asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government will respond fully to the Nuffield report in due course. Already we are piloting approaches to language teaching in primary schools and we have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to consider the potential to extend that in the longer term.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but it stops short of the commitment for which the Nuffield inquiry makes such a powerful case. Is Her Majesty's Government aware that, by not making that commitment, they will seriously disadvantage Britain's competitiveness in the future in a multi-lingual world and that they will disadvantage pupils in state schools as opposed to those in private schools? I presume that that is not their intention. It is much easier to learn languages when one is young, so why not allow everyone that opportunity?

My Lords, I accept that there is much to be said for starting to learn languages at an early age. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, is jumping the gun in saying that the Government are making no commitments in this area. The Government are considering the recommendations of the Nuffield inquiry. As I said, the Government will reply to all the recommendations in due course. Meanwhile, a growing number of primary schools—between 25 and 30 per cent—are able to offer a modern language as an option. That may not satisfy the noble Lord, but it is an improvement on the situation in the past. The QCA is looking at the matter and, when it has reported, I shall let the noble Lord know the outcome.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the build-up over the past four or five years of specialist language colleges has been an outstanding success? They now total almost 100. Have they not shown that in this country we can have a good take-up for languages, enthusiastic learning and a good language spread, including languages beyond French to German, Italian, Spanish and other languages? Would it not be timely to take up the Nuffield recommendation and match secondary schools with specialist primary schools so that parents with a serious commitment to wanting their children to learn foreign languages can be confident that there will be a smooth and progressive transition to the secondary level in a way that was denied during earlier initiatives of this kind?

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, has said about the success of specialist language schools so far. Across the country they teach some 20 languages, thus allowing greater choice. They also allow languages such as Japanese and Mandarin to be taught in our secondary schools. I accept what he says about the need for a smoother transition for those primary school children who have had the chance to learn a modern language so that they can take forward what they have learned into their secondary schools. His suggestion that specialist schools should work with the primary schools in their areas to achieve that smooth progression is one that is being examined. I hope that it will be taken forward.

My Lords, the Nuffield report is splendid and the authors are to be congratulated. However, the shortage of language teachers is most worrying. The report states:

"The shortage of teachers, which is now acute and damaging the quality of provision in schools and colleges, is creating a vicious circle of inadequate supply".

In those circumstances, is it not absurd that university departments that train teachers of modern languages are threatened with closure?

My Lords, there has been a long-term problem in relation to the recruiting of modern language teachers, as there certainly was during the period when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, was himself a Cabinet Minister. The Government are attempting to address this difficult area. We are providing PGCE students, who are trained to be modern language teachers, with a £6,000 quasi salary. We hope that that will encourage more young people with language degrees to enter teaching, because at present many do not. We are also providing an extra £4,000 to teachers of shortage subjects, after their induction period, when they first start teaching. In relation to maths and science teachers, that has been very successful and we hope that there will be similar success as regards language teachers.

I do not know to what the noble Lord refers when he says that departments that train teachers in modern languages are being closed. There has been some reduction in the number of students taking a modern language as a single-subject honours degree, but there has been a big increase in the number of students who combine a modern language with another subject.

My Lords, is it not a fact that many students can now start a language when they reach university? I totally appreciate the advantage of starting to learn a language when one is young. However, there is now the opportunity at university to start a degree from scratch in a language such as Russian, to graduate and hopefully to take up the teaching of it afterwards.

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There is now a much more imaginative approach in higher education to the teaching of modern languages which allows students who have some potential in this area to start a language from scratch. Through intensive training—often a four-year course with one year spent abroad—students can reach good degree-level standards in that subject, and that is to be encouraged.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is another side to this very valuable coin? I refer to the encouragement of the teaching of English to the speakers of other languages.

My Lords, I entirely agree that encouraging people to learn English is another side of this coin and one from which British exporters can certainly benefit.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the French and German Governments are discussing closer bilateral co-operation in teaching each other's languages? Now that Britain is at the heart of Europe, according to the Prime Minister, have the British Government considered making bilateral arrangements with the Spanish, French and German Governments? We used to have good foreign language assistants in British schools in much larger numbers. If such a scheme could be expanded again, it would help primary and secondary schools considerably.

My Lords, discussions of a bilateral nature are taking place with the governments of those countries to extend provision of that kind. I am afraid that demand from those countries for students from the UK to work as language teaching assistants is bigger than the demand in the opposite direction.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the United Kingdom's interests for the second World Water Forum were coordinated through a cross-departmental group comprising the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Secretary of State for International Development led the delegation, which included representation from the private sector, civil society and professional associations. We plan to consult widely on co-ordination of United Kingdom interests for the 2003 forum.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, though it falls a long way short of what is needed. I hope she will agree that water is an exceptionally important industry throughout the world. At the World Water Forum, which took place in the Hague with 4,500 delegates, the British participants found each other by looking through the list of attendees. The French, German and Japanese delegations were all properly co-ordinated. Can the Minister assure us that we will immediately look for a lead agency in government to take this matter in hand so that British industry is properly represented at the Water Forum in 2003?

My Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, we take co-ordination extremely seriously. We want to ensure that industry, civil society, the professional associations and government departments are represented on our delegation. At the Hague conference we wanted to ensure that the poverty and development focus was clear in terms of what was discussed at that forum. I agree that water is exceptionally important. We take our responsibilities in that area extremely seriously and will be coordinating at an early stage to get the best out of the 2003 forum.

My Lords, as one of the 4,500 delegates at the World Water Forum in the Hague, can I make a plea that when arrangements are being made for the third Water Forum, that the Office of Science and Technology be included among the departments so that British science, technology and engineering can be adequately represented?

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. As I said in my original Answer, a cross-departmental working group attended the last forum. The actual delegation comprised the Department for International Development, the FCO and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but other departments were consulted before we went to the forum. I entirely agree that we need to ensure that science has a clear role in our preparations for 2003.

My Lords, given that 40 per cent of the population do not have access to adequate sanitation, can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to address that aspect of the water problem?

My Lords, we have made some progress in relation to access to safe water in that the numbers of people throughout the world who do not have such access has gone down to 1 billion. As my noble friend said, some 2.4 billion people—40 per cent of the world's population—do not have access to adequate sanitation. The Department for International Development is investing £50 million into a combination of water and sanitation projects. That figure will be increased to around £360 million in the coming years.

My Lords, is it not unfortunate that, following the conference in March of this year referred to by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, the non-governmental organisations jointly issued a statement totally disagreeing with the ministerial statement? Does not that underline my noble friend's point that there should be proper co-ordination? Cannot the UK lead the way by bringing NGOs as well as other bodies into their co-ordination plans in readiness not only for the next world forum in 2003, but also for the next water conference in Germany in 2002?

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that working in partnership not only with the NGOs but with business, with governments and with international financial institutions is a key part of the strategy of the Department for International Development. We worked closely with NGOs in preparing for the water forum. However, we live in a democracy and it is important that, where NGOs disagree with government, they have the right to say so. We have consultations with NGOs and others who are involved with development through our policy forums. That is to ensure that NGOs understand our agenda and, as far as possible, we understand theirs. It does not mean that the agendas will always be the same.

My Lords, given that an important and early beneficiary of public sector investments in water supply in developing countries is often the private sector, particularly the multinationals, does the Minister agree that the Government should place special emphasis in the forum on encouraging more private sector investment in water supply in developing countries, possibly through public-private partnerships?

My Lords, that is an approach which the department has taken extremely seriously.

We recognise the significant potential contribution of public-private partnerships to improve access to sustainable water and sanitation services for poor people. In fact, we have worked with other governments to access the potential contribution of the private sector. We have also worked with the World Bank and the government of Japan, and launched a public-private infrastructure advisory facility to assist developing countries to establish appropriate enabling environments for partnerships with the private sector.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Anglo-Peruvian agreement signed in July 1998 is reviewed on an annual basis. We are deeply concerned at the conduct of the recent presidential elections, which fell far short of internationally accepted standards. We shall discuss our reaction with our European partners when we meet after the Organisation of American States' investigative mission returns from Peru at the end of June.

My Lords, as well as the preliminary report of the OAS, were not reports by the EU delegation which attended the first round of the presidential elections, by FIDH, and by Electoral Reform Services and so forth uniformly critical? Does the noble Baroness agree that it is impossible to have an agreement which calls for collaboration in promoting democracy if there is no democracy to promote? Will she ensure that, in the current considerations of our relationship with Peru, Sr. Toledo, the leader of the opposition, is consulted? Does she know whether he had anything to say during his recent visit to Spain about what the EU can do to help?

My Lords, we played a key role in the EU in drawing attention to the inadequacies of the system and calling for free and fair elections in Peru. The noble Lord will be well aware that there was a British delegation observing the first round of presidential elections, which consisted of my right honourable friend Mr Tom Clarke and the honourable Member, Mr William Ross. They reported extremely critically on the proceedings during the first round.

We support the OAS mission that is visiting Peru at present. It is a very high level delegation, led by the OAS general-secretary Cesar Gaviria and the chair of the Organisation of American States General Assembly, Mr Lloyd Axworthy, who is also the Canadian Foreign Minister. We shall discuss reaction with our EU partners in the light of that mission's recommendations on its return. We wish to ensure that whatever action we take will help to protect the democratic rights of the Peruvian people.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, while awaiting the outcome of these reports, the best way to help the people of Peru and to reinforce the democratic principle is to maintain contact and co-operation at all levels as well as insisting on the utmost openness and transparency in all processes and procedures whether they be political, social or commercial? In view of the many efforts by chambers of commerce, trade organisations and my own organisation, the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council of Canning House, to improve and increase trade and investment in Peru, can the noble Baroness reassure the House that the Government, especially the new British Trade International, will continue to support these efforts?

My Lords, the whole House knows of the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in affairs of Latin America, especially in her role as president of Canning House. I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that our aim in whatever we do in Peru is to further bilateral relationships with NGOs and civil society in all its forms.

My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the patrons of the Peru Support Group. Is my noble friend aware of the particular concern of many people that a consequence of this election is a potential risk to the human rights situation in Peru? With that concern in mind, will she confirm two aspects of the Anglo-Peruvian agreement: first, that this Government will continue to give unremitting support to Dr Santistevan, properly called in Spanish, "the defender of the people of Peru"—in our language, the ombudsman; and, secondly, that they will continue to finance the tremendous initiative of the BBC, the British Council and the Institute of Defence Lawyers in Peru whereby human rights and civic education programmes are broadcast throughout the nation on over 70 different radio stations?

Yes, my Lords. I can assure my noble friend that the UK has already contributed a great deal to both those projects and that it will continue to do so. Since March 1998, this country has contributed more than £141,000 from the FCO's Human Rights Project Fund to assist the work of the Ad Hoc Commission on Human Rights and the Ombudsman's Office. The FCO's project fund has also provided £144,000 for a two-year project, which commenced in April 1999, supported by a Peruvian NGO and the British Council, to produce and broadcast twice-weekly radio programmes on human rights via the most popular radio station in Peru.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only did I visit Peru as a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation last year, but I also visited the country 10 years previously, just before President Fujimori came to power? It is amazing to see the remarkable change that has taken place in the country during that time. Is the Minister also aware that 10 years previously our NGO, Plan International, was forced to leave Peru because it was impossible for NGOs to work there to help alleviate poverty? Is the Minister further aware that a great deal has been done by the present administration to reduce poverty in the poorest parts of Peru?

Yes, my Lords. I am very well aware that, at the beginning of his period of office and in his first five-year term, President Fujimori had to deal with a country that had been greatly weakened by terrorism and bad government—a situation that he inherited. The noble Baroness is quite right in that respect. Great strides have since been made in the country. Unfortunately, the present problem is the validity and the correctness of the last election. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that Peru has made giant strides in all the fields that she mentioned.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the House is well aware of the background against which parliamentary elections were held in Zimbabwe over the weekend. We admire the dignity and courage of the people of Zimbabwe in turning out to exercise their democratic rights in the face of violence and intimidation. The result is a clear message that the people want change. We hope that ZANU(PF) will respond positively to the offer from the opposition to discuss how they can work together for the people of Zimbabwe. If ZANU(PF) is willing to make a fresh start, Britain will be willing to respond.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that statement, with which I believe all noble Lords will agree. Can she add praise to the congratulations that she expressed on the courage of the MDC in particular, 35 supporters of which were killed during the election campaign? Will she also congratulate the statesmanlike position taken by Mr Tsvangirai, the leader of the MDC?

In so far as action taken by other countries in this fraught and unstable situation can be helpful, does the noble Baroness agree that there is much to be said for action being taken internationally by the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations rather than by the United Kingdom alone, which seems to provoke rather prickly reactions? I do not ask the noble Baroness to tell the House about the Government's plans, but can she assure us that they have plans in place?

Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is absolutely right. I believe we all agree that the way forward is through concerted international action. The fact that a Commonwealth mission and a European Union mission led the 400-strong team of international observers which played a role in helping through the process in Zimbabwe during the elections over the weekend has shown that this is the way forward. We are awaiting the final report from the EU mission, which was led by Pierre Schori, who has already appeared on the media and publicised an interim report. We are also waiting for the final report from the Commonwealth mission led by General Abubakar. They have both done a very good job. We await to hear the results and to see political developments in Zimbabwe. We are prepared to help in any process that will aid the economic, political and democratic future of Zimbabwe.

My Lords, I too respect Mr Tsvangirai for the position he has taken and for the restraint he has shown in interviews after the election when tempers are high. However, does the Minister agree that economic crisis is looming in Zimbabwe? Although ZANU(PF) may have won the elections, change will almost certainly be brought about by the economic situation. I hope that the Minister will ensure that Britain takes a leading role in doing nothing to precipitate an economic crisis which would affect the people of Zimbabwe far more than the ruling party.

My Lords, we have kept in touch with Morgan Tsvangirai. As noble Lords are aware, the Movement for Democratic Change will contest the outcome of a number of seats, perhaps 22 of them. That may include the seat which Mr Tsvangirai failed to win. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is right to mention the economic problems which face Zimbabwe. I refer to the following frightening statistics: 80 per cent inflation; 50 per cent unemployment; and interest rates of 70 per cent. It is absolutely vital that the economy of Zimbabwe is helped. It is also important that the new government of Zimbabwe, working with the Parliament, should not discourage any foreign investment on which Zimbabwe's prosperity depends.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Front Bench.

My Lords, without pressing the noble Baroness on the detail, and recognising that these are early days, I ask her whether she recalls that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said the other day that he would mount an international campaign to put pressure on President Mugabe to implement the will of the people. Can the noble Baroness give us an idea of his allies in that campaign, which seems to me to be utterly the right way forward? What rapid international action can we take to save the entire economy from sliding into the chaos which the noble Baroness has already indicated lies ahead? On a more specific point, can she say something about the British military advisers to the army of Zimbabwe, of which President Mugabe is the commander? Is it planned to leave them in place or to withdraw them?

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a series of questions. As I have already said, we shall work in conjunction with both our European Union partners and the Commonwealth. Both those organisations will have a great role to play to try to help Zimbabwe along the path that we would all like it to follow. Noble Lords will understand that I am trying to choose my words extremely carefully as we do not wish to sound too critical or to anticipate problems that we hope will not arise if things develop according to the comments in the televised statesmanlike public address that President Mugabe gave yesterday.

The noble Lord asked a specific question about the British military training team in Harare and the advisers. There are five military advisers providing peacekeeping training to the Southern African Development Community region. Three other advisers are involved in peacekeeping training in support of UN priorities. As the noble Lord knows, they are in Harare. The British military advisory training team is based there but it focuses on regional peacekeeping training within the whole development community. The courses are held across southern Africa and at the moment we have no specific plans to change things.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the post office network.

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

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

My Lords, before we start the Committee proceedings, I wish to record that the Government have written to me and to other Members of your Lordships' House setting out a vast series of most important changes which rewrite important parts of the Bill. I am glad that the Government have recognised the need for this major rewrite. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and to the Chief Whip for their letters, which have been fairly widely distributed, although I do not think that they were placed in the Library.

Some of these important amendments concerning Part III appeared yesterday. We shall discuss them later today, although admittedly at short notice. However, other changes were promised at earlier stages of the Committee but we have not yet seen the actual amendments. It is clear that, for example, the definition of "communications data" and the matters which flow from it will be of the first importance, will be exceptionally complex and will have consequences in a number of clauses. They may well amount to a rewrite of that part of the Bill.

In those circumstances, we may seek the recommittal of that part of the Bill in accordance with the Companion to the Standing Orders, which suggests that procedure for amendments tabled at a late stage which require detailed examination. The Companion states:

"Decision on such amendments may then be reached on recommitment, reserving to the Report stage its proper function as an opportunity to review and perfect the bill as amended in Committee".

Obviously such a request would be considered by the usual channels. However, I thought that it might be useful to mention that possibility now.

My Lords, further to that comment, perhaps the Chief Whip rather than the Minister should respond to those concerns. We are almost now dealing with a House of Lords Bill, so dramatically is the Bill being rewritten as we proceed. I repeat: if ever there was a case for pre-legislative scrutiny, this Bill is it. I hope that in future, when Bills of great technicality are brought before the House, outside expertise will be brought in at an early stage, rather than having to have that expertise brought to bear on the Home Office before concessions are made, as in this case.

I do not wish to appear churlish. Having pressed changes on the Home Office, we do not object to the fact that changes to the Bill are now being made. However, it is now extremely difficult, midway through the Committee stage, to make a judgment on the balance of the Bill. It would be helpful to know how the Report stage will be handled.

I address my next question to either the Minister or the Chief Whip: will we see the code of conduct before Report stage? The rewriting that has been promised as the Committee stage has proceeded and the code of conduct will give us a much more complete picture of the Bill.

To try to legislate both for civil liberties and for one of the most important new 21st century industries in the rather heated atmosphere of July, with all the pressures that that entails, and with a Bill which involves considerable secondary legislation and delegated powers, is not the way to do business. It is not just a case of the Opposition opposing this process; there are some sensible lessons to be learned with regard to how we have reached this position and how it should be avoided in the future.

My Lords, I shall try to deal with the points in turn. I am a great fan of pre-legislative scrutiny. I take to heart the comments that have been made in that regard. It is an important and valid point. I thank both noble Lords who have spoken. However, I ask the rhetorical question: how would they have felt if we had not made any changes? We have moved a long way on the Bill. We said at the outset that we would do precisely that and that this was a listening and a consultative process. We said that we would take on board reasonable criticisms, as far as we could do so, and engage actively with industry interests.

What I can say to both noble Lords is that we are still committed to the timetable of producing by the Report stage the draft codes of practice. We want to be as helpful as we can be in enabling industry interests to have the maximum opportunity to look at those because clearly they have a bearing on future debates. I hope that that clarifies that point.

As to recommittal, that is a question to be considered in the usual way by the usual channels. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I think that that presages a helpful dialogue over the amendments we have tabled. We will try to give as much advance information on the precise nature of other amendments that are to be brought forward at the Report stage. But, as I have said, this is all about listening. We are trying to listen. We have taken on board many comments and criticisms. We want to improve the quality of this legislation, as we do with all other pieces of legislation.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved Amendment No. 99A:

Page 27, line 11, leave out ("For the purposes of this Part surveillance is directed") and insert ("Subject to subsection (5A), surveillance is directed for the purposes of this Part").

As Amendment No. 103 is grouped with this amendment, I must point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 104 to 106.

We have two amendments in this group. Perhaps I may say to the Minister that the government amendment brought forward in response to consultation and pressure could almost he covered by the phrase "minor and technical amendments", a phrase used by Mr Charles Clarke about the Bill when it left the Commons. When asked what amendments he expected would be made in the House of Lords he said that some minor and technical amendments might be made. As I say, I think that this amendment just about comes under that description. However, many of the amendments which we shall discuss later do riot. As I said a few moments ago, I am glad about the recognition of a need for a rewrite and for that matter the recognition by noble Lords of the, importance of the Bill.

Our Amendment No. 102 is grouped with Amendment No. 99A. The amendment draws attention to Clause 25(2)(b), which states:

"For the purposes of this Part surveillance is directed … in such a manner as is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person (whether or not one specifically identified for the purposes of the investigation or operation)".

We recognise that in picking up private information about one individual who is the suspect—let us call him the probable criminal—other information about those adjacent to him, in his family or whatever, is likely to be collected at the same time, even if it is not directly relevant to the operation being conducted. But that information is not really the information which those carrying out the surveillance should be going for. I think that we should consider that. Furthermore, the clause appears to permit fishing expeditions against people who are not suspected of any crime, terrorism and so on. Therefore, I thought it worth probing what exactly is intended by the words in the amendment.

The Minister mentioned the BBC in connection with licence evasion. We have read in the Sunday Telegraph about how the BBC was involved in covert and intrusive surveillance of a residential home, which led to a programme which has been severely criticised not only by the Sunday Telegraph but also by the police. I do not want to become involved in the rights and wrongs of the actual programme concerned, but it is clear that this was covert, intrusive surveillance by the BBC. There were concealed cameras in residential premises for the exact purpose of filming people within that home. That practice, of course, is by no means unique.

If the Bill is passed in its present form, it would be helpful if we could be told about the future legal position in connection with covert intrusive surveillance for the purposes of collecting private information by the BBC or any other news media. However, the main purpose of my remarks is to illustrate the reason why we have tabled Amendment No. 102.

I have also tabled Amendment No. 112A, which has been included in this grouping. At Clause 25(7) the Bill sets out provisions covering a "covert human intelligence source"—more usually known as a "grass". The clause defines such a person and provides for how such a relationship is to be governed. All that is fine. However, my amendment draws attention to the kind of circumstance where someone discloses information that he has obtained in a similar fashion, but has done so,

"to avoid the commission of a criminal offence by another person under any other enactment".

We are not discussing a person established as a grass by the police, but rather a person who decides to grass on someone else in order to avoid the commission of an offence. The amendment seeks to explore the exact position of such a person. Clearly, these people can be of great value to the police and no one would wish to discourage them or place legal impediments in their way. I hope that the Bill does not do that, but I thought it best to inquire about the effects of the Bill while we are debating it in Committee.

Following on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in the past I have worked, in a purely voluntary capacity, with the Alliance Against Counterfeiting and Copyright Theft, a body of commercial organisations that uses various surveillance techniques to track down those involved in offences of counterfeiting and breach of copyright on CDs and so forth. That body is concerned that it might be caught within the ambit of the Bill. It may be that the Minister has a ready response on this point. If not, the issue may need to be brought back on Report in the form of a probing amendment.

Rather like the example given by the Minister of the television detector van, concern has been growing that other activities that were previously thought of as proper and legitimate might now be "hoovered up" by the powers contained in the Bill.

On behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, I shall speak to an inordinately long list of amendments contained in this grouping: Amendments Nos. 100, 101, 103, 104, 107, 108, 111, 112, 116, 119 and 138. That constitutes a Herculean, if not an impossible, task. Difficult though the job of organising amendments can be, I wonder why so many amendments have been strung together into one grouping. They cover a wide variety of highly important issues.

The broad intention behind the first two-thirds of these amendments is to ensure a higher level of distinction between, and a greater level of protection against, certain kinds of surveillance. Under the Bill, "directed" surveillance and the use of what are termed "covert intelligence sources" require the lesser control of self-authorisation from a designated person within the agency undertaking the action. "Intrusive" surveillance, which is defined in Clause 25, requires approval from a High Court judge acting as a commissioner.

I do not expect noble Lords have been able to study all the amendments in detail. It would weary the Committee were I to plod through them one by one, especially since we face a long day ahead. However, the general endeavour is, first, to probe what is an extraordinarily complex clause. I wonder whether the good noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, have lulled themselves to sleep trying to comprehend the many subsections contained in Clause 25. The clause has a certain "Alice in Wonderland" quality. "Through the Looking Glass" would not be a bad way of putting it. With these amendments we are trying to ensure that more surveillance has to be dealt with under the category of "intrusive" surveillance, so giving a greater degree of protection for the citizen, something which we believe it is essential to provide in this measure.

Perhaps I may refer briefly to the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am sure that the Committee will ultimately be bored stiff—if it is not already—by constant reference to that convention. However, the convention lies at the heart of the Bill. Furthermore, it will come into effect through our own Human Rights Act on 1st October this year. We believe that the Bill as it stands and Clause 25 in particular fail to acknowledge that the European Court in Strasbourg has made it clear that Article 8 privacy rights can be engaged outside residential premises and private vehicles. Noble Lords will recollect that the definition in the Bill of "intrusive" surveillance is that which is undertaken in or outside residential premises or private vehicles. We believe that that is far too narrow a definition in terms of necessary protection of the public and in terms of the European convention.

For example, in the case of Niemietz v. Republic of Germany, the court held that a person is also entitled to a degree of privacy in professional and business relationships. I am sure that it is already apparent that if Clause 25 is left unamended, in particular subsection (3), it will be possible to carry out surveillance in a doctor's surgery, an MP's office, a restaurant, a public place, the workplace or a vehicle. None of those areas will be protected by the need for independent authorisation under the Bill as it stands. We feel that that is wrong. Furthermore, it is likely that the Bill will fall foul of the European convention and, in particular, will not meet the precedent set by the Niemietz case. Perhaps I may add that long ago, in 1967, the United States Supreme Court held that privacy rights protect people rather than places. We do not seem to have taken that on board.

I should also tell the Committee that the Data Protection Commissioner has recommended that the definition of "intrusive" surveillance should be widened to include any premises or location where the individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy. The same opinion has been expressed by the Irish Law Reform Committee and many others.

I turn very briefly to some of the individual amendments. Amendment No. 103 inserts the phrase in Clause 25(3) that any surveillance which,

"interferes with any person's privacy in circumstances where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy",

should be seen as an important and guiding principle.

In Amendment No. 107 we seek to add to Clause 25(3) a new paragraph which states:

"Surveillance may be intrusive for the purposes of this Part irrespective of whether permission is obtained from a person able to give permission in respect of relevant premises to the conduct taking place on or in relation to those premises".

That is excepted from "intrusive" surveillance by the Bill as it stands.

Importantly, too, in Amendment No. 103 we seek to delete the major part of subsection (3), to which I have referred. We believe that that will avoid the rather ludicrous distinction between one type of vehicle and another, or one type of premises and another.

Given this immense grouping, perhaps I may deal briefly with the issue that I touched on at the beginning of my remarks; namely, covert human intelligence sources. That is dealt with—

Will the noble Lord tell me whether the Liberal Democrats were party to the grouping about which he has complained? It is the normal procedure for groupings lists to be agreed. Also, I am not quite sure which noble Lord is speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.

That is a good point, but the noble Lord has held high office in this place and he knows how much negotiation can go on—particularly when the Government have given us one last day in Committee and have virtually rewritten the Bill on the hoof. My noble friend makes a small point; the noble Lord makes a debating point. We accept the groupings list; we are working to it, and we can also complain about it.

I am sorry to intervene again, but the practice has been clearly set out by Government Whips. It is that groupings are agreed, and once they have been agreed they may be degrouped, but nevertheless Members cannot complain about the grouping. Secondly, as I say, I am not sure who is speaking for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.

I shall continue. I may have over-egged my pudding. I was not party to these groupings. All I can say is that I believe that the task that I have, without prolonging what I have to say and confusing the Committee, is unreasonable. That may be a lesson that we on these Benches also need to learn.

Perhaps I may turn to the second part of this string of amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 111, 112, 116, 119 and 138. They all deal with the question of informers and undercover agents. The broad purpose of the amendments is an attempt to draw a distinction between a police officer who is an informant and a criminal who is an informant. In brief, we believe that it is important that a distinction should be drawn and that the second class of informant should come under a higher test as regards the authorisation needed. That is why we state in Amendment No. 119 that,

"An Authorisation for the conduct and use of a covert human intelligence source whose conduct falls within section 25(7)(d) shall be governed by the same procedures as apply to the authorisation of conduct for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance".

The human intelligence source falling within (d) is included in proposed Amendment No. 112; namely, an informer who,

"engages in a course of action which, without authority, could have led to his arrest and prosecution".

I should add that the European Court in Strasbourg, in Kopp v Switzerland, severely criticised the practice of internal executive authorisation without supervision by an independent judge in relation to surveillance activities. It is, therefore, at least questionable whether self-authorisation within one of the agencies set up under the Bill would be considered a sufficient safeguard in relation to the activities of participating informers and undercover officers in serious crime cases.

Perhaps I may refer also to the case of Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal—I am grateful to Justice for supplying me with these authorities. That case places additional weight on the need for independent authorisation and supervision of undercover operations if the exercise is not to breach the European convention. It may, therefore, in accordance with this string of amendments, be necessary to draw that distinction whereby the use of participating informers and undercover officers in cases where there could be criminal activity requires prior authorisation by a judge. I shall rest my case on these amendments at that rather inadequate and brief explanation.

I welcome the assurance given by the Minister in his opening remarks that his officials will be drawing up a list of agencies to which the provisions of this part of the Bill apply. It may be for the convenience of the Committee in our understanding of the amendments if the Minister could give an overall broad view of what type of agencies those will be. For example, the BBC was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cope in two different instances: detection of TV licence evasion, and undercover television documentary programmes—which may also be made by agencies other than publicly owned ones; namely, independent television companies. So in order to aid our understanding of this complex set of amendments, and indeed complex part of the Bill, will the Minister give an overview of what type of agencies are being authorised; and if they are not mentioned in this section of the Bill, does it mean that any conduct of this nature would be illegal?

I have only just looked at this group of amendments and have not had a chance to study them in detail. However, it seems to me at first glance that Amendment No. 103 tabled by the Liberal Democrats is a particularly good one. If that could be agreed to, we should save a great deal of time.

I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to the extent that Clause 25 is complicated. But it is not the first complicated clause that Members of the Committee have had to consider, nor, I dare say, will it be the last. The noble Lord knows as well as I that the point made by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel is absolutely right. If there were objections by his party to this grouping—which, I concede, is extensive— they should have been taken at another time. We are faced with the grouping now and, like the noble Lord, I shall do my best to answer the questions raised and deal with the amendments proposed.

Perhaps I may turn immediately to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, as to who is covered by this part of the Bill. The answer is short. It is public authorities, in the broadest sense of the word, which are covered. Organisations which are not public authorities are not covered.

That takes me straight to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—who I know cannot be in his place at this moment—about the alliance against counterfeiting, whose exact name I cannot remember. That body is not a public authority and, therefore, could not be authorised to carry out surveillance under Part II. It is not a bad example. However, if it is decided that organisations are public authorities for this purpose, the schedule can be amended.

Will the noble Lord expand a little on the consequences of that decision for an institution such as the campaign against copyright theft, or people making investigative television programmes? Does the Human Rights Act mean that these people will now be liable for prosecution for entering and infringing people's privacy; or will they just trundle on much as they have done previously, without any adverse consequences?

I want to be very careful in what I say, because we were taken by surprise by the mention by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, of the body in question. Our first view is that it is not a public authority. If we are wrong, what I am about to say does not apply, because it would be a public authority and thus covered by Part II.

This is the first time such surveillance, whether done privately or publicly, has been regulated. This is so to the extent that named public authorities will have the power to do this under close regulation. The status of private organisations that conduct themselves in such a way needs careful consideration. To adopt a phrase used not long ago, I am not prepared to speak off the hoof on that aspect. I should like to consider what the noble Lord said about it and perhaps write to him. I do not want to commit the Government to saying what the Bill provides about those organisations that are not public authorities and are therefore not covered by Part II. On the face of it, they would seem at the very least not to be acting in the context of the Bill.

I turn to the other amendments, hoping to be forgiven if, in the main, I deal with them in numerical order. The first four amendments, Nos. 100, 101, 103 and 104, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, address the fundamental concepts in Part II. We appreciate the concern to protect the privacy of individuals but we do not believe that the amendments adequately consider the practicalities. Their result might be to extend the stringent requirements attached to the authorisation of intrusive surveillance to a much wider range of activities presently covered under the provisions for directed surveillance. They would also lead to a great deal of confusion and uncertainty for the operational practitioners about what constitutes directed or intrusive surveillance.

There is no problem in identifying in advance operations involving residential premises or private vehicles. However, the same cannot be said about mobile surveillance, which makes up the majority of operations. It may well involve cases in which an individual considers that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy, even though that expectation would vary from one person to another. This would mean, for example, that the police would have to know before each covert surveillance operation began where their target was likely to go and whether he would find himself in circumstances in which he, or another, might have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Generally speaking, the police and other operatives would not have that information and therefore could not make the judgment. They would not know, for example, at the start of the day whether their target would spend the day dealing in drugs, meeting criminal associates to plan an armed robbery or meeting a friend, going for a drink or a meal and then visiting the home of another friend. To expect the police and others carrying out surveillance to make a decision beforehand on the expectation of privacy of the target and his associates is unreasonable and impractical.

The level of intrusion is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence or other activity being investigated. Therefore, we have restricted the use of intrusive surveillance so that it can be carried out only on the grounds of serious crime and in the interests of national security or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. However, the definition in the noble Lord's amendments would incorporate a significant number of other activities undertaken by other public bodies. These range from investigating tax evasion and benefit fraud to health inspections of restaurants.

No central records are kept of the number of covert surveillance operations carried out each year. Estimates by the police suggest that they alone undertake more than 60,000 operations. In addition, operations are carried out by Customs, the security and intelligence agencies and many government departments and local authorities. Those activities are covered within the provisions of the Bill but are not classed as intrusive surveillance. To expect a greater number of such cases to require prior approval would bring these statutory functions to a standstill, significantly restricting the activities of the police and others. We need clear guidelines that operatives can easily follow, setting the specific circumstances and locations where people have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy. People generally have the greatest expectation of privacy in their homes and in their private vehicles when going about their everyday lives.

We have also responded to the special protection given by Article 8 to a person's home. These are the instances in which we have restricted action to serious cases and to which we have given the highest level of protection. There are other situations in which we think that a person's right under Article 8 also needs to be carefully weighed against the purpose for which surveillance is required. These are dealt with as directed surveillance, but we think that the most intrusive categories need to be fenced off, kept separate and made subject to the most stringent safeguards.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will see that there are practical difficulties in what I know were probing amendments to see where we stood and that in due course he will withdraw them.

I turn to Amendment No. 102, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, which might restrict what can be authorised as part of directed surveillance. The words in brackets in Clause 25(2)(b), which he seeks to remove, provide for authorisations in circumstances in which either the suspect has not been identified or the operation under consideration might reasonably be expected to infringe the privacy of people other than the main target. If it is proportionate to the offence under investigation, such surveillance should be capable of being authorised. Surveillance of a known drug smuggler may well involve an invasion of his wife's privacy too. The Bill allows for that, in regulated circumstances and subject to oversight. Another example is that the police might be aware of organised drug dealing in which an exchange of drugs and money takes place but not know the names of those involved. They might well, and justifiably I would argue, carry out surveillance and follow persons who attended the meeting.

Amendment No. 107, again a Liberal Democrat amendment, would make it clear that the consent of the owner of the property to surveillance is irrelevant for the purposes of the Bill. We have no argument with the intent of the amendment, but it is unnecessary. If a property owner—for example, a prison governor acting on behalf of the Prison Service—allows access to plant a device in a prison cell, that should of course be authorised at the highest levels, regardless of that consent. The Bill provides for that. It is a specific gap in the Police Act 1997 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 which the Bill fills in anticipation of the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. The 1994–97 Acts focus on interference with property, which can be circumvented with the collusion of the property owner. The Human Rights Act brings a focus on interference with privacy, which cannot be circumvented in the same way.

Amendments Nos. 108 and 138, again spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would remove from the category of directed surveillance interception with one-party consent. We understand the objection to the provisions but we brought them forward after some thought. The important point is that interception with one-party consent will require the same level of authorisation as directed surveillance. We do not deny that the privacy of the third party in such a call is invaded, so such an activity needs to be authorised and subject to oversight. But, plainly, a kidnap situation in which anxious relatives receive phone calls from the kidnapper or the situation of a victim receiving malicious phone calls are different from listening in to a call between two drug smugglers. That is recognised by the lower level of authorisations required. It is important to keep this flexibility.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 111, 112, 116 and 119, all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. They seek to engineer an extra category of covert sources. This would be the category of agents or informants who as part of their tasks themselves become involved in the criminal activity. For these cases the amendments propose the highest levels of authority, such as those required to authorise intrusive surveillance.

These are important but not simple matters; nor are they ones that can be, or should be, addressed in this legislation. This legislation is concerned with intrusion into privacy. Part II of the Bill in particular focuses on situations in which privacy can be invaded for legitimate purposes. It sets out the checks and oversight required for occasions when privacy is invaded in this way. It does all of this to ensure compatibility with convention rights, as will be required when the Human Rights Act comes into force in only a few months' time.

The tasking of covert sources is part of the authorisation process set out in the Bill. If an informant or agent is to be used to derive private information, the use of that source should be authorised. The authorisation granted under this Bill will not include giving immunity from prosecution for criminal activities undertaken by the covert source. That must remain a matter for the prosecution authorities and courts on an individual basis, as now. Additionally, the purpose of an authorisation is not to give legal cover to potential criminal activities but to give a lawful basis to conduct in such a way as to make it ECHR-compliant. Therefore, we believe that the higher levels of scrutiny suggested in these amendments are not needed.

I turn finally to Amendment No. 112A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. The amendment seeks to bring anyone who provides information covertly about crime within the definition of a covert source. We have, quite properly, excluded from the terms of this Bill ordinary members of the public who, out of a sense of civic duty, come forward with information to the police about suspected criminal activity. There are many public contact numbers, such as that for Crimestoppers, which encourage people to come forward with information. Such persons may have obtained the information by chance. They do not want to be subsequently involved, or form any long-term relationship, in order to obtain or disclose further information. They are not being tasked by the police or others to establish or maintain a covert relationship for this purpose.

If we were required to treat all such persons as covert sources, with the requirements in relation to record-keeping and handling, we believe that it would bring the total number of covert sources in this country to many hundreds of thousands. It would also create a massive and unnecessary administrative burden; and it might quickly discourage members of the public from providing the police with vital information and bring to an end that source of information. We cannot countenance that. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord—I understand that he raises this issue to hear the view of the Government—to withdraw his amendment in due course.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 102A:

Page 27, line 21, leave out ("and (5)") and insert ("to (5A)").

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on modernising the Post Office network which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows: "Post offices are a vital part of the fabric of our country. They serve 28 million people every week, performing a vital role in local communities, whether they be rural or urban. But the Post Office also faces challenges. Its traditional work needs to respond to the changing requirements of customers, to changes in society and to the opportunities arising from new technology.

"Last October the Prime Minister asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to draw up a strategy for the future of the Post Office network. The Performance and Innovation Unit's Report is being published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House and will be available from the Vote Office. The Government accept all of the report's 24 recommendations. Working with the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, we shall implement the measures proposed in full and back them with financial support. We shall set aside ring-fenced funding as part of the spending review.

"The Post Office is the largest retail network in Europe. More than nine out of 10 people live within a mile of a post office, but for too long the Post Office network has been a neglected national resource. Now is the time to harness its full potential and to develop in totally new areas. The PIU report identifies three such areas where developments should take place, made possible by investment in a modern on-line computer system for every post office, to which the Government are contributing over £500 million: first, to establish a universal bank; second, to provide Internet access and exploit e-commerce; third, to provide an enhanced role in government services.

"The Government are aware that their decision to move to a system of automated credit transfer between 2003 and 2005 has caused concern, but people were already voting with their feet and choosing to have their benefits paid into their bank accounts. Today I can guarantee that even after the move to ACT, pensions and benefits can still be paid in cash in full at the post office if that is the choice of the individual pensioner or benefit recipient. The universal bank outlined in the PIU report would provide the means of achieving this. It would ensure that all benefit recipients and pensioners, now and in the future, can continue to use post offices to receive their cash. It would be a post office based solution, as called for by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters.

"Today in Britain up to 3½ million adults have no bank account. The universal bank would bring these people into the banking mainstream by providing basic banking services. Customers of the universal bank would be able to take out cash at any post office and use cash machines to take out money. They would be able to set up direct debits to pay bills, enabling them to benefit from discounts on gas, electricity, telephone and other bills.

"The second area is Internet access and the exploitation of e-commerce. By installing Internet terminals in front of the counter and ensuring staff are trained to provide assistance, post offices can help ensure that more people have access to the Internet, and the skills they need to use it. Post offices have an opportunity to market themselves as a convenient local place for people to collect goods that they have ordered on the Internet.

"The third area is an enhanced role in government services. Post offices have traditionally been places where people can conduct a range of government business, from renewing a car tax disc to getting a fishing licence. That role will be further strengthened with the PIU's recommendation that post offices become one-stop shops—general government practitioners—for advice and information on government services. We shall support pilot projects on this and Internet access.

"This vision of the 21st century is one which applies to all post offices, but the PIU report also identified the particular needs of the network in urban areas and rural communities. The rural post office network has been slowly contracting over the past 20 years. This Government are committed to ensuring that the rural post office network is maintained. The importance of rural post offices cannot be underestimated. Often, they are the last remaining local shop, providing a vital service and also acting as a focal point for the community. The maintenance of such services is, above all, a tribute to the invaluable role of sub-postmasters and mistresses who often provide to their communities much more than is required or expected of them. This Government have already made provision in the Postal Services Bill for the Government to provide financial assistance to post offices.

"In order to protect rural post offices, the Government will place a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network, and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices. An unavoidable closure would be when no-one is prepared to take over from a departing sub-postmaster or where an associated retail business is no longer commercially viable. The PIU recommended that this requirement to maintain the rural network should apply—in the first instance—for a period of six years. We accept this recommendation. During this period the Postal Services Commission together with the Consumer Council for Postal Services will monitor the network. The commission will report annually to me on the rural network.

"Presently the Post Office defines a rural post office as one which covers 6,300 inhabitants; 7,500 post offices are currently covered by this definition. However, the Countryside Agency defines a rural post office as one serving a settlement of 10,000 or fewer people. Around 10,000 post offices would come within this definition. I am pleased to inform the House that for the purpose of the policy of protection from avoidable closures we shall be applying the wider definition and therefore cover nearly 10,000 post offices. It is not just in rural areas that post offices play an important community role. We want to maintain convenient access and improve the quality of post offices, in our towns and cities as well as the countryside.

"But—under pressure from changes in the pattern of retailing—the quality of many post offices and associated retail business has declined in urban areas over the years. The best way to address this is for the Post Office, working closely with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, to build bigger and more extensive offices, reversing years of under-investment. As recommended by the PIU, we will encourage them to do so.

"Post offices in deprived neighbourhoods and estates have a particularly important role, often providing the basis for the only local shop. Our aim is to ensure that people in these areas, where there are few other facilities, continue to have access to high quality post offices, preferably co-located with good shops. To support this we will set up a new fund to improve the quality of post offices in deprived urban areas, better serving the needs oft he local community. Uses of the fund would include installing security measures and modernising the premises.

"These proposals provide a significant package for guaranteeing access to post offices and enabling post offices to provide new services which meet the changing needs of customers. The Post Office will need urgently to develop its plans for taking forward these opportunities. I have asked them to provide these plans by September.

"By providing financial support for these initiatives, the Government are backing a viable, sustainable future for the post office network. But the Post Office itself also needs to respond to the challenges. The PIU report shows that much more needs to be done to maximise the commercial potential of the network, to improve efficiency, and to raise the quality of post offices. The vision set out in the PIU report—which we support—is closely in line with that of the General Secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, with whom we have been in close dialogue. The package announced today complements the measures in the Postal Services Bill, to protect consumers and enable the post office to modernise. Post offices, and their customers, in all areas will benefit from the wide range of opportunities offered by a modern on-line computer system in every post office and proposals to establish the Universal Bank, Internet learning and access points and General Government Practitioners.

"Customers in all urban areas should benefit from bigger, more extensive post offices, offering a wider range of services. Those in rural areas will also benefit from the requirement to maintain the rural network. Those in inner cities and estates will benefit from measures to ensure post offices provide good local shops which serve the community.

"This announcement will ensure that people across the country—in rural communities, in our cities and towns—have convenient access to a post office providing quality services. It will offer the opportunities the Post Office needs to face the future with confidence, and to build a network which can thrive rather than just survive in the 21st century. I commend it to the House." My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say how very much better it would have been if the Statement had been made yesterday before the lengthy discussions on related issues under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. Does the noble Lord realise that many Peers would not have been kept at a late hour in this House debating the important issue of rural post offices—being totally in the dark so far as concerns the Government's intentions—if the report had been laid before the House? Did he ever consider that point? Is not this one more conspicuous example of this Government's unacceptable contempt for Parliament?

I must ask the noble Lord directly: was the PIU report in his hand yesterday? If so, why did the Minister not offer this Statement yesterday? Did his noble friend Lady Hollis ask him to make the report available to the House? If not, why not? If the noble Baroness did so, why did the noble Lord's department not agree to do so?

Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any aspects of this Statement which could lead to primary legislation? If so, does he accept that we should be ready on our side to consider delaying the Third Reading of the Postal Services Bill in order to accommodate agreed amendments, if that would help rural post offices?

I turn to the detail of the Statement. We welcome the fact that the Government have at long last put together a package for sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters have waited for more than a year, unable to plan and invest for the future. Post office closures have escalated during the past year. This year 500 have closed. Sub-postmasters have demonstrated their deep-seated concern in many ways—for example, by holding a rally in April, which was attended by more than 2,000 sub-postmasters, and through submitting a petition containing more than 3 million signatures to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street.

Would not it have been better for the Government to have waited to announce their future intentions until they had developed a practical workable strategy for the future of the Post Office before making halfhearted announcements last year? Those announcements will lead to the loss of £400 million income from sub-post offices, have caused much uncertainty and concern and have led to the appalling number of post office closures.

We welcome the Government's determination to maintain a minimum network. But can we have clarification of what that network will really mean? We note their commitment to maintain the rural network. The Minister states:

"I am pleased to inform the House that for the purpose of the policy of protection from avoidable closures we shall be applying the wider definition and therefore cover nearly 10,000 post offices".

Currently there are 18,500 post offices. Does it mean that 8,500 post offices will be at risk? How will those which will be maintained, and which the Government guarantee will not close, be funded? How will that £400 million loss be recouped through the services that they will provide, a matter referred to in the Statement? For example, where will the banking charges fall to cover the 3.5 million potential new customers for the universal bank? Will they fall upon the customer, the post office, the bank or the taxpayer?

The Statement raises many more issues. Is it the Minister's intention to allow parcels to be handled by commercial freight and parcel carriers other than Parcel Force? Is that how he will recoup the £400 million of revenue lost to post offices? What about the subsidies? On these Benches, we understand that the Post Office does not want subsidies. In the debate in this House at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said,

"There is no security in subsidy".—[Official Report, 2/5/00; col. 958.]

Has the Minister made an analysis of the potential distortion for competition here?

This is a very important point. It raises important questions with regard to competition with other small local businesses which it was thought the Government are also seeking to support.

In responding to the Minister's Statement, I have asked a number of questions. I make no apology for that. This is a crucially important issue and we on these Benches would be failing in our duty if we did not press the Minister for a full reply.

My Lord, it will not come as a surprise to noble Lords to realise that the tone of the response from these Benches will be slightly different from that of the Conservative Opposition. I must say that when listening to the Conservative Opposition on this subject it always amazes me that they never actually mention that it was the Conservative government's decision to introduce automated credit transfer which caused this problem in the first place. However, that is obviously a matter upon which they will reflect.

I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that this is a massive victory for those who have been campaigning in favour of the sub-post office network over the past year or two. When this campaign started there was relatively little recognition from the Government that there was a problem. The campaign, led throughout the country by people involved in the sub-post offices and the political parties, has today brought the beginnings of a result. One wonders why that is.

The Prime Minister is often fond of teasing the Liberal Democrats that its policy at the last election to put 1p on income tax to fund education was the longest P in history. I believe that in this particular case the Prime Minister has found that post office closures and pensions are the two disastrous Ps in electoral terms over the past year or so, at least until he met the Women's Institute. I believe we must recognise and welcome the significant shift in government policy that the Statement represents.

I am sure the Minister will not be surprised if, having welcomed the Statement, I probe him a little on one or two of the fundamental points of detail.

First, the critical issue that is missing, and missing from all government pronouncements, is how much money is going to be put into it and will that money be guaranteed? No doubt the Minister's answer will be somewhat analogous to Mr Byers's response on the radio this morning when he said, "More than you expect". I believe this House deserves a response and an undertaking from the Minister on behalf of the Government that satisfactory financial resources will be found in the Comprehensive Spending Review to maintain the commitments set out in the document, and that that commitment will be given for the whole period until 2006. We require a guarantee that whatever financial requirements are set out in this report the money will be made available. If the Minister can, he should take the opportunity to make that undertaking today.

My second point is particularly important as regards the continuation of rural post offices. I have noticed a slight discrepancy between the Statement and the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit. The Statement indicates that the Government will ensure that the finances are available to maintain the rural sub-post office network unless a closure is unavoidable. In the Statement an "unavoidable closure" is defined as one where no one is prepared to take over from a departing sub-postmaster—an obvious requirement—but it goes on,

"or where an associated retail business is no longer commercially viable".

Those words do not appear on page 86 of the Performance and Innovation Unit report which indicates that the Post Office would be required to maintain post offices in rural areas except where it was impossible to find replacements for departing sub-postmasters. Nowhere can I see in the Performance and Innovation Unit report any reference to the second requirement regarding the associated retail business no longer being commercially viable.

It may seem a small point of language but it is actually a fundamental point of principle. In a large number of rural sub-post offices there may well be an associated retail business which is not commercially viable but which the community may want to retain and which somebody may be prepared to take over from the retiring sub-postmaster. Therefore the Minister needs to indicate whether he accepts what the Statement says. The Prime Minister's letter states that the Government accept all the recommendations of the report and that the words that have crept into the Statement about the associated retail business are a gloss which is not accepted by them. In other words, the Government will agree to subsidise sub-post offices where necessary, provided that there is somebody prepared to take over from the departing sub-postmaster, whether or not there is a failure of the related commercial business.

My next point relates to urban closures. There is an assumption that only rural post offices are involved. It is quite clear to those of us who go around the country that it is just as much an issue for urban post offices. I know the unit's report indicates, and the Government have accepted, that a fund would be set up to provide a subsidy to urban post offices where necessary. But the Minister ought to give an undertaking that the Government regard the problems of urban sub-post offices with exactly the same concern as they do those of rural post offices. Members of the House who canvassed in the Tottenham by-election recently will recognise the problems of urban post offices.

My next point is one of timing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, indicated, post offices are closing as we speak. I am concerned that the consultation mechanism regarding rural post offices will not be completed, according to the unit's report, until approximately the autumn of 2001. I believe the Minister does need to give an undertaking that steps will be taken to accelerate the subsidy if necessary to stop the urgent and very dramatic problems that are occurring as more and more post offices close.

Clearly, the Government think that this Statement will give confidence to rural sub-postmasters and therefore that the closure programme will stop. But the Minister ought to indicate that the programme will be accelerated if the Statement and what flows from it does not staunch the closures that are currently occurring.

Finally, on a small point of detail but a big point of principle, we on these Benches welcome the desire to turn the sub-post offices into—dare I say?—Internet cafés. The rural sub-post office can become the Internet café of the future. There is one small technical point of which I am sure the Government are aware. In order for that to happen, effective ISDN lines into those post offices are required. Noble Lords who live near rural sub-post offices will be aware that it is virtually impossible to get an ISDN line into those offices or into one's house. If the Government are going to implement the proposal, they will have to give an undertaking to solve the problem of ISDN lines going into rural areas.

My Lords, perhaps I may first make clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that I did not have the report in my hands last night. If I had, I would have made it available and commented on it. The first time I saw it was when it came off the presses this morning.

Perhaps I may also make clear that it is extremely important to get these measures right and we asked for the PIU report because we wanted to get them right. The task of producing a report on such a complicated issue in eight months was extremely difficult, but it has been well done.

I find it extraordinary that the party of a government who presided over the closure of 3,000 post offices during 18 years—in 1992 alone, they presided over the closure of 478 post offices—should come here and say that we should have acted with greater urgency. That smacks of a hypocritical approach. If the issue is so urgent, it was urgent when they were in power and they should have done something about it.

The noble Baroness criticised the timing. We first had to clear up the incredible mess that had been made of the computerisation of the post offices. It was started by the previous government and was done extremely badly. It was three years behind schedule and was costing a great deal of money. We first had to correct that system; we have now moved on to deal with the viability of the post offices.

We are not giving a guarantee about the other 8,000 post offices. We believe that the major problem with the rural post offices results from the declining population in those areas. We want post offices in urban areas to remain on a commercial basis. We are providing them with financial assistance on the basis that it will give them time to develop new services. We want to try to keep them on a commercial basis, but we recognise that there will be problems while they make the changes. We want to help them do that. That is exactly the right course. It retains the commercial basis while taking a position on access and social justice. That combination lies behind these processes.

What alternative has been suggested? It is that nothing is done and that we maintain old systems, which the previous government realised should be changed, and wait while the lifeblood of the Post Office flows away. I cannot believe that any government could see that as a responsible approach to the system.

The proposals will cost a considerable sum of money. It is significant in terms of total government finances and therefore it will form part of the spending review. It will be part of the 2000 spending review and that will be the appropriate time to give details.

The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, queried the position of shops attached to post offices. That is covered on page 85 of the PIU report. The distinction is that we are considering giving financial support to the Post Office and its services. An open-ended commitment covering shops attached to or containing post offices is a different consideration.

I turn to the differences between urban and rural post offices. The problems are different. The decline in the rural population is creating a major problem, while urban areas have suffered from a long period of under-investment. We are setting up a fund to correct that situation and to enable post offices to go forward on a commercial footing. I believe that the policy meets the needs of rural communities and of deprived urban communities. It does so, not by looking backwards and trying to preserve the systems and views of the past, but by looking forward and trying to create new businesses and opportunities which will make post offices viable. They will be able to continue to provide valuable services to rural communities.

My Lords, I welcome any proposal put forward to help post offices, to stop their decline and, it is to be hoped, to reverse it. However, it would have been helpful if the Statement had been made before last night's debate. Indeed, today's Statement appears to be almost a response to last night's attacks.

I shall not attempt to go through the Statement, but I want to make one general point. It appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the criticisms made and needs to be considered in detail. However, I was struck in particular by the security angle. I am concerned about the number of post offices which will be equipped to provide the degree of security necessary to safeguard the amounts of cash which they must handle. Village post offices are vulnerable as it is, but for large parts of the day only one person is left in charge. The security aspect will need careful consideration and no doubt will receive that from the Government.

The Statement raises the question of whether the large number of rural post offices, often in small cottages, will be capable of providing the security required to provide the service that is contemplated. I hope that a satisfactory answer will be forthcoming. However, I welcome any proposals to help the Post Office, but I shall await more detail in due course.

My Lords, while it may be felt that the report is a response to last night's debate, the record will show that it was requested eight months ago. It has not been cooked up overnight! I believe that we are approaching the problem reasonably by saying that this is a serious issue which requires serious consideration. We came forward with the report as soon as possible.

I agree with the noble Lord as regards security. It is an extremely important issue in deprived urban areas and we shall use the modernisation fund in dealing with it.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former Post Office worker and former official of the Union of Post Office Workers. Having done so on a number of occasions, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships' House. Although I am an outspoken critic of the Government's overall plans for the future of the Post Office, which we shall discuss tomorrow, it would be churlish not to welcome the general thrust of today's Statement. However, a couple of elements are missing.

The first is the lack of reference to Crown offices in any form or detail. They are a valuable part of the network, providing Post Office workers who offer back-up services, training and reserve forces for emergencies when postmasters are in need of them. The Crown offices deserve a mention in the Government's overall vision.

Secondly, as I have not seen the PIU report I should like to know more about the universal bank. Will it be a copy of the highly successful National Giro Bank which was created by the Post Office and sold off by the previous administration at a knock-down price? At the time of its sale, it was successful and efficient and there was a long waiting list of people who wanted to open accounts. The Scotsman was the only newspaper to tell the truth about the whole charade of selling off the bank. It is a disgrace which will haunt the previous administration for many years to come.

I do not believe that the report was brought forward to today because of last night's performance; I believe that it was done because of tomorrow's performance. It is pre-empting what we are to discuss tomorrow, and I find that a little unsatisfactory. However, I feel that some mention should be made of the Crown office network and the work done by its managers and staff. I believe also that more information should be made available about the universal bank. It would do the Government great credit if they were to start again and create another national Girobank which served the public and was socially useful and efficient.

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend welcomes the general thrust of the report before we return to our discussions tomorrow. The report covers the Crown offices but there is no change in government policy in relation to them. We are still committed to maintaining 15 per cent of the business which goes through the Crown offices.

The services which will be offered by the universal bank are covered, I believe, on page 73 of the PIU report. They are not exactly the same as those of the Girobank because the situation is slightly different. However, I believe that it is an important initiative which could have enormous social benefits if, over the years, it brings more people into the banking system.

I do not believe that noble Lords can have it both ways. We were asked whether we could possibly bring the matter forward before the Postal Services Bill had been through the House, although it should be said that that Bill concerns the public status of the Post Office and not the network. We tried to meet the commitment to the House to bring the matter forward, but it is a trifle harsh for noble Lords then to say that we did so only because of the debate the following day.

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister three brief questions. First, will customers be charged for banking services? I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked that question and I do not seem to remember that she received an answer. Secondly, at present certain services, such as the sale of car tax discs, are provided only by Crown post offices. Will those services be extended to all post offices? Thirdly, what will happen to small rural post offices in shops where space prohibits any degree of expansion?

My Lords, if the explanation was not clear, I shall repeat it. We have made clear on a number of occasions that benefits can be collected in cash and there will be no charge. People will receive benefits exactly as they did previously. There will be no difference. If people ask for more bank services or if we wish to extend them, that is obviously a different question.

With regard to Crown services, so far as I know there is no proposal to extend the services which currently are provided only by Crown offices to sub-post offices. I believe that that is due to the fact that if the full range of Crown office services were to be provided in a rural post office, there would be too many with which to deal and operation would become difficult. I believe that those were the two main questions asked.

My Lords, a Frenchman once fell off the top of the Eiffel Tower and, when half-way down, was heard to murmur, "Good, if it lasts". I hope that the Minister understands why I welcome the Statement in that spirit.

It may be said that if the issue were urgent people would have taken it up earlier. Perhaps I may make it clear that that does not apply to these Benches. I have been trying to remember when I was first alerted to the matter by my honourable friend Mr Kirkwood. I believe that it was in the Parliament before last, and that is not exactly a case of "Archie-come-lately".

I am concerned especially with the social security issues involved. I welcome warmly the provision for people to receive benefits at the post office in cash. However, as benefit provision has very little spare fat, I should like to ask whether they can do so without paying bank charges, which many of them are not in a position to do.

In addition, as some benefit income, such as housing benefit, is necessarily on occasion irregular, will the Minister and his noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham consult each other about the rather more long-term problem regarding whether people on benefit might be able to receive small amounts of credit on rather more generous terms than those they receive at present from loan sharks?

My Lords, I am happy to exonerate the Liberal Democrats from any suggestion that they have not always been keen to make this proposal, although I suspect that the noble Earl's comment was not aimed at me but at the other Benches.

So far as bank charges are concerned, I repeat that people will be able to receive benefits in cash without paying bank charges. That is fundamental to the issue. However, I believe that it should be made absolutely clear that a credit facility is not being provided and, indeed, people will not be able to get into debt with the universal bank. That point is clear and important and should be understood.

My Lords, will my noble friend join with me in congratulating the PIU on the open and innovative way in which it conducted the inquiry and on the splendid report it produced? Will he also take to heart the very wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that there is no security in subsidy and, in particular, that if there is one thing worse than explicit subsidy it is hidden subsidy provided by distorting the social security system? That is a rotten way to go about this very important task. Therefore, will he agree that the measures in the PIU report, including the provision of funds to encourage shops to invest so that they have a long-term future, represent the true way forward; that is, not allowing the tail of social security to wag the dog of keeping rural post offices prosperous?

My Lords, I believe that the PIU report is excellent because it considers commercial issues and commercial viability while taking account very strongly of the social issues. I believe that it is that mix which makes the report so impressive.

I agree totally that there is no security in subsidy. That is why the matter is structured very carefully. It concerns the provision of support to sub-postmasters while they obtain extra business to develop their operations. It combines financial assistance with an attempt to return to viability. I agree totally with my noble friend that a hidden subsidy, particularly one based on over-paying for services while keeping those services inefficient, seems to be the worst conceivable way of providing assistance. If financial assistance of some kind is to be provided, it should be on a basis which leads to a viable system.

The idea of keeping antiquated systems is one to which people seem to return again and again. They believe that keeping old systems which everyone knows are long out of date is a way of keeping the service viable. It is not, because, first, people will vote with their feet and, secondly, it is a way of hiding financial assistance, which means that the matter is not being addressed properly.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on circulating to some Members of the House as early as he decently could a copy of the PIU report, especially to noble Lords who, like me, are interested in the Postal Services Bill, which we shall debate tomorrow. However, I did not hear the Minister's answer to my noble friend's question. Is there anything in the PIU report which will necessitate a government amendment either to the Bill or, indeed, to the draft licence, which he has also circulated to Members of the House who are interested in that Bill?

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, that the Post Office Girobank was spectacularly successful as a bank, but unfortunately it did not act as the bank to ease low-income families into the banking system, as the PIU suggests that a universal bank should do. If it had succeeded in that, we would not find that more than 15 per cent of adults do not have a current account.

My Lords, there will be no change to primary legislation as a result of the announcement. That is why we drew up Clause 103. We are ahead of the game, even if only slightly. I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord whether it will make any difference to the draft licences, but I shall certainly write to him with the information.

My Lords, having regularly asked questions about the Post Office and its services over the years, I welcome the proposals and look forward to reading the detail with great interest. What are the financial implications? I realise that the Minister cannot tell us about the amount of government funding until the expenditure review is undertaken. But will the objective of the measures that he has announced be to restore the income that it was estimated would be lost to post offices as a result of the previous proposals to change the payment of benefits?

My Lords, I find it difficult to answer that question, because I do not understand the figures about the losses that would occur to sub-postmasters. A sub-postmaster is currently paid 13p for every benefit transaction that he undertakes with the claimant and 17p for every transaction that comes through the banking system. There are no proposals to change that. I do not know where the figures for lost payments come from. The payments that sub-postmasters receive for those services will remain the same.

My Lords, I welcome the positive points in the Statement, but I hope the Minister does not think that the population is declining in all rural areas. It is certainly not declining in Somerset and I imagine that there are several other areas where it is rising. Will the postmaster's salary be kept available when the existing incumbent retires, given the length of time that is often needed to find a suitable replacement? Will the Minster also give some thought to places where the village shop has already gone? Sometimes it has been replaced by a community shop manned by volunteers and in other cases there is still a pub or garage available to which a new post office business could be linked.

My Lords, the decline in rural population is not a universal phenomenon. If I implied that it was, I was clearly incorrect; but it is an important factor in some areas. The question of payments to sub-postmasters is a matter for negotiation between the Post Office and the sub-postmasters. I cannot give any guarantees. Where there is no sub-post office, there is no intention to make an effort to bring one back, because such a huge number have gone. As I said, 3,000 were lost under the previous government. We are still working on the details of how the financial system will work.

My Lords, I hesitate to ask a question, knowing that we are debating the subject tomorrow, but I have two points for the Minister. First, he talked about pilot projects. How many are anticipated and what is their time-scale? Secondly, although he has not been able to answer our questions on funding, we shall want to press him further in tomorrow's debate. He used the word "we". I understand his difficulty, but I do not know whether "we" means the Government, the Post Office, the taxpayer or the local authority. Clarification would be helpful.

My Lords, the noble Baroness can certainly press me tomorrow, but the words that I used were the ones that had been agreed for this Statement. I shall not give a different answer. We are talking about a significant sum. The precise amount should be revealed at the time of the spending review. I suspect that I have used the word "we" in a number of different contexts, but it usually means the Government.

moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 27, line 24, after ("vehicle") insert ("owned or occupied by anyone subject to surveillance").

I have no firm views on Amendments Nos. 106 or 109. But it seems to me that if the Government do not accept Amendment No. 105, or something very like it, they will be shooting themselves in the foot. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, if Clause 25 is left unamended, the people doing the surveillance will be caught and that is surely not the Government's intention.

Had the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not tabled these amendments, we should have tabled similar amendments. We wish to support them.

In subsection (5), to which Amendment No. 109 relates, it says that surveillance,

"is not intrusive unless the device is such that it consistently provides information of the same quality and detail as might be expected to be obtained from a device actually present on the premises".

That seems to me to be an extraordinarily high test and largely reduces the protection around intrusive surveillance which other parts of the clause are designed to provide.

I also raise the fact that the Data Protection Commissioner, whose views must surely be given some weight in these matters, responded to the Bill in March of this year by citing the instance of a picture from a long-lens camera. That may not be quite as clear as a picture from a camera placed in the room but it did not necessarily reduce the infringement of privacy.

Finally, in response to a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on an earlier amendment moved from these Benches, from a practical standpoint, in terms of working those complex provisions, how is one to know in advance whether the quality and detail of information obtained by a device is or is not of a consistent quality commensurate with information obtained from within the premises?

All in all, we believe that those provisions are impractical, unworkable and unnecessary and that the Bill would be improved without subsection (5).

We were a little unclear about the purpose of Amendment No. 105 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The amendment inserts the words,

"owned or occupied by anyone subject to surveillance",

after the word "vehicle". But Clause 45 already defines "private vehicle" as,

"any vehicle which is used primarily for the private purposes of the person who owns it or of a person otherwise having the right to use it".

That formulation in Clause 45 is intended to catch the occasions when a vehicle might be in use and being used for private purposes.

As before, that distinction may not be perfect in terms of pure issues of privacy but we need to give a clear steer as to the circumstances in which an authorisation will be appropriate. The Bill does that and it is compatible with convention rights in that regard.

Amendments Nos. 106 and 109 would lessen the controls placed on the use of intrusive surveillance. The aim of Part II has been to cover the activities of law enforcement and other agencies and to place the most stringent controls on those activities where a person has the highest expectation of privacy—in his home or his own vehicle.

To accept these amendments would remove from that category those operations or investigations where the police or others used highly sophisticated equipment—for example, laser microphones—to obtain details of a conversation inside a person's home without installing a device on those premises. We are not prepared to lessen that control which is why we cannot accept the amendments.

I am asked about the person carrying out the surveillance. He would have lawful authority by virtue of the authorisation itself.

In Clause 45 the definition of a "private vehicle" is,

"any vehicle which is used primarily for the private purposes of the person who owns it",

and residential premises are similarly defined. So let us suppose that we have a policeman sitting in my flat, watching some drug dealing going on in the street below. Surely, that is caught by the current wording of Clause 25(3)(a) to mean that that is intrusive surveillance, merely because the policeman is sitting in my flat watching someone else because my flat is a convenient place from which to undertake the observation. There is nothing in the definition of "residential premises" or "private vehicle" to say that those must be owned or used by the person who is the subject of the surveillance.

That is the purpose of Amendment No. 105. Otherwise, any surveillance operation which in any way makes use of residential premises or a private vehicle becomes intrusive. That seems to me to be extremely odd.

As regards Amendments Nos. 106 and 109, I understand the Government's position to be that the home is sacrosanct. I am quite prepared to work with that position. But then, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury said, subsection (5) is lunatic. There has been reference to a laser microphone. That uses the vibrations in a pane of glass. So the sound quality depends on the way in which a pane of quite thick glass, perhaps even double glazing, responds to sound waves. Under any circumstances, from the absoluteness of physical laws, it has to be worse than having a microphone on the premises. So subsection (5) will always be satisfied, so Clause 25(3)(b) has no effect. What the Government are saying they wish to do is entirely negated.

If we accept entirely what the Government wish to do, then they must entirely recast subsection (5) in some way to take out that extremely high test.

Finally, I understand why an Englishman's home is his castle, and we should treat that seriously. But why is there this passion for vehicles? I thought that it was this party which was meant to treat the private car as something special. Is not the party opposite meant to be encouraging the use of public transport? If this law comes into effect, everyone will have to use cars because then they can have a mobile source of privacy. Cars will be taken to the office because people will then be able to dodge out of the office into the car and not be subject to surveillance. That seems very odd.

I should be grateful for a response on those three points because I do not believe that I have been given a satisfactory answer on anything.

The noble Lord has raised a difficult point. We want to think further about it, particularly as he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Therefore, if the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, I shall take it away and think about the points he made, particularly in relation to subsections (3)(b) and (5) to see whether or not they are inconsistent. We are grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue and we shall come back to him on it.

A little flattery will get one everywhere! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 110:

Page 27, line 43, at end insert—

("(5A) For the purposes of this Part surveillance which—

(a) is carried out by means of apparatus designed or adapted for the purpose of detecting the installation or use in any residential or other premises of a television receiver (within the meaning of section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act I949), and

(b) is carried out from outside those premises exclusively for that purpose,

is neither directed nor intrusive.").

moved Amendment No. 113:

Page 29, line 4, leave out subsection (3).

We understand the intention of the noble Lord in moving this amendment. I shall explain why the provision is in the Bill and its effect. I shall also try to answer his questions.

The provision at Clause 26(3) would allow for authorisations under this Bill to be given for the use of surveillance or covert sources where some or all of the activity was to take place outside the UK. That can be seen to be directly relevant in the case of an intelligence agency with a remit to operate abroad, but it may also be relevant in some other areas such as drugs investigations by the police and customs.

There are geographical limits to the authorisation of intrusive surveillance. Those are set out, principally in respect of police forces, at Clause 31 of this Bill. In respect of authorisations that can have application abroad, the effect of the authorisations would be to provide reassurance to UK courts that a particular activity was, first, in accord with ECHR principles; secondly, authorised at a sufficiently high level; and, thirdly, subject to independent oversight, should evidence subsequently be brought before a court or should a Human Rights Act challenge based on that activity be made in our courts.

Without such a provision, evidence—when produced in a court in the UK—may be vulnerable to the charge that it had not been authorised in accordance with the law as required by Article 8 of the convention.

The provision does not grant a general licence to operate abroad. If the force or agency in question has no remit to act overseas, this Bill will not give it one. Indeed, for most such operations, the authorisation would cover an operation in which foreign authorities were in the lead, or at least involved. This provision would merely serve to protect any evidence arising from such operations when brought before a UK court. This is clearly desirable in helping to convict major and international criminals.

The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asks about other countries carrying out surveillance here. Foreign law enforcement agencies would obtain authorization through organisations here; they would not act here without consultation and without the approval of the relevant agency based in the UK.

I am grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 114:

Page 29, line 32, leave out paragraph (g).

I give one cheer for government Amendments Nos. 115 and 118, which take up part of the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that any power of this character should be subject to affirmative resolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, the actual recommendation of the committee goes much further and, although it is not precisely covered in the Liberal Democrat amendments, the noble Lord has a very good point.

In replying to the noble Lord's amendments, perhaps I can speak also to the government amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 203B, 205, 206, 208A to 208C and 115.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, quoted from a report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. But in a later report that committee accepted the Government's reasons for doing what we are doing. It may be therefore that the noble Lord is wrong to rely on the 18th report and should rather look to the 21st report for an explanation of what we are doing and a rejection of what he proposes.

One of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation was that we should tighten up the arrangements for adding to the grounds on which the various investigative powers can be used. As has already been indicated, we considered that and accepted the weight of the argument. So we tabled the government amendments which ensure that, in respect of each of the powers at issue, any addition to the purposes for which those powers can be used will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

We have already explained why we do not believe it is necessary to act on the recommendation of the committee that the Bill should explicitly recognise that none of the orders could include purposes which would go beyond those permitted in the convention on human rights. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, in its latest report, accepted our reasons.

As we have made clear, the powers in this Bill will be limited by the Human Rights Act. As a matter of law, not simply as a practical limitation, the Secretary of State may make no order that is incompatible with the convention. It is our view that to state on the face of the Bill that the convention rights must circumscribe any use of these orders will add nothing to the situation in law. That is an important point; it will be relevant to all legislation in the days post implementation of the Human Rights Act.

Turning to the Liberal Democrat amendments, any additions to the purposes on the face of the Bill will, as a matter of law, have to fall within the exceptions set out in Article 8(2) of the convention and should be made by means of the affirmative resolution procedure. That has now been accepted by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee as giving appropriate parliamentary control and this Committee should recognise that when debating these amendments. The 21st report deals with that matter.

What scope does that leave for adding to the purposes? I need to answer this today as Amendments Nos. 114 and 117 seek to remove the power to add purposes altogether in a fashion beyond that recommended by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The two permitted purposes in Article 8 of the ECHR, which we have not included in the Bill, are,

"for the protection of morals",

and,

"for the rights and freedoms of others".

That was because we could think of no circumstances where public authorities would want to use covert techniques on those grounds. But we thought it necessary to provide the power to enable the grounds to be extended for those purposes should that prove necessary. We can see a time when it may be necessary to use this enabling power in some limited circumstances which would fall within,

"rights and freedoms of others".

Once the HRA is implemented and we have more idea of how it will impact on the activities of public authorities, we may very quickly need to look to adding purposes to the list set out and, if we do want to add purposes, we shall want to limit them as far as possible.

The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee suggested that any use of the order-making power might be limited specifically to adding the purposes,

"for the protection of morals",

or,

"for the rights and freedoms of others",

as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Those are two quite wide-ranging purposes. If possible, any extension of the powers ought, in our view, to be more specific. Certainly, we should leave that possibility open in the interests of limiting as far as possible the intrusions on privacy.

Members of the Committee will note that this is the approach we have adopted with some of the purposes already listed in the Bill. They do not follow exactly the wording of the convention rights. Some are tailored specifically to meet the requirements of investigating agencies in the modern age. We believe the purposes described fall within those allowed under Article 8(2) and we have used a formulation to narrow the purposes as far as possible.

Of course these are important issues and they are inextricably linked with the implementation of the Human Rights Act. We tabled amendments which we feel ought to provide all the reassurance the Committee requires. We do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on the Human Rights Act—we are all feeling our way—but I seek to persuade the Committee that we have done enough in that regard. I hope that, having heard my explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful for the Minister's response. However, I urge on him the intermediate position which the Select Committee proposed; that is, rather than simply leave it to an affirmative resolution, which would of course be an improvement on the Bill, the Bill should contain on its face the two categories to which reference has been made—morals and purposes. That would be the best way of dealing with this matter. It would not leave a completely unknown category to be added by affirmative resolution in the future.

As the cliché has it, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. It is not a safe way of legislating for us to assume that the nice, reasonable noble Lords who sit opposite will always be in their places. That compromise would therefore be the best compromise. One hopes that the Government will consider it. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 115:

Page 29, line 41, at end insert—

("(15) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (3)(g) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").

moved Amendment No. 118:

Page 31, line 8, at end insert—

("(5A) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (3)(g) unless a draft of the order has been laid before. Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 119:

Page 31. line 21, at end insert—

("( ) An authorisation for the conduct and use of a covert human intelligence source whose conduct falls within section 25(7)(d) shall be governed by the same procedures as apply to the authorisation of conduct for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance.").

moved Amendment No. 120:

Page 31, line 43, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

We are grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the amendments. However, before I ask him a number of questions in that respect, I have before me the text of Clause 29 where subsection (4)(d) refers to,

"any of the intelligence services".

The reference to other public authorities in the clause is very definitive; for example, there is reference to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and the Ministry of Defence, and so on. Therefore, when the Minister responds, can he tell me whether the phrase,

"any of the intelligence services",

is a definitive or legal term? Now that the intelligence services publish booklets stating who and where they are and, indeed, are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, I wonder why the Bill does not set out the intelligence services involved. It seems to me that that leaves the matter open to debate as regards what is and what is not an intelligence service. As they are now subject to Parliament, would it not be better to define them as such?

Perhaps I may deal with that point now. As I understand it, Clause 72 defines "intelligence services". Yes, indeed, the definition is to be found at lines 8 and 9 on page 77. I hope that that answers the noble Viscount's question.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. I am glad that, like me, it took him a little time to find the actual wording.

I turn now to the amendments. I have a number of questions about the list, the first of which is general and relates to a matter that was touched on earlier. We are adding local authorities and various other bodies to this list, but I am rather concerned about how this will work. Presumably, some local authorities will not have the resources to do this on their own. Will local authorities be allowed to use private contractors for this purpose; for example, will they be able to use private detective agencies? Alternatively, will this have to be done by employees'? Can such activities be contracted out? If that is the case—I do not know whether it is—how will this be organised to ensure that those concerned keep within the rules that apply to such activity?

I note that the schedule in Amendment No. 159 includes a reference to the National Assembly for Wales. As far as I understand it, the reason for its inclusion is because the Assembly is an executive body, as opposed to the Scottish Parliament, which is a Parliament. The amendment simply refers to "The National Assembly for Wales". Can the Minister say whether that implies that the Assembly could have a wider remit when it comes to using these powers than, say, the Department of Health or the Home Office, which are confined within a rather narrow remit? It is purely a probing question, but I should be grateful to receive an answer from the Minister.

Further, under "Other bodies" in the schedule set out under Amendment No. 159, one sees that the Food Standards Agency and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce have been included in the list. I am not quite sure why those bodies are there. I understand that there may, perhaps, be a reason for including the FSA because the Bill talks about the economic well-being of the country and, indeed, about protecting public health. I should be interested to know how the agency will use its powers. Similarly, I am rather puzzled as to why the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce has been included in the list. It seems to me that we are opening up farmers in this country to some kind of intrusive—or even unintrusive—surveillance. I do not know how this will work. I believe that the Government need to explain why these bodies have been included in the list.

Looking further down the list in the schedule, one finds reference to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. I am not aware that that is either a public body or a quango. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why the society has been included. I may be wrong and it may indeed be a public body; hut, if it is not, I do not understand how it will be subject to any form of control. That seems to me to raise some interesting questions.

I have asked specific questions about the listings, but I have a more general question about local authorities. As the Minister said, I understand that the Government will be looking to see how this works in the future. However, it would be helpful to know just how many local authorities will actually sign up to start with—for example, will it be a small number and, if so, how quickly do the Government think it will grow? It would be most informative to know what evidence the Government have in that respect.

I hope that in the course of his inquiries the Minister will ask the Department for Education and Employment whether it ought to be on the list.

During my time as an education spokesman several enterprising frauds of Nigerian origin that obtained money from university grants when they should not have done so were investigated. Presumably the whole matter of the repayment of student loans will at some stage require some kind of checking up on the financial status or whereabouts of former students.

What about the drugs czar? Is the drugs czar independent of the Home Office? Is he a separate agent? I can think of many other examples but that of the drugs czar worries me because he should be included in the list.

Perhaps czars could comprise another category to be defined at a later time.

I welcome the Minister's attempt in these government amendments to try to be more specific in regard to what kind of agencies will fall under the provisions of the Bill. My intervention relates to points that I raised at an earlier stage of today's proceedings.

The Minister was good enough to say that the Bill regulates for the first time the use of surveillance, be it covert or intrusive, and that previously a number of these activities were not regulated in any way. If the schedule applies only to public bodies—there has been much discussion about those public bodies—will the Minister clarify what is its effect on those bodies that are not covered by it? Can they continue as before? Are they in a more advantageous or a less advantageous situation than those bodies which are classified as public? That relates to the point made so ably by my noble friend Lord Astor; namely, whether a public body is able to find a loophole here. Can they use a non-public body to perform their work for them?

I have a final question on the amendment we are discussing although the noble Lord may say that it applies to another part of the Bill and that we may preempt the clause stand part debate. What happens to information that is obtained using covert or intrusive surveillance? I am sure that the noble Lord will point out the relevant provision in the Bill. Are there definitive restrictions on the use to which such information may be put? Earlier my noble friend Lord Cope spoke of the BBC carrying out investigative surveillance. One has often seen on television film shot by the customs agency, for example, in pursuance of an investigation. That may involve covert surveillance. Will it continue to be appropriate for such material to be used for public entertainment, as has occurred in the past, or are there additional restrictions in the Bill to cover such eventualities?

These government amendments have elicited many questions from Members of the Committee, all of which deserve an answer. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked again how bodies that are not public authorities are affected by the Bill. He deserves a fuller response than he obtained on the previous occasion he raised that matter.

Clause 71 states, in terms, that nothing is made unlawful by Part II of the Bill. This part of the Bill is designed solely to allow only public authorities to comply with the Human Rights Act, which deals with public authorities and not with private individuals. It places a duty on public authorities to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act. The authorities that are affected are listed in Amendment No. 159. It is a matter for individual organisations to take a view as to whether they are public authorities. If they believe that they are, they can be added to the list by order.

Bodies that are not public authorities are not affected in any way by the Bill or by the Human Rights Act. Their position in law will be exactly as it was before the Bill becomes law. In other words, their position remains unchanged. If their activities are caught by the criminal law, so be it. However, if their activities are not unlawful, that will continue to be the case.

I am grateful to the Minister for those helpful comments, which have certainly assisted my understanding of the Bill. However, I referred to a private detective agency being able to pursue an activity that is lawful under the criminal law. A public authority, however, would be subject to all kinds of restrictions in pursuing that activity. Could the public authority contract out that work?

I do not believe that a public authority could contract out fully because, in the end, it would remain liable and it would be caught by the provisions of the Bill; in other words, it would have to act in accordance with the Human Rights Act.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, queried some of the names on the list. The National Assembly for Wales is in the same position as any other public authority mentioned in Amendment No. 159. The noble Viscount referred to three bodies and asked why they were included in the list. At the risk of speaking for longer than I had intended, I should explain why that is the case. The noble Viscount may not be aware—I was certainly not aware of this—that the Food Standards Agency is responsible for the enforcement of meat hygiene and related controls in licensed slaughterhouses. Surveillance is used to target individuals or premises, such as purchases at markets or activity at premises; for example, deliveries to farms where illegal activity is suspected to be taking place. The Food Standards Agency needs to be able to undertake such investigations to carry out its function as an enforcement authority for meat hygiene.

The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce has an anti-fraud unit which uses surveillance to monitor milk quotas. Under the CAP, the UK is permitted to produce a specified quantity of milk a year. If that quantity is exceeded, a levy is raised. Therefore, all producers and purchasers of milk are meant to be registered and have their own quota. If that quota is exceeded, they become liable to levy. There is a market in black market milk where farmers produce milk and sell it to dairies without declaring it to the intervention board as they are meant to. It follows that surveillance operations are conducted where farms have been observed to ascertain whether milk tankers have collected milk.

The noble Viscount mentioned the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which is considered to be a public authority and is therefore included in the list. That society has the power to enforce various sections of the Medicines Act 1968 and the Poisons Act 1972. It uses covert surveillance to ensure that there is no breach of the Medicines Act or the Poisons Act by pharmacists or businesses registered with them. As I say, it appears that not only have the Government learned more about public authorities but we are now sharing this information with the Committee. More bodies may need to be added to the schedule in due course. I believe that I have answered most of the questions that have been asked.

Reference has been made several times to where a private body carries out the functions of a public body. That happens in a number of areas; for instance, where there are private security firms operating side by side with police forces. Where that happens, will the private body be expected to observe the standards of the public body concerned? Does the public body set the standards in observation of legislation?

The answer that I have received is that if the situation is as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, describes, it would in effect make the private body a public authority for the purposes of any surveillance or covert action that it may be taking. I think that that is quite a reassuring answer in the context of the Bill.

I am sorry to press the Minister further. Perhaps he will address the point that I raised about the uses to which information and televisual data gained by covert surveillance can be put.

While the Minister is considering that question perhaps I may thank him for his helpful explanation and ask him one simple question. I do not need an answer today, but perhaps he will write to me between now and Report stage. I am grateful for the explanation that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is a public body. I must say that I was unaware of that. If it is a public body, it would be interesting to know to whom it is responsible. Is it responsible to a government department, to Ministers or to Parliament? Perhaps the Minister will write to me before the next stage and explain that. When we are adding all these public bodies, it would be useful to know where their responsibilities lie and to whom they are answerable.

I shall certainly write to the noble Viscount setting out how the society becomes a public authority. I am conscious of the question, which has now been asked twice, as to what use will be made of the information that is gained from surveillance. I must be very careful how I respond to the noble Viscount. Obviously in certain instances it can be used to make out a case against a criminal, a spy or a terrorist. However, what the noble Viscount wants to know is whether it can be used, for example, in a television documentary in order to make a point about wrong-doing. It is quite clear that the authorisations that are granted will have to be granted on specific terms, and of course the more intrusive the surveillance the more specific the terms have to be. To answer the noble Viscount's question fully it will be necessary for me to take proper advice and then to write to him with the use to which it can be put.

If the Minister intends to write to noble Lords, I think that it certainly would be helpful to have some enlargement on the nature of public authority. I have looked up "public authority" in the Human Rights Act. Under the Act, a public authority is,

"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature",

but not if the nature of the Act is private. I find that a fairly confusing definition. I should be grateful for something which translated that into ordinary commonplace English so that we can understand the scope of the Bill in practice.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 121:

Page 32, line 18, leave out from ("authority") to second ("by") in line 19 and insert ("added to Schedule (Relevant public authorities) by an order made under subsection (4A)").

moved Amendment No. 123A:

Page 33, line 32, at end insert—

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

I wish to raise a point with regard to the overlap between the Scottish and the Welsh legislation. I understand that the Scottish Parliament has changed the wording of the Scottish Act a little. For example, Clause 30(2) of the Bill says that the Secretary of State cannot grant an authorisation under the Scottish legislation for intrusive surveillance unless he is satisfied that the authorisation is necessary, not that he just believes that it is. There is a slightly higher test in Scotland. Presumably, therefore, under Amendment No. 123A, the Scots will need to fulfil a lower test in England than in Scotland.

In this context, perhaps I may ask out of interest whether the phrase,

"in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom",

would come into force if someone was planning to move a large operation from Scotland to England, or is that ruled out by that phrase?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 124:

Page 33, line 46, at end insert—

("(7) No authorisation shall take effect until such time (if any) as—

(a) the grant of the authorisation has been approved by an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner; and

(b) written notice of the Commissioner's decision to approve the grant of the authorisation has been given to the person who granted the authorisation.").

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his brief introduction to this series of amendments. It is clear that they probe whether the Government's approach to the important issues surrounding intrusive surveillance is absolutely right. Perhaps I may deal with each amendment in turn.

Amendment No. 124 seems to have two aims. With regard to police and customs activities, it seeks to rule out the situation in which, in urgent cases, intrusive surveillance authorisations can take effect without the prior approval of the surveillance commissioner. Perhaps this arises through some genuine concern over the safeguards in the existing system in the Police Act 1997. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept an assurance that he need not worry. I can reassure him on this point.

The Chief Surveillance Commissioner has set up a system for giving approval to authorisations under Part III of the Police Act 1997 which means that there is a commissioner on duty at all times. The procedure is supported by secure communications, which means that a response can be obtained from a commissioner within a very few hours. From when the Office of Surveillance Commissioners started operation in February 1999 to April of this year—a period of some 15 months—only 12 cases had been dealt with under the urgency procedure; that is, an authorisation normally requiring prior approval of a commissioner has taken effect immediately without awaiting that approval because of the urgency involved. Those 12 cases were taken from a total of around 311 prior approval cases. The same system will be put in place to deal with intrusive authorisations for police and customs activities under these provisions. I think that that should go some way to providing evidence that the system will not be abused.

The amendment would also impose a requirement on Secretary of State authorisations. They would not take effect until a surveillance commissioner had approved the grant of authorisation and written notice of the commissioner's decision had been given. We do not believe that that would be appropriate; rather, this is a skilful way employed by the noble Lord to raise again the issue of judicial warranting which we discussed during earlier debates in Committee. The surveillance commissioners have no locus in the activities of the security and intelligence agencies. We made our position clear on judicial involvement in the issue of warrants by the Secretary of State during discussions on Part I of the Bill.

Authorisation for intrusive surveillance by the security and intelligence agencies or the Ministry of Defence will occur in extremely sensitive cases. We believe that it is a key part of the line of accountability from the agencies and department to the Secretary of State. The involvement by the executive has historically reflected the highest levels of scrutiny. Any alternative means of authorising such operations would need to show that they would lead to an improvement on a system which has proved to be remarkably effective over many years. The place for judicial influence in this process is in the oversight role provided by the Intelligence and Security Service Commissioners.

I shall turn now to Amendment No. 125. The amendment allows the surveillance commissioners to add conditions to grants of approval. It should be remembered that the role of the surveillance commissioner is one of review. It is his function to review every authorisation for intrusive surveillance to satisfy himself that the decision was reasonable and that it met the criteria; that is, that it concerned serious crime; that it was proportionate; and that the action it sought to achieve could not be achieved by other means.

If the surveillance commissioner agrees that the decision was reasonably made, he will approve it. If he does not believe that the decision was reasonable, he will cancel or quash the authorisation. We do not believe that it is his role to second-guess the authorising officer or to impose extra conditions on the authorisation. Authorisations are fundamentally operational decisions, best left to those most qualified to take them. It will be the authorising officer who, at the end of the day, is accountable for that decision and will have to justify it, if necessary, in court. However, nothing can prevent the authorising officer himself from attaching conditions or limitations on who, how, when, where or what kind of surveillance may be undertaken.

Amendments Nos. 127 and 132 would require the surveillance commissioner to give prior approval to Security Service intrusive surveillance authorisations which were granted on serious crime grounds. We believe that they are moving in a similar direction to the amendments that we have just discussed. For the same reasons, we do not believe that the amendments would he appropriate. They would represent a movement towards judicial warranting, with which we do riot agree. Furthermore, they would undermine, to a certain extent, a central element in the accountability of the Security Service to the Home Secretary.

We cannot accept Amendments Nos. 128 to 131. It is worth bearing in mind that all the surveillance commissioners are serving or former High Court judges. This should continue to be the case for all those commissioners involved in intrusive surveillance authorisations. There are clear statutory powers for the commissioners to quash and cancel authorisations. Furthermore, there are clear powers for them to order the destruction of records when they consider that to be appropriate. We are referring to senior judicial figures; the issues involved may well be complex; we believe that it is right to leave the discretion in their hands.

Finally, Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 would reduce the length of time a warrant can be granted or renewed for intrusive surveillance carried out by the intelligence services from six to three months. The investigations carried out by these agencies differ from those carried out by the police and customs. They tend to be for long-term investigations involving national security and the economic well-being of the UK. We believe that a six-month warranting system for such operations is right and appropriate. The difference is reflected in the differing lengths of authorisations for interference with property under the Intelligence Services Act and the Police Act. Those differences should remain.

The noble Lord was right to bring forward these amendments in order to test the Government on whether what has been put into the Bill so far is absolutely right. We believe that the new regime sits well alongside the existing set-up in the Police Act and the Intelligence Services Act, and I hope to some extent that I have reassured the noble Lord.

While we are still debating Clause 30, I understand that the senior authorising officers will be taking operational decisions, and that in nearly all cases they are individuals who are heads of their force or branch. However, in subsection (5)(1) at the bottom of page 33, the designated Customs officer can be "any customs officer" designated by the commissioners. How many Customs officers would be expected to be designated? Also, will he define more closely the phrase, "economic well-being of the United Kingdom". I suspect that I ought to know the answer. The noble Lord has perhaps defined it several times already. If that is the case, I apologise to him.

If the noble Lord will forgive me, 1 do not intend to return to that issue, particularly when we have a large number of amendments to get through. If he will be kind enough to look in Hansard at some of our early debates in Committee, he will see that there was a debate on what that phrase means. I believe it was on the first day of Committee.

So far as concerns Customs, the noble Lord is right. Authorisation for intrusive surveillance is by a chief officer, but also, except in urgent cases—and this is very important—with the prior approval of the surveillance commissioner. Only in urgent cases can that chief officer give authority. In most cases it will be done only with the prior approval of the surveillance commissioner.

The noble Lord asked whether any designated Customs officer will do. The answer is no: the code of practice, which, I am happy to say, is due to be published in draft form before the Report stage, will limit this provision to the chief investigation officer and deputy chief investigation officer before authorisation. No one else will be allowed to do it.

I commend to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, a reading of the Bassam definition of "economic well-being". I am sure that it has already reached most of the economic textbooks.

I make no apologies for putting forward these amendments. I think that, sometimes, Parliament is cowed at the thought that the security services, the "spooks", are involved, and we are all supposed to suspend judgment. While I fully respect the work that our security services do, it is important that Parliament continues to scrutinise the powers that we grant them and how they use those powers. That was the spirit in which the amendment was moved and I shall read the Minister's reply with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 124B and 124C:

Page 36, line 7, at end insert—

("( ) a person is entitled to act for the chief constable of a police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 if he holds the rank of assistant chief constable in that force;").

Page 36, line 45, at end insert ("or section 5(4) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967").

moved Amendment No. 126:

It is important that public authorities have a statutory basis for carrying out covert activities as soon as possible and that provisions are in force before the Human Rights Act is implemented on 2nd October this year. This is necessary to safeguard the use of these valuable techniques by law enforcement and other agencies. The police and Customs will not be able to use the provisions relating to intrusive surveillance until an order has been made detailing the information to be contained in notifications to surveillance commissioners.

Such orders will be subject to parliamentary approval. However, in order to allow such an order and rules to be made by the Secretary of State in the absence of Parliament between the period when the Bill receives Royal Assent and Parliament reconvenes after the Summer Recess, the initial order has been made subject to the 40-day rule. This means that the initial order, and only the initial order, can be made without Parliament's prior approval. It would, however, need to be approved by Parliament within 40 days of being signed. The fact that the order in question will still require parliamentary approval is an important consideration.

Most important of all is the fact that the Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has considered this provision. Its report considers both the provisions and the parliamentary procedure provided for them to be appropriate. We place much store by that, as I am sure will the committee. We have tabled some amendments in response to its provisional recommendations. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 127A:

Page 39, line 28, at end insert ("or

(iii) a chief constable of a police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967,").

moved Amendment No. 133:

Page 44, line 25, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("three").

To reduce the length of an authorisation for the use of a covert human intelligence source from 12 to three months is unnecessary and would place great demands on public authorities that use sources in their everyday work.

The use of a covert source is a long-term activity that needs to be authorised for a longer, rather than a shorter, period of time. Informants and agents can take a long time to build up a relationship or to elicit a particular piece of information. We think that 12 months is about right as a sensible gap between authorisations, and there are extra safeguards in the Bill in recognition of this relatively lengthy authorisation period.

The Bill requires that there should be at least two officers with responsibility for looking after each source. One should be responsible for the day-to-day care and for the security and welfare of the source. A second will have responsibility for a more general oversight of the use of that source. A person within the authority will have responsibility for maintaining a record of the use made of the source, and the information to be contained in those records will be the subject of regulations by the Secretary of State. Those extra safeguards are necessary because of the 12-month authorisation period.

Because authorisations last longer, Clause 41(6) directs an authorising officer to particular matters for consideration at the time of renewal. But, as can be seen from the detail of these extra requirements, they are specifically aimed at issues that may arise in respect of the use of a covert source. The idea that these safeguards might also work in respect of surveillance is misguided. Also, the shorter period for surveillance authorisations makes such extra safeguards slightly less necessary. We do not believe that the amendment could work in practice.

We on this side of the Committee feel that three months would be far too short. It would involve excessive paperwork and excessive bureaucracy for the authority concerned.

There may be a case for a slightly shorter period; the noble Lord, Lord McNally, might consider six months. However, in the light of what the Minister has said it is clear that it is quite a long-term matter, and to have to come back every three months would be an excessive burden.

Against such an array of judgment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 136A:

Page 47, line 22, at end insert ("or

(iii) a chief constable of a police force maintained under or by virtue of section 1 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967,").

moved Amendment No. 136B:

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will improve the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the story of vaccine-damaged children and the campaign to secure justice for them is one of high hopes, disaster, sadness, anger, bitterness, frustration and despair.

No government, until now, has a proud record on this issue, but the record of the Labour Government is far more enlightened than that of Tory governments. Only government can give the story a happy ending and I am glad to say that, after yesterday's announcement, this Government are moving in that direction. But it will only be a happy ending of sorts because no government can restore the health of someone severely brain damaged, who suffers lifelong convulsions and who has neither talked nor learnt anything since she was vaccinated as a happy, healthy child some 40 years ago. Those are the facts.

Not only was that child's health and happiness shattered, so were the high hopes of her parents. And I pay warm tribute to her mother, Rosemary Fox, who established the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children in 1973 and with whom I campaigned for many years. Only she, myself and my wife Pauline, who worked with me, know how appallingly tough the going was in the early 1970s. The only other person involved was Kay Andrews—now the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—from the House of Commons Library, who did a tremendous amount of work supporting us.

In those days we met with prejudice, ignorance and generally a contemptuous dismissal of our claims. The £10,000 payment in 1978 came about only as a result of an imaginative and generous intervention by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan. Today, the atmosphere is much more favourable, with many people well informed.

I have always expressed my support for the immunisation programme and I am glad that the great benefits of vaccination are now accepted almost without dissent. So is the need to establish herd immunity. But it is also clear beyond all doubt that there is a small risk—probably a very small risk—with vaccination. If the Government impose pressure on parents to vaccinate their children so that society can be protected, as they do through the GP incentive scheme, they must also accept their moral duty to support the affected children and parents, as they are now doing.

Arguments over how and to what extent the Government should provide support have raged for some 20 years. I congratulate the Daily Express on its recent forceful campaign. In its day, the £10,000 payment scheme was hailed a triumph, though only because we campaigners saw that as a prelude to the introduction of the Pearson Royal Commission strict liability scheme. As the years passed and no such scheme emerged, the parents became more and more embittered and MPs have been vociferous in their support in recent years. I pay tribute to the splendid work of Ian Stewart and his all-party group.

Ministers have just published the results of the Government's review of the payment scheme. I congratulate Alistair Darling on this major step forward and Hugh Bailey, who did so much of the work. I am sure that the whole House knows of the unswerving support given to vaccine-damaged children by my noble friend Lady Hollis.

I cannot speak for the parents and I suspect that those who asked for £1 million each will not be content. But I warmly welcome the proposals. They are a comprehensive and much needed improvement on the current payment scheme.

The amount of £100,000 will not provide a lifetime's care. But it is a worthwhile amount. It will ease the burden and help parents, especially over those initial awful years when they begin to realise what lies ahead. It is a welcome lifeline, more than doubling the existing amount. I welcome also the Government's decision to help those children—many of whom are now adults—who were damaged in previous years. All too often the natural distaste for retrospective legislation is a barrier to justice. It certainly was when Service people were allowed to claim for negligence, but not retrospectively—the famous Section 10 debate in the House of Commons. This Government have avoided that with vaccine damage and I am pleased that parents who have already received a payment will get it topped up so that all receive equal benefit.

The existing Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme has been criticised for two reasons—first, because the payment level has been inadequate and, secondly, because of the high barriers around it. In some years, only one claimant in 10 received an award. That was a deplorable situation and one which requires a ministerial explanation. I hope that my noble friend can help us on that issue.

The reduction of the 80 per cent disability level to 60 per cent is an excellent step forward. I am delighted that the Government have been wise enough also to apply this change retrospectively. But I want to ask my noble friend: how many more children will become eligible? If she does not know the facts, perhaps she can estimate the number. I ask that question because some press reports say that only a few will benefit. The House would like to know the truth.

The increased time for claiming is also helpful; but it is not good enough. Some children were damaged 30 or 40 years ago and, for good reasons, parents did not claim within the existing six-year time limit. They will lose out. There should be no time limit at all; indeed, there is no logic, no reason and no rational basis for it. I hope that my noble friend will be able to help me on that.

These advances by the Government raise two further issues. The first is to ensure that all families receive the full award and that none of them loses out through means testing either by the Benefits Agency or, as is more likely, by local authorities. Many of the affected children are now adults and live in local authority homes. Of course, the number will grow as their parents die. Will my noble friend ensure that the money from the £100,000 payment will be disregarded for means-testing purposes? I regard this as a point of cardinal importance because it would be quite wrong to make this a swings and roundabouts issue.

Secondly, where do we go from here? The issue of proper compensation, as recommended by the Pearson Royal Commission in 1978, remains unresolved. Pearson recommended that the Government should be strictly liable in tort for damage caused by state promoted vaccination; and that full compensation should be awarded by the court on proof of causation, without the need to prove negligence. I believe this to be the next major step forward. However, today is a day for congratulating the Government on easing the appalling burdens that have shattered families for decades.

My Lords, I speak in this debate as someone with personal experience of litigation involving those affected by vaccine damage; and I regret to say that it was a negative involvement. It is well known that I advised the Legal Aid Board a number of years ago that the medical science in this field did not show a definitive connection between the vaccine and its neurological effect, as alleged. That meant that the "solution"—if it is to be properly so called—to these problems for parents and child was not to be found in our courts. It probably explains why the Pearson Committee took the suggestion of strict liability so seriously all those years ago.

I have introduced that background to indicate to the House that there is no present science that will definitely establish the connection between the vaccine and the consequences from which these children suffer. That is why the Vaccine Damage Act and its scheme give a payment based on a system of practical justice, whereby, if the neurological effect follows the administration of the vaccine in so quick a span of time that a reasonable person could make a causative connection, there will be an award. That is a novel system of compensation in our attempts to look after those as grievously damaged as these children.

The vaccine damage scheme is not a compensation scheme. Were it to be so, the mercifully small number of children affected—some 900—would each, depending on his or her life expectancy, be anticipating an award of anywhere between £1.5 million and £2.5 million from a court. That would represent a colossal amount of money, which the Government could not afford to pay. However, it graphically illustrates the extent of need which these children have and which is presently almost entirely met by their parents and family.

It was, therefore, with great pleasure that I read yesterday's Statement by the Secretary of State, which included some major changes to the operation of the scheme. First and foremost—and properly described—there is to be a dramatic increase in the lump sum payment. It was increased by this Government from £30,000 to £40,000 in 1998 and has now been increased to £100,000. Secondly, and most importantly, it has been backdated so that everyone who is a proper beneficiary of the scheme will be paid the full amount, or the proportionate amount, up to £100,000, depending on the age of the claimant.

Thirdly—and, again, most importantly—the removal of the six-year time limit within which to bring a claim is a just act. The time limit is now to be extended to 21 years. It is difficult to conceive of a family afflicted with this problem who, within those years, would not discover that there was a scheme to which they could have recourse. Fourthly, the disability threshold is to be reduced from 80 per cent to 60 per cent. In the minds of the families concerned, that really should produce a sense of justice where previously there was a strong sense of injustice. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a considerable step forward.

Finally—and this should not be forgotten in the years to come, should benefits be reviewed—the interaction of incapacity benefit and mobility benefit whereby they are increased will be an additional benefit to the lump sum payment. All these changes are of the greatest importance to these families. They are small in number but the effects of the damage inflicted on their children are enormous. These changes go some way towards recognising that burden. However, there is more to be done.

I shall not repeat the most important remarks made by my noble friend Lord Ashley to the effect that means testing ought not to be introduced in relation to these payments. We must not forget that, with the advance of modern medical science, many of these children will probably outlive their parents and finish up in hospitals or state institutions. When that event arrives, it would be a tragedy if what little means those children had were to be means tested.

What should next be done to build upon this new initiative? First, and surely most important of all, when will these changes be introduced? They require primary legislation and subsidiary regulations. As regards primary legislation, the Secretary of State said in another place yesterday that it would introduced at the "earliest available opportunity". As for regulations, he said that he would introduce them,

"as quickly as I can".—[Official; Report, Commons. 27/6/00; col. 723.]

We do not often hear such determined promises as that. I do hope that they will be fulfilled. No one—I emphasise the words—could conscientiously object to either legislation or subsidiary legislation being pushed through these Houses of Parliament with maximum speed for this cause.

Secondly, in the year or two—if it is that—in which these changes are to be brought in, inevitably the families involved, and the new ones who become involved, will want to know how the scheme will affect them. Problems of interaction of benefits and so on will be acute for them. I invite the Minister to indicate whether in this preparatory stage to legislation, or perhaps in a year or two after it is introduced, there will be a system in which a nominated civil servant or a nominated office within the department will have the specific task of dealing with and answering the queries of parents that are sure to arise. That can be done efficiently through the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children. It is no good satisfying ourselves that legislation will make a change unless we accompany it with promises and action that explain the changes to the people most affected.

Finally, the scheme is the product of the need of society to vaccinate children against serious illness. That is a worthwhile intent. However, it has immoderate and tragic consequence with which we are dealing tonight. What is at the heart of the problem? It is the administration of a drug. The drugs used are the products of multinational companies of enormous size and wealth, which, having profited from the sale of the vaccine, could paradoxically be the vendors of the very medicines that are used to alleviate the damage that is thought to be associated with the vaccine. In this new century, surely we can expect a moral content in the world of commerce that was previously lacking, can we not?

I point out to your Lordships' House that Smithkline-Beecham, one of the largest vaccine manufacturers, made a profit last year of £1.98 billion from transactions that included the sale to the state of £779 million-worth of vaccine. That is one example of several. That company is in a monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic position. It is fair, just and reasonable that it contributes to the cost of the damage in this small number of cases. It is therefore with extreme disappointment that I hear that when the Government approached that company for help there was a frank and firm refusal to do anything. That is unacceptable. It should change; the Government should not give up, and not just because of vaccine damaged children. In years to come genetic medicine, biochemistry and the medical field will produce huge profits for companies such as those that I have described. If their attitude is as described by the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry; namely,

"The Government implemented the vaccination programme knowing in full detail what the possible side-effects were.

They knew what they were taking on, the damage is therefore their responsibility and they should compensate people accordingly",

that sends an extremely tough message from commerce to government. Fortunately, government seek to represent the people and, in doing so, the pressure they bring on these companies over the next few years should be unrelenting. The companies should contribute without adding the cost of that to the profit they seek to make from sales to government.

Having addressed three necessary steps, I end my speech by congratulating all those people—some of whom are present in the Public Gallery—including my noble friend, Lord Ashley, and the honourable Member for Eccles—on all they have done over 20-odd years to produce some justice for those who deserve it. At the end of the 20th century all we know is that in the years to come there will be yet more children—small though the number may be—affected by vaccine damage. In my experience in the lifetime of a government there are one or two defining moments which may be moderate in their compass but profound in their effects for society. This is such a moment because it enables the Government to show that they care for people in need. I welcome the proposals.

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for initiating the debate with his usual impeccable timing. The debate takes place not only a day after the Government's Statement but on the very day that the major vaccine damaged children lobby took place in Westminster Hall. I pay tribute to the noble Lord's long-standing commitment to the cause of vaccine damaged children. We have already heard two fine speeches. The debate has already proved to be one of high quality and great interest.

The history of the vaccine damage payment scheme is extremely well known and has been rehearsed by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Brennan. The history of the review of the scheme says nothing for the Department of Social Security's sense of urgency or the Treasury's compassion. Despite a pledge when in opposition to address the issue, it was only yesterday that the outcome of the review was announced, some three years after the general election and some two years after the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pledged that the Government would conduct a thorough review of the service.

Throughout the past three years Members of this House and the other place have asked numerous questions about progress, and I believe that parliamentary lobbies have taken place on three occasions. The Labour MP for Eccles, Mr Ian Stewart, the chairman of the All-Party Group for Vaccine Damaged Children—of which I have the privilege to be a member—initiated an adjournment debate at the end of 1998 in the course of which he was promised the results of the review in 1999. My right honourable! friend Charles Kennedy MP made a telling contribution on the subject of the scheme only two weeks ago at Prime Minister's Question Time. It is a testimony to the tenacity of the parents and that of the all-party group, particularly its chairman, Mr Stewart, and that of the Daily Express that the Secretary of State, Mr Darling, finally made an announcement yesterday.

I certainly do not want to be churlish about the contents of yesterday's announcement, which we on these Benches very much welcomed, particularly those provisions which have retrospective effect. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, referred to those. However, there are key questions that need to be mentioned. The noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Brennan, raised some of those questions. I hope that I may ask some further questions of the Minister and that she will respond to them when she replies to the debate.

Will the new 60 per cent disability threshold also be backdated for those who have previously applied to the vaccine damage payment unit but have exhausted the appeals process? There is the injustice of setting an arbitrary threshold, whether that is 60 per cent or 80 per cent, as at present. I am sure the Minister will be aware that parents will continue to feel strongly about this matter whether the threshold is 60 per cent or 80 per cent. Why could not a tapering system have been adopted? That would surely have been the most just way of proceeding. After all, how can one precisely quantify a 60 per cent disability? Surely this is a highly subjective process. How can we even guarantee parity between one method of assessment by one consultant and the next?

I have other questions. When will the payments to victims be made and how will they be made? Which elements of the announcement can be put into effect very shortly, perhaps before the Summer Recess, by regulation, and which elements will require primary legislation? What is the timetable envisaged by the Minister's department for each of those elements? Can payments be made on account? Is that envisaged? How will payments—the issue of means-testing was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Brennan—affect income support and other benefits available to the victims of vaccine damage? Will guidance be issued to those who will be in receipt of these additional payments?

As has already been said, the key point to make in this debate is that the changes to the vaccine damage payment scheme must be seen only as a first step to securing justice in the form of full compensation for the vaccine victims. Many of the victims require 24-hour support. I met many of them today, as I have on previous occasions. The cost of providing this support by professional carers ranges from approximately £80,000 to £120,000 per annum. At the moment in many cases parents are the only carers. Some of them have terrible tales to tell about the withdrawal of invalid care allowance when they reach pensionable age. Many of the parents are over pensionable age. I received correspondence regarding one parent who is being pursued for £1,400, a so-called over-payment because of the receipt of payments after she reached pensionable age.

I have checked with personal injuries lawyers—perhaps not as distinguished as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—who act in personal and medical injury cases about how the appropriate income would be provided for by a court in circumstances where a court made a determination of compensation. I was informed that £3 million—I would go rather higher than the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—would be required in a case such as this to provide for that level of income. After the recent case of Wells that may well be the kind of figure that would be claimed. Three million pounds is a very large amount of money.

Therefore, will a back-dated payment of just £67,000 provide adequate compensation for families who have endured up to 40 years of financial hardship and emotional turmoil? I suggest not. These parents, many of whom are now in their 70s, need to have the assurance that their vaccine damaged children will be properly supported when they, as parents, can no longer do so. Only through a proper lump sum payment can this be done.

Much has been made by this Government and the previous one of the vaccine damage payments being payments rather than compensation. Yet the fact is, as both the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Brennan, pointed out, that government have a responsibility to provide adequately for the welfare of those undergoing vaccination. To quote Dr John Clements, a vaccine safety expert at the World Health Organisation:

"There is no perfectly safe or completely effective vaccine, but we all benefit from them. Countries should have a responsibility to make sure if people take part in a programme they are supported if things go wrong".

On a previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, likened—in my view rightly—the victims of vaccine-related disability to war veterans who have suffered for the good of society. He said:

"They are the victims of a war fought on behalf of us all and must be compensated for their sacrifice".

The Government therefore need to answer the following additional questions. Do they recognise that the changes to the VDP scheme are only a first step to securing full compensation for these vaccine victims? Will the Government now take steps to secure proper compensation for the victims of vaccines so that these very badly disabled individuals can be supported when their parents are no longer able to care for them? Will the Government redouble their efforts with the relevant pharmaceutical companies, such as Glaxo-Wellcome, to ensure that they take responsibility and share in the financial settlement? Will they redouble their efforts to ensure that the medical records of vaccine victims are made available, many of which seem to have been unaccountably lost after they made a claim? In all of this, which is the lead department that will take the initiative?

I have enormous sympathy for the parents and the victims of vaccine damage and I feel angry on their behalf. It is quite scandalous how long they have been allowed by governments of each colour to suffer without adequate legal or other remedy when they have clearly been the casualties of an official government public health vaccination policy, whether this has been for DPT, MMR, polio or whatever.

It is the Department of Health which institutes public health policies and the department which chooses the vaccines and the department which should have tested them properly in conjunction with the pharmaceutical companies. It should now be urgently reviewing the position, particularly in the light of worries about the fall in the rates of certain vaccinations which could, in the view of public health experts, lead to epidemics in diseases such as measles.

If the Department of Health and the pharmaceutical companies do not take responsibility for past vaccine damage but hide behind the legalities of the law of tort and the requirement to show clear causation and negligence, it is hardly surprising that parents have second thoughts before arranging for their children to be vaccinated. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, cogently described the way in which the parcel had tended to be passed by the pharmaceutical companies to the Department of Health, and so on.

I have a confession to make. I am one of those parents who has second thoughts about vaccinating their child, particularly as regards MMR for my young son. I am clearly not alone in this. Even with the knowledge that the chances of vaccine damage to a child may be one in a million, the Department of Health's historically dismissive and legalistic attitude—indeed even denying that there is such a thing as vaccine damage—will ensure that vaccination rates continue to fall. I suggest that Ministers and the Public Health Laboratory Service—now in the wise hands of a Member of this House—urgently review the position, not only in respect of the vaccine-damaged children under discussion today, but for the future as well.

Unless there is put in place a proper no fault compensation scheme, similar in generosity to that in the United States, and as recommended by the original Pearson report, and similar to the kind of compensation that could be achieved in court, I do not believe that the confidence of parents will be re-won. And certainly justice will not have been done to these severely disabled children who have already been the victims of vaccines.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may invite him to agree that it is important in a debate such as this that unreasonably high hopes are not sent out to the affected parents. Is he really suggesting that the problem which we face should be dealt with by full compensation, which, on my calculation, would amount to between £1.5 billion and £2 billion? That is beyond the means of any competent government.

My Lords, that is a very fair question. My view is yes. If one accepts that there is compensation to be paid, one has to come up with a scheme that provides an income for the severely disabled children so that they are able to cope when their parents are no longer able to care for them. It was perfectly possible to do so in the case of the thalidomide children. It is perfectly possible to envisage a scheme—perhaps a trust fund rather than individual forms of compensation—where a lump sum could be paid from which these parents could derive an income. Obviously the income that they derive from that scheme would depend on the level of disability of their children.

This is not a question of raising hopes. It is a matter of wishing to see justice done in these circumstances. If a court had awarded these children compensation, the types of payment that I have suggested would not be outlandish; they would be entirely appropriate.

My Lords, yesterday's announcement on the improvements to the vaccine damage payment scheme was extremely welcome. Even though it preempted much of what I was going to say today, perhaps I may take a few minutes to ask the Minister some questions and cover some of the important issues arising from the announcement.

First, however, I should like to set out a little of the background to this issue. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century at any of the important political crusades relating to the needs of the disabled, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is almost certain to be closely associated with it. There can be few better examples of that association than the issue which the noble Lord has brought to the House this evening. It was through his efforts in another place in the late 1970s that the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 came into being. That legislation was welcomed at the time as a recognition of a moral duty on the part of the state to provide financial assistance to those children who had suffered severe physical or mental damage as a result of being vaccinated.

As stated by other noble Lords, the scheme was never billed as being a form of compensation in the normal sense of the term, nor indeed did it carry any implication of public negligence. Rather, it was an implicit acknowledgement by the state that in arty programme of mass vaccination, whether it he for measles, mumps, polio, whooping cough or for a range of other serious diseases, there will be a very tiny percentage of children who experience unpredictable adverse consequences. For some, those consequences are minor and transient. For others, they are truly devastating.

Traditionally, damage that arises from non-negligent accidents occurring in the NHS has not given rise to any form of state payment, but in one important respect the damage that stems from vaccination is different from other damage. Vaccination does not simply benefit the individual who receives it. It is the state which says that parents should immunise their children because it is for the common good that life-threatening diseases should not be spread around the general population. The state encourages vaccination even though it is known—notwithstanding the no doubt legally secure position of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan—that a very few individuals will suffer a serious and irremediable adverse reaction.

But paying those individuals from public money is not simply a recognition that they have suffered for the general good. There is another dimension; namely, that any immunisation programme depends for its success on a certain level of take-up. Once the take-up rate falls below a critical figure the risk of an epidemic becomes a very real one. It is obvious that unless the public has confidence in an immunisation programme, it will not subscribe to that programme. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, with whom I do not often disagree, that it was the fears surrounding the MMR immunisation, misplaced though they were, and the accompanying decline in public confidence that led to the recent worrying drop in the take-up of that vaccination programme.

I believe that all political parties have a duty to join forces on a policy of this importance—resting our case on the basis of the scientific evidence, which is firm. But confidence has a number of buttresses. The Government can also protect their vaccination programmes if parents of children know that in those few cases which lead to tragedy a scheme is in place that will provide a worthwhile measure of financial support.

That is why yesterday's announcement, coming as it did after two years of deliberation by the Government, was so welcome. I shall not carp too loudly at the time it took for the Statement to arrive, knowing as I do something of the frustrations of trying to secure inter-departmental agreement on such matters. In any event, I hope that the retrospective element in the new package will do something to assuage those who feel, in the words of the Minister in another place, Mr Bayley, that,

"Two years is indeed a long time".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/00; col. 20WH.]

Had yesterday's Statement not been made, there were two changes in particular that I would have asked the Government to introduce. The first was to abolish the six-year limit for making claims. That has effectively been done and I congratulate the Government on it. The second was to bring down the disability threshold from the level of 80 per cent and to introduce a sliding scale of payments for disability assessed at below that level. That is the request that has been made by the Vaccine Victims Support Group, whose patience and dignity I think we must all applaud and respect. It is a proposal which seems to me to be entirely equitable. The change proposed by the Government to bring the threshold down to 60 per cent will mean that anyone with damage assessed at below that level will receive nothing. I ask the Government why they believe that that is a fair way to proceed. Even at this juncture, I hope that they will be prepared to reconsider the issue.

I wonder if the Minister can clarify one or two other points in relation to the primary legislation that we understand will be needed for both of these measures? First, when do the Government propose to introduce the necessary Bill? It need only be a short Bill. I give the assurance that we on this side of the House will cooperate with the Government fully when it appears.

Secondly, can the Minister tell us a little more about the retrospective element of the announcement? If the threshold is to come down from 80 per cent, does that leave the way open for individuals whose claims were rejected because they did not come up to that level to re-open their claims? Similarly, will it now be possible for those who had their claims turned aside because they were not made within the six-year limit to reapply for a payment under the scheme, even though they may now be over the age of 21?

Perhaps I may add my welcome to the significant uprating of the sum payable to those who have suffered severe damage from vaccination. The figure of £100,000 is not a king's ransom, but it is an order of money that more realistically reflects the burdens suffered by victims and their families than does the current level of payment. Can the Minister say whether the appropriate regulations will be laid before the Summer Recess?

I should also like to ask the Minister about research. The extraordinary discoveries announced this week on the mapping of the human genome may one day enable scientists to predict which children have a genetic susceptibility to an adverse reaction from vaccinations. However, can the Minister say what research is currently under way into the formulation of improved vaccines and into efforts to minimise the terrible adverse reactions that we have been debating?

I conclude by asking the Minister whether she will take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's policy on childhood immunisation? On this important issue, do the Government agree with me that party politics should be put aside? Indeed, will they consider entering a joint campaign with the Opposition to promote vaccination as an essential public health measure? I hope, too, that the Minister will take the opportunity to reassure the House today that all vaccines approved for use in this country are rigorously tested to the highest standards of safety, quality and efficacy? That is a message that bears repeating often, as does the warning that, were a vaccination programme to fail through lack of adequate take-up, it could lead to consequences as devastating in their severity as those that have been referred to this evening, but for a very much more numerous cohort of children.

My Lords, I am delighted that the Government's measures have received a warm welcome tonight. Substantially, the measures owe much to the delicate, subtle and hesitant persuasion brought to bear on Labour Ministers by my noble friend Lord Ashley. I am very pleased that the whole House recognises the role played by my noble friend in achieving these results.

Perhaps I may begin by setting out a little of the background to the review of the scheme. Soon after the present Government came to power, Ministers were approached by various groups and by the newly-formed All-Party Group on Vaccine Damage. We were asked how we would review the scheme. At the time, I had responsibility for disability issues as well as children's issues. I announced that a review would be undertaken, in consultation with the Department of Health, as part of our overall review of welfare.

Since that time, various meetings have taken place between myself and members of the all-party group, along with members of the parents' groups who have so eloquently presented their case. These groups included the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, the British Polio Fellowship, the Justice, Awareness and Basic Support Group (JABS), and the Vaccine Victims Support Group. This afternoon, the Vaccine Victims Support Group held a well-attended lobby in the Grand Committee Room, and I believe that my noble friend was present.

The groups raised a number of issues with us. They disagreed on some, but the five principal issues were the time limit of six years, the 80 per cent threshold, the need for an additional lump sum, an ongoing benefit for those damaged following vaccination, and a contribution from the pharmaceutical industry towards the support of those damaged by vaccines—the point raised by my noble friend Lord Brennan. The groups also raised questions about vaccination incentive payments and the promotion of vaccines.

We promised to look at all those aspects, which is why the matter has taken a long time. We have also, at the behest of parents, contacted the pharmaceutical industry to seek a financial contribution towards the support of this group of vaccine damaged children. Although it was sympathetic to the issues, the industry did not feel it appropriate to become involved—to my regret. I hope that the efforts of my noble friend and others may persuade it to reconsider its position in the future.

In consultation with the Department of Health, we have therefore been carefully examining the nature of the vaccine damage payments scheme and the scope for changes that we might make. That was why, in that context, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr Darling, made the Statement yesterday.

The proposed changes do not represent any changed judgment about the safety of vaccination but simply our view, as I said when we increased the payment in 1998, that it is appropriate, decent and compassionate to implement these changes.

Subject to parliamentary approval of our proposals to pay £100,000 for new claims, we shall effectively be increasing the rate of payment that we inherited by some £70,000. It is a significant increase. In addition, we have listened to the concern of those parents who received £10,000 in the early 1980s and who, as we know, struggle daily under very difficult circumstances. When we last increased the payment in 1998 to £40,000 we said that that amount would more than restore the value of the payment.

At April 2000 rates, £33,000 would have been the equivalent of £10,000 awarded at the start of the scheme. We have therefore decided that it would be only right in this unusual circumstance to consider top-up payments to bring past recipients up to the new £100,000 rate by revaluing their original payments. It is not often that a government make retrospective payments. I am delighted that they are doing so in this case.

This means that, if Parliament approves, those recipients who received £10,000 will receive an additional lump sum payment of £67,000. Those who received £20,000 will receive £62,500. Those who received £30,000 will receive £61,500 and those who received £40,000 will receive a further £58,000. This represents an additional £60 million for the most severely disabled—a very significant sum.

Again, subject to parliamentary approval, we hope to introduce the proposed changes as soon as possible. Perhaps I may make clear my understanding of the timetable. It is our hope that the payment of the new £100,000 will be in place before the Summer Recess. We hope to make the top-up payments to those who have already received sums as soon as possible following the other regulations, but that may take time. Some of the payments were made 30 or 40 years ago; addresses need to be checked; people may have changed addresses and we may have lost contact with them. But subject to those practical limitations, we want to make the top-up payments as soon as possible after the regulations have completed their passage through this House and another place.

The other two aspects of the scheme—the threshold of disability being reduced from 80 per cent to 60 per cent, and the changes in years—require primary legislation. That will be introduced as soon as possible. But primary legislation is not required for the payments; we can make those following regulations, which is a much speedier process.

The £100,000 payments will be treated like the original payments for the purposes of income-related benefits and for the purposes of residential care. They will not disentitle recipients of those benefits. As I said, we also intend to bring about changes to the time limits.

We have decided that in the case of time limits for claiming, we should seek to act within the spirit of the proposals in the Law Commission's recent consultation paper on the limitation of actions. The time limit for making a claim will be amended to three years, although in the case of minors the time will not run out until they have achieved their majority. For young children, who make up the vast majority of VDP claimants, there will therefore be an extended period, up to age 21, in which to make a claim.

As I said, we further propose to reduce the disability threshold from 80 per cent to 60 per cent. It is true that the test of at least 80 per cent disability adopted for the Act was and remains generally recognised as the lower end of the spectrum of severe disability—for example, for severe disablement payments, payments for industrial injuries and the like. Lowering that level might be considered inconsistent. None the less, we have taken heed of representations and we think that a reduction to the level of 60 per cent is justified and, representing as it does a still significant level of disability that was incurred as part of a wider public interest policy, it remains compatible with the original aims of the scheme.

The present statutory scheme was introduced in 1979. It was a payment of a lump sum, not in terms of meeting compensation. That, as my noble friend Lord Brennan said, is a matter that should be pursued through the courts. It is concerned instead with seeking to meet some of the additional costs incurred by parents. As my noble friend Lord Brennan indicated, the families and the disabled children themselves continue to receive, and rightly so, higher rate disability living allowance and long-term IB, which is now more generous than severe disablement allowance. Their parents will receive ICA and, if they are on income support, the carer's premium on IS, which continues right through. So I think that on all of those points we are able to help your Lordships.

My noble friend Lord Ashley raised a number of specific points. He asked why there was only one award in some years. In most years there are five or six awards, but it is true that in one or two cases—I now know of only a single case— that was the number who were considered that year to meet the entitlement conditions. Obviously, those figures will now change. We do not know the number, but an approximate estimate is that 20 vaccine damaged children a year presently lose out because of the time limit and will now fall within the provision. Again, we do not know how many lose out by virtue of the 60 per cent, but it is our guess that perhaps a handful a year might, and then maybe some 50 or so cases who were refused because they were disqualified by being below the 80 per cent threshold but above 60 per cent. We shall be inviting those people to reapply and, where we can, to make contact with them.

My noble friend's second question—a point also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—related to claims made 30 or 40 years previously. As I say, we aim to make the new provisions fair to people who missed out in the past and who may qualify under the new rules. We cannot say exactly what the position will be. We are carefully considering these points. If my noble friend has a particular case in mind that would fall outside the 21-year cut-off point, we should like to follow that up. Perhaps my noble friend will write to me.

One question which my noble friend did not ask but on which I may be able to bring good news is that, where a child has already died, the department will be considering top-up payments. That is perhaps more generous than my noble friend anticipated.

I hope that I have addressed my noble friend's third question relating to someone in local authority residential accommodation. Similar rules apply in charging regimes for local authority residential accommodation to those that apply to income support: the amounts of payments made into a trust fund or under court supervision are disregarded. I am happy to place those words on the record.

My noble friend Lord Brennan asked whether there would be a nominated or named official as an information point. We have not made provision for that at present. We will take the point away and consider it. Clearly, it is important that families know whom to contact, as well as having the literature. The possibility of a website was raised. We shall pursue those kinds of questions to see how we can be helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised a point about retrospection. I hope I have dealt with that. Anyone who applied and was disallowed because he or she was below the threshold will be invited to reapply and have the claim reassessed. If there are delays, it will be because we do not necessarily know any changes of address, given that the previous payments were made 15, 20 or 25 years ago.

I sincerely join in the wise words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he gently chastised the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in terms of his policy towards vaccination and his suggestion that he might consider not exposing his own child to MMR vaccine. I could not repeat more strongly than the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there is no scientific evidence whatever in a series of highly regarded reports, including the Thames survey, which was done fairly recently, to show that there is any connection between MMR and Crohn's disease or inflammatory bowel disease. It is simply not the case. There have been repeated studies in this country and in the US and elsewhere abroad showing that there is no such connection.

It is the case that children may develop those diseases, and may do so at the same age as that at which they are having their vaccination. It is a correlation, but no causal connection has been established.

The alternative, which is to expose children to those illnesses, is very serious. I should like to give the noble Lord some information about what happened when there were similar scares relating to whooping cough, percussis. Before the introduction of a vaccine in the 1950s major epidemics of whooping cough were frequent, with the annual notification exceeding 100,000 year. After the introduction of immunisation against whooping cough it fell in the 1970s to about 2,500 a year. However, following public and professional anxiety about the vaccine, anxiety that was proved to be unfounded, there was a marked decline in vaccine acceptance from over 80 per cent to around 30 per cent. The number of susceptible children rose, and in the 12 years after 1976 three major whooping cough epidemics accounted nationally for over 300,000 notifications and at least 70 deaths. The fears became the reality.

If I may so put it, nobody has the right to—I do not want to say "freeload", because that sounds wrong—rely on other people having the vaccine given to their children, believing that as a result they do not need to have their own children vaccinated. They are, so to speak, piggy-backing on the moral generosity of others. I want to put it strongly, because only one medical risk has been established. That is with the polio vaccine, which is one in a million. In no other cases is there any risk, but we know that the risk of the disease can be extremely serious. Any contribution from a Front Bench spokesman will be taken seriously. A suggestion that there is a serious question as to whether one should not have that vaccine can only add to public fears and damage incalculably many other children, which I am sure the noble Lord would not wish.