asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we have no plans to increase the retirement age of ambassadors. Whatever their age, our ambassadors and high commissioners defend British interests abroad with tenacity and dedication. But all organisations benefit from being regularly refreshed with new talent at senior levels. We shall continue to ensure that younger, talented staff can rise, while profiting as much as possible from more experienced diplomats.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that driving senior diplomats out of their jobs at the zenith of their influence and talents may contribute to the well-being of others but does nothing to contribute to the well-being of this country? It is a waste. When my noble friend looks around the Chamber, does she agree that, if a similar rule were to be introduced here, this House would lose many, if not most, of its outstanding talents—including my own? Happily, however, we would of course retain the talents of my noble friend! In those circumstances, please could she look again at what is an archaic and awful rule?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that many people are willing and able to exercise their talents beyond the age of 60. Your Lordships' House is a prime example. Where there is an operational requirement, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is able to re-engage experienced staff after they have retired. A good example of that is Sir David Hannay, who, since his retirement, has acted as the Foreign Secretary's Special Representative for Cyprus. Furthermore, wider benefits are gained for the UK when, on their retirement, senior diplomats take up appointments in the private and voluntary sectors. I hope your Lordships will have noted that at least eight noble Lords are former members of the Diplomatic Service. I am sure that my noble friend would not seek to deprive us of such illustrious company.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if the retirement age were to be extended to 65, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, appears to seek, that would represent a considerable setback to attempts which have been made over many years in the Diplomatic Service—even as long ago as when I was head of the service—to "refresh" the service, as the Minister put it? Efforts have been made to bring on younger members by giving them embassies at a younger age. Does the Minister agree that an extension of the retirement age for ambassadors would, I presume, apply to other senior members of the service at home? That would appear to conflict with the Prime Minister's reported wish to see younger Permanent Secretaries in the public service? Finally, is the Minister aware that many European and other diplomatic services which currently retire their senior diplomats at the age of 65 find that their public servants are often regarded as too old and exhausted to be able to contribute effectively to their public or private sectors after retirement? Is it not better to retain the age of retirement at 60 years, but also to retain a measure of flexibility to allow for occasional extensions, as has happened as regards extension and re-appointment three times over the past 20 years in Washington?

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This is a difficult balancing exercise. While one wishes to give every opportunity to the young and vigorous talent that we have in abundance, one also wishes to take advantage of the sagacity that comes, regrettably, only with age. Happily, there are ample opportunities to do both. We are taking a balanced approach here. I understand the importance of what my noble friend has said, but at the moment we appear to have the best of both worlds. We are able to utilise the mature talents of our senior ambassadors while at the same time younger members are being given opportunities to succeed and to shine.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should bear in mind that, if we were to keep people on until the age of 65, those who are between, say, 35 and 45 years old would feel that such a log jam had developed that they would never be given the opportunity to reach the top ranks? We would then run the risk of losing that younger talent; those members of staff would choose to go elsewhere. Can the Minister assure the House that she will stick by the proposition outlined in her original Answer?

My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Baroness's comments, with which I respectfully agree. However, we are looking at how best to take advantage of the talents of those who leave the service; and in particular at how to engage them in a creative way so that they can still serve their country. Furthermore, in the years to come I am confident that your Lordships' House will continue to be peppered by Members who have served as diplomats.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some "oldies" like myself regard the age of 60 as merely the beginning of life? Men and women of that age are youngsters, only neophytes. Does the Minister agree that we should look forward to their development—especially since they have hardly begun to exist?

My Lords, with respect, I certainly agree with the noble Earl's point of view. I can tell him that we have the ability to gain and benefit from the richness of experience such young people have acquired. We hope that they will continue to contribute from the age of 60 to 99 or even 100 years old. We look forward with keen anticipation to the benefits that they will bring to this country.

My Lords, I hold no strong feelings on this issue except that of an affection for the age of 65 that is growing day by day. But does the noble Baroness agree that this might be the right occasion to note once again the extraordinary courage of our ambassadors and their staff as they exercise their duties around the world? Perhaps we should also express again our sorrow, horror and anger at the murder of Brigadier Stephen Saunders in Athens a fortnight ago. He is to be buried tomorrow in Salisbury. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing sympathy to his wife and two daughters. Can the noble Baroness reassure the House—I know that she can and that she will—that security will always remain a matter of top priority as regards the lives and work of our diplomats serving abroad?

My Lords, I am happy to endorse everything that the noble Lord says in regard to the quality and dedication of our staff, who give us wholeheartedly of their very best. I share his horror at the disgraceful way in which the Saunders family have been treated and at the horrific death that took place. We cannot condemn it more strongly. I endorse the noble Lord's remarks with every energy available to me.

My Lords, do not the Government consider this policy to be in conflict with their measures to encourage older workers to stay in the labour market, including the code of practice that they introduced recently? Does it not send a different message when our representatives abroad have to leave their post before the age of 65? Perhaps genuine flexible retirement would be a better way forward.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are considering the recommendations in the report, Winning the Generation Game. There may be scope for introducing more flexibility around retirement age for some grades in due course. We shall consider carefully the possible structural effects of extending flexibility to staff in the senior management service. There is no contradiction as is suggested by the noble Baroness. The report, Winning the Generation Game, mainly addresses the waste that arises when people aged 50-plus want to remain active but cannot find the opportunities to do so. By contrast, many senior staff in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office find no difficulty in taking up new appointments after retirement. As I said, the balance has been struck. Once our civil servants leave, they find that many are willing to take them up, and that the opportunities are good, because their skill and talent are second to none.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the former Aldington prison buildings had come to the end of their useful life. The redevelopment of Aldington as an immigration detention centre providing 300 places is an excellent opportunity to make effective use of Crown land in a good location in proximity to major ports in the South East and to motorway systems. The development will allow the return to Prison Service use of the 198 beds currently occupied by detainees at Rochester prison.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I declare an interest as I live in the village. Does it make sense to impose on a village with a population of less than 1,000 a total of some 550 people in what has been a prison? What kind of traffic problems will arise? What harm is there in using the ample barrack space that exists in the county?

My Lords, we may well have recourse to barrack space at some stage. At this point, we seek to use the buildings of a former, and long-established, prison camp; I believe it started out as a prisoner of war camp. This is Crown land. The centre will provide just 300 new detention places, and we believe that the proposal represents extremely good value for money. I remind the noble Lord that exactly this policy of using detention centres was adopted by his own party. Were we to adopt it to the extent that noble Lords opposite wish, we should be building some 50 detention centres each with 500 beds, at considerable cost to the public purse—estimated to be between £1 billion and £2 billion. This detention centre will greatly aid our exercise in the south-east of England. It will take pressure off Rochester prison and ensure that those detained are located close to places of departure such as local ports and airports.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Aldington is used only for short-stay detention and that, after decisions are made, if an applicant wishes to exercise his right of appeal he is transferred to a different detention centre? What is the average length of stay at Aldington, and what are the statistics so far regarding the number of people on whom decisions have been made and who are granted leave to remain or whose application is rejected? How many are transferred to other detention centres?

My Lords, Aldington is not currently in use; it is at the planning stage. The site consists of ex-prison buildings. The Government have a planning application in place with Ashford Borough Council for 300 places. We are going through the planning process. We have been in discussion with Ashford Borough Council since the middle of last year in an attempt to bring the buildings into use. The intention is that Aldington would be used in the period leading up to the point when detainees are deported.

My Lords, did the Minister answer the question about overloading a very small village such as Aldington? Is it too late to consider using the former barracks at Walmer? They would serve the purpose just as well, and there would be no disturbance to a small, rather remote population?

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question of Aldington itself. A prison existed there until recently, so Aldington is accustomed to such buildings. The prison was used extensively to house criminals convicted of a range of offences of varying degrees of seriousness.

To go back to the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, we believe that there will be minimal traffic disturbance. Clearly, that is one of the issues to which Ashford Borough Council must give careful attention when it considers the application. However, the signs are that we have answered most, if not all, of the council's concerns.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many jobs will be created at Aldington if this scheme goes ahead? Can my noble friend also confirm that the detainees will not be given cars with which they can clog up the roads?

My Lords, I take it that my noble friend's second point is intended to be facetious. As to jobs, we estimate that between 150 and 200 will be created. However, I shall write to my noble friend and provide more precise details.

My Lords, is there not a big difference between a number of people who are confined in a prison located in a village and a number of people who are free to walk about and in effect represent a big invasion of the village?

My Lords, it is our intention that for the time that these people remain at Aldington they will be detained. I do not believe that in this instance there is a difference between their presence at Aldington and the confinement of prisoners there at an earlier stage.

My Lords, in view of the Minister's earlier remark about our policy, is he aware that its purpose is to speed up the process of dealing with applications so as to deter bogus asylum seekers? In view of the mess which the dispersal policy has created, of which this is just one example, can the Minister give his reaction to the recent highly critical report of the Audit Commission?

My Lords, I entirely understand the concerns and criticisms of the Audit Commission, but many of them have already been met. That report focused on the voluntary dispersal system, not the Government's new statutory approach. We are content that our arrangements are working effectively. If the noble Lord looks at the report he will see that this Administration is taking more decisions on asylum matters and deporting more people whose claims are unfounded, and that the new legislation is beginning to have effect. I believe that we have turned the tide of the problem in terms of taking decisions and ensuring that people who arrive in this country are here properly.

My Lords, will the 200 staff be recruited locally or imported from elsewhere?

My Lords, my surmise is that the staff will be a mixture of people who are locally recruited and those with previous experience of dealing with this difficult and sensitive area who have to be brought in from elsewhere.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Advanta estimates that between 125 and 150 farms in England may have been affected. The company, together with its distributors, has set up a registration system for affected farmers in order to establish their number and location. Compensation for farmers' losses is essentially a matter between the farmers affected and Advanta. However, we welcome the announcement by the company on 2nd June that it intends to provide fair and equitable compensation to those farmers.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that moderately satisfactory reply. What steps are the Government taking to see that there is no repetition of such an incident, particularly in view of the advice given to the Government by English Nature, which was reported in The Times on Friday, that a 1 per cent admixture of GM seed is totally unacceptable on both food safety and environmental grounds?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. To do something that is moderately satisfactory in this field is an achievement. When in May we announced the action to be taken by the Government, we recognised that an international and European framework to deal with seed purity, and therefore to put in place a system to monitor and regulate the kinds of events that arose in the case of Advanta, was lacking, and it was important to take action on that front. Essentially, we have done two things. First, at national level we have tried to work out a code of practice with the industry and to ensure that there are spot checks on imports which are directed at seeds from countries where there is GM production. Secondly, we have done work in Europe to ensure that tolerances for seed are set and there is an appropriate regulatory framework. I am glad to say that there has been progress at a technical level. These issues are on the agenda of today's meeting of the Agriculture Council.

My Lords, does my noble friend have any hope at all that one day the voice of reason will prevail in the area of GM and people who make claims about food safety, environmental danger and so on will have no scientific basis for their comments? Is he also aware that all over the world GM foods will be the means to solve major problems of famine and farming generally? Does my noble friend agree it is about time that those who favour a serious scientific approach to this matter stand up and speak out, including Her Majesty's Government?

My Lords, I agree that we need a rational and science-based approach in this area. It is important to keep in mind that throughout this incident there was clear advice that there was no risk to health or the environment from the incident itself. Equally, there are widespread concerns. GM technology has the potential for both good and bad applications. People need to know that there is an appropriate regulatory framework. However, as my noble friend points out, that framework must be appropriate to a situation in which there is widespread cultivation of GM crops throughout the world.

My Lords, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that the escape of pollen from these GM crops can be contained or that now it has been released it will contaminate what may be called feral rapeseed oil plants that grow along the sides of our roads and motorways?

My Lords, the advice of the statutory advisers is that the pollen from this crop is not a potential cross-pollinator with other wild oilseed—whether or not the noble Lord agrees, I state the advice that we have received—because these particular plants are male sterile. One issue which we believe must be dealt with is the potential for volunteers that are left after cultivation. I am informed that there is a potential for one in four of the 1 per cent of the crop that is GM being fertile. In that case we must have an appropriate policy to deal with the volunteers, and that is what we are working out.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether in her view Advanta has contravened EU Directive 90/220? If so, will the Government institute criminal proceedings against the company?

My Lords, I said on the day of the announcement that initially the legal advice was that no offence had been committed. We must take our responsibility as regulators very seriously and ensure that offences are not committed or, if they are, that appropriate action is taken. I do not believe that the House would expect me to give details of the advice received in relation to the appropriateness or otherwise of prosecution.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House that I have an interest in that I am a serving TA officer but no one in my unit is adversely affected.

The Question was as follows:

Whether Her Majesty's Government will review their decision to replace the Territorial Army's non-Regular permanent staff financial systems administrators with Band D civil servants by means of compulsory redundancy.

My Lords, this decision has already been reviewed by my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The decision stands.

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Can the Minister tell the House the payback period for these changes? Would it not have been fairer and more economic to replace the NRPS by natural wastage rather than compulsory redundancy?

My Lords, the payback period is extremely difficult to calculate because the redundancy costs involved vary according to the length of service, grade and pay of the individuals which must be compared with their replacements, and the relationship between the two may vary at any one time. As of today, using the guidance issued by the Treasury, which states that redundancy costs are regarded as transfer payments and are therefore not included in the economic appraisals, the payback period is some five years. I stress to the noble Earl—I do not want to mislead him—that that does not cancel the redundancy costs.

The noble Earl also asked whether it would be better to accomplish this through natural wastage. The answer is no; it would take much longer. The payback period would be a great deal longer; and it does not fulfil the criterion of wanting to move every five years or so staff who undertake such financial jobs. That is good practice and a prudent measure. It casts absolutely no aspersions whatsoever on the officers who have been performing those tasks hereunto.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question on the Order Paper is totally incomprehensible, and that, with great respect to the Minister, the Answer was almost as incomprehensible? Is the noble Baroness aware that the remainder of us who do not know what is involved here have the clear impression that there is a problem. Can she tell us what it is?

My Lords, I understood the noble Earl's Question; and when a noble Lord asks for a review and the Minister states that it has already been reviewed and the decision stands, I say gently to my noble friend that I think that that is a clear Answer. I am sure it is not the one the noble Earl wanted. None the less, it is the Answer.

There is a problem because the noble Earl and others believe that these officers are being unfairly moved because they are being moved from a task which they are undertaking at present and replaced by civilian staff. That is the kernel of the issue. I am in the peculiar position of justifying the noble Earl's Question. However, I believe that that is the purport underlying the Question. I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government do not agree with the noble Earl.

My Lords, although I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does not the change mean that the TA will be deprived of serving soldiers when it is already very short of serving soldiers?

My Lords, these officers were recruited specifically as financial services administrators. Some are now transferring to posts where their military expertise can be better used. It is believed that their current jobs can be undertaken equally well by civilians. Eleven have so far become redundant. Six of those have moved into other jobs where their military expertise can be better used. One has gained a commission.

My Lords, I never cease to be amazed at the way the Treasury appears to invent rules as it goes along. Is it correct, as the Minister indicated, that in working out the cost of the operation it will not take into account the redundancy costs which any other organisation would do automatically?

My Lord, the Treasury does not do so "as it goes along". I believe that it is a well-established Treasury rule that these are regarded as transfer payments and therefore not counted in the overall economic case. The noble Lord may find that curious and he is not alone, but those are the Treasury's rules.

My Lords, I sought to understand the Question and the Answer. Does the Foreign Office always accept the Treasury rules?

My Lords, the noble Lord needs to catch up a little. My noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal speaks for the Foreign Office. I speak for the MoD. I speak for both of us when I say that we all follow the Treasury rules.

My Lords, is there any objective of the exercise other than to save money?

My Lords, we should not underestimate the importance of having the most cost-effective solutions to the ways in which we man the essential services in the MoD. I would not discount the cost-effective answer.

One of the main aims of restructuring the TA was to ensure that military expertise is focused where it is most useful. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred to the importance of maintaining military expertise where it is needed. That is part of the rationale of what is being undertaken here. I stress to the noble Lord that not all officers are being moved. Some are choosing to take redundancy, or are being put in a position where they have no choice. It would not be fair to say that they are all being moved.

My Lords, in many instances the Minister has the approval of these Benches when she faces up to the Treasury. When the Treasury speaks on an issue relating to the MoD on which these Benches and the Benches opposite are in agreement, does the noble Baroness face up to the Treasury? Perhaps I may express the hope that she sometimes wins.

My Lords, when government departments sometimes have their little victories, it is sad that that is not as clear as it might be. I thank the noble Lord for saying that on occasions I excite the approval of the Benches opposite. I am bound to say that that is not always apparent to me.

These are not rules especially introduced for the Ministry of Defence; they are rules which run across the whole of the government service. I agree with the noble Lord that they seem curious. However, those are the rules by which we operate.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Bassam will, with the leave of the House, repeat two Statements which are being made in another place, on deaths at Dover and Euro 2000.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 48A:

Page 14, line 2, leave out ("it appears to him") and insert ("are").

I believe that Amendment No. 48A would be more powerful than my noble friend suggests. Removing the words "it appears to him" and substituting the objective test places any court before which such an issue appears in a stronger position. Instead of the Home Secretary and his representatives having only to suggest that "it appears" to the Secretary of State, they would have to justify the case objectively. That puts more muscle behind the provision, and desirably so. As we shall no doubt discuss in a few minutes, the potential burden being placed on industry is extremely heavy.

Amendments Nos. 48B and 49A appear eminently reasonable—and that is the word they seek to insert. While my noble friend moved them in a modest way, they are important in reassuring those in the industry and others outside about what is happening as regards the legislation.

Amendment No. 50A stands in the names of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I do not want to pre-empt what they may say, but I believe that its object is to bring the interception of communications commissioner into the decision-making process. It is a way of ensuring that the commissioner can do this part of his job, and it is important that he should. If the Secretary of State alone, on the basis of what appears to him to be best, makes the arrangements, the commissioner may have difficulty fulfilling his responsibilities. None of us wants that.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, elegantly expressed the purpose of our amendment. We are not sure what the complete powers of the commissioner should be, but it is our plea that he should be given the technology and equipment to do his job properly.

At the start of our proceedings, perhaps I may take note of two press comments which might provide encouragement for the long hours ahead. I am afraid that we have not impressed Mr John Norton of the Observer, who believes that our work is sometime a cross between Gilbert and Sullivan and Kafka. All I can say to Mr Norton is that he is not alone in that belief. However, encouragement is to be found is Saturday's Guardian. According to an NOP poll, computer geeks are now considered the coolest kids in the class. Therefore, as we set off on another marathon sitting, I hope that some of that aura of computer geeks will rub off on some of us involved in the Bill.

Famously, I am not yet a computer geek. However, I am trying and practising and my son is giving me good advice.

Amendments Nos. 48A, 48B and 49A have the effect of introducing reasonability requirements as additional factors or replacements to existing terminology in subsections (1), (2) and (3). Clause 12(1), as drafted, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that any obligations placed on communications service providers (CSPs) to maintain an intercept capability are reasonable. In our view, the three amendments do not take the requirement any further.

The Government have no interest in imposing unreasonable requirements on CSPs. Initially, it is properly for the Secretary of State, after the consultation process, to come to a decision on what is a reasonable intercept capability.

Looking at the amendments, we take the view that there is not much between us. The Bill provides that the reasonableness is a matter for the Secretary of State's judgment. The amendment appears to try to make that into a form of objective test. But the concept of reasonableness implies a matter of judgment. Because it is the Secretary of State who must make the order and give the notices, it is inevitable and proper that he must decide what is reasonable in a particular set of circumstances. I suspect that that would be the case even under the noble Earl's amendment. As I said, I do not believe that there is a great deal between us. Of course, the "reasonable" requirement in Clause 12(1) is judicially reviewable and therefore the Secretary of State's judgment can be challenged as to whether it is reasonable in the circumstances.

Amendment No. 50A. aims to respond to concerns that some people have expressed relating to the practical difficulty for the interception commissioner in carrying out his duties in the face of what we would all agree are considerable technical complexities relating to interception systems. The commissioner's role in that regard is clearly important and any difficulties he encountered in checking the use made of the system would be of tremendous concern to us all.

It would therefore seem sensible to include in the Bill provision for notices to specify or describe a requirement along the lines of the amendment. I trust that noble Lords will be patient with us while we consider how best to word it. We take the point made in the amendment and I can give an assurance and a commitment today that we shall give the issue careful consideration and return to it at Report stage.

I hope that in view of my comments and the commitment I have given, the noble Earl will consider withdrawing the amendment so that we can better consider Amendment No. 50A in particular.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Cope. At the back of my mind was the thought that the courts, and thereby the general public and e-commerce, should have more clout in this area. The Government have consistently said that the Bill is about striking the right balance between the needs of law enforcement and the rights of the citizen. To my mind, the amendments are a modest attempt in that direction.

I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, but I am not wholly convinced by the Minister's response to my amendments. If, as he says, there is little between us, that implies some empathy with my purpose. I have no wish to bring the matter back at a later stage and therefore would like to seek the opinion of the Committee.

I believe that that is most unreasonable. As the noble Earl will be aware, we are seriously disturbed about a number of aspects of the Bill. However, the noble Lord indicated that the Government are prepared to consider the issue between now and Report. I do not believe that at this stage it is sensible to seek to divide the Committee on such a matter.

My reason for wanting to divide the Committee is that, although the Minister was very charitable with the Liberal Democrat Front Bench amendment, I felt that he was less than charitable with my own. I have no wish to pursue this matter at a later stage in our proceedings and, therefore, I still wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.

moved Amendment No. 49:

Page 14, line 13. after ("State") insert ("and the Technical Approvals Board").

As Amendment No. 53 is also being spoken to, I should point out to the Committee that there is a mistake in that amendment as printed. In line 3, "subsection (1)" should read "subsection (7)".

Just in case those on the Conservative Benches have another rush of blood to the head, if a Division is called, we shall support the Government. But before those on the Government Benches become too ecstatic, I should say also that if the Government's reply to this debate is not suitably constructive, we shall consider pressing this matter very firmly indeed on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, has put his finger on the central dilemma that we have in dealing with this Bill. As I believe I said on Second Reading, it is quite clearly a pantomime horse of a Bill. It is a regulatory Bill dealing with old post and telecommunications legislation and it is a regulatory Bill to deal with the new world of e-commerce. The e-commerce part of the Bill is extremely difficult for Parliament to deal with.

Mr John Norton thinks that we are "boobies" dealing with this matter. Again, at the beginning of our proceedings, I said that it might have been better had we resolved into a Standing Committee which could take evidence from the experts. It is very clear that many of the matters which we are discussing and the powers for which the Government are asking need "future-proofing" so that we do not pass legislation which is almost immediately out of date because of changes in technology.

I must say, too, that I am rather worried about the Home Office assuming regulatory powers over business in that way. Again, one's suspicion is that it was too hot for the DTI to handle and the good old Home Office, fulfilling its Lord Mayor's Show role, comes along to sweep up this matter.

Certainly, the Home Secretary has become extremely tetchy with business. Not only has he fired off letters to the Financial Times, but there have been extensive and detailed briefings about how much industry is over-egging the pudding and exaggerating the costs and burdens. If the Home Secretary has friends in the e-commerce industry who are genuinely expert on the implications of the Bill and who agree with him that the costs and burdens are reasonable, those friends had better speak up fairly quickly because the array of informed business opinion against the Home Secretary is considerable. This House should seriously take account of that.

Also, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and Ministers in the other place have promised that they are in listening mode. Again, my advice to them, before we reach Report, is to get alongside the industry—those in the industry have a number of reputable umbrella bodies to which they can talk—and to get the industry to say what are reasonable burdens, because then the criticisms of these Benches in relation to cost will melt away.

However, I do not think it is enough for the noble Lord, Lord Bach, simply to look irritated from a sedentary position when every informed source in e-commerce says that the burdens are too much and that they will have long-term damaging effects on our hope of becoming a world centre for e-commerce. That is a serious charge which the Government must treat seriously and answer if they are not to find that this House lacks confidence in this legislation.

The suggestion of a technical approvals board has considerable merit. For the same reasons, I am extremely worried about the Home Office taking on judgments without proper and expert help, not least because, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, we are trying to deal with a rapidly changing, highly technical industry. The technical approvals board is a reasonable and practicable suggestion for "future proofing" the legislation.

Today, we on these Benches are in listening mode. However, we hope that the Ministers and the Home Office take seriously our belief that in this matter there is a case to answer.

I support the amendments moved and spoken to by my noble friend Lord Cope. There seems to be little difference of view among all parties who have contributed to this and previous debates in this Chamber and, indeed, among independent commentators and figures from industry about support for the objectives of the Bill.

We all want to prevent crime on the Internet and ensure that the Government have at their disposal the maximum tools reasonable to combat the sort of hideous crimes that we have seen and heard about taking place on the Internet. I do not believe it is possible to do that efficiently without the support of the industry. However, it is clear that high levels of concern are being voiced from all quarters within the industry.

Industry knows more about e-commerce than do the Government, and will continue to do so. As has been stated, the technology is moving extremely fast; faster than the time it will take for the Home Office to consider all the implications. I would also suggest that the competitive balance within this new industry is changing extremely rapidly. National borders present one of the interesting challenges faced by the Internet. Clearly, this is an international industry and an international solution needs to be found.

The amendments tabled by my noble friend do not claim to solve the problem. However, they go some way towards allowing industry a statutory position to contribute to the debate and to ensure that those who seek to regulate the industry do not take precipitate action, or at least advise against that. In the final analysis, the decisions will be with the Government.

I believe that industry genuinely wants to help. It does not want to be associated with a pariah sector known to be a haven for crime. Industry will be in the best position to ensure that government regulations can be made as effective as possible. Clearly, the Bill poses a very real threat to the competitiveness of the e-commerce industry of the United Kingdom. I support the objectives of the Bill. However, mechanisms must be found to ensure that the concerns of industry are minimised, its support garnered and the regulatory regime made as robust as possible. I strongly believe that the amendment will contribute to that.

I did not speak at Second Reading, so I beg indulgence to speak in Committee. This group of amendments is crucial to the whole nature of the Bill.

My main concern is about the civil libertarian aspects of a blanket licence to intercept. I have been following the debate in the newspapers. I should like positive assurance that just as telephone tapping is used carefully and only under strict conditions, interception powers will be so used. It is alarming that employers can get away with reading their employees' e-mail. We are living in a country in which everyone can be hacked into by everyone else. If the Government were also to enter into that game, in possession of enormous powers, I would worry about the civil liberty aspects of the Bill.

Whatever the fate of this group of amendments, I see that the technical approvals board will include industry representatives and security representatives but no citizens representatives. I refer to ordinary users such as myself—people who are not Internet service providers but who are worried that their communications will be exposed. That is the first point on which I should like to lay down a marker.

Secondly, there is the much more contentious problem of whether or not such provision will mean an enormous cost to e-business. I have not read the report published by my colleagues at the London School of Economics. However, I have read the newspaper summary and heard the reply given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am not satisfied with either. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally suggested, we need expert judgment on whether the LSE report is valid. If it is not valid, it is no good just saying, "It is flawed". That sort of Oxbridge talk will not do. We need to know where it is flawed, point by point. We need alternative estimates of cost, subject to examination by an impartial evaluator, perhaps from abroad, who can tell us whether we are correct. That is important.

I am not such a great admirer of self-regulation as I used to be. We have seen the many mistakes made in the financial sector. I do not believe that e-business should be self-regulatory in this respect. However, if costs are to be imposed for such regulation, which is important for crime prevention, they should be independently assessed.

Finally, I refer to technical progress. I believe that things will change rapidly. In one sense, that cheers me up immensely. It means that if governments are behind the times, any legislation will soon be obsolete and I will have more civil liberties protected. However, unless we build in a provision to take care of technical progress, we will be back here in two years' time with another Bill of this kind. I hope we can prevent that.

Many years ago, when the Data Protection Bill passed through this Chamber, it was handled by the Home Office. At that time it became apparent that the Home Office did not know how computers were being used or that they could talk to each other internationally. I wonder whether the Home Office today know as much about computers, their use and what they can do, as the professionals mentioned in Amendment No. 54. I refer to those who are technically-up-to-date and aware of new initiatives which are likely to come onstream in the near future. That is not the task of the Home Office. It is not a commercial organisation. If the Government do not like Amendment No. 54, I strongly advise them to table a similar amendment at a later stage.

Civil liberties have also been mentioned. I am concerned about medical confidentiality. I should declare an interest. I run a trust which sets up international tele-medical links using e-mail to help people who need expert medical advice in far-flung corners of the world. Knowing that their medical details can be intercepted, seen and examined will not please a number of those individuals.

I support the amendments of my noble friends. Few of us involved in the legislative process have time to keep pace with our mailbags, let alone keep up to speed with technological change. It has to be said that many of us, from senior members of the Cabinet down, are honest enough to confess that, although we are full of admiration for new technology, we do not really understand it, and are content to leave it to our children to, as it were, programme the video recorder. Under no circumstances should we underestimate the problems and difficulties that this poses.

Last week's report from the British Chambers of Commerce states:

"The Government has substantially underestimated the cost of compliance by ISPs. The most realistic estimate is in the order of £640 million over the next five years".

As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has pointed out, the gulf between that opinion and the Government's is huge. The important point is that if business and the ordinary citizen, even governments, are to have faith in e-solutions, the associated burdens, particularly in terms of costs and security, have to be seen to be both accurate and proportionate. To my mind, this gets to the heart of why a technical approvals board is so necessary. In every sense it would ensure the proportionality and functionally of e-solutions from an independent position of technical expertise. That has to make sense.

Having said that, I should now like to speak to my amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 51A and 53A. With regard to Amendment No. 53A, in the event that the Government accept the wisdom of my noble friends' suggestion of a technical approvals board. it strikes me that their thoughts as to the practicality of obligations imposed by Clause 12 should, as a matter of course, inform the process; hence the amendment.

Regarding Amendment No. 51A, Clause 12(6)(c) refers to,

"such persons with statutory functions in relation to persons falling within that paragraph".

I assume that this refers to Clause 12(6)(a). Perhaps the Minister could confirm that assumption. It is not immediately apparent from that text whether that is the case. I simply ask whether the clarity of the drafting would be improved by having the paragraph referred to expressly specified rather than asking the reader to rely on his intuition. I hasten to add that I have no problem at all with the sense conveyed by paragraph (c); of course, the category of persons defined are appropriate consultees for the purpose.

This leads me to the phrase "as he considers appropriate" in line 31. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I have a more deep-seated objection here. It strikes me that this form of words sits uneasily with the intention expressed by,

"the Secretary of State shall consult".

As I read subsection (6), it imposes an obligation to consult. That is explicit in the use of "shall" rather than "may". All good and well. But the phrase "as he considers appropriate" could be taken to represent an unnecessary and unwelcome dilution of that obligation. Perhaps the Minister could offer some explanation for that.

I, too, support my noble friends' amendments. Clauses 12 and 13, its companion, are one of the very few parts of the Bill where the Home Secretary's decisions and activities are subject to no form of provision whatsoever. That is entirely unjustified, because this is one part of the Bill where the Home Secretary clearly needs a good deal of supervision. There has been a considerable display by the Government, and the Home Office in particular, of a lack of understanding of how telecommunications, and indeed computer systems, work. Working from my own personal beef that the Government in three years of asking are unable to answer my Written Questions by e-mail, and looking at today's news that they have managed to lose 150,000 criminal records because they have not kept electronic back-ups, to looking at the Bill and the lack of understanding that it displays in so many places of the way that a modern communication system works, it is quite clear that in this aspect the Home Office needs supervision.

Business is quite right to worry when it is faced with costs of a magnitude that it can imagine when it is looking at a Home Office that does not understand what it is doing, a Bill which does not specify what should be done and which leaves the Home Secretary unadvised and unsupervised, and when business knows the complexity and rate of change of the systems that it is having to supervise. There is no longer any concept of location when it comes to messages. Once a message has left the local loop, it can be anywhere, even if you know it is going to end up in an ISP. An ISP does not have a route through that you can tap into; it has thousands of routes through, any of which can be used. There are no single points that you can tap into in any useful sense of the word. Point-to-point encryption may be employed anyway, and is only a year or two away generally. So even the addresses in the message may be encrypted and you cannot read them. The co-operation of the industry to make anything like this work is essential. The industry is faced with an immense and unguessable burden; and to avoid it all it has to do is to move its operations elsewhere.

I run a small e-commerce business. I happen to use an ISP in the UK. I could equally well use an ISP in Holland or Finland as long as it provided a large enough communications pipe into the UK. If the UK is going to provide burdens and an extraordinary lack of security compared with other countries in the world—we shall come to this later—I am hardly likely to want to do my business in the UK. Certainly, multinational companies, which are known occasionally to sin, will not want the Government to know everything that they are doing, and will have a strong incentive not to place their core business with UK ISPs. This is an area where the industry has every right to ask for, and to expect, reassurance in the operation of the Bill, to know that the decisions that are being taken are being taken in co-operation with industry, and are being taken reasonably. Customers should also know what is being done to make sure that communications for which there is no warrant are safe, and that they are not going to turn up on someone's desk just because when looked at they happened to contain some interesting information.

I merely want to add the thought that the technical approvals board that is referred to in a number of these amendments, and which seems to us to be a good addition to the collection of protections under the Bill, might have on it a member of the civil liberties community, as well as, obviously, a plain majority of those with technical expertise. With technical matters in this field, I think that a civil libertarian component is apt. I put that thought to the Minister and the Committee for consideration.

I have listened with great care to all that has been said in this important debate. The contributions made have been most helpful. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was right to remind the Government that we need to continue to listen to, and to consult carefully, all the representative bodies that exist in the great "out there" on this particular subject. I refer to all the business and commercial interests. Other Members of the Committee reflected that point in their contributions. I think that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who made the point that business enterprise actually understands, and is likely to understand, much more about these issues than government. That is very wise and sound advice. We have been listening very carefully, and even since our deliberations last week on the Bill, we have had further representations and have listened to more of the lobby who have been pressing us on this Bill and on this particular set of issues.

I think I can fairly make the point that there has been a lot of press criticism and it is only right that the Government should respond to those criticisms. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that we were overreacting to the criticism. But I feel that, between us, we have been able to generate a debate in public about this Bill. I am pleased that that is the case. When we put our arguments up against some of the allegations being made, we find that those allegations are disproportionate in their content.

I understand the argument that sometimes one has to shout to be heard and I suspect that at this stage that is exactly what both sides are trying to do. But we have been able to focus down on the key issues and give further thought to them. For what it is worth, I believe that that has been most constructive.

I turn to the detail of the arguments. With regard to Amendment No. 49 and related Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 in relation to the technical approvals board, I entirely agree that any requirements placed upon industry by Part I of this Bill should be properly considered and reasonable. That is an extremely sensible first point. But the Bill already provides for that. Both through responses to the consultation exercise and in subsequent discussions, industry representatives have let us know that they favour continuing the close working relationships which they already have with the Government in this field, without the need for the involvement of any additional body.

Indeed, we are unaware which part of the industry is asking for a statutory body of the type described in the amendments. As yet no one has put that argument to us. Representatives of Internet service providers have made it clear that they would favour a non-statutory advisory group, much along the lines of the arrangements which we already have in place with telecommunications operators. They have been saying to us loud and clear that they want a set of voluntary arrangements of that sort. They have been neither asking for nor demanding a statutory technical advisory body.

I can say to the Committee that discussions are extremely well advanced on that topic with an existing group already identified as being potentially suitable. I am aware also that other groups have indicated their willingness to continue consultation on reasonable intercept capability—for instance, the Alliance for Electronic Business—and I welcome those offers. In response to the AEB's specific question on this topic, I can confirm that any order made under Clause 12 will only impose obligations based upon the best available options at reasonable cost. That formulation forms a significant part of our continued discussions.

In relation to Amendment No. 50, I cannot see how the introduction of a proportionality test would assist in judging the interception provision which a communication service provider may be required to set up. After all, the requirement will not be judged against any particular case. The purpose of the intercept capability is to ensure that the CSP is capable of intercepting communications when required. So the proportionality could be judged only against the general purposes for which interception may take place—for example, serious crime, national security and economic well-being—which would be the same in every case, effectively rendering the test meaningless. But there is the question of whether it is reasonable to expect a small ISP, for example, to set tip an intercept capability when there is minimal chance of the capability ever being used. That duty is already placed upon the Secretary of State at Clause 12(1).

I turn to Amendment No. 51. We believe it is entirely right and proper that users of communication services—the general public—should have the opportunity to offer their opinion on the use of interception and the circumstances in which it may be deployed as suggested in two of the amendments before us. They have been given that opportunity during the public consultation exercise which took place last summer, and will have the opportunity again when the Government consult extensively, as we have promised, on the code of practice.

But Clause 12 is not about the principle of interception; it is about the practice and technical aspects of that process. It is difficult to see what the general public will be able to add to that. That is why we have restricted the requirement upon the Secretary of State to consult with those who will be able to make a meaningful contribution to the draft order. That is not to say that the process will be conducted in secrecy; far from it. The draft order will be placed on the Home Office website for all to see. But it is important to draw this fundamental distinction between whether or not interception should take place and the practical arrangements which come after that decision is made. I believe that users of communication services have already made their views clear on the former and that it will be up to those who understand the technicalities of the latter to contribute to the order-making process.

I am surprised at the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, which seeks to remove subsection (6)(c) of Clause 12 from the Bill. We consider that we should consult with all appropriate parties. In that sense the wording is enabling rather than, as it were, a closing-down facility in the way in which the legislation is drafted. We therefore consider it to be entirely appropriate that an obligation should be placed upon the Secretary of State to consult with persons who have statutory functions in relation to communication service providers. We have in mind such bodies as Oftel and the Department of Trade and Industry. I should have thought that there would be reasonably common agreement on that point.

In his Amendment No. 53A, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, wishes to include reference to the technical approvals board in subsection (8), and the fact of whether or not a person is capable of providing a reasonable intercept capability. I have already discussed at some length why the Government do not see the necessity of a technical approvals board set up in the way envisaged by the Opposition. We cannot accept that amendment.

Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 require all the requirements for data not already in existence to be first approved by a technical approvals board. It is important to explain that the effect of the framework which this chapter of the Bill establishes is to formalise in law the arrangements which have been in place for many years and which have been developed through the ACPO Telecommunications Group, which is a joint law enforcement communication service provider body. There are already in place service level agreements, contact points, designs of forms and so forth. They include agreements between parties as to what data are capable of being provided and the levels of sensitivity attached to specific techniques. So there is no question of a law enforcement body suddenly requiring whole new types of data to be collected without consultation and agreement. That point is dealt with in the Bill at Clause 21(7). That should be a reassurance to industry and was included very much at industry's request.

We need to consider also the times when future data are likely to be required; that is, during ongoing, often urgent operations—for example, to find out where a kidnapper is calling from. That type of requirement would relate to the data which the communication service provider is capable of providing but has not yet collected. To introduce another level of technical oversight in those circumstances will not assist; in fact, it may well get in the way. We are mindful of the unnecessary burden of additional bureaucracy that it might create, the time it would take to process and all the other existing aspects it may have to overcome. In those circumstances, we feel that the amendment is not necessary.

The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked a number of questions, to which I now have the answer. First, he asked whether subsection (6)(c) meant subsection (6)(a). The answer to that is obviously yes. The noble Earl also asked whether the Secretary of State could get away with consulting no one under Clause 12(6). The answer is, only if he concludes that it is not appropriate to consult anyone, which could be a wholly perverse conclusion in the light of the duty imposed by this subsection. Therefore, in practice, the answer is no. The Secretary of State will not get away with consulting no one. In those circumstances, we would expect him to do so—

That was precisely my argument. What on earth is the point of having the words "as he considers appropriate" in the clause if they give him a "get-out" for something that he would never do?

As I said, the wording is an attempt to try to introduce some flexibility. It is not a closing-down manoeuvre or an attempt to be unhelpful.

I believe I dealt quite fully with the points raised during the debate, as well as some of the issues. We understand the arguments that have been made. But the question upon which the Committee needs to focus is whether the industry wants it. The answer that we have received consistently on that question is, no. However, the industry does want a low-cost but flexible advisory body that is not statutorily based. That has been made very clear to us throughout our discussions. We are happy to continue with those discussions. We shall be happy to formulate the operations of the technical discussions, but industry does not think that it is essential, right or necessary for us to have a statutory technical advisory body. In view of that fact, I invite noble Lords who have tabled these specific amendments not to press them this afternoon. Clearly we can continue in our discussions with industry on such issues, but the latter has made its view crystal clear to us.

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may assist both him and the Committee by asking the following question regarding his final point on discussions over an advisory committee. If the advisory committee comes into existence, can the noble Lord say whether those discussions will be confined to generalisations or whether they will extend to specific cases where the Secretary of State was contemplating making an order under Clause 12? If those discussions were to extend to particular cases—in many ways that would be the most helpful role that an advisory committee might lend to a Minister—I suggest that legal problems may well arise as regards having a non-statutory body in that role.

It would be unusual for that role to include discussions on specific cases. I think it would be possible for some more generalised discussion to take place on the application of the Secretary of State's powers. However, as regards specifics, I should be very wary of that because of the point made by the noble Lord. I should certainly want to take further advice.

The Minister mentioned Clause 21(7), so perhaps he can clarify a matter in that respect. Can he say whether that clause rules in or rules out an instruction by the Secretary of State that an ISP shall design its system so that it is convenient for tapping; in other words, so that it pushes its outflow, say, through one convenient tapping point? Alternatively, would that be prevented by this clause? What level of interference with the ordinary structure and operation of an ISP is ruled out by the clause?

As I said before, there are very few clauses in the Bill under which the Secretary of State's actions are not subject to any form of supervision. I have in mind in particular the point raised in the last two lines of Amendment No. 53. We are looking at an interception capability here that is essentially "unauditable". Once an interception capability is in place, there is no way that anyone can know what it has been used for unless some very strict controls are put in place. It seems to me important that the Secretary of State's activities in this area should be closely controlled. They are certainly as dangerous to public liberty as any of his other activities specified elsewhere in the Bill. I do not see why these two clauses have been left out of the ambit, say, of the interception and communications commissioner.

Perhaps I may deal, first, with the noble Lord's second point. I take note of what he said. I shall reflect upon why that is the case and find out the answer. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that that is not a question to which I can immediately respond. As regards the noble Lord's point on Clause 21(7), my understanding is that this provision rules out such interference. I trust that that will assist him. As I said, I shall certainly reflect on the noble Lord's second point.

The Minister started by saying that the Government had been listening. If that is the case, the way that the volume of criticism of the Bill generally, including this provision, has been growing strongly in recent weeks seems to me to be remarkable. I pointed out to noble Lords only recently that interest in this Bill a few weeks ago was mainly, though not entirely, confined to the e-community; that is to say, those who felt themselves directly affected. However, a striking part of the events of recent weeks has been the way that that concern has stretched way outside the e-community to encompass a much larger section of industry, commerce and finance.

The next important comment that the Minister made was that the Internet service providers to whom he has been talking had been asking for voluntary arrangements rather than statutory arrangements along the lines suggested by this series of amendments. I do not doubt that the noble Lord correctly represented the discussions that have taken place. It is obvious that service providers and their organisations would in the first instance be looking for voluntary arrangements for a voluntary advisory board. However, I do not believe that they would necessarily be satisfied with that as time went on.

We all know what can happen with voluntary advisory boards; indeed, there are vast numbers of them in government advising the Government on all sorts of matters and many of them have very little authority. They are rather like people standing outside the windows of the Home Office shouting at the building: sometimes the windows are open and what they say appears to go in but sometimes it simply bounces back. In a matter of such importance—we all agree that this is of high importance—I do not have much confidence that voluntary arrangements of this kind would be satisfactory in the long run, given the speed of developments that applies to this sector. Therefore, a statutory board of the character suggested is much more desirable.

Amendment No. 50 is the "proportionality" amendment, if I may so describe it. The Minister seems to think that it would be impossible for the Home Office requirements under the clause to lead to black boxes being fitted. He finds it impossible to believe that such requirements could possibly be out of proportion to what they are intended to achieve. That is obviously wrong. The requirements for black boxes are quite capable of putting British ISPs out of business entirely, or almost entirely, by comparison with their foreign competitors. That would certainly be out of proportion. I do not suggest that that is what would happen, but the row would be enormous and the Government would have to back off at that stage. Therefore, it would be much better for them to do so now. It worries me that the Minister should think that there is nothing that the Home Office could do that would be out of proportion to this need.

There has been some discussion throughout the debate about adding representatives of the public to the board—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I sympathise a little with the Government on that point. Clause 12 concerns technical aspects. The Home Office representatives on the board, and the Home Secretary in considering whatever the board says, will need to keep that in mind. I envisage the discussions being highly technical on methods to be used and what they would achieve. This is a technical clause, as the Minister said.

We on these Benches responded favourably to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Members of the public and members of civil liberties groups have considerable technical knowledge. There is another dimension of concern, as it were. The use of this technical knowledge by some in private industry is causing concern. I refer to spying on employees and so on. It might be reassuring therefore to have an element of lay membership, as it were, on the body as well as government and industry.

I accept that. Provided that such a process did not disturb the technical nature of the board's deliberations, I do not think that it detracts from the idea behind the amendments.

When I hear that experts and government will come together to look after my interests I become slightly suspicious. I should like to have one lay representative, as it were, looking after my interests, no matter how technical the subject matter. That is exactly how these situations arise. Someone says, "This matter is too technical for citizens. They should not be involved". However, I want one such representative.

As usual, the noble Lord is persuasive. We all react in the same way as regards experts controlling aspects of our lives. However, he also betrays his distrust of the Home Secretary who has the ultimate word on this matter.

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. This whole matter confuses me considerably, not least the position of the Liberal Democrats who say that they totally support the introduction of this board and that is why they will vote against it!

At a later stage we shall discuss much more important elements of this worrying Bill. On the one hand there are people interested in civil liberties such as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and, I should have thought, noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber. There is a real civil liberties problem inherent in the Bill. Then there is the business case which is concerned about business costs. There is also an intermediate case. The businesses with which I am associated are concerned not merely with costs but also with commercial confidentiality. That is another important dimension. Therefore there are these two quite separate camps with their own totally valid concerns. But there is a third concern that, as it were, bridges the two.

I agree with my noble friend on that point. If I am asked to give my credit card number over the Internet to purchase something, that still slightly worries me. I do it because it is convenient. However, in doing so, one places immense trust in apparatus which one has little knowledge of. There is a link between the concerns of the civil liberties groups on the one hand and those of bankers, traders and commercial people on the other.

I cannot say that I am pleased with the Minister's response as he poured much cold water over, and resisted, the amendments. I believe that they are worth further consideration. We shall certainly give them further consideration even if the Government do not wish to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move that the House be now resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission I wish to make a Statement about the discovery at Dover at 11 p.m. last night of 58 people found dead in a lorry which arrived from Zeebrugge. Of these, 54 were men and four were women. In addition, two men were found alive and have been taken to hospital.

"This was a most terrible human tragedy. The whole House will be appalled by this loss of life and our thoughts are with the relatives of those who died. The vehicle concerned was a refrigerated lorry which had been hermetically sealed and the 58 who perished must have died a most terrible death. I would at this point like to pay tribute to Customs officers, officers and civilian staff of the Kent police, and staff of the Immigration Service, for the great dedication and professionalism which they have shown throughout.

"This particular incident is now subject to a major criminal investigation by the Kent police. A man is being held in connection with the incident and will be interviewed. Indications are that these people are from the Far East, but the police are not at this stage able to determine the nationality of those who have died, nor of the two survivors.

"I hope that honourable Members will understand that while there is such an investigation into potential criminal offences I am unable to give the House further details.

"As the House knows, the Government and law enforcement agencies have long been concerned about the involvement of serious organised criminals who make huge illegal profits from the smuggling of illegal immigrants into this country. Let no one be in any doubt that this is a profoundly evil trade whose perpetrators have no regard for human life. We have been determined to crack down on this trade.

"Co-operation between the police, Customs, the Immigration Service and overseas agencies and carriers has been intensified. This particular vehicle was intercepted as a result of an operation by Customs.

"Further to deter trafficking, powers were taken in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to impose civil penalties on hauliers and drivers found with clandestine entrants in their vehicles. Drivers must be on the alert to discourage this dangerous activity. There is already evidence that it is working. A comparison of the two months before the imposition of the civil penalty with the two months after has shown a reduction of 26 per cent of clandestines at Dover. The criminal penalties for facilitation have been increased and new controls on unscrupulous immigration advisers are being imposed.

"I am afraid to say that this terrible tragedy must serve as a stark warning to others who might be tempted to place their fate in the hands of organised traffickers. Those who died tragically last night are the victims of these traffickers.

"These organised groups do not care about human safety. They care only for profit and this terrible tragedy is a grim reminder of that.

"I trust that honourable Members will join me in deploring the trafficking of humans and will extend their sympathies to the relatives of those who died".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. This is a terrible tragedy. I echo the words of the Minister. I also echo his tribute to the Customs officers, Kent police and the staff of the Immigration Service who have had to deal with this terrible problem.

At the outset, the size of the operation suggests that it is the work of an organised gang. It is extraordinary that already this year one driver has arrived in a port with 117 people in the back of his vehicle and another with 101. We know that in a single day earlier this year 207 people were found hidden in the backs of lorries.

I realise that the Minister will not be able to answer some of the questions concerning this case but I would like to ask him a couple of important questions which do not relate to any criminal charges which might arise. Will he say where the refrigerated container originated? Where did it come from? Perhaps he will also say where the last check was done on the container before it arrived in Dover I presume there was a Customs check before it was finally sealed. It would be interesting to know through how many EU countries, or indeed other countries, the container travelled on its way to Zeebrugge.

The Government say that there has been a 26 per cent reduction in clandestines. When the Minister uses the word, does he define "clandestines" as those actually caught at Dover, as opposed to any who are perhaps thought to have slipped through the net?

I turn to the international side of this terrible tragedy and dilemma that faces the Government. Perhaps I may ask the Minister what pressure the Government can put on our EU partners so that we can have on the Continent secure, well lit and guarded yards in which lorry drivers can park their vehicles. The drivers want this sort of facility. They need it so that they can inspect their own vehicles. At the moment some yards are not guarded or well lit, which makes it far too easy for people to slip in. I am afraid that there is a lack of co-operation in some ports in Europe.

What is the position when the lorries get on to the ferries? We know that the drivers are forced by the law to leave their lorries on the ferry. They cannot stay with them. We know, of course, that some asylum seekers have jumped from one lorry to another. A perfectly innocent driver may have checked his lorry on the Continent and, having been unable to check it on the ferry, finds on arrival in England that it is full of asylum seekers. I wonder if the Minister can tell us how many large groups, say over 20, have been found in lorries in the past 12 months and whether this a trend that is increasing. When does the Minister expect to have further details about this tragedy?

My Lords, we, too, are shocked and appalled by this tragedy. 'We join the Home Secretary in deploring the trafficking of human beings. of which this is a sad example.

In spite of the apparent reduction in the numbers trying to gain entry by stowing away in lorries or containers, is there not an incentive for genuine asylum seekers, who have now been debarred from using more conventional means of entry, to adopt dangerous methods of trying to get into the United Kingdom? I am not suggesting that the people who were in this truck could have been asylum seekers. With such large numbers of the kind that we are considering here, there must have been a plot by an organised gang to secure the entry of this group of people.

I wonder if there is any evidence to show that the criminal gangs are now turning their attention to Zeebrugge as a result of better methods of control in Calais. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in tracing the chain further back than the lorries themselves as a result of, for example., looking at the weighing stations where the people have to stay in centres such as Calais or Zeebrugge before they get on to the trucks?

I should also like to ask the Minister whether it is technically possible to detect the presence of human beings in a large truck or container by the use of dogs or scientific instruments which can detect the presence of carbon dioxide. In view of this appalling tragedy and the evidence of large-scale attempts to evade controls, perhaps it would be worth while instituting 100 per cent inspections, preferably carried out—to avoid loss of life—at the ports of origin, such as Zeebrugge and Calais, or in the ships carrying the trucks across. Perhaps the Minister can say whether that is technically feasible.

Finally, I wonder if the Minister can say anything about the fact that this truck appears to have been owned by a company not previously known to the authorities. If no steps can be taken immediately to institute a 100 per cent inspection of all vehicles, should there not be a 100 per cent inspection of at least those which seek to get on to the ferries and not previously known to companies such as P&O, the company that carried this particular truck?

My Lords, I am grateful for the tributes that have been paid to the Customs officials who had the unhappy and unfortunate experience of unlocking the back of this truck and finding the human misery that was evident inside.

I shall try to answer as many as possible of the questions that have been raised. However, I have to say at the outset that I am not able to answer some of the questions raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, because they pertain very closely to the questions that will arise in the course of the investigation which it will be absolutely essential for the police to undertake. I cannot, therefore, tell him the initial origin of the truck, nor where the last check was made or how many EU countries the truck passed through.

The noble Lord asked about co-operation. It is fair to say that there is very close co-operation with our EU colleagues. It is a matter which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been actively pursuing. The fact that we have begun to detect an increasing number of trucks that come into the country containing clandestines pays tribute to that very close co-operation.

The noble Viscount asked for some figures relating to trucks and human cargo. I can give him some details, but they are limited to the period from 4th April to 19th June, which covers the period during which civil penalties were introduced. So far, 199 penalties have been served. As a result of the detection activities of our officials, 1,102 clandestines have been discovered during that period; 35 lorries have been detained; and 16 lorries have been released against guarantees of payment.

The statement was made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that there has been a drop of 26 per cent in the number of clandestines discovered. We believe that that is because of the imposition of civil penalties. I am aware that civil penalties were opposed in certain quarters of your Lordships' House. However, we believe that they are now beginning to have a very serious impact on the number of people seeking entry to this country in that way. In addition, we are now far happier with the level of co-operation that we are receiving from our EU counterparts. There have been considerable improvements—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury made the point—at the port of Calais where there is now in place CCTV and better security fencing and where a security director has recently been appointed We also co-operate very closely with the French and Belgian authorities.

I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. There is, of course, a perverse incentive for many economic migrants to enter this country. The UK is a very good place in which to live and it offers many opportunities for people. There is little doubt that organised gangs seek to profit from the misery of this human trafficking, and we need to take very swift and firm action to tackle that problem and to deal with it. That is why we have put in place the legislation which, I am pleased to say, is now becoming ever more effective.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether it was possible to detect the presence of human beings using other methods. We have in place an effective complement of staff at Dover and other ports who carry out checks on trucks as they enter the country using dogs and transponders. That is why we have become increasingly effective in detecting human traffic.

The noble Lord also made the suggestion that checks using those techniques should be carried out on board ship and at the port of origin. Clearly the port of origin is not a matter for us. I should need to give careful consideration as to whether the use of dogs and transponders on board would be helpful, but the noble Lord makes an important and valid point.

The methods and techniques that we are using are becoming increasingly effective. Each lorry and truck is checked by sniffer dogs as it comes off the ship. The dogs are very well trained and have a high success rate. Their handlers are to be congratulated on the way in which they work. When I visited Dover to see how the operation was working, I witnessed the detection of a truckload of clandestines by the dogs. It was an effective and efficient operation. The customs and immigration staff dealt with those detected in a humane and thorough way and are to be congratulated on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether there was an incentive for asylum seekers to gain entry. We take the view that this level of risk is unacceptable and that people should be deterred from seeking to gain entry to this country in this way. That is one of the reasons why it would be much better to consider the way in which asylum in this country is sought. No doubt the noble Lord will have picked up some of the comments made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in this regard over the past few weeks.

I think I have answered as many questions as I can at this stage. I am, of course, able to take other questions during the debate on the Statement.

My Lords, I have just made a quick count of the number of noble Lords present in the Chamber; I think there are 63. When one considers that number, the idea of 59, I think it is, dead immigrants in the back of a tomato lorry brings home the total horror of the tragedy and the evil of the traffickers—an evil which is impossible to exaggerate.

I wish to ask two questions. First, have there been any prosecutions, and what likelihood is there of getting at the criminal gangs which are running these scams? Secondly, is it not possible to say to our European neighbours that, in spite of what we said in Dublin, we shall put immigrants straight back on a bus or a train or a ship and send them back from whence they came? That would ensure that our continental friends and acquaintances will make much greater efforts to make sure that these people do not get onto the ghastly deep-freeze lorries as they do at the moment.

It is horrifying. If one looks around the Chamber, the thought of all of us dead in a tomato truck is quite horrendous. Can we not make greater efforts to ensure that the continentals take more trouble stopping immigrants and that we go after the gangs of evil traffickers?

My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken with a degree of concern and seriousness which bears careful reflection by all of us. He is absolutely right; it is very distressing. I found it distressing to read out the Statement. It is horrific.

The noble Earl asked about prosecutions. The information I have is that in Dover so far, as a consequence of our activities, we have handed out 172 years of imprisonment for facilitation in 99 cases. There have been some 120 successful prosecutions. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that we should be getting after the gangs. It is for that reason that we work very closely with our European colleagues and counterparts. Part of the reason that we manage successfully to detect immigrants coming into this country is because of that co-operation. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I take the view that we need to be ever vigilant and to strengthen and improve those links. Ironically, one of the reasons we are seeking to strengthen our powers of detection under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is in order that we may continue that effective surveillance. That Bill has an important dimension in regard to the issues we are discussing today.

My Lords, this is an appalling case; it is murder. Some 58 people, I think, died as a result of what happened. Can the Minister give an assurance that every possible effort will be made with the authorities of the countries concerned to prosecute at the earliest stage the people responsible for these deaths? Can my noble friend indicate to the House how long it is likely to be before the prosecuting authorities are in a position to ensure that the case comes before the courts? I do not think that it is improper to urge my noble friend to ensure that the case is brought before the courts. I do not suggest that that should be at a time which is unripe—I certainly do not want to do that—but, on the other hand, there is an opportunity for the Government, for the countries concerned and for the prosecuting authorities which represent them to ensure that the people concerned are brought before the courts at the earliest opportunity.

My Lords, I am happy to give an assurance that they will be brought before the courts at the earliest possible opportunity. In these sad circumstances, we should not overlook the needs of the police, Customs and immigration officials to carry out a thorough investigation. While urgency is vital and critical in these matters, that investigation must be thorough and enabled to be thorough. One should not compromise the other. But, yes, they must be brought before the courts at the earliest possible opportunity. We must ensure that the police, Customs and immigration officials are well able to carry out that full investigation in order that we can start to get behind the individual truck drivers concerned and tackle those who are organising and orchestrating this horrible and miserable trade in human beings.

My Lords, this is indeed an appalling tragedy which can only fill us with a sense of horror and dismay. It brings home, above all, the sheer sense of desperation of such people that they are willing to subject themselves to such hazards. While appreciating and agreeing with everything that the Minister said about the necessity of bringing these illegal traffickers to court, does he agree that there is often another question as to what it is that those people are trying to get away from? We heard this morning on the "Today" programme that apparently people are being charged between £20,000 and £25,000 to go on this six month journey from the Far East. Are they simply economic migrants? If they are not, can we not look again at what they are trying to get away from in the countries from which they come?

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has made a useful observation in his reflections on our discussion. Broadly speaking, people attempting to enter this country in a clandestine fashion fall into two camps: either they are seeking asylum because they believe that they face political persecution in their own countries; or they believe that the United Kingdom offers a chance of living the "good life". They seem to believe that it is worth making a very large personal sacrifice, both for themselves and for their families, in order to pursue this kind of dangerous economic migration. I seriously question whether that is right and I am sure most people share that view.

We shall do all that we can to discourage that. It is for that reason that we have introduced tough and firm but, above all, fair legislation in order to deter people from taking such risks when trying to enter this country by, say, being secreted in the backs of trucks. They travel in horrible circumstances and are exploited many times over throughout the process. That gives me the greatest sadness.

My Lords, about 10 years ago I was the rapporteur for a committee looking into the activities of various groups of appalling criminals who were attempting to smuggle people on to aircraft. The same kind of thing happened then: the criminals took all the immigrants' money on the strength of flimsy promises to get them into this country. I believe that today the situation is even worse. Like everyone else, I was horrified by the scale of this appalling tragedy.

However, can the Minister explain once again the figures he quoted to the House? The Minister said that he was pleased to announce a 26 per cent drop in the rate of detection of clandestine entrants—or at least that is what I believe the Minister to have said. That must mean that he thinks that every lorry entering this country has been inspected. I very much doubt whether that is the case.

The Minister will need to employ a great many more officials to carry on this work. The 26 per cent fall in the rate of detection does not appear to me to be a satisfactory response to the situation.

My Lords, if I inadvertently spoke in error on this point, perhaps I should explain it once again in more detail. The figures show a drop of 26 per cent in the number of clandestine entrants being apprehended at Dover. We believe that to be directly related to the imposition of civil penalties. Furthermore, it is right that we seek to employ a wide range of means to deter people from using clandestine methods to try to enter this country.

However, today we need to reflect on the matter as a whole because of the problems faced by clandestine entrants and the potential risk to human health. In this case, people have died trying to enter the country in such desperate circumstances. We continue to believe that we should do all that we can to deter people from using these methods to try to enter the United Kingdom.

My Lords, because conspiracies of this kind probably originate at a great distance from our own shores, does my noble friend agree that an incident of this nature adds powerfully to the argument for a substantial increase to be made in the resources available to our intelligence services?

My Lords, I cannot prejudge discussions as regards the level of resources to be made available to the security services. However, I believe that any investment into the security services that might help to prevent awful incidents of this kind would represent extremely good value for money. I am grateful that the intelligence we do receive is being used so well. We are detecting clandestine entrants. We should pay tribute to the security services because their efforts enable us to work as effectively as possible in these difficult circumstances.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Madam Speaker, I shall now with permission make a Statement on the violence involving so-called England supporters at the Euro 2000 football championships in Brussels and Charleroi in Belgium. As the Prime Minister has already made clear, Her Majesty's Government profoundly regret what has happened and I should like to express our deep apologies to the people of Belgium.

"As the House knows, events on the field this weekend were wholly overshadowed by events off the pitch. I am sure that the whole House will share my feelings of outrage and shame as we witnessed our fellow citizens engaged in appalling drunken violence on the streets of Belgium. These people have disgraced the nation and our national game.

"We, of course, fully share UEFA's anger at the disgraceful scenes which have occurred and the whole nation has taken full account of the warning issued by UEFA as to our future participation in this competition. Up-to-date information is as follows. There were serious disturbances in Brussels on Friday last, 16th June, and then on Saturday in Charleroi and Brussels. So far, we have received information on the identity of 584 UK citizens who have been arrested in these disturbances. In a few cases, these individuals have been charged with specific criminal offences, including possession of offensive weapons and assault. However, in the overwhelming proportion of cases the detention was by what is known as an administrative arrest, typically for a failure to carry a passport. No charges have followed. Instead, these individuals have been made subject to immediate deportation. To date around 400 of these individuals have been returned to the UK. As they have arrived, police and immigration officials have required these individuals to provide full details of their identity.

"The House has been kept informed about the arrangements made over many months to intensify co-operation between the Belgian, Dutch and French authorities to ensure as far as possible that anyone previously involved in football hooliganism should not be able to gain entry to those countries. It is widely accepted across Europe that the British police, led by NCIS and Assistant Chief Constable Tim Hollis, are among the most professional and thorough in identifying known hooligans and in policing arrangements in co-operation with overseas police forces. The Dutch Minister of the Interior, Klaus de Vries, has this morning issued a further statement expressing his satisfaction with the degree of co-operation provided by the British authorities.

"Well in advance of the competition, lists were provided to the Dutch and Belgians of 500 British individuals subject to banning orders and of a further 500 against whom there were football-related convictions but no banning orders. All 500 subject to any kind of banning order were sent letters advising them not to travel. Some 101 individuals subject to international banning orders are directly prohibited from travelling abroad. To the best of our knowledge, not one of these has travelled during Euro 2000. In addition, NCIS has provided intelligence on another 200 individuals on whom there was good intelligence but no football-related convictions.

"All of this has been part of an extensive international operation in which British police and immigration officials and football authorities have been actively involved. Further details were set out in the report of the Euro 2000 Co-ordinating Group, which was placed in the Library of the House on 7th June.

"The House will, I believe, understand that it is by definition far more difficult to identify in advance those who might cause trouble if they have not been previously convicted of a football-related offence or if there is no intelligence about them. The overwhelming majority of those arrested and expelled from Belgium come into this category.

"Just 15 of the nearly 400 being deported have been identified as previously known hooligans and one of these had a domestic exclusion order against him. One of these is one too many but this does demonstrate that our controls against known hooligans have been effective and it also demonstrates that legislative changes of the kind which this House has had before it recently, and which have been urged, could not have had the effect of reducing by any significant degree the numbers of people, without previous football convictions, involved in the trouble over the past three days.

"We have always made clear that we have been keeping under constant review these measures in the light of events, including the fact of large-scale arrests which have led in the main to deportation rather than prosecution and conviction.

"I am therefore announcing today a range of measures—in addition to those already in place—further to tighten the screw on the hooligans. The scrutiny at ports by law enforcement agencies has been intensified to prevent any of those deported from Belgium in the past few days from returning to either Belgium or the Netherlands. Immigration and police checks have been stepped up and the main carriers and the Belgian and Dutch authorities have been given full access to the information available to the law enforcement agencies so that they may refuse to take as passengers people they know will be refused entry at the other end.

"British police services are being asked to make contact with all those deported to warn them not to return to Belgium and the Netherlands and the likely serious consequences of returning.

"We have offered further assistance from British police forces, in addition to the significant presence already in Brussels and Charleroi and on the Eurostar, led by Assistant Chief Constable Hollis, to spot known troublemakers and help identify those arrested. We have proposed that the Belgian and Dutch authorities mark the passports of those they deport to make subsequent identification easier should they try to return.

"We have urged upon the Belgian and Dutch authorities the importance in our view of restrictions on the sale of alcohol in the areas affected, as was successfully done by the Dutch authorities at Eindhoven.

"Following discussions today involving the Government, the Football Association and the Premier League clubs, any supporter convicted of hooliganism, or against whom there is good evidence of hooliganism, will be banned for life from attending football matches in England.

"Let me now come back to the issue of legislation. The powers of the courts were strengthened last September by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999. That Bill provided for the imposition of passport conditions. We had hoped that the Bill would include a civil order power for banning orders to prevent suspected but unconvicted individuals from attending any matches. As the House knows, this proposal encountered vociferous opposition from certain honourable Members and was therefore not included.

"The courts already have extensive powers to impose passport conditions on anyone subject to an international ban and to impose an international ban on anyone subject to a domestic ban. But few such orders have been imposed by the courts. We will be taking steps to encourage their imposition in all cases in which they could help to prevent hooliganism by English supporters overseas. We will consider whether to have a single ban with passport conditions for domestic and international matches and to reinstate the civil order proposal.

"We have done a huge amount to stamp out football violence at home; and we have done a huge amount of work with the police, the Football Association and the authorities abroad to prevent violence overseas. These incidents remind us once more of the shame that hooliganism has brought on our country down the years. They reinforce our determination to stamp it out overseas as we have done at home, and I believe the approach I have outlined to the House today can help do that".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking time out from the morass of Home Office legislation to repeat the Statement. The noble Lord does so not only in his usual role as spokesman for the Home Office, but also as the Minister with personal responsibility for this aspect of policy under the Home Secretary.

We all deplore the events that have taken place on the Continent and we support the Government in whatever they can do to improve the situation. Last week, the Minister tried to blame some Conservative Back-Benchers in another place, particularly my right honourable friend David Maclean for a lack of government powers. We acknowledge that it was my right honourable friend David Maclean who, last year, proposed an amendment to the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill to allow passports to be confiscated from unconvicted hooligans. But there was considerable agreement that it was better to carry out that piece of legislation in a government Bill rather than a Private Member's Bill. Kate Hoey, when she was the Minister responsible, said that that was what would happen, and others said the same. Yet, although Parliament is awash with Home Office Bills during the whole Session, still Ministers have not placed such legislation before Parliament.

Has the Minister read the statement issued yesterday by UEFA in which it stated:

"The UK Government owes it to everyone concerned to take steps similar to those taken in other countries to stop these so-called fans from travelling abroad … Other governments have shown that it can be done and we call on the UK Government to take the necessary steps as a matter of urgency"?

What is the Minister's comment on that statement? Does he propose that it should be followed up, for example, in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill which is before the House? If that is the case, we shall continue to support proposals of that character.

My Lords, sometimes those of us who are soccer fans quote, with implied approval, Bill Shankley's famous dictum that football is more important than life and death. It is amusing, but it is not true. Football is a beautiful game, but it is not the extension of war by other means. Our national reputation is something that we should take extremely seriously and defend with vigour. Therefore, I accept much of the tone of the Statement. I hope the Minister agrees that it would be wrong if any national response to these events were seen in the context of saving our membership of the present Euro 2000, or even of securing the 2006 World Cup.

We must examine the events of the past couple of days in a much broader context. It has happened before, time and again. We have the hand-wringing and the blaming, but nothing fundamental happens. Does the Minister agree that there is an element of stable-door slamming about the Statement? It is no use batting words across the Dispatch Box as to how the extra powers were lost in another place. The certainty is that they were not available this time—hence the criticism from UEFA.

Perhaps we should look more widely at why soccer, among all sports, particularly attracts this kind of violent yob culture. Although it is not the key factor, it remains a factor that, for example, sports writers named Mr Roy Keane as "Stanley Matthews Footballer of the Year". The most famous thing that Mr Keane did last year was to be photographed, face contorted, eyes bulging, spitting abuse, at two inches, into the face of a referee. It is not a particularly good example to set young people.

Over the past two weeks, as my noble friend Lord Watson mentioned, a leading computer company marketed a game in which soccer violence was the main element. Last Sunday, the Sunday People had in its gloating headline the word "Huns". If we had beaten Nigeria, would it have been equally acceptable to use the word "niggers"? I must say that for the Sun to start weeping crocodile tears today over excessive xenophobia is truly nauseating. How long will it he before our national newspapers take responsibility for some of the atmosphere around our national game?

How many of the clubs have a true involvement in the communities in which they exist? Some of richest clubs in the country—indeed, in the world—exist in areas of true social deprivation. Yet only as a result of the Minister for Culture twisting their arms were they willing to disgorge 5 per cent of their bonanza from television to grass-roots football. What example is given to young people when greed, institutionalised cheating, racism and the yob culture are all part of football? We must stop deluding ourselves. We must make no attempt at a knee-jerk reaction as far as concerns legislation but look at the matter in a broader sense. All parties must try to co-operate to see if they can arrive at a legislative framework to remove thuggery and racism, which go hand in hand, from football. We must ask for greater leadership and example from the players, club owners and the national media. There must also be a proportionate and considered response in terms of any change in the law.

Football is a beautiful game that has been tainted by the thugs who have gone across the Channel. They behave in a manner which none of us should tolerate and to which not only we in this House but those much further afield require a response.

My Lords, I have listened carefully to both contributions this afternoon. I start with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally. As ever, because he is a very astute follower of football, which both he and I greatly love, he has spoken wisely. I refer particularly to his comments about the yob culture. I was in Charleroi on Saturday. Although it was perhaps not the best game of football that I have seen, it was certainly a good match. However, I was shocked and appalled by the shameful scenes that surrounded it. I am not immune to such scenes, although I have seen them elsewhere. One of the matters that I have campaigned against is the racism and xenophobia in the game, which are appalling. The behaviour and attitude of some of those who believe that they support our national team is shameful. It says a lot about the void in part of our culture.

We cannot continue to ignore the fact that some of our supporters are xenophobes and racists. I am ashamed to say that the majority of those I saw in the street who were drunk and abusive were white males aged between 20 and 40. We must look long and deep into our culture to begin to understand how to address their shameful xenophobic and racist behaviour. This is a deep-rooted problem of which we have not as yet got to the bottom.

The framework of the legislation that we have put in place has taken 10 to 15 years to create. There have been six—or perhaps seven now—pieces of legislation, each tougher than the one before. I pay tribute to the previous government for the fact that they began the toughening up process. Last year's Football (Offences and Disorder) Act was another contribution by this Government to ensure that so far as possible the police and judiciary have the necessary legal framework and powers to impose some penalty, moral order and discipline on the unruly who shame us.

One of the good things about that legislation is that for the first time it began to provide the law enforcement agencies with the opportunity to attack racist chanting and indecent or obscene gestures in our grounds. Domestically, I believe that much progress has been made by the football authorities, the Government, the police and all those involved in tackling racism. Sadly, we do not yet seem to have got it right abroad. Even more must be done. The importance of today's Statement by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is that it focuses on the relevant issues.

Much has been made of, "If only we had done this", or, "If only we had had additional powers". The one power on which people have particularly focused is the ability to remove the passports of suspected hooligans so that they cannot travel abroad and bring disgrace upon our nation and football team. Sadly, the figures reveal that, of those who have been deported back to the United Kingdom, only 15 have appeared on any list that seeks to identify those who present a potential threat abroad. The malaise described earlier is, regrettably, rather broader than many of us had hoped, or perhaps feared. We need to consider better and further steps—social measures as much as anything else—to take to tackle the yob culture.

I return to one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am not sure that last week in the context of a Question I sought to put blame on others; I simply stated the bald facts. A number of Members of another place objected on the grounds of civil liberties—that was how they saw it—to our proposal to insert into the Bill the power to remove the passports of known and suspected hooligans. At Second Reading, David Maclean made plain his view. At col. 476, he raised the issue of human rights and the implication of removing passports. He went on to say:

"the power to confiscate passports should not be arbitrarily exercised by an officer of the state unless there are exceptionally good reasons".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/4/99; col. 517.]

That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea. It is true that at Third Reading Mr Maclean moved an amendment but he made plain that he was doing it only to explore the Government's reaction without any intention of forcing it to a vote. There were plenty of Members of another place who were determined to talk out the measure if that clause had been inserted into the Bill, and we should have been left with rather weaker powers to deal with the range of problems that football hooligans present to the world.

We have studied the UEFA statement carefully and take it very seriously. We want those who say that they support our national team to take the threat very seriously. We understand and share UEFA's anger and frustration. I spent many long hours on this particular set of problems. The preparations for Euro 2000, certainly in terms of policing, have been very thorough. I am ashamed at what has happened and greatly regret it. Our officers in the field, who are very disappointed, have conducted themselves with the utmost integrity and worked extremely hard on behalf of all of us. They will continue that important work. We must hope that the officials and the police service in Belgium act efficiently and effectively to prevent further troubles during the course of the tournament, and we should do all we humanly can to support them in that endeavour. I hope and trust that those views are shared by Members of your Lordships' House.

My Lords—

My Lords, my noble friend will recall—

My Lords, we have 20 minutes for questions. I believe that both my noble friends will be able to put their questions if we take them in order. I invite my noble friend Lord Faulkner to ask the first one.

My Lords, my noble friend will recall that last Thursday I asked a question about security arrangements at Euro 2000. It gives me no satisfaction to say that my very worst fears about what would happen at the weekend have proved right. I welcome the tone of the Statement, in particular the comments of the Minister and those of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about racism and xenophobia. Those matters, linked with the free availability of drink, have played a crucial part in the events of the weekend. To ensure that they can be addressed is a task that faces all of us. I urge my noble friend not to rush into ill-considered legislation. Can we spend a little while getting it right so that we strengthen the legislative framework and have a proper set of laws in place that allows us to hold up our heads again in the world of football?

My Lords, we are right to be careful in framing legislation. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a testimony to rushed legislation. It taught many Members of another place and your Lordships' House the importance of framing the correct legislation. That is critical.

It is urgent that we consider carefully additional powers. Those powers must be subjected to the utmost scrutiny. It is right that we should revisit the whole issue of the possible removal of passports from, and the obligation to attend a police station on, those whom we suspect of being involved in hooliganism and football-related offences.

However, I make this point. That will not solve all our problems. That must be understood. Of the 400 deported, so far only one of 15 had any connection with football-related offences. That tells us that the problem is more widespread. For that reason, we need to attack the social conditions and the frame of mind which give expression to that yob culture. Football clubs, football associations, government, police and all agencies which have a relationship with football have an important part to play. We have to say that the situation is unacceptable. People abroad should not have to put up with British yobs destroying their livelihoods, cities and town centres, despoiling the way they live and upsetting pleasant environments.

We all want to enjoy a game of football. It is a beautiful game—but, ultimately, a game.

My Lords, first, can the Minister advise me? I am ignorant; perhaps I should know. For how long do domestic and international banning orders last? Is it for as long as England or—I hesitate to say it—Scotland is still in the competition? Once England is out of the event, can the passports be given back? I am somewhat confused on the issue.

Secondly, perhaps the Minister can explain this to me. Presumably the persons who have been removed from Belgium in varying states of sobriety have passports. Does the marking of those passports by the Belgian authorities—I believe it has been explained elsewhere that it is administrative deportation— trigger off a domestic or international banning order? From what the Minister said now (and I saw him on the news at one o'clock), and from what his right honourable friend said, a large proportion of those people have no record as regards football misbehaviour.

From what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others have said, much of the situation is due to alcohol. Misbehaviour in any way in a football stadium—I know from personal experience—can cause a ban on entry to the stadium. I have been warned somewhat carefully for suggesting that the referee was visually challenged, and that a linesman needed a white stick. We do not want the kind of conduct that the Minister must have seen in Charleroi and I saw when Scotland came to England and beat the world champions in 1967. Is not such behaviour fuelled entirely by alcohol drunk well away from the football stadia?

Every four years UEFA organises a festival of football which should be fun. Yet it is ruined by a large proportion of fans who go not so much to the football stadium as (in the words of the football media) to soak up the atmosphere. But that is not what they are soaking up; it is large amounts of alcohol.

My Lords, it is difficult to respond to a series of comments which perhaps form a question. However, I seek to respond to some of those points.

Currently, there are 10-year banning orders to cover international events; and three-year banning orders for domestic events. So three-and ten-year banning orders are available to the courts. It is for the courts to impose those. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary suggests today that perhaps we should consider some way in which those two banning orders can be brought together. We shall have to look at the guidance given to the courts so that they make full use of those banning order powers.

I know that the noble Lord is a football fan, plays a key part in a Scottish team—I confess that I have forgotten the team—and feels passionately about football. We must seek to work closely with the clubs. Most clubs no longer have widespread access to alcohol in their grounds. I think that that has made a contribution to reducing the level of aggravation, violence, obscenity and unpleasantness which can sometimes be associated with football.

Some two-thirds of those picked up for football-related offences are not arrested in or around the ground but in city and town centres. In part, that is a reflection of the success of better policing and stewarding, and the impact of CCTV in football grounds. As I have made plain, we must readdress those issues which develop that yob culture which becomes closely associated with people fuelled by alcohol. In Charleroi I saw many groups of young English supporters, and those from the German side, drinking extensively. It undoubtedly contributed to the problems experienced by the police in Charleroi on Friday and Saturday.

My Lords, as one who was vociferous in considering the libertarian aspects of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. However, before doing so, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a short and easy question. Does he wish to make some comment—there has been none in the Chamber today—on the conduct of the 39,600 British fans, compared with the 400 on whom we are concentrating, who, according to the British team, provided better support than any other group of fans in Belgium and Holland? They deserve some remembrance on this dismal afternoon.

The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act already gives almost unprecedented powers to magistrates to make an international banning order not upon the criminal test of beyond reasonable doubt but on the civil test. Noble Lords may be interested to know what that power is. In Clause 1(2), the Act states:

"Subject to subsection (3) … it shall be the duty of the court to make an international football banning order in relation to the accused if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making the order would help to prevent violence".

I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is as low a hurdle as our courts could be asked to jump with regard to an extremely serious penalty.

The Minister referred in his Statement to the prospect of bringing forward new legislation to provide an even lower hurdle which would enable banning orders to be made where there is good evidence of hooliganism—short, one must assume, of any conviction. Is that the way forward, especially in the light of the comments he sensibly made about the social matrix from which all this stems, to which my noble friend Lord McNally referred?

Finally, perhaps it is only when these matters arrive in our own back yard that we notice them. Few noble Lords in this House will realise that over 30 per cent of all men under the age of 30 have convictions for offences of violence or probity. Perhaps we should pay more regard to the reality of which this is one small expression.

My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord's recitation of statistics. However, if, as he says, 30 per cent of men under 30 have some kind of conviction, that should be of no great pleasure to us. It may be a reality, but it is not one which we should willingly or readily accept. It is important that we should be setting standards and arguing the case. Why do we tolerate such behaviour? What is it about our culture that tolerates it? I do not believe that it is acceptable.

The noble Lord was right to observe that the vast majority of those who attend football matches, week in and week out, here or abroad, are interested in football. They are decent, honest, hard-working folk. We are talking about their freedom, their liberty, their right to enjoy those games in peace and to be confident of their own safety in doing so. That is being jeopardised by the mindless thugs who have so disgraced us in the past few days.

Whose rights should we be protecting? I take the view that we should be protecting the rights and freedoms of that majority and that that view will be widely shared not only in this House, but also outside in t he wider world. We should take careful account of that fact.

The noble Lord reflected on the voluble support at Charleroi, a stadium which holds 30,000. There were 5,000 German supporters at one end of it and 5,000 English supporters at the other. Around the ground, outside those two ends, a mingling of German and English fans were getting on admirably well and enjoying the game. Why is it, though, that the game produces such polarisation and violence? These are the issues to which we should be turning our attention.

Why is it that so much of the chanting and much of the support falls to an abusive level, to what I would call "low humour"? I found some of it upsetting. Although it was not obscene, it embarrassed me and I should be surprised if that embarrassment were not more widely felt. Even those in the stadium who are vociferous in support can embarrass our country with their slogans and chanting.

I enjoy the game of football; I like the pride, passion and patriotism involved. However, I do not believe that we should let the game and its supporters denigrate our culture in the way in which they have.

My Lords, for most of my life I have either supported or played football. Today, I am a supporter of a small club which has a life with the community. Indeed, I support and have sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. What I saw on the television during the weekend was not only an absolute disgrace, but shamed all of us in this country. Hooliganism was not taking place on the football ground, but in the heart of the community of that country.

In recent years we have heard on the terraces the chant, "Here we go, here we go, here we go". Although I welcome today's Statement, there was an echo in it of, "Here we go again", which I found most disappointing. There has been a sea change which worries me. The antics which take place on the field today never took place when I played football. The antics which sometimes take place on the terraces never took place when I watched football. But the support and enthusiasm then was none the less for that. We appear to be tackling the problem as it occurs on each and every occasion instead of getting to the root of what is happening.

Many people are returning to this country after having been deported. Once we identify who they are, how severe will be the penalties that we can impose on those people who brought this nation to shame? They are hooligans and vandals who should not be allowed to go to any community in which a football match is being played.

My Lords, unfortunately, those who have been deported, after having been arrested "administratively", have not been charged or prosecuted with an offence. We in our jurisdiction cannot subsequently charge them with an offence. However, we can identify them. The Statement makes it clear that they will be visited, warned and deterred as much as possible from going back to Belgium or Holland during the tournament.

As regards those who are convicted of offences, the imposition of fines and possibly of imprisonment is available to the courts, depending on the seriousness of the case. Importantly as regards football, domestic and international banning orders exist. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the measures which we put in place are draconian. That is not my description; it was the description of David Maclean, shadow Home Office Minister, who during part of last year's debate clearly opposed much of what we were doing. He said that they were draconian measures and he was right; they are widely recognised as being such. Many of our European counterparts have reflected long and hard on our legislation and have been most interested to see whether they can incorporate it into theirs. The memorandum of understanding which was signed between the UK, Belgium and Dutch authorities accurately reflects our own legislation in this instance.

My Lords, reflecting on the answers which the Minister gave on television, is it true that if it had not been for a few Back-Benchers in the House of Commons the Government had intended to take that power and would have done so? If that is the case, is it not pathetic that a government moving into their fourth year in office did not use their overwhelming majority to secure that power?

We have talked about the importance of getting the legislation right. I am sure that the noble Baroness will recall those debates. The legislation was enacted last year to come into effect in September. We were not given the opportunity to have that power because it was Private Member's legislation. We consulted on a particular power and we believe that we were right.

The noble Baroness was right to point out that since September we could, in theory, have put that legislation in place. But we have operated a law which we believe to be effective and which will greatly assist the situation. As I have said many times, even if we had had that power the terrible scenes shown on television, and which I witnessed personally, would not have been prevented. Those people would have been there whether or not we had that power. I and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have made it plain that we intend to revisit the question of the courts having the facility to take away passports and to implement the banning orders which we believe to be necessary as regards those suspected of being likely to be involved in hooligan behaviour and public order offences.

We welcome the widespread support for that. The mood has changed with regard to the possibility of taking that power. I welcome that. I believe that such a mood change is essential and necessary.

My Lords, is it not a shame that the noble Baroness should try to make a political point out of this? Is not time that the majority of fans were given the opportunity to put their point of view in order to ensure that we have the kind of football that the Minister has described as "something beautiful"? Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain, in particular to the Belgian authorities, that the Government are not to be identified with those people who refused to honour the law? Will he make it clear that the Government are determined that where evidence exists such people will be prosecuted and that it would be wrong for the England XI to be refused the opportunity of participating in the rest of the tournament?

My Lords, I said earlier that I believed the anger expressed by UEFA to be understandable. I continue to hold that view. It would be deeply disappointing if the England team were to be prevented from continuing in the championship currently taking place in Belgium and Holland. Many years of preparation and much hard work by a very committed manager, coach and team would all be lost and that would be a cause of great sadness.

However, the matter comes down to individual responsibility. Those who were involved in the scenes of wanton disorder have an individual responsibility and should be reminded of that. They owe it to themselves, to the team and to our country to think long and hard and to reflect on their behaviour. I believe that we should give them every encouragement to reflect on the appalling behaviour in which they have been involved and to consider how that impacts on our great game. We shall of course make all the right representations. We continue the dialogue that we began with our colleagues in Belgium and Holland. I hope that that dialogue is fruitful.

Before we listened to the two Statements, we had a considerable discussion about the issues in Clause 12. I believe them to be of first importance and central to the Bill. However, at this point I do not believe that there is much to be said in addition. Therefore, subject to the views of the Committee, I do not propose to debate clause stand part.

moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 15, line 5. leave out ("may, if he thinks fit.") and insert ("shall").

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 57. Why should not the Government pay for the interception equipment? They will get the benefit of it, and through them we will all get the benefit of it, so why should not we pay for it? Why should the ISPs pay for it? There seems to be no reason why the unquantified burden of this possibly very expensive interception equipment should fall on ISPs. I propose that it should fall on the Government instead. After all, they are specifying what the equipment should he, so logically they should take responsibility for the cost.

There is no reason for anyone in this country to use an ISP in this country. All that we need is some form of communication leading to wherever in the world the ISP may be that is fast and broad enough to take the data rates that we want. If we impose significant costs on our ISPs beyond those that have to be borne in other countries, the business will move overseas. It is not a high margin business. It is a very competitive business and there is no reason for it to stay in this country if companies have to face higher costs and, as a result of this and other aspects of the Bill, offer lower security.

In a part of the Bill where such provision is not adequate, the amendment would also he a useful constraint on the ambitions of the Government. If they have to pay for the equipment—which, given the pace of technological change, will be out of date in a couple of years—they may think twice before they go overboard on interception capability. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary's activities do not have to be visible to anyone else. My amendment would at least provide some measure of rationality and reasonableness to ensure that what he is up to stays within bounds.

I share the concerns expressed by both my noble friends who have spoken to their amendments. It is clear to all of us that there is the potential for a major burden to be imposed on industry, although there is considerable dispute about the cost of that burden on a snapshot basis if the Bill were enacted now. The Government have come up with a relatively low figure, in the tens of millions of pounds, and industry has produced a figure in the region of £650 million. It is right that the Government should come under pressure to explain how they arrived at their figure and on what basis they disagree with the higher figures put forward by industry.

However, that is relevant only up to a point. As my noble friend, Lord Lucas, said, as time goes on, new technologies will require new monitoring equipment. We do not know what that equipment will be or what it will cost. It is right for the Government to be put under pressure to avoid spending industry's money willy-nilly. They should at least recognise that if they impose a major burden on industry, there should be a direct link with the Government.

The Bill is very loosely worded. To say that the Secretary of State should make such payments as he considers

"would represent an appropriate contribution towards costs incurred"

is virtually meaningless. If a court was challenged on the subject, it would have to put itself into the mind of the Secretary of State, and it is difficult to challenge what the Secretary of State considers to be appropriate. Surely that phrase borders on the meaningless.

The Bill gives very wide powers and has the potential to impose very high costs. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer the direct point put by my noble friend Lord Lucas and tell us whether the Government accept that the ISP business can easily be transferred overseas. Does the Minister accept that if substantial costs were placed on the industry, it could simply move overseas? Or does he have a back-up argument—I hope that the information reaches him shortly—and a magic solution to prevent that? It is very hard to keep this increasingly international business within national boundaries. Citizens of the United Kingdom will be able to access international services beyond the reach of the Minister. The Government might not like the situation, but it exists and they should be cautious about putting high costs on industry that could divert this valuable business overseas.

My Lords, I have listened to many contributions during this Committee stage. I am struck by a recurrent theme in the opposition contributions. They keep saying that they do not want any change and they do not think that the industry should bear any responsibility for the change.

My noble friends can defend themselves, but I have never heard anyone from the Opposition say anything of the sort. There is a widespread consensus that something needs to be done. The Bill has the right intentions, but the devil is in the detail. We cannot ignore that. We are facing the possibility of creating legislation that will not work.

I thank the noble Viscount for that, but I should like to develop my argument. The Opposition agree that something should be done, but not this. Those in the Internet industry say the same. I am concerned about the creation of a safe environment in the industry. Those who speak on behalf of the industry in this House are not telling the companies that they have a civic responsibility. They must take these issues seriously rather than simply acknowledging the need for change but asking for a different sort of change. The industry must say what it wants. If the industry took its civic responsibility seriously, it would be applying itself to solutions instead of always saying that any proposals were not what was required.

I am reminded of arguments we have heard about safe food. We expect those who supply our food to provide safe food. It is reasonable to expect those who supply us with our Internet services to take some responsibility for providing a safe industry. The Government are clearly recognising their responsibility and making a contribution. I wish that I could hear a recognition from the industry that it has a responsibility to give us a safe Internet.

My Lords, maybe I can give some minor solace to the noble Baroness. She is unfair to the Conservatives. There is a spirit of acceptance of the measure and we are acting as a revising House, trying to improve it.

There may be a via media between the absolutism of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would put the full cost of the operation of equipment on the Government, and the position adopted by the Home Office Minister in the House of Commons, Mr. Clarke, on 6th March, when he mentioned a government contribution of £20 million. There is bound to be some special pleading from the industry, but from what we have heard £20 million does not seem like a reasonable compromise for the costs incurred by companies in undertaking the duties thrust on them by the Secretary of State.

The figure of £20 million that the noble Lord has quoted is based on the Bill's regulatory impact assessment. It is not a sum that the Government have committed. Having looked at the facts and how the legislation will be interpreted and worked out, that is our estimate of the cost of the regulatory burden to be imposed.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Nevertheless, that seems to be a conservative amount. I was going on to say that in the USA, under the Communications (Assistance for Law Enforcement) Act—an even more unwieldy title than that of this Bill—the government provide 500 million dollars.

Perhaps I may add in defence of the amendments being put forward here that that is not on all-fours with the health and safety situation governing food supplies, for example, where, plainly, the supply of hygienic food and safety equipment is something to which the consumer is entitled. In this circumstance, the state is asking an industry, which happens to be in a milieu where fraud, crime and terrorism uses its own instruments of proper commercial activity, to bear some of the costs of the state protecting us—drawing it into the policing system. In broad terms, that seems to me a proper situation in which industry can ask the state to come some way towards meeting the costs which it must incur because of the requirements of the Bill.

Does the noble Lord accept that it is in the industry's best interests to create a safe environment?

Of course I do, but I think it is rather tough to say that it is in the interests of the industry to stop terrorism. The industry has no more interest in stopping terrorism than lawyers or fishmongers. That applies to paedophilia too. As I said, it happens to be a milieu in which those wickednesses traverse their own systems. I believe that there is a difference as regards the analogy which the noble Baroness drew.

On these Benches, we are entirely supportive of Amendment No. 55 and I regret to say that we are dubious about the absolutism of Amendment No. 57.

I want to make one small comment about the drafting of the amendment. It says that the Secretary of State,

"may, if he thinks fit".

make such payments, and so on. If I remember correctly, in the Scotland Bill, the entire Barnett formula is dealt with under a weak expression like that. That is the way draftsmen deal with such matters. The amount of money may be £5 or £5 million. But there is a precedent and I am sure that my recollection is correct.

On an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that we do not know how many ISPs must accept that black box. It seems to me that every ISP must have a box. That can be the only answer. Otherwise, as soon as it became known that an ISP did not have a black box, every criminal would divert to that ISP. So quite clearly, there will have to be a black box on every ISP which is a national provider. Of course, that still leaves international providers out of the loop, but I do not believe that there is any choice in that regard.

I support the spirit of the amendments proposed by my noble friends. As this is the first time that I have intervened on this Bill, I should declare an interest in a number of companies which have interests in this area.

Does the Minister accept that the costs referred to are unlikely to be one-time costs incurred at the moment at which the order is imposed? Because of the ongoing nature of technology development, ISPs, telephone companies and others are likely to incur costs every time they update or develop their systems or introduce a new transmission technology or new encryption technology. Therefore, the costs which companies may face will stretch out as a stream going into the future. In fact, because of the complexity of such matters, those costs are likely to increase.

Recognising those additional dimensions, the Government need to find some way of ensuring that those costs do not become penal on the industry.

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate because—I pick up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen—it is right that the Government should come under pressure on this to make sure that their arguments and figures stack up and that they should come under some scrutiny.

Perhaps I may try to pick up the points which have arisen as a by-product of the discussion. We are conscious of the fact that there are very real questions relating to costs which may be incurred in providing interception capabilities. We are extremely conscious also of how those costs may be apportioned between government and industry.

As I understand it, Amendment No. 55 suggests that the Secretary of State "shall" make payments to communication service providers rather than that he "may" do that. The intention behind the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to meet costs incurred both in effecting individual warrants and in maintaining a reasonable intercept capability under Clause 12. I would argue that, as drafted, it does not quite achieve that because it leaves a considerable amount of discretion for the Secretary of State. But the intention is clear and we must respect the intention.

Members of the Committee will wish to note that the Government introduced an amendment in another place, which was accepted, setting out their continuing commitment to the payment of marshalled costs. Those marshalled costs are incurred by the communications service providers in respect of processing each individual interception warrant—the ongoing costs. Those include the costs of staff and overheads and cover the cost of transporting the intercept product from an agreed hand-over point, normally within the CSP's own network to the intercepting agency. All those costs are currently, and will continue to be, met by the Government.

I do not accept that it is necessary at this stage to go any further than the commitment which we have already given. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. But our commitment is clear. We introduced that amendment in the other place. We understand the issues involved. The costs will cover other matters, such as staff and overheads and the costs of transporting the intercept product. So we have gone quite a long way already in that regard.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It was described by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as "absolutist", and I believe that that is a fair description. The amendment refers to how the costs of maintaining a reasonable intercept capability shall be apportioned between government and industry. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to see a categorical statement on the face of the Bill stating how those costs will be apportioned between government and industry. That is an unusual and novel approach which the Government cannot accept.

Clause 13 bears close reading. As it currently stands, it permits payments to be made by the Secretary of State and it imposes a duty to contribute to marshalled costs in some cases. Exactly what those payments should be will be decided after we have gone through the consultation process with industry, to which I have referred on many occasions. To assist that consultation process, we commissioned a report known as the Smith report. No doubt many Members of the Committee will have heard of it and read it. That report has been produced by independent consultants to look at the whole business of cost allocation in some detail. In a sense, it is part of the debate about how high those costs may be—whether £600 million, according to one tranche of argument, or £20 million in another. As I stated earlier, that consultation exercise will lead to secondary legislation by means of an order to be laid before Parliament.

I can offer some assurance to Members of the Committee that the allocation of costs will be addressed very clearly in that order. We shall make sure that there is more than adequate time, proper time, to take a detailed look at the issue. But I am happy also to tell the Committee that we shall take that opportunity to confirm again that the Government will contribute to costs and that we shall not impose any unreasonable burden on industry. Exactly how much we will contribute will have to be debated in detail—the devil is in the detail in this instance—when, after lengthy consultation, we introduce secondary legislation. We shall have the opportunity to talk to industry in the build-up of time to that secondary legislation. We shall consult in detail on the way in which it will work and will bring forward secondary legislation. We shall have the opportunity to give it further scrutiny in this Chamber and Members of the Committee will be able to go over it again. There will be ample opportunity for people to get to the root of the costs. Legislation does not necessarily make it easier and facilitate detailed consideration.

It is worth stressing that we are not setting out on a grand scheme that has not before been undertaken. For many years now, telecommunication companies have been required to maintain an intercept capability and have had to share the costs of so doing with the Government. I believe that it is also the case that many ISPs have begun to share the costs with Government in the current situation. This is not something new that we are demanding of business or the industry. It has not suddenly been dreamt up; it is already in existence.

At this stage of the development of the legislation I understand that there is some nervousness. I understand the concerns of industry in that regard. However, we believe that they are not well founded. Many Members of the Committee referred to the fact that there has been considerable debate about the degree of cost. We think that it is about right in the regulatory impact assessment undertaken by the Cabinet Office. Even the CBI described the figures in the BCC report as alarmist. I have no doubt that the CBI is well informed in its approach. If one looks at the history of the PTOs, they have been meeting capability costs for the past 15 years or more, providing interceptor capability at their own cost. No PTO has gone out of business as a result. We take the view that we have struck a reasonable balance and that businesses have always managed to meet a reasonable solution.

The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked a question, the answer to which is along the lines that we will be looking to future costs but will start from designing in from the outset cost minimisation. That is the whole approach that will inform our strategy in this regard.

In summary, we think we have the balance about right. We believe that the consultation and secondary legislation process will flush out cost. We think that we can meet the reasonable costs on the face of the Bill. Clause 13(3) provides flexibility for the Secretary of State to address the costs issue and make a contribution. We need to get that balance right. We have no intention of pushing unreasonable costs on to the industry. We do not want to frighten it abroad. At this stage, we have no evidence that people will be frightened off from setting up and maintaining their businesses in the United Kingdom; far from it. We think that it will add extra confidence to the industry.

For those who have been critical of us, saying that we are forging ahead without other jurisdictions taking an interest, that simply is not true. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the standards we wish to adopt have been adopted by a number of member states of the European Union in the council resolution of January 1995. Those standards have been subsequently adopted by the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, aptly and ably expressed, we are working in an international field. However, we are not working on our own. We are all moving in the same general direction. It is against that background that the legislation we are setting up has to be seen.

I trust that in view of the comments I have made this evening, those Members of the Committee who have moved the amendments will feel able to withdraw them.

Before the Minister sits down, can he tell us whether the Government are accepting the recommendation of the Smith report that they should pay for the design and software development of the black boxes which will be crucial to this information gathering?

In general terms we have accepted the findings of the Smith report. That level of detail is a matter which we shall consider throughout the process of bringing together the consultations and framing the secondary legislation. That is how we see things working out. In general, we accept the Smith report. It has provided us with useful background and will inform the way in which we proceed.

I need to correct a remark I made earlier to Members of the Committee. I might have suggested— I do not think I said it directly—that we might already be meeting some of the ISP intercept costs. That is not currently the case because it is not covered by the Interception of Communications Act. We do not currently cover those interception capability costs. However, that is an area which we are keeping carefully under review.

Perhaps I may briefly pick up one point. The Minister said that he felt they had the balance about right. However, he gave the Committee precious little information about where that balance lies, and spoke in generalities. There are vast discrepancies between the figures talked about by the Minister on the one hand—I accept his caveat about the regulatory impact statement; as I understood it, he then went on to support that as being a good and sensible base case—and, on the other, the sort of figures talked about by the industry. For the Minister to suggest that the balance is about right and then give the Committee almost no information about where the Government thought that balance lies is asking it to make a large leap of faith.

On another point, I specifically asked the Minister whether he believed it would be possible for much of this business to be transferred overseas. I did not ask whether he had had any indication that that was happening, because the Bill has yet to be enacted. I asked whether it would be feasible for consumers here to use ISPs based overseas and therefore evade the impact. That, surely, is an important point to inform today's debate.

Finally, perhaps I may pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I apologise for intervening in her remarks. As far as I am aware, no one in this Chamber is speaking on behalf of the Internet industry. I certainly am not. Noble Lords speak from their own personal perspective. They might well have listened to arguments put forward by industry or parties such as the Minister. It is our duty to weigh those up. However, it is not the case that noble Lords, certainly myself and, I believe, my noble friends, are speaking in any way on behalf of the industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a good point and criticised me, as indeed, did the Minister, for being absolutist in the amendment. It was tabled in that form, as much as anything else, to draw out from the Government what their position was. In that it has not succeeded.

I share the criticism of the Government of my noble friend Lord Goschen. Even in describing the process which they will adopt, they have not given a hint of what will be their opening position in the discussions which, rightly, they will have with the industry on the meaning of the word "appropriate". I understand that the Government do not want to have something set down in stone on the face of the Bill. These discussions are always ones in which the particular has to be looked at and a fair amount of detail has to he gone into. There are good arguments, such as those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others, that the industry should perhaps bear some of the cost. However, in being asked to pass this wording in the Bill, the Government are not prepared to say what will be their opening position in the negotiations. Does "appropriate" mean about half, or about nothing?

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, suggested that business may be transferred overseas. I apologise for not accepting that possibility; I do accept it. But there is no evidence as yet that that is likely to be the case. There is a deficiency in the approach adopted, not only in the debate this evening, but also in the public debate, which goes back to the comment made by the CBI. If the industry adopts an alarmist position at this stage in order to force more costs to be covered by the Government, it could be self-defeating and in neither the industry's, the Government's nor indeed the public's best interests. So, although I accept the possibility, I do not accept that that should end up being the case. We believe that we shall get the balance right. We shall have the detailed consultation to take into consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we are not providing the detail in addressing this aspect. However, we issued a point-by-point refutation on the whole cost issue. The allegation was that we would impose black boxes. But that is only one suggestion. It has not been decided. The likelihood is that we shall not expect all ISPs, for instance, to carry an intercept capability. So the burden of costs envisaged by many of the detractors with regard to this part of the legislation does not exist to the extent suggested in certain alarmist quarters.

Does the Minister mean that some ISPs will bear the cost burden and draw the short straw and others will not?

It is not a question of drawing a short straw. As I understand it, there are 400 ISPs in the UK at the moment. The cost assessment built up in opposition to the Government's position assumes that all 400 will be obliged to possess an e-mail active intercept capability. We do not necessarily accept that that is the case; it may be far from the case. It may be that only the largest ISPs will bear part of the burden of cost.

We have to look at the detail. We have to consult the industry in order to get the balance of costs right. Trying to establish that in legislation would be unique. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, accepts that point. I accept that he is trying to flush us out on where we feel the balance is; but the matter is best left to the detailed consultation which all Members of the Committee have said that we should conduct and carry out. We are committed to that process.

If there are to be detailed consultations with the industry, and therefore almost with the public, why not share with us the opening position? It cannot possibly damage the Government to tell us what they intend to tell hundreds of other people, if not now then very shortly. Will not the Minister reflect that fresh in all our minds is the Government's oft-avowed accuracy in assessing the cost of building the new Scottish Parliament building? We must all recognise that estimates often bear little resemblance to the final outcome.

I view this as a most unsatisfactory debate, particularly from the parliamentary point of view. Parliament is being devalued. We are being asked to accept a lot of highly generalised assurances from the Minister. I noted three: "We will not be unreasonable"; "Fears are not well founded"; "We have good intentions". They are all honeyed words but mean very little. The more the Minister said, the more it became clear that either the proposals are not being shared with us or, as I suspect, they are as yet unformed and loose. That is why there is this huge potential disparity in the cost which Parliament is being asked to take at face value.

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. She said that she did not feel that e-businesses were bearing their share of responsibility and that we were arguing only on behalf of such businesses. But it is not only e-businesses which are involved; it is the whole of business. After all, the chambers of commerce, the CBI and the Institute of Directors are complaining, and The Times, the Financial Times, the Observer and the Guardian, all say in different ways that these proposals, desirable as they are—we all believe it to be desirable to use this method to catch criminals—are insufficiently developed and still contain snags. Yet we are asked in this clause to support a blank cheque.

On the question of the number of Internet providers, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that he thought that the provision would include all ISPs. But that is what is worrying; it will not. There is nothing in the Bill about this. The general assumption was exactly the same as the noble Lord's; that is, that the provision would include all ISPs, at least over a period. The chambers of commerce report worked on the assumption that the interception regime would involve 20 large ISPs and 100 small ones—that is pretty well most of the industry. But the Home Office said that that is a gross over-estimate, perhaps by as much as a factor of 10. That is to say, only one-tenth of the ISPs will be subjected to this regime; presumably, that is one-tenth of the large businesses and one-tenth of the small ones. I find that surprising. But it shows how difficult it is to get at the cost and to know exactly what is proposed.

My noble friend Lord Lucas said that if this £20 million—the Government's estimate—is going to be imposed on only one-tenth of ISPs, it will cause grave difficulties. The others will be at a competitive disadvantage because they have not been approached.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will give way on this point. At the moment we do not require all public telecommunications operators to possess an intercept capability. If the noble Lord is saying that it is unreasonable to expect only a small proportion of ISPs to bear the cost, he must be saying also that it is unreasonable that only a small proportion of PTOs currently bear the cost. The two situations are broadly comparable. The noble Lord should reflect on that point, otherwise he misunderstands the way in which these things are intended to operate.

I shall certainly reflect on it and ask others to do the same. After all, the vast majority of telephone traffic goes through very few hands. That may explain some of the figures given by the Minister in that respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, asked a simple question in this regard. No detail was given and no approach was made in principle to answer his question. "It will all be considered before we reach secondary legislation", said the Minister. Of course, there will be a further opportunity to discuss it at that stage, when the stable door has more or less shut. But we all know the difficulties of secondary legislation.

I shall not press this amendment tonight. It merely sought to probe what the Government intend. We have found out practically nothing in that regard. I am sure, therefore, that we shall return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The debate on the two previous amendments was very disappointing from our point of view; indeed, we received no proper answers—answers that this House deserves—from the Government. I should like to use this debate for the purpose of asking the Minister a question. If I receive the answer that I expect, I shall then put forward a suggestion for him to consider.

It is perfectly obvious now that we do not know how many ISPs will need to have a box and what the cost will be. The Minister has said that that may not apply to all of them, but that is rather like saying that there will be intercepts only in London and the South East, not elsewhere in England. The system really does not work like that for ISPs; they are all intermingled. I do not see how anyone can know the answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggested, they will probably all have to have one at some point or another.

We have heard nothing about what the costs will be and have received very little information. It is not just a matter of the burden of such costs for industry; unless we get this right, the situation will drive business overseas. As a simple example, let us look at the betting industry in this country. At present, the Treasury imposes what the industry considers to be a high tax on betting turnover. In almost an instant, the industry has managed to transfer a large part of its business via data communication lines to Gibraltar, Malta, the Caribbean and various other points across the globe. Such places are completely outside our law and thus no revenue is collected by the Treasury.

If the same analogy were to apply to this case, instead of being able to have the intercepts and thereby stop the pornography available through such services, as the noble Baroness would wish, we should not be able to do anything at all because it would all be based offshore. Therefore, the Government would have shot themselves in the foot because the legislation would not work—

I do not wish to stop pornography. I wish to make sure that the Internet is safe for children. Those who wish to indulge in watching pornography, or whatever, would be able to do so, but I should like to be sure that children—and others we do not wish to have access to such services—are safe.

I entirely accept what the noble Baroness said. But if it is to be safe for children, it must be regulated. It will not be regulated if we drive it overseas.

Clause 13(1) says that the Secretary of State,

"may, if he thinks fit, make such payments".

Thereafter, subsection (1)(b) refers to the word "appropriate". We have heard that the Minister cannot tell us what is appropriate because he does not really know. It might amount to a contribution. But will there be a limit on the cost, of, say, the net revenue of a company? What happens if there is a major disagreement between the Government, the Home Office and the industry on what is, and what is not, appropriate? Is there any form of right to arbitration or an appeals system within the Bill relating to this clause?

If we are to rely on this consultation and, indeed, on secondary legislation, it seems to me that the industry may, in effect, have to agree to a blank cheque. I suspect that there is no right of appeal beyond, I suppose, judicial review—governments are fond of saying, "Well, you can always go to judicial review"— but, in reality, we all know that such a process is so expensive, lengthy and time consuming that it often never happens. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as a lawyer, will back me up on that point. Moreover, judicial review rarely works. People do not have the time or the money to make it work.

If I am right in thinking that there is no form of mechanism that the Government and the industry are going to negotiate, what would be fair for both sides? Will the Government consider some form of mechanism being added to the Bill which will then give some assurance to the industry that it will be treated fairly?

I have one comment to add. We agree with Conservative noble Lords about the unsatisfactory nature of the Government's reply to the amendments within the grouping under Clause 13. Is it fair? No, I shall rephrase that: it is fair. Can the Minister tell us in time for an amendment to be tabled and, if necessary, divided upon, just what the Government's broad strategic proposals are vis-á-vis the sharing of costs under this Bill? That seems to me to be entirely proper and right. Will the noble Lord please give a commitment to do so?

I entirely support what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just said. The Government have said that they will disclose this information to the industry, so they must disclose it to Parliament. If they are going to open negotiations with the industry and discuss draft secondary legislation, that must involve revealing their position as regards what they believe they will do when faced with the question of who should bear the capital costs.

I have one question to ask and two points to make. Will the Minister let us know before Report the current capital costs of telecommunications interception? The noble Lord made much of the fact that these costs are currently borne by the industry, but how much are they? As far as concerns suggestions about what to do with this clause, as I said previously, it does not fall under anyone's supervision. Might it provide a way forward if we brought the Secretary of State under the supervision of the interception and communications commissioner as regards his reasonableness? Alternatively, if we changed the word "appropriate" to "fair", would the noble Lord consider that to be fair?

I suggest that the mood of the Committee on the matter is very clear in terms of agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the extremely simple and straightforward proposition that he put to the Minister. The Minister must be in a position to come to this Chamber and give, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, put it, his overall strategic view on the matter. We are not talking about cutting this down into fine detail; we are talking about how the Government would handle the matter. Without that information, how can noble Lords do anything but fear the worst? Indeed, the noble Lord may even find himself facing an amendment that attracts a good deal of support in the Chamber. That situation could be avoided if the noble Lord were to agree to come forward with more information.

I do not wish to tackle the problem of the cost and who pays it; indeed, that does not really concern me very much. But I should like clarification on one point. As an economist, I imagine that some ISPs are fitted with intercepting machinery. It would pay any criminal to find out those concerned and then go to other ISPs. So, behaviourally, it would seem to me that you cannot have some people with intercepting equipment and not others. That would actually defeat the purpose of the legislation which is to find out where criminals are sending their messages across. They may currently go to the 10 largest, but, as soon as they are intercepted, the 90 smallest will suddenly become large. That is the logic of the situation. I am worried about that more from the point of view of meeting the purpose of the Bill, rather than on the question of how much it will cost.

I have one further technical point to make. Marginal costs have been mentioned. It will very much depend on whether or not the marginal costs include the depreciation of capital equipment. The fast obsoletion of equipment and not the cost of it may go into those marginal costs. If something becomes obsolete in two years, you could easily write off 50 per cent as a marginal cost. Marginal cost is a very tricky concept, as are many others in economics. When my noble friend enters into negotiations, I hope that he will play a cool game.

In speaking to Clause 13 stand part, I shall attempt to address the points that have been reasonably and fairly made from all parts of the Chamber. I begin with the issue raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, as to whether there is some form of independent arbitration under the Bill. The noble Viscount is right to suppose that no appeal mechanism is available. However, it is important to point out that there is the possibility of a Secretary of State's decision being judicially reviewed. It is also fair to point out that the Secretary of State can enforce that decision only through the courts. So the Secretary of State has to weigh up such issues most carefully. However, I do not think that that will happen. I repeat that we shall be reasonable and proportionate in considering how costs are apportioned.

I have read Clause 13 and subsection (3) of that clause. I can understand that the Committee does not like the term "appropriate". However, it is a flexible term and has been included for that purpose.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He provokes my legal instincts. It is rare to hear a Minister of the Crown encouraging the Opposition to beat a hasty retreat to the High Court for a judicial review. I am also astonished that the Minister should hold out any hope of anyone obtaining a remedy in the High Court under Clause 13 of the Bill. The wording is so woolly that I do not think even a shepherd on the hillside would give a remedy. Clause 13(1) states:

"The Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, make such payments … as [he] considers … an appropriate contribution".

That provision is so heavily weighted in favour of the Minister's virtually uncontrolled discretion that I would not advise any client to pay me money to go anywhere near the High Court for a judicial review, whether it was a question of tuppence ha'penny or £200 million.

I am disappointed in the noble Lord's lack of confidence and faith in the judicial process.

It is a question of his faith in the Bill, not in the judicial process.

That may well be part of it but it seemed to me that the noble Lord rather doubted that any court would give fair consideration to the case brought before it. Knowing the strength of our judicial system, I cannot believe that that would be the case.

I am not a lawyer. I am as far from being a lawyer as it is humanly possible to be. I have listened to the discussion with great interest. However, the Minister must accept that we in this building are making the law which the courts will then interpret. I do not think that he can put the blame onto the courts for the badly worded Bill and say that the courts are no good if you cannot get the right judgment out of them. We have the opportunity in this Chamber at this and subsequent stages of the Bill to rewrite the provisions to make the wording less woolly and to enable the judicial process so beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to work properly.

I live with a lawyer and she always argues that these questions can be subjected to the important test of reasonableness. I intended to be a little more helpful. I ask the Committee to bear with me. I shall be unhelpful initially but I shall be helpful later.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, encouraged me to reveal the capital costs of telephone interceptions that are currently met by PTOs. On consideration I cannot tell him that for two reasons. First, it would compromise the commercial confidentiality of those who are involved. Secondly, from a security point of view, it would become obvious who does not have that capability. Those two points bear careful consideration and thought.

Is it not astonishing that the Government can forecast, as exactly as they have, the cost of a system which is as yet unknown and undescribed and yet be totally unable to say what the cost is of a system which is in place and working?

I did not say that we were incapable of finding out and saying how much that cost might be. However, I said that I thought that we would be ill advised to reveal that. I believe that the PTOs would not wish us to reveal information which is commercially sensitive. That is the point I am trying to drive home. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that. The noble Lord asked whether we would reconsider the use of the term "appropriate" in the clause. He suggested that we might like to consider using the term "fair". I am happy to give that matter reasonable, fair and appropriate consideration. I am trying to be helpful.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, asked about consultation on the whole issue. We shall need to consider the noble Lord's observations. I shall give careful consideration to his important comments. We shall continue to consult. I believe that that consultation will make a difference. I take seriously the suggestion he made.

I am terribly sorry to interrupt again. However, I asked that before the final stage of the Bill the Minister should tell us what the broad strategic parameters are. It is not a question of consultation but of decision by the Government.

I understand entirely. That is the point I am trying to make. The noble Lord has made a suggestion. I am quite happy to give that fair consideration. If there is merit in it, we shall perhaps outline our strategy in more detail in that regard. We have tried to do that throughout the consultation and we shall continue to do so. I am happy to renew that commitment.

The Minister initiated the debate on the clause in so far as the Government could not answer the rather simple question of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, regarding which recommendations they accept from the Smith report and which they do not accept. That has left the Committee grasping at straws. I hope that the Minister appreciates why we became so concerned over this issue.

There is a slight feeling of déjà vu because the Minister reached the point in his brief headed, "If pressed". I seem to remember that at that point the brief always refers to judicial review. However, we all know that judicial review is incredibly expensive and takes a long time. It is not always effective. Often it is not effective because the judge is not deciding whether someone has a fair case to put to judicial review; he considers the legislation and decides whether the Secretary of State has interpreted it fairly. We argue that the correct provisions should be included in the Bill from the beginning. I am afraid that the argument of judicial review does not gain much favour in this Chamber, even though it contains many distinguished noble and learned Lords. What is important is what is in the Bill.

Te Minister then reached that point in his brief headed, "If very seriously pressed". I am delighted that he made some concession in being willing to consider in a fair and appropriate way whether the term "appropriate" is preferable to the term "fair". However, the Minister should recognise that Members on all sides of the Committee are unhappy with Clause 13 as it stands. Unless the Government are able to clarify their thinking and clarify the meaning of the terms "fair" and "appropriate" and say which term should be used, some mechanism will have to be included in the Bill to ensure that everyone is treated fairly in future. I hope that the Minister will consider these issues seriously—I am sure he will—between now and the next stage of the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 58:

Page 15, line 32, after ("necessary") insert ("to keep confidential all the information in the intercepted material and any communications data and in particular").

Amendments Nos. 61A and 61B are in this group and it may be convenient to the Committee if I take this opportunity to speak to them now.

I want to focus on the way in which the Internet operates. As has been made abundantly plain in our debates on the Bill thus far, it is a packet-switching system. I do not need to dwell on a detailed explanation of that. As my noble friend Lord Cope has explained, the consequence will be that a fair amount of communications data could be intercepted which will not be relevant for the purposes for which the authority to intercept was granted. That is the first point.

Irrespective of whether intercepted communications data are legitimate, the Bill is explicit that where there are no longer any grounds for retaining it as necessary for the authorised purposes, it should be destroyed. I am content with that. However, the difficulty is that, in either case, it is stated that only the copy should be destroyed. There is no mention of the original from which any copies may have been made.

I am, of course, conscious of subsection (7), where "copy" is defined for the purpose of the clause, but I am not convinced that this fully meets the point. The Minister will note that in the amendment I have retained paragraph 4(e) as a qualification on destruction of any intercepted communications data. I can see that there may be a statutory justification for this, although I await with interest the Minster's response to Amendment No. 62A on that point.

With regard to Amendment No. 61B, I am sure that the Committee will be aware of quite how difficult it is to destroy a file that is stored on a computer's hard disk. Even though one can delete it from within a software programme, the way in which it is stored on the hard disk via partition, clusters, and so on, means that it continues to be freely accessible to those with the skill and expertise to dig it out. To an extent, it is on this basis that forensic hacking is such a powerful aid to the forces of law enforcement. As a result, and particularly in the context of communications data, the Bill should be explicit in offering adequate protection to the law-abiding citizen that data which has been inadvertently or erroneously intercepted or, as it were, data which is past its sell-by date, really has been properly destroyed.

I speak to Amendments Nos. 59A and 62A standing in my name. It is common ground that Clause 14 is an absolutely crucial and central clause. It provides the general safeguards according to which the whole of the regime must be undertaken.

Amendment No. 59A deals with what seems to us to be a lacuna in the arrangements set out in Clause 14. Although there is a reference to the destruction of intercepted material and related communication, there does not seem to be any reference to the storage of the confidential information gathered under this Bill. Amendment No. 59A addresses the issue that proper storage must be one of the requirements under subsection (2), susceptible therefore of the overview of the interceptions of communications commissioner. We believe that that is quite essential.

Amendment No. 62A is in the nature of a probing amendment. It seeks to ascertain from the Government what proposals they intend to put in place to keep confidential information in public records. We are anxious to know, as I am sure the whole House is, whether full copies of warrants will be retained, together with their schedules and certificates, when and if they will be destroyed, how much detail will be recorded about the volume and nature of the material intercepted, and indeed the consequences of such interception.

One has to bear in mind that the volume of information which will come within the purview of this Bill is rising exponentially. The debate in the other place referred to the fact that daily there are over 100 million e-mail messages now traversing the wires, although I cannot even say that now. Those are huge numbers and growing. We are, therefore, anxious to know whether the Government have thought sufficiently carefully about how this rising tide of confidential information, which will be particularly intercepted under the sort of trawling certificates allowed by Clause 8 of the Bill, will be confidentially logged and secured.

Finally, Amendment No. 62A is designed to draw from the Government what plans they have vis-à-vis the historic archive of all this information—an archive which will allow those who have proper access to it the ability to analyse and appraise policy in order to refine the way in which this information is dealt with in the future.

Amendment No. 60 is in this group. It is a probing amendment to discover what the Government have to say on the subject.

Before dealing with the amendments I first make the general point, already made in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the safeguards provided for material in Clauses 14 and 15 are extremely important. Not only are they extremely important, but I would argue that they are very tightly drawn indeed. I would go so far as to say—and this is a dangerous assumption—that it is unlikely that anyone would find elsewhere on the statute book such stringent requirements for data acquired by the state. This is not meant to be some sort of boast. The protection of intercept material requires no less than the highest protection available. But I hope that it will be acknowledged by the Committee that these are very stringent tests. It may address some of the rather over-the-top, hysterical suggestions that have been made about this Bill in the past few weeks—not, I hasten to add, in this Committee. I make those preliminary comments so that my subsequent comments on the amendments are put into a clear context.

I start with Amendment No. 58, which alters the current drafting so that the Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that intercepted material and communications data is kept confidential. We cannot see what this amendment adds to the provisions that we have already made to safeguard the uses to which this material may be put. We already state that the number of persons to whom the data can be disclosed, the extent to which the data can be disclosed or made available, the extent to which any data can be copied, and the number of copies which can be made are all limited to the minimum that is necessary for the authorised purposes set out in subsection (4). I would say much the same to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who has tabled Amendment No. 60—he spoke to it in a remarkably brief and welcome way—with the same intention; that is, to place strict limitations on the uses to which information obtained by means of a warrant can be put. We consider that the safeguards we have put in place should be sufficient to meet the real concerns of noble Lords. The Bill states that any intercepted material or data are destroyed as soon as there are no longer grounds for retaining them for any of the authorised purposes.

These provisions clearly place the limitations the noble Lord requires on the uses to which intercepted material or communications data can be put, and we emphasise that those limitations are subject to the authorised purposes.

Turning to Amendment No. 59A, we understand the intention behind it and we concur with that intention. However, we believe that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is met already by the requirements listed in the existing subsection. First, the number of persons to whom any of the material or data are disclosed or otherwise made available must be limited to the minimum necessary. This means, for example, that material is withheld even from fully-vetted staff in the interception agencies where they have no need to know. The noble Lord ma de a comment about storage; we believe that the extent to which material is made available is implicit in Clause 14(2)(b) and that the Secretary of State's arrangements will guarantee safe storage.

Secondly, the extent to which any of the material or data are disclosed or otherwise made available must be limited to the minimum necessary. This involves the highest levels of physical, technical and personnel security. Intercept material is among the most sensitive categories of classified material and is handled accordingly. The code of practice on interception, a draft of which will be available shortly, will contain further details of the safeguards to be applied, including specific mention of technical security.

Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 add the term "and only if" to our use of the word "if" in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 14. With great respect, we do not see the necessity for these amendments. Subsection (1) of Clause 14 states that the requirements in subsection (2) must be satisfied; and subsection (2) specifies precisely what are those requirements. Only when each of the requirements of subsection (2) are met is the Secretary of State's duty in relation to this discharged.

Subsections (3) and (4) are different. Subsection (3) essentially provides that intercepted material must be destroyed when no longer necessary for any of the authorised purposes. Subsection (4) describes the authorised purposes, but then the extra "and only if", which is to be found in that subsection at line 9, makes it clear that there are no other authorised purposes.

As regards Amendment No. 61A, subsection (3) of Clause 14 reproduces the essence of Section 6(3) of the current Interception of Communications Act, a section which we believe has worked well over the years. The subsection requires that all copies are destroyed as soon as it is no longer necessary to retain them. This includes the initial recording or transcript made of the material or data—to which I believe the words "the original" in the noble Earl's amendment refers. Any recording of any kind produces only a copy.

So far as concerns postal interception, the postal item clearly constitutes the original material. No intercepted postal items are retained by any intercepting agency. Copies may be made but the original is put back into the postal system as quickly as possible. An interception warrant does not constitute an authority to retain or destroy a postal item.

Before the Minister leaves that point, can he explain how communications data will be treated, which is the point at issue?

I think I have dealt with that in the reply I have given to the noble Earl.

We believe that Amendment No. 61B, which seeks to qualify the requirement that intercept material be destroyed with the additional requirement that it be destroyed in an appropriate way, would make little difference in practice. All intercept material currently intercepted under the 1985 Act is covered by Section 6 of that Act, which requires that each copy made is destroyed as soon as its retention is no longer necessary under Section 2(2). In practice that requirement—which is replicated almost word for word by subsection (3) of the Bill before us—is taken very seriously by the intercepting agencies. Material is destroyed in such a way as to ensure that there is no question of any further access to it.

The question of destruction is one in which the Interception Commissioner—now Lord Justice Thomas—has always taken a keen interest. If the committee will forgive me, I shall quote a part of the first report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, where he refers to the practice of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise at the time when he was the Interception Commissioner. The report stated:

"If the conversation appears to be relevant. he"—

that is, the Customs officer—

"makes a note of the gist of the conversation, together with the time. If it is very important. he may make a verbatim note and check his note against the tape. The tape is made available by I3T. He will also listen to tapes of communications intercepted during the preceding night, or at any time when his desk has been empty. The tapes are always returned to BT, usually within 24 hours, and are erased at once. The officer who has listened to the conversation communicates by direct telephone line with the officer in charge of the operation, who makes such use of the intelligence as he needs. No note or copy of the intercepted conversation comes into existence, other than the original record made by the listening officer. That record is destroyed, by shredding. within a year".

I have quoted that example at some length to illustrate the care to which the intercepting agencies go to ensure that the spirit as well as the letter of the law is observed. Commissioners have continued to express themselves satisfied with the safeguards arrangements in successive reports.

Amendment No. 62A seeks to prohibit the retention of any copies of intercepted material or communications data despite a requirement in either of the Public Records Acts that they be retained. Section 3 of the Public Records Act 1958 provides a power to select any records in government departments for permanent preservation. Although in practice the proportion selected is very small, some official records of interception and other forms of intrusive surveillance are, by their nature, clear potential candidates for selection and eventual public access. It is for this reason that, for example, Sections 2 and 4 and Schedule 4 to the Intelligence Services Act 1994 provide for the retention of material where the Public Records Act requires it.

I wish to make a further three short points on this issue. First, the PRO specifically asked for this provision to be included; secondly, it is in line with the Government's approach to the repeal of statutory bars on disclosure currently being carried forward by the Freedom of Information Bill; and, thirdly. I want to emphasise that this provision does not provide a loophole for intercepting agencies to have permanent access to material. Any copies retained for public record purposes are stored under the strict conditions agreed between intercepting agencies and the Lord Chancellor's Department. These conditions are designed to ensure that the agencies do not have access to them in the normal course of duty.

Turning finally to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, in regard to how communications data will be dealt with and whether there are any arrangements for it under the Bill, communications data obtained under Chapter II of Part I are not covered by Clause 14. The phrase used in Clause 14(1)(a) refers to,

"intercepted material and any related communications data".

Communications data as such are not dealt with in this clause.

But the retention of those data, which is evidential—we shall debate this important matter in due course—unlike intercept material, is governed by the codes of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and, more generally, by the Data Protection Act 1998, which the noble Earl knows well. I hope that this provides a rather fuller answer for the noble Lord.

I have taken some time in responding to this series of amendments. The Government realise that Clauses 14 and 15 are important because they deal with the safeguards that the public wants to see for the unusual steps that are required here. Members of the Committee have not denied that such steps are necessary in order to secure the safety of the state and to ensure protection against serious crime. Safeguards form a very important part of this package. Having listened to my explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.