asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, no. The legal secretary to the Law Officers and his staff ably assist both the Solicitor General and me. Almost all staff at the Legal Secretariat are on loan from either the Crown Prosecution Service or from other areas of the government legal services. They continue their careers with their home departments after a period of secondment.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is an ageist anomaly to force senior officials out of his department at the age of three score years? Is my information correct that he is fast approaching that age and that all right thinking Members of this House hope that he will continue in his present office for many shining and mature years to come?

My Lords, the age of the Law Officers is subject to the Freedom of Information Bill and therefore cannot be disclosed in any circumstance.

My Lords, now that people are living considerably longer and that many people in their 60s and 70s enjoy improved health, should not people be encouraged to work longer and should not the Government set an example? Is there reason to believe that a significant number of officials in the Law Officers' Department or in any other government department will be incapable of doing their job by the time they are 65? Is it not a case in which the Government should take a lead?

My Lords, I believe that when the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speaks of government servants working to more advanced years he has in mind the Lord Chancellor and myself. I am happy to tell your Lordships that we both intend to go on and on and on.

My Lords, does not experience teach us that no one is indispensable, whatever views we may have about our own claims? Furthermore, is it not the case that the government legal service provides ladders of promotion which enable people to move up and across departmental boundaries? Would it not be a bad thing if a blockage were to be imposed, such as that proposed in the Question, on the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, who are responsible for the government legal service?

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right. The quality of achievement and capacity in the government legal service is remarkable and remarkably unsung. I can give two illustrations. A former legal secretary, whom he knows well, Juliet Wheldon, has now been appointed the first woman Treasury solicitor, and the present legal secretary to the Law Officers has been promoted to be the senior legal officer in the Home Office. That amply demonstrates the value and validity of the points which the noble and learned Lord made.

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who, unfortunately, is now 64. Would the noble and learned Lord agree that the legal secretary to the Law Officers should be judged on his or her individual merits regardless of age in the same way as he or she is judged regardless of colour, gender or ethnic origin? What is the justification for fixing such a low arbitrary age limit?

My Lords, it may be regarded in some quarters as being low but it is not arbitrary. It is the common age across the whole Civil Service, subject to the extension. Increasingly in private industry, that is the kind of age at which people retire if they have not earlier demonstrated proved incompetence and been able to leave with a vast golden pay off.

My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as someone approaching 50. If I may be allowed to speak of those of my generation, would not the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General agree that it is important that there is not a blockage in the system by those of an older age getting in the way of appropriate and proper promotion for those of my generation?

My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord had not fixed me with quite such a beady eye when he described me as a "blockage". However, I am sure that the noble Lord is rapidly approaching that time of life which would entitle him to paid government employment.

My Lords, in considering this and further matters concerning age, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind that people are now living longer, that they mature at different ages, and also that some people retain their full ability and their intelligence far beyond the age of 60?

My Lords, having been present for the whole 28 days of the House of Lords reform debates, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord that people mature in different ways.

My Lords, are we not approaching the time when age should be totally irrelevant, with competence and ability the only criteria by which people should be judged, so that competence testing rather than age limits should be imposed?

My Lords, that is an interesting argument, to coin a phrase, but there must come a time when we must all put down the baton of civilisation and make way for others. As I said earlier, there are plenty of other things to do post-full-time employment.

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General aware of the framework directive which is about to come before the social affairs council of the European Union and which proposes to outlaw discrimination on a number of grounds, one of which is age?

My Lords, I was aware of it and I am bound to say that not every emanation from Europe necessarily is perfect.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there have been unacceptable variations in the standards of care available to people with mental health problems, including those with schizophrenia. The Government are rectifying that by investing significant new resources, by introducing national standards and by bringing forward proposals to modernise the mental health legislative framework.

My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, and I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. However, will he join my crusade to reduce the number of cases where patients abandon their medication with serious consequences for hospital admissions and, of course, for cost? As it is well established by current surveys that one of the main reasons why patients abandon their medication is their aversion to side effects, does the Minister agree that it is important that the whole range of drugs, including those which may cause fewer side effects, should be available under the NHS and that drug rationing is a false economy?

My Lords, I certainly agree that we must do everything that we can to encourage people who suffer from schizophrenia to take the drugs that they have been prescribed. I believe that some of the care programmes and assertive outreach programmes are well geared to encouraging users to do so.

My Lords, is full use currently being made of the supervised treatment orders introduced in legislation a few years ago?

My Lords, I believe that many problems have arisen in relation to patients who are not prepared to accept the treatments prescribed for them. That is why, in the Government's papers reviewing the current use of mental health legislation, the proposal has been put forward for compulsory treatment orders. We have received many comments on that proposal and are currently considering how to take the matter forward in relation to proposed new legislation.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many NHS mental health patients are now being sent from London up to 200 miles away to private hospitals, at a cost of more than £1,000 per patient a day, and that to take but one example, the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust in consequence is now facing an overspend of £1.5 million? Can anything be done to address this problem for the trusts affected?

My Lords, my noble friend raises the very important issue of whether we have sufficient beds for this type of patient. I believe that trends in recent years undoubtedly have reduced the number of beds available. In 1987, 39,000 or so beds were available for adult patients. By 1997 that number had been reduced by 21,000. I recognise that a particularly acute problem exists in London. That is why 68 additional places were produced in 1999–2000, with a further 113 places being produced in the current financial year. I am, of course, happy to look into issues of particular financial difficulty which hospitals may be experiencing. I believe that the Maudsley Hospital to which my noble friend referred had an overspend of £700,000 last year which, in relation to its overall budget, is comparatively small. However, clearly the real answer is to ensure that we have enough beds.

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that sufficient funds are being provided to local government for accommodation for psychiatric patients, including those with schizophrenia? How are the Government tackling the major shortage of community psychiatric nurses?

My Lords, I fully recognise that local government has an important role to play in ensuring that there are sufficient facilities in the community to enable people suffering from mental illness to be appropriately supported. The purpose of the mental health grant is to help local authorities in their responsibilities in that respect. I am pleased to report that there has been an increase in the number of people in the workforce who provide direct care and support to people with mental health problems. For example, since 1998 the number of hospital consultants has increased from 2,360 to 2,710 and the number of community nurses increased from just under 9,500 to just over 10,000. I very much hope that we can continue to increase the numbers of staff in those areas.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in recent surveys, schizophrenic patients have expressed much greater satisfaction with the newer, atypical medicines than with the older ones? Does the National Institute for Clinical Excellence take into account the extent of patient satisfaction when determining the cost-effectiveness of a treatment?

My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to describe how NICE will approach the work, as the noble Earl tempts me to do. At some stage in the process of NICE's considerations, the Government will have to take a view. If users find a particular set of drugs better to take than others and that increases the likelihood that they will take their medication, that must be taken into account when deciding which drugs are most appropriate to use. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has already suggested, we have a real problem, in that many people suffering from schizophrenia are not following their medication regimes.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for schizophrenia, at least as much care is provided by patients' families as by the national health service or local authorities and that the support given to those families is therefore of great significance?

My Lords, my understanding is that from estimates it is reckoned that about 125,000 people suffering from schizophrenia live with their family. That places a considerable burden on those family members as carers. We need to do all that we can to support them. The Government's strategy on carers will help, as will the Carers and Disabled Children Bill, which my noble friend is taking through the House, because, if passed, it will enable local authorities to give more support to carers.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the United States recognises that changes to the terms of the ABM Treaty would be required to enable it to deploy the sort of national missile defence system currently envisaged without breaching that treaty. That is why it is seeking to negotiate such changes with Russia. The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence recently submitted a memorandum on the subject to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, which has now put it in the public domain via the Internet. I shall therefore now be able to place a copy in the Library of the House.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Does she recognise that at the present stage of debate in the United States, where people are much less determined to go ahead than they were some months ago, the views of America's allies will carry great weight? Will she assure us that Her Majesty's Government intend making their views known about a system that will require British co-operation if it is to go into service as designed?

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord and the House that our views on NMD have been conveyed clearly to the United States in bilateral exchanges and in discussions in NATO on many occasions. The debate involves important security concerns on all sides. We believe that they need to be considered and addressed seriously. Russia has now acknowledged that there is a growing threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and that that threat must be addressed. It is essential that the issue is taken forward on the basis of dialogue and negotiation. Public confrontation will hinder, not help, the search for an agreed way forward.

My Lords, safety from nuclear missiles is indivisible. Either the whole world is safe or no one is safe. If Russia is goaded into abandoning her arms control programme, it will make America a more dangerous place in which to live, not a safer one.

My Lords, it is in nobody's interests nor is it anyone's intention to goad Russia into anything of the sort. That is why the Americans are engaged in ongoing negotiations with the Russians, with our full support and encouragement, to try to find a way forward.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, despite the failure of the booster rocket in the test at the weekend, if these exoatmospheric killer vehicles can be made to work, they will help to reinforce world safety by reducing people's readiness to resort to nuclear weapons? Will she reassure us that the British Government take a rather more positive view of the issue than, for example, the French Government? As the decision has to be made in two weeks in Washington on whether the programme will go ahead under the current President and as British participation is necessary for that decision, because of the high-resolution radar at Fylingdales and the infra-red tracking facility at Menwith Hill, will she reassure us that the British Government are also ready to take the necessary decision in the next few weeks? Will she ensure that we are fully informed when the Government take that decision?

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the House will be fully informed if any such decisions are taken. However, I caution against believing the reports, which I have also read, that decisions are about to be taken in the next week or two. I think that our information is accurate. Our understanding is that no decision on NMD will be taken in the United States until towards the end of this year. Many noble Lords will have seen the article in last Sunday's Observer stating that a decision would be taken at a meeting on Tuesday. That is not the case. There are many meetings taking place, as one would expect. The United States' decision on whether to proceed with NMD deployment will be taken by the President alone. I repeat that we do not expect any decision from him until later this year at the earliest.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I think that we probably have time for two more questions. I believe that the House is inviting a contribution from the Cross Benches.

My Lords, after the failure of the second trial the other day, will the Government try to persuade the United States Government to abandon this irrelevant project and switch their efforts to theatre missile defence, which would not be in breach of the ABM treaty and would be much more relevant to the needs of NATO?

My Lords, no doubt the outcome of the latest test will have a bearing on the United States' assessment as regards the decision to be made on the technological feasibility of proceeding to deploy an NMD system at this point. But plainly, as the noble and gallant Lord will understand better than most, one cannot judge the feasibility of such a complex system on the basis of one test. Many more tests have always been planned before any NMD system becomes operational.

My Lords, may we take it from what the Minister said that she will now encourage much wider public debate, which has not so far taken place to any great extent in this country, especially given our very powerful negotiating position here? Does she agree that there is a real danger that the opening up of a much more extensive system of disarmament, with the full support of both Russia and China, depends largely on how this issue is handled over the next few months?

My Lords, yes. I can only repeat some of my earlier remarks. We are using every diplomatic means to make known our views to our allies and to those who are not always necessarily our allies on this issue. It is of vital importance to the whole world that we find a proper way forward.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the international and European law which prevents British public authorities from operating a buy British policy in respect of building projects includes the nondiscrimination and free movement provisions of the EC Treaty, the EC Public Works, Services and Supplies Directives, the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, the European Economic Area Agreement with ex-EFTA countries and various Europe agreements with central and eastern European countries.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that cheapest is not always best and that it is not unreasonable to bear in mind public opinion? Would it not be possible, when considering very special and important works on British landmarks, such as this Palace of Westminster, to invite tenders only from British firms, which is not the same as inviting tenders worldwide and then only selecting any British tender? Or would that not be politically correct?

My Lords, I do not know whether it is politically correct but it is against our international agreements and against international law. I assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, is referring to Portcullis House. This would not be a topical Question if she were not. She will know that Portcullis House has been the subject of legal proceedings on which an interim judgment has been given against the House of Commons authorities and on which a possible appeal is now pending. So it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment on any detail of that particular contract.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that that principle applies to the Reichstag just as much as it does to the Palace of Westminster? To follow up a point made by my noble friend, this agreement pre-dates our membership of the EC. I was a member of the EFTA Consultative Committee from 1969 to 1973 and I remember that this provision was in the Stockholm Treaty, to which we adhered, which set up EFTA. So that goes back a long way and it is two-way traffic.

My Lords, my noble friend is right in both respects. All of the agreements go back a very long way. The European Community agreements go back to 1973, when we joined the common market. The WTO Government Procurement Agreement dates back some 20 years, although it has become more extensive than it was when it originally came into being. Although it is extremely difficult to obtain statistics as regards the net balance of advantage to British contractors because so many contracts go to international consortia, the suspicion must be that it is very considerably to our advantage.

My Lords, I declare a financial interest in forestry in this country. Will the Minister consider whether the recent strength of the pound against the euro, combined with a probability that certain eastern countries have been exporting timber to us at less than the cost of production and restocking, might constitute a special case for the use of British timber in British building projects?

My Lords, I am not entirely clear that that follows from the Question that I was asked, which was about building contracts. If the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is accusing anybody of dumping timber in this country, there is a quite separate series of international agreements to deal with that issue.

My Lords, is it correct when invitations to tender are extended for any building, whether it be public or private, that there is no obligation to accept the lowest tender? Is it possible to accept one particular tender because, for example, there is a preferred design?

My Lords, yes, there is no obligation to accept the lowest tender. However, in certain circumstances—and this may be the case as regards the contract to which the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, referred—it must be shown that equal favour is being shown to contractors from any country; in other words, that national discrimination is not being exercised.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the enforcement of the European and international laws to which the noble Lord referred is distinctly patchy? Some very drastic revisions must be made to those laws, on the assumption that they are to be obeyed, if the irregularities in connection with the European Parliament buildings in Strasbourg and Brussels are to be brought within the realms of the ordinary legal understanding of fairness and justice, as understood in this country?

My Lords, I do not have evidence on which I could disagree or agree with my noble friend about what he describes as patchy enforcement of those international laws. If there is a claim in relation to any particular project, it is open to contractors to seek to take legal action against the public authority and it is open to the European Commission to take action on an international basis.

My Lords, after Amendment No. 56 on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Annual Report.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a privilege to move the Motion on this unique occasion. I am sure that I shall not be challenged if I say that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is held in unique affection and esteem by the whole nation.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, her forthcoming 100th birthday is the occasion for much celebration and it prompts us all to think back over the many remarkable events which have punctuated her long and interesting life.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, it is an immense privilege for me to have the honour to associate myself fully, on behalf of the Opposition Benches, with the tribute that the Leader of the House has paid to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, and to support the Motion that a message should be sent from your Lordships' House conveying our warmest congratulations to Her Majesty on the occasion of her forthcoming 100th birthday.

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches it is my duty and pleasure to support the Motion standing in the name of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.

My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to speak to this Motion. All Cross-Bench Peers would wish to be associated with the warmth and sincerity of the loyal message, and to add their heartfelt congratulations to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

"Will ye no come back again?

Better lo'ed ye canna be,

Will ye no come back again?".

My Lords, from these Benches I convey the warm support of the Lords Spiritual for this Motion, to which, of course, I add my own heartfelt congratulations. I was privileged to take part in the thanksgiving service in St Paul's Cathedral on Tuesday when we celebrated all that Her Majesty The Queen Mother has meant, and continues to mean, to so many people around the world, in the Commonwealth and to us all in this House. It was an occasion of great joy which I am sure will be echoed in the days ahead.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long. The noble Lord was kind enough to respond fully to my questions at Second Reading. However, there is one question that I still have outstanding on which I seek clarification. I know that the Minister cannot say when the Bill will receive Royal Assent. However, will the orders be laid the day of, or the day after, Royal Assent to enable the clock to start ticking? What I am really trying to find out is when we shall be able to implement the Bill and get rid of these dreadful people from our lovely parks?

My Lords, it is not possible for me to say when Royal Assent will be given. However, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that Royal Assent were given by Thursday of next week, the orders could be laid immediately and would come into force at midnight on 28th October. That would be somewhat late for the ice cream trade but in good time for the hot dog trade!

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 55:

Page 54, line 12, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").

My Lords, I am, as ever, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his tremendous concern for the English language and linguistic correctness, if I may so describe it. However, I am extremely puzzled by the amendment. My brief states:

"Resist … Purpose of amendment unclear. Imposes requirement to disclose plain text on persons who have no means of obtaining access to the information; or no means of putting it into intelligible form".

My Lords, I am not surprised. There are a couple of points that I still do not understand. If a person is in possession of the information, how can they be lacking a means of obtaining access to it in the way described by the noble Lord? Having listened to the noble Lord, would not it be sensible if the word "both" was left out?

moved Amendment No. 56:

Page 54, line 17, at end insert—

("( ) Where a person who has been given notice under section 47 believes that compliance with the notice will involve breaching a legal duty of confidentiality to another person, he may, within 24 hours of receipt of the notice, refer the notice to the Interception of Communications Commissioner who shall rule whether that person shall breach that other legal duty or whether the notice shall be withdrawn as disproportionate, having regard to the effects of the notice in either case.").

My Lords, my noble friend's amendment is a welcome initiative to highlight one of the central concerns that industry has about the Bill. Of course, in the matter of encryption keys and the disclosure of those keys to public authorities, the potential effect goes far wider than those businesses which are actively involved in e-commerce; it goes to all businesses, particularly those of an international nature.

My Lords, I listened to the debates both yesterday and today. Several noble Lords made contributions on the basis of how industry perceives the problem. I am worried about that. Clearly, future investment depends on how people perceive the framework around this issue. Noble Lords opposite say that the way in which industry perceives the matter is a justification for not making the kind of effort proposed in the legislation. But perhaps industry's perceptions are wrong and the issue that noble Lords should tackle is industry's perceptions. There has been a huge amount of lobbying from the Internet industry. Perhaps noble Lords should ask questions of the Internet industry. Perhaps they should say, "You perceive that there are these problems, these threats and so on that discourage people from investing. But what do you think are the answers to these issues?".

My Lords, with the amendment we come to what I see as the one remaining major difficulty with the Bill. How can a reputable international business be sure that its keys, or such keys as it keeps in this country, will be properly treated? When thinking where to place one's jewels in a safety deposit box, one might hesitate before choosing Harrods. All the systems, safeguards, contracts and guarantees can be in place, yet perhaps there remains an element of mistrust. That is what the Bill, as it stands, introduces into the thinking processes of international businesses. When an international business is faced with deciding where to place its centre of business, which is where the keys will be stored, generated and maintained, will it choose a country where those keys at all times remain in its possession and under its control, or will the keys be kept where a chief of police with a particularly pressing problem can unlock the whole security system?

My Lords, does it not rather depend on what one is doing?

Yes, indeed, my Lords. The noble Baroness has drawn attention to some very important problems. We cannot put structures in place which make it difficult or impossible for the police to deal with real crime and real criminals. But what we likewise must do is change the perception of business, in terms of an accurate perception of the risks which the Bill poses for the safety and the sanctity of its encryption structure, which is what it uses to protect its business and what it uses to guarantee its dealings with other people. We have to find a better way of dealing with that problem than is in the Bill at the moment.

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that this matter is not only one of perception; to a certain extent it is all fact. To try to illustrate the point, I should like to quote from someone called George Hall, Director of Corporate Affairs at ICL. He had just announced a 10-year, £350 million contract to supply—the irony is lost on me—the Home Office's IT services and support. Yesterday he said:

"We trade in many countries and most are not going down this road because the governments there realise they need to encourage the growth of e-business. There is a strong industry view that this legislation casts doubt on the UK Government's commitment to e-business".

My Lords, I delayed rising to my feet because I thought we would probably hear something from the Liberal Democrat Benches on this important issue. Obviously, we shall not.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendment. I hope that it will help to reassure those outside the House who are concerned about this matter. Perhaps I may make a brief point in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. She was concerned that in moving amendments we may sometimes over-emphasise perception. But we have always emphasised, too, that such perceptions are based on the reality of the situation as it stands before us. That is why perceptions are difficult to change. One of the organisations that has said it is considering moving overseas as a result of the Bill is Poptel, the large Internet service provider. On its website it lists its clients as including the British Association for Study & Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. However, having read it and having now heard it, I am bound to say that I have my doubts if what are essentially trivial public relations statements of this type—spin and not substance—are worthy of the attention of your Lordships' House.

"leading the debate in Europe".

My Lords, I am struggling with the temptation to follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but I am not confident that, even if I did, others would so do.

"We need more police. We will get them".

"Hereditary Peers are on their way out".

"Paid holidays for the first time".

My Lords, the conventions of the House, by which we all abide with great precision, require me to thank both noble Lords for their response to the Statement and to the Annual Report. I cannot say that I am entirely surprised by their lack of overwhelming enthusiasm, although in responding the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not seem to take his own criticisms seriously, so I do not feel enormously burdened by them.

"These are the facts. People can make their own judgement on them".

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. Does she agree that a report that clearly shows inflation at 2 per cent, unemployment at its lowest for 20 years, in-patient waiting lists in the National Health Service down by over 100,000, and Britain better off in Europe, indicates progress in 38 months which contrasts most favourably with the record of the previous government? Does my noble friend further agree that if we plead guilty to any deficiency it is the failure in 38 months not to have fully redeemed all the damage that was inflicted on the country by the previous administration?

Yes, my Lords, I am very happy to accept my noble friend's sensible and accurate appreciation of the detail of the Annual Report. I have not been asked, because it is a point to which people do not want to draw attention, about the present position on the five pledges made at the last election. But, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat them. It can be done shortly. We have halved the number of infants in classes of more than 30; we have helped 210,000 young people to find work through the New Deal on our way to the target of 250,000; the average time for getting persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence is down to 108 days, on our way to the target of 72 days; we have already cut 100,000 off in-patient waiting lists; inflation and interest rates are low; and we have cut VAT on fuel.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness a question not so much about the content of the Statement but about the use of this device of an Annual Report? Will she recognise that many of us were horrified at the form of the Queen's Speech at the beginning of this Session? It was not, as it is supposed to be, a catalogue of the Government's plans for the coming Session, but instead, to a large extent, a tedious and extremely ill-written recital of the Government's alleged achievements? Does the noble Baroness agree that the introduction of the Annual Report removes all excuses for not returning to a Queen's Speech as it should be—a simple recital of the Government's plans for the coming Session? Will the Government please have some mercy on Her Majesty, who had to read all that tripe last time round?

My Lords, perhaps I am a little slow but I do not entirely follow the noble Lord's logic in making a connection between the Queen's Speech and the Annual Report.

My Lords, the logic is obvious. If there is a new device in the form of an Annual Report to outline the alleged achievements of the Government, there is no excuse for repeating that list in the Queen's Speech.

My Lords, I remain unconvinced about the connection. I am delighted to point out that the Annual Report was written by civil servants. It is, therefore, a wholly official document, not a party political attempt to influence opinion in that way.

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the fact the noble Lord opposite is so upset bears testimony to the value of the Annual Report? Will my noble friend deal in particular with the question of Europe? Does the Leader of the House agree that to shut one's eyes to the idea of a Europe which includes the United Kingdom is the opposite of common sense? Is it not much better to acknowledge that there needs to be convergence and that, subject to the test set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a year or two from the date of the next election the British people should be asked to express their view about the future of Europe?

My Lords, with his normal clarity and authority my noble friend sets out precisely the Government's position on Europe. One of the advantages of the Government's position over the past three years which my noble friend outlines is that it demonstrates precisely the influence that the UK can have in the European councils in a way which perhaps has not happened before. I refer in particular to the detailed debate in your Lordships' House several weeks ago about the leadership of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on European taxation. Six months ago we were very much in the minority, but by virtue of my right honourable friend's good arguments and leadership there has been a change of opinion within the European Union. That change is very much to the advantage of this country and is in tune with a number of points made previously in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, in view of the emphasis that the noble Baroness places on the effectiveness of this document as a means of communication with the electorate, can she tell the House how many copies of the equivalent document last year were sold and how many hits the website received? Does the noble Baroness expect to do better this year than last? In view of the electioneering tone of the document, which was acutely spotted by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the document is being sold in this way with a view to an early autumn election so that the Government can try to garner the remaining benefits of 18 years of Tory government before things really begin to go sour on them next year?

My Lords, with his customary seductive ability, the noble Viscount leads me down very dangerous paths and tempts me to speculate about the date of the next election. He knows full well that I have no intention of replying, even rhetorically, to that question. I understand that last year a similar document sold between 10,000 and 12,000 copies, but many others were distributed through other mechanisms. The website then was not as elaborate as it is today. If one is connected to the Internet the website now enables one to gain access based on one's own postcode and particular locality. Therefore, I expect the number of website hits to be much greater this year. I do not have a breakdown of the number of hits last year, but if I discover that fact I shall write to the noble Viscount.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the four pages of the report devoted to foreign policy and international developments are very bitty and anecdotal and that a number of major developments over the past year are simply not mentioned? For example, as a member of the European Union Committee of your Lordships, I note that the Schengen opt-in, which has been one of the more significant movements in Britain's relations with the EU over the past year, is not mentioned. Does the Leader of the House recall that in April 1974 the Foreign Secretary, Mr James Callaghan, proposed that there should be an annual White Paper on Britain's international commitments and foreign policy? Do the Government consider that it would now be useful to have such an overall annual White Paper?

My Lords, I am well aware of the detailed and authoritative interest of many noble Lords in foreign affairs. In response to the specific points raised by the noble Lord, the printed document must be seen in combination with the other bits of information which have been published. The whole point of this document is that it should be anecdotal. I believe that the noble Lord used that word pejoratively, but I use it in a positive sense. One of the criticisms in the past has been that lists of achievements and developments are regarded as indigestible. The whole point of such a document is that it should be more broadly accessible and popular. However, there is a complex, detailed website which provides much detail of the Government's developments and policies over the past year. I am not in a position to respond authoritatively to the noble Lord's question about an annual report on foreign affairs. I am aware that your Lordships have many important debates on that subject which perhaps collectively add up to such an annual report.

My Lords, I welcome the emphasis on education. The Leader of the House may be pleased to hear that in the village where I live, 30 year-old mobile classrooms are being replaced by a permanent building. Being a voluntary-aided school, there is a very large contribution from parents, neighbours and interested local people. Can the noble Baroness say something about the Achilles heel of the education system, by which I mean those children and young people who are suspended and excluded from school? I am aware that a little while ago the Government earmarked a sum of money to deal with this problem. A few days ago at Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out, quite correctly, that suspension and exclusion were the strongest indicator of subsequent criminality, with all the social costs that that entails. Will the Government each year increase the amount of money that is available for these young people and place continued emphasis on alternative social and literacy education for those who miss out on what we all expect for our children?

My Lords, the noble Lord puts his finger on a very significant part of the boundary (if one can so describe it) between social policy and education policy and the way that they should work together. The noble Lord will be aware that next week we shall see the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in which the kind of spending to which he refers may be identified. Perhaps the noble Lord should acknowledge that the Excellence in Cities initiative precisely seeks to straddle social and education programmes. For example, if as a result of that initiative one has on-site welfare officers to tackle truancy and special units to remove disruptive pupils from the classroom, at least one identifies at local level the problems and, it is hoped, the solutions. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the important boundary between education and social policy, together with the other pieces of policy which need to be present to support families, must be looked at in totality.

My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House explained the format of the report. Does she agree that the report is modest in not celebrating the largest ever increase in one year in the international development budget: namely, 12 per cent in real terms over the previous year?

My Lords, yes, my noble friend identifies an important contribution which the Government have made to international development. At the same time the Government have continued to play a leading role in reducing the international debt of developing countries. As my noble friend will be aware with her special interest in this area, last year we backed the agreement on the heavily indebted poor country initiative to enable those countries to take advantage of the additional 252 million dollar programme which gave relief to individual countries.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people in this country consider the report a blatant misuse of taxpayers' money to produce an electioneering pamphlet? First, why is the pamphlet silent on the inheritance by this Government of the strongest economy for many years? Secondly, why is there no mention of the enormous increase in taxation when one takes into account direct and indirect taxation?

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord translates the economic statistics that I repeated in the Statement into that gloomy overview. The noble Lord talks about the economy being very strong in 1997. As I pointed out in the Statement, we inherited a £28 billion deficit. By last year that was turned into a £16 billion surplus.

My Lords, when I collected my copy of the report at lunchtime today, I looked at the glossy photograph on the cover and asked a colleague whether he thought that the Government intended to market it alongside Vogue. After some thought, he replied, "No, Tatler". Nevertheless, in the spirit of the Minister's remarks I shall engage with the content of the report.

My Lords, I take advantage of an old friendship with the noble Earl to say that by his remarks about marketing this publication with Vogue or Tatler he demonstrates a lack of awareness of the way in which most people in this country like to read the information contained in this publication and access the more detailed information on the Internet, should they wish to do so, along with the ability to have a video presentation or something of that kind. The noble Earl may prefer the population to access government information only in a more traditional form. However, our experience—I referred earlier to my experience—is that that is not so.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one attractive feature of the report is that it can be tested against the proportion of benefits already visible to the eye? I refer, for example, to increasing numbers of people in jobs and reduced waiting lists. Does my noble friend recollect that it records additional resources to the health service of the order of £2 billion and a rising graph to 2003?

My Lords, my noble and learned friend rightly identifies the extra spending on the National Health Service. He will be aware, as will all noble Lords, that we await the new National Health Service strategy which will set out the detail of the way in which the extra money should be spent.

My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Statement had been prepared by civil servants. She referred to the record level of inward investment. How does she reconcile that with the many statements made by the Foreign Secretary and others that the Government's indecision with regard to the euro is having disastrous effects upon inward investment in this country?

My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would identify a statement by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in which he said that. I simply repeat the sentence in the Statement, which is accurate, that,

"This year … saw the best inward investment figures [to this country] in our history".

moved Amendment No. 57:

Page 54, line 28, leave out paragraph (a).

My Lords, I encouraged an intervention on that amendment alone. There was reason for doing so; that reason has obviously not reached the noble Lord.

My Lords, the general suspicion about government access to keys formed part of the earlier discussion and will unfold more strongly as the amendments are debated. That general unease is widely shared. I received an open letter with about 50 signatories. The key sentence states:

"The ability of Government to demand decryption keys creates a dangerous precedent.

My Lords, I too have accessed these lists. There are no childcare organisations involved. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that I discussed the matter with Poptel because its name is on the list. It is an organisation with which I have been familiar for many years. It was very keen to assure me that its clients are not involved in this matter. The question here is that children's interests are not represented by these organisations. That is the problem.

My Lords, Amendment No. 57 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 58 and 59. If it is convenient, I shall deal with the three together. The three amendments address broadly the same point as was addressed by Amendment No. 50 which was debated at some considerable length last night. Your Lordships will remember that I endeavoured to paint a scenario where Steve and Willie were engaged in exchanging information and where, wholly innocently, Willie could find himself on the wrong side of the law in circumstances also addressed by Clause 48(3) of the Bill.

My Lords, the truth of it is that the Government's present position leaves Willie exposed. It appears that there is very little that the Government wish to do about it. It seems to me that there are difficulties in dealing with the problem piecemeal in trying to make it slightly more difficult for the Government or their agents to raid someone's keys and therefore expose correspondence and business to attack. The measures proposed in these amendments are sensible in themselves, but they go only part of the way. The more we hear about the Government's attitude and concerns, the clearer it becomes that we need to be more radical in our efforts to make sure that keys should be kept confidential where that is essential.

My Lords, the effect of Amendment No. 57 will be as follows. The fact that someone does not have the protected information in his possession would not be enough to convent the disclosure requirement into a requirement to disclose a key. The implication is that the person served with that notice should be able as of right to obtain access to the information in order to provide the plain text.

My Lords, the Minister is right in that what we are seeking is a proper balance in these matters. I do not believe that at the moment the Government fully appreciate how serious and deep is the concern about access to keys. I believe that high-tech industries use simple words for very clever and scientific matters. I have always believed that the nuclear industry could have found a better word than "flask" for carrying its nuclear waste given the implications of fragility in the word "flask". In some ways a key gives an impression of something one has on a chain on a belt rather than a complicated code which gives access to an immense amount of information.

moved Amendment No. 63:

After Clause 48, insert the following new clause—