examination as is mentioned in subsection (1), the Comptroller and Auditor General shall, subject to subsections (2), (4) and (5). have a right to access at all reasonable times to any record relating to—

(a) the accounts of the department or body to which the examination relates.

(b) any money originating in the Consolidated Fund.

(c) any liability or contingent liability that will or may be met out of monies originating in the Consolidated Fund, or

(d) tax credits under the Tax Credits Act 1999.

(4) The right of access conferred by subsection (3) shall not be exercisable in relation to any record relating to accounts which—

(a) are subject to audit by the Auditor General for Scotland or the Auditor General for Wales, and

(b) are not also subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(5) A person who holds or has control of any record to which the Comptroller and Auditor General has a right of access under subsection (3) shall give the Comptroller and Auditor General any assistance, information or explanation which he requires in relation to the matters recorded in it.
(6) In this section "paying body" means any body which pays to a receiving body money originating in the Consolidated Fund, and a "receiving body" means any body which receives from a paying body money originating in the Consolidated Fund, but does not include in either case a body the accounts of which are subject to audit under section 2 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 or section 97 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 unless it is a body specified in section 98(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977.").
The noble Lord said: This is a question of access. We are concerned with the fact that, at the moment, the NAO does not have the degree of access we feel to be appropriate. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place stressed the importance of this. The intention of the legislation being amended by Clause 8 was that there should be effective parliamentary scrutiny of all departmental expenditure. If we do not amend Clause 8 in the way suggested, we will not achieve that object. For that reason, we consider that the amendment should be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise briefly to give our support to this amendment, which links up very much with the amendment we have just been discussing. Indeed, the two might well have been taken together because one leads on to the other. The issue is one of the accountability of the executive to Parliament and the spending of money that Parliament votes. This is why these non-departmental public bodies should be subject to scrutiny. There are differences between the standards of scrutiny required for public sector—as distinct from private sector—organisations. This is the case for the first amendment we debated, Amendment No. 16. This amendment is concerned with the whole issue of access and it is because, on quite a number of occasions, the National Audit Office has rights of access but they have to be negotiated independently.
Each act creates a separate arrangement for audit. For example, the National Audit Office had to spend five years negotiating the required access for the Housing Corporation, four years with Camelot. It has been having a lot of difficulty with the private train operators. All this takes time and money resources out

CWH 41
of the public sector. It seems absurd that there is no consistency of standards here. For that reason we very much support the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This is an extraordinary amendment which seeks to replace the current access clause in the Bill. However, it will increase very considerably the statutory right of access by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I wonder whether the implications of the amendment have been thought through. The amendment would allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to follow public money through a chain of grants, even where the final recipient was very remote from government, and have access to anyone who was allowed to keep money that would otherwise go to the Government. Therefore, it would allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to follow public money wherever it went. On the face of it, that may sound a desirable objective but let us see how it would work.
The new clause would give the Comptroller and Auditor General the same right of access to the records of a body receiving public money as is available to the body paying over the money. Therefore, where the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions pays grant to the Housing Corporation, which passes it on to social landlords, which may in turn pass it on to construction firms, which may in turn pay sub-contractors, the Comptroller and Auditor General will have access to all of those bodies simply for the purpose of auditing the DETR. Even the department does not have such sweeping powers of access. The new clause allows him access to the books and records of private sector firms, on the same basis as the Inland Revenue, to investigate whether tax credits have been properly calculated. That simply doubles the scrutiny process. The Inland Revenue already operates a pretty tough regime of oversight in these areas.
The new clause also provides the Comptroller and Auditor General with statutory access to the accounting records of all public service contractors. Government guidance is already perfectly clear on the need for government contracts to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General access to the books and records of contractors for the audit of the department concerned. The Comptroller and Auditor General has reported on a large number of contracting out situations, including the Inland Revenue contract with EDS and the contracted-out Wolds remand prison. As for PFI contracts, separate Treasury guidance makes it absolutely clear that access should be routinely included in those contracts.
There are other problems. The clause would impose a potential regulatory burden on all the firms concerned. The British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses have said that to enhance the Comptroller and Auditor General's access in the manner proposed will increase the burden of red tape on small and medium-sized enterprises. To give him a statutory right of access when such a right is not necessary in practice may well deter suppliers from
CWH 42
competing for government contracts, thereby pushing up costs. It could lead to excessive scrutiny, particularly in relation to regulatory functions which Parliament has asked other bodies to undertake, such as the Housing Corporation in respect of social landlords or the rail regulators in respect of the train operating companies. If we agreed to this amendment I do not believe that we would ever get it passed my noble friend Lord Haskins and the Better Regulation Task Force.
The burden on employers and contractors to the Government would be absolutely extraordinary. This is a classic case where it is not a matter for the Bill but the Sharman review. All of the agenda for modernising government has important implications for audit. We can and will consider the possibility of extending the Comptroller and Auditor General's access by administrative means where it can be shown to be necessary to provide effective audit and where it will help to promote well thought through innovation and risk-taking. However, we need to look at matters in the round, and that was why we appointed the Sharman committee in the first place.
I do not believe that outside the Committee the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrat Party would be pleased to see an amendment of this kind included in their election manifestos; nor do II believe that it would be welcomed by those in the business community who deal with government.
Lord Higgins: I listened carefully to the Minister. In short, he seems to be saying that this amendment is not well targeted. Obviously we need to consider the points he made, which we will do between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Preparation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No 20:
Page 5, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The accounts shall contain such information in such form as the Treasury think fit.
(4) In determining the form and content of the accounts the Treasury shall aim to ensure that the accounts—

(a) present a true and fair view, and

(b) conform to generally accepted accounting practice subject to such adaptations as are necessary in the context.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment would require the whole of government accounts to present a full, "true and fair view". We are bringing forward this amendment in order to bring the requirements for the whole of government accounts into line with those for resource accounts. An amendment requiring resource accounts to present a true and fair view was made at Report stage in the other place. The Companies Act requires that the profit and loss account and the balance sheet present a true and fair view. We go further and extend it to the whole of government

CWH 43
accounts. It is an overriding requirement in company legislation and we are content for it to apply to the accounts which we produce. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: We shall come to the whole of government accounts in a moment. I do not wish to comment further on what the Minister said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: We come to Clause 9 of the Bill, which is concerned with whole of government accounts. This clause raises some important issues and one understands why it is being moved. One great advantage of what the Government are now proposing—I have already indicated that we support generally the move towards resource accounting—is that, in addition to the equivalent of a profit and loss account, it includes the provisions for balance sheets. As I understand it, that is not only the balance sheets of individual departments but also, under this clause, a balance sheet for the whole of government accounts. That is a major change; it raises extremely complex and difficult issues. Nonetheless, it is an objective that we on this side of the Committee feel should be pursued.
It has long been the case that the traditional objectives of government economic policy are to achieve a high level of employment, low inflation, equilibrium in the balance of payments and so forth. It has always seemed strange that, while in the private sector we have a profit and loss and a balance sheet, as well as a cash flow statement, we do not have a government balance sheet. Crucially, that enables one to get some sense of what is happening across the generations. One has only to look at such preliminary estimates—we have made some progress over the past 10 or 15 years as to what a national or government balance sheet will look like—to realise the importance of this point.
It ought perhaps to be an explicit objective of government policy to have some view as to whether the balance sheet should go up or down in relation to what is happening to the general level of economic activity. It has certainly been the case that in the past the value on the balance sheet has been run down or increased beyond what is justified by the normal dynamics of the economy. As a result, people in particular generations, leaving aside the problem of dividing up generations, have gained or lost. If we can make some progress in this area, and it would need to extend beyond Government balance sheets towards balance sheets for the economy as a whole, then a declaration by the Government that they would not penalise the present generation at the expense of future generations—or the other way about—is certainly very important indeed. Of course, in this context that is the most relevant issue as far as pensions are concerned.
We are in a situation where, as far as company pensions are concerned, despite what the Government did on ACT, I believe the value of our company
CWH 44
pensions—I declare an interest here since I am chairman of one—is equal to that in the rest of Europe, with nasty implications for the future of interest rates and the single currency argument and so on, which I do not propose to go into now. If we have a serious set of figures as far as balance sheets are concerned, then we can make considerable progress.
As regards pensions, I remarked on Second Reading that we had a splendid document which showed the Government's assets but did not indicate the extent of government liabilities.
I do not know whether the Minister could tell us to what extent, for example, given my other responsibilities, the Department of Social Security is likely to produce a balance sheet showing how it is likely to change over time. Certainly that would be something of considerable importance.
The Committee has been sitting for some while now. I will not ride my particular hobbyhorse any longer, but we believe that the proposals which are made here are very much to be welcomed. What I have been saying is relevant in building up the whole of government accounts' balance sheets from the balance sheets of the individual departments.
Perhaps the Minister can indicate over what time we are likely to make progress on this matter. Of course, the whole of government accounts also propose that for each financial year there should be separate accounts for groups of bodies, each of which appear to the Treasury to exercise these various functions.
On the nitty-gritty detail of the clause I am a little puzzled by the use of the expression "groups of bodies", each of which appears to the Treasury to fulfil these various functions. One criterion is that it should appear to the Treasury to be an activity of a public nature. Whether that includes football teams, for example, I am not clear. Indeed, the criteria as set out seem to be a little wide at times. Perhaps we ought to look at that in rather more detail.
Nonetheless, overall the proposal for the whole of government accounts is of value, and it is the view of Opposition Peers that it should be encouraged.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said in terms of welcoming this move towards the whole of government accounts. It is a very important issue. Opposition Peers are anxious to see fixed assets in addition to the pension side. One aspect that would be revealed by producing the balance sheet would be the running down of fixed assets in the public sector and the public sector infrastructure over the course of the past 20 or so years, which is very much a question of what one generation passes on to another. It would be a very valuable exercise and we thoroughly endorse it.
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, knows, I share his hobbyhorse on pensions in particular, and on inter-generational equity. I hope that in due course the preparation of the whole of government accounts will make it easier for

CWH 45
us to look at long term liabilities as well as assets, although whether that will be possible in the short or medium term, I am far from sure.
I was asked about the timing of the whole of government accounts. Our present view is that we think it will be possible to publish audited central government accounts for 2002 to 2003 onwards, with full audited whole of government accounts perhaps—and I have to say perhaps—from 2005 to 2006 onwards. It is clear that this is a long and very difficult process indeed, and some of it depends not on central government but on the other public sector organisations that are going to have to be brought into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are entirely right about the way in which whole of government accounts fit into our strategy. It is part of the commitment in the code of fiscal stability; it is part of all of our thinking about taking a realistic view about what works and what does not work, rather than about ideology.
I should kill any suggestion that this means that the existing national accounts are defective, because national accounts are produced within the internationally agreed system of national accounts. They provide an adequate basis for the conduct of fiscal policy, and I do not think we should opt out of our international obligations in this way. We are committed to strengthening the fiscal framework, and we believe that accounts based on generally accepted accounting principles for the public sector offer an improved basis for monitoring developments and taking decisions.
We plan that ONS statistics will be used to produce and publish unaudited whole of government accounts from 2001 onwards. I very much welcome the tone in which this clause has been debated.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Obtaining information]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 18, after ("body") insert ("or giving a direction under subsection (5)").
The noble Lord said: These are all what I call Welsh amendments; they are on slightly different subjects but they have all been requested by the National Assembly for Wales. They provide for consultation with the National Assembly and they amend the Government of Wales Act to bring it into line with the Bill. Let me say immediately that we do not need similar amendments for Scotland because Scotland has a parliament and they are introducing their own equivalent of the Government Resource and Accounts Bill. Indeed, I rather think they are ahead of us.
Amendment No. 21 extends the requirement for the Treasury to consult the National Assembly for Wales on the form, audit and delivery of accounts that form part of the whole of government accounts. The National Assembly will he using the information to produce whole of government for Wales accounts to he laid before the Assembly.
CWH 46
Amendment No. 24 amends Clause 14 to provide for the Treasury to consult the National Assembly and the Auditor General for Wales before disapplying the requirement for a health body in Wales to be included in summarised accounts for a particular year. Amendment No. 25 to Clause 15 is an amendment to the Government of Wales Act. It uses the word "resources" which does not otherwise appear in the Government of Wales Act. Amendment No. 34 amends Clause 28 to provide for the Treasury to consult the National Assembly for Wales before designating Welsh bodies for inclusion in the "dry-run" whole of government accounts. Amendment No. 37 amends the Health Service Commissioners Act to extend the time for preparation of the commissioners' accounts in Wales and bring these into line with other accounts covered by the Bill. Amendment No. 40 provides the necessary powers in the Government of Wales Act for the National Assembly to have whole of government of Wales accounts to be produced and audited. Amendment No. 42 provides a power for the Treasury to amend, after consultation, the date by which the National Assembly for Wales and its associated bodies must produce accounts.
Because of the complexity of producing whole of government and whole of government of Wales accounts, all accounts preparation timetables are being extended to 30th November. Once they settle in, we propose to shorten the timetable for preparation. The Bill already provides the Treasury with powers to amend the timescale for England, and this amendment parallels the situation for Wales after consultation with the National Assembly and the Auditor General for Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: This clause, as amended, is concerned with obtaining information in relation to the whole of government accounts. It seemed to us that there were a few points which ought to be made on this and I hope this is an appropriate point to do so.
With regard to the provision of information, there are a number of issues with which we are concerned, such as the cost of capital and depreciation. Until now, we have not found an appropriate point to raise that. The Minister may feel that it is not appropriate at this stage, but at some point we need to consider—because the earlier clauses deal with it—what estimate of the cost of capital would be made available. Perhaps I might consider that, because I suddenly realise that there is a gap in the point I was concerned about. I would not wish to oppose the clause as it now stands.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Scrutiny]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Summarised accounts.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9. line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Where the function under section 98(4) of the National Health Service Act 1977 is exercisable in respect of a body by the National Assembly for Wales—

(a) the Treasury shall consult the National Assembly for Wales and the Auditor General for Wales before making an order in respect of the body under subsection (1) above, and

(b) subsection (3) above shall not apply.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Finance]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 9, line 26, after ("resources") insert ("(within the meaning of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Expenditure]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9. line 31, after ("on") insert ("upstream").
The noble Viscount said: With permission, I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 to 32. They arise largely from a point made by my honourable friend, Mr Howard Flight, in the early stages of the Bill in another place. I would also refer members of the Committee to the private finance initiative report in which there was a very strong recommendation that no equity stake should be taken by PUK in the PFI projects.
We feel that the investment powers of Partnerships UK are at present too loosely drawn. We have therefore sought to spell out on the face of the Bill that the role of Partnerships UK is that of initial facilitator and provider of initial expertise. It introduces the definition, which we consider very important, of upstream. I suggest that Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 meet the objectives of Partnerships UK. I hope that this reflects the thinking of the Government to date and the result of their consultations with industry, lawyers and the PFI team in the Treasury as to what constitutes reasonable activities.
The Government referred to an upper limit of £1 billion expenditure on these projects. We feel that that is too much and seek to introduce a cap in the Bill of £500 million.
Finally, there are two housekeeping amendments, Amendments Nos. 28 and 30, that reflect the spirit of the Committee this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Am I right in thinking that the noble Viscount referred to Amendments Nos. 26 to 32—the whole group?
Viscount Bridgeman: Yes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is fine by me because I am happy to treat all the issues relating to
CWH 48
Partnerships UK although, having read the amendments, I have to say that I am somewhat puzzled by them, particularly the amendments to Clause 17. The amendments to Clause 16 are only subsidiary amendments. They appear to provide a new definition of public/private partnership business, which is unnecessary as the present definition in Clause 17 is suitable for a pioneering business that is expected to grow over time.
Let me begin by outlining the role of Partnerships UK. It will not be an adviser—there are plenty of those in the market already. Its primary aim is to address the skill deficit on the public sector side of the PFI/PPP procurement process. It will build on the work of the Treasury taskforce, which has been set up for a finite time, and accelerate the flow of value for money public/private partnerships.
Partnerships UK will operate by working with departments and other public sector bodies in a unique way; that is, as a co-developer of projects, sitting alongside public sector project teams and taking decisions with them. Partnerships UK and public sector procurers will act as joint venture partners with the object of the joint venture being the delivery of a value for money procurement on time.
Partnerships UK will not operate as a bank. It will not provide long-term debt for PFI projects. Instead, in support of its core co-developer role it will provide development funding where appropriate to get PFI deals off the ground where existing forms of private finance are not available. Partnerships UK will therefore enhance existing flows of private finance.
For example, Partnerships UK might help to bundle together projects that are individually too small to be economically viable for private sector bidders. It might provide support for contractors' bidding costs on large or novel projects. The scope of public/private partnerships is widening all the time with new forms of partnership such as wider markets being developed. In this context, Partnerships UK can only remain effective as an organisation over the medium and long term by developing and changing its business so that it stays at the cutting edge.
The amendments would restrict the scope of Partnerships UK and take away its flexibility to adapt and evolve over time. They are inconsistent with our aims to create an innovative organisation capable of making a significant contribution to the Government's modernisation programme.
Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 both seek in similar terms to open Partnerships UK's accounts to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The noble Viscount described them as "housekeeping". However, Partnerships UK will be a risk-taking public sector body. It will have a majority of private sector investors who will expect a return on their investment and it will, of necessity, need to act commercially in order to raise finance and make a success of its business.
It is not appropriate or necessary for PUK to be inspected by a public sector audit body. This is a job for a Companies Act auditor who is appointed in the

CWH 49
normal way to deal with private companies. Accountability for PFI and PPP projects will, as now, remain with the Whitehall departments and other public bodies who commission them. The NAO has already reported on a number of private finance schemes. Last July the Treasury issued guidance on the standardisation of private finance contracts which makes clear that PFI contracts should include clauses to ensure appropriate NAO access. I hope that that provides the assurance that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, seeks.
There should not, therefore, be any problem in practice about the NAO securing necessary access to assess PFI projects; indeed, the Public Accounts Committee will undoubtedly ask it to do so. Under the provisions of this Bill any government investment in Partnerships UK will come out of voted money. Therefore, it will be covered by appropriation or, soon, by resource accounts which are audited by the NAO. That is no different from other payments by departments to the private sector. I conclude, therefore, that the Comptroller and Auditor General has the access that he needs to do his job effectively.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 29 which is possibly out of date. It provides for a limit of £500 million. However, at Report stage in the other place we tabled a new clause, which is now Clause 18, to limit the investment to £400 million. I hope that that satisfies the noble Viscount.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: Before the noble Lord sits down, I request clarification. Does Clause 18 totally absorb my amendment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The new clause is more restrictive than the noble Viscount's amendment.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am sure that the whole Committee will be very grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive explanation of the thinking behind Partnerships UK. We shall study his remarks very carefully. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Section 16: interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Supplies by Government Departments]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: I rise to speak to the Question whether Clause 20 stand part of the Bill. This clause is concerned with value added tax. I am always concerned about any amendment to VAT legislation. A long while ago I had the interesting task of steering the original VAT legislation through the other place.
CWH 50
I have always regretted any change to what I regard as a perfect piece of legislation! When we introduced the legislation we went to considerable lengths to deal appropriately with supplies made by government departments, which is why I am not clear as to the reason for the inclusion of this clause in this Bill. The clause appears to enable the Government 10 amend Section 21 of the Finance Act 1999 (accounting for VAT by government departments). That will no longer have effect. If that is so perhaps it is not a matter appropriately dealt with by the Committee. I am puzzled, therefore, as to why the clause appears at this precise point in the Bill. No doubt the Minister can explain it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The simple answer is that it has not been certified as a money Bill, which is a matter for the Speaker rather than the Committee. As to the purpose of the clause, I should make clear that it does not make any changes to VAT legislation; it would be impertinent to do so. It ensures that. government departments comply with the relevant accounting standard for VAT, which is the Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 5. This treatment is set out in Resource Accounting and Budgeting and has been endorsed by the Financial Reporting Advisory Board. It is only to make sure that the new system of accounting applies across all the areas of government accounts, which include VAT, that this clause is necessary.
Lord Higgins: Can the Minister explain what Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 5, to which he refers, actually does?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Let me see if I can. This enables departments to account for VAT in the same way as other bodies and in accordance with standard accounting practice. The proposal to account for practice VAT in accordance with Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 5 is already included in Resource Accounting and Budgeting and I refer the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to this manual of which I know he has received a copy. It has been agreed with the Financial Reporting Advisory Board.
In practice, the VAT element of the departmental income is appropriated in aid but doing so would require it to be accounted for gross, thereby making compliance with the Statement of Standard Accounting Practice 5, which requires netting-off of VAT, impossible. So that is what SSAP5 does. It requires netting-off of VAT and we want to make sure that we comply with that.
Lord Higgins: That has a strangely distorting effect on the expenditure of certain departments, in particular as far as health departments are concerned, but I will read with care what the Minister said. It may be he would wish to add to it or perhaps write to me about it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I will do better than that, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I am not totally confident that I have covered the water-front.
Lord Higgins: I thank the Minister and I look forward to being reassured in correspondence.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Amendments and repeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13. line I, leave out from ("2") to second ("are") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 33 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 38, 39 and 41, which are all technical drafting amendments. I first speak to Amendments Nos. 33 and 35. Section 37 of the 1866 Act is utterly obsolete (it says here). It has been included in the list of repeals (Schedule 2) since the first draft of the Bill. However, uniquely among the provisions repealed by the Bill, its repeal has not been formally set out elsewhere in the Bill. Instead, reliance has been placed on a phrase in Clause 27 that the repeals include "enactments that are no longer of practical utility".
We have decided that, for the sake of consistency, Section 37 of the 1866 Act should be repealed explicitly and this is done by Amendment No. 35. This means that the phrase in Clause 37 about "enactments that are no longer of practical utility" becomes redundant as no repeals in the Bill are now dependent on it and so it can be deleted. This is done by Amendment No. 33. That is very sad—I like enactments that are no longer of practical utility.
Amendment No. 36 refines the interaction between the general audit provisions of the Bill and the audit of NAO's own accounts. The current wording of the Bill applies Clause 6 in its entirety to the audit of NAO's own accounts. That is inappropriate because the other parts of Clause 6 are not relevant to NAO's situation. The amendment, therefore, limits the application to Clause 6(1) together with Clause 23(2). NAO is content with that change.
Amendment No. 38 corrects a reference to another clause in the Bill.
Amendment No. 39 amends the Tax Credits Act 1999 to bring it into line with the Bill. The reference to "account" rather than "accounts" occurs because the Bill removes references to Bank of Ireland accounts.
Amendment No. 41 expands a change to the Food Standards Act 1999 to include a reference to the paragraph heading as well as the text of the Act, bringing it into line with another similar reference. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: We shall need to study very carefully the large number of amendments on specific issues, and particularly the Tax Credit Act.
CWH 52
I share the Minister's sadness that the part of Clause 27(2), which includes enactments that are no longer of practical utility, should be deleted, even though he made specific provision for the particular enactment, which he thought was no longer of any practical utility. I have only one question for him: is he 100 per cent sure that there are no other enactments which are no longer of practical utility?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think I shall leave that to the Law Commission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Commencement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13. line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Before specifying a body in an order under subsection (3) the Treasury shall, where they think it appropriate, consult the National Assembly for Wales.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 15, line 33, at end insert—
(" . Section 37 (unstamped vouchers) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 17. line 3, leave out ("section 6") and insert ("sections 6(1) and 23(2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 11, at end insert—
("The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c. 46)
17A. In paragraph 11(1) of Schedule IA to the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (Welsh Commissioner: accounts) for "no later than five months after the end of that financial year" there shall be substituted "no later than 30th November of the following financial year".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("(6)") and insert ("(7)").
Page 17. line 18. at end insert—
("Tax Credits Act 1999 (c. 10)
.In section 5(2) of the Tax Credits Act 1999 (deductions before payment under section 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1866) for "accounts" there shall be substituted "account".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 17. line 18, at end insert—
("The Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38)
18A. The Government of Wales Act shall be amended as follows.
1811. In section 96 (Auditor General for Wales: miscellaneous) after subsection (7) insert—
"(8) If the Treasury designate the Assembly in respect of a financial year for the purposes of section 10 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (whole of government accounts), the Auditor General for Wales shall carry out the audit required by section 10(2)(c) of that Act.
(9) Where the Treasury make arrangements with the Assembly under section 10(8) of that Act, the Auditor General for Wales shall carry out the audit required by section 10(8)(c)."
18C. In the following provisions (which require the submission of accounts to the Auditor General for Wales) for "no later than five months after the end of that financial year" substitute "no later than 30th November of the following financial year"—

(a) section 97(4) (Assembly),

(b) paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 6 (Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales),

(c) paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 7 (Forestry Commissioners), and

(d) paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 9 (Welsh Administration Ombudsman).

18D. After section 101 (examinations by Comptroller and Auditor General) insert—
"Whole of Government of Wales accounts.
101A. — (1) This section applies in respect of a financial year for which the Treasury make arrangements with the Assembly under section 10(8) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (whole of government accounts: consolidation of Welsh accounts).
(2) The Assembly shall prepare a set of accounts for the group of bodies which provide information to the Assembly in accordance with the arrangements under section 10(8).
(3) Accounts prepared under this section may include information referring wholly or partly to activities which—

(a) are not activities of bodies falling within subsection (2), but

(b) appear to the Assembly to be activities of a public nature.

(4) 'The accounts shall contain such information in such form as the Treasury may direct.
(5) The Treasury shall exercise the power under subsection (4) with a view to ensuring that the accounts—

(a) present a true and fair view, and

(b) conform to generally accepted accounting practice subject to such adaptations as are necessary in the context.

CWH 54
(6) The Assembly shall send accounts under this section to the Auditor General for Wales.
(7) The Auditor General for Wales shall examine accounts sent to him under this section with a view to satisfying himself that they present a true and fair view.
(8) Where the Auditor General for Wales has conducted an examination of accounts he shall—

(a) certify them and issue a report. and

(b) send the certified accounts and the report to the Assembly.

(9) A person who acts as auditor for the purpose of section 10(2)(c) or (8)(c) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 shall give to the Auditor General for Wales such information and explanations as he may reasonably require for the purposes of this section.
(10) The Assembly shall by order specify dates by which the duties under subsections (6) and (8)(b) shall be performed.
(11) Before making an order under subsection (10) the Assembly shall consult the Auditor General for Wales.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 17, line 22, at end insert ("(and in the heading to the paragraph)").
Page 17, line 30, at end insert—
("Wales: alteration of timetables for accounts.
. — (1) The Treasury may by order substitute a new date for a date for the time being specified in any of the elrovisions mentioned in paragraphs 17A and 18C.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) —

(a) may specify a new date for all purposes or for specified purposes only,

(b) may specify different dates for different purposes, and

(c) shall be made by statutory instrument.

(3) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (1) the Treasury shall consult—

(a) the National Assembly for Wales, and

(b) the Auditor General for Wales.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past seven o'clock.

  Agricultural Buildings and Council Tax
  Agricultural Buildings and Council Tax
  Council of the European Union: Rules of Procedure
  Council of the European Union: Rules of Procedure
  Goods Vehicles: Penaltiies
  Goods Vehicles: Penaltiies
  Goods Vehicles: Notifications to Health and Safety Executive
  Goods Vehicles: Notifications to Health and Safety Executive
  Midwives: Use of Green Warning Beacon
  Midwives: Use of Green Warning Beacon
  European Structural Funds: Private Sector Involvement
  European Structural Funds: Private Sector Involvement
  Wind Power: Research
  Wind Power: Research
  Northern Ireland: Transport Spending
  Northern Ireland: Transport Spending
  Prostitutes' Cards in Phone Boxes
  Prostitutes' Cards in Phone Boxes
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
  HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
  Remembrance Sunday: Cenotaph Ceremony
  Remembrance Sunday: Cenotaph Ceremony
  Gaza EU Hospital
  Gaza EU Hospital
  Human Rights Policy
  Human Rights Policy
  Sierra Leone: Child Soldiers
  Sierra Leone: Child Soldiers
  Council of Europe Ministerial Meetings: UK Representation
  Council of Europe Ministerial Meetings: UK Representation
  Joint Entry Clearance Unit
  Joint Entry Clearance Unit