My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I must declare an interest as a farmer and a non-paid president of the British Association for Biofuels and Oils.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage farmland not required for food production to be cultivated to produce environmentally friendly road transport fuels; and when they will equalise road fuel duty between bio-diesel, bio-ethanol and liquid petroleum gas.

My Lords, the Government recognise the potential of biofuels to deliver environmental benefits. The green fuel challenge was an initiative designed to stimulate industry to come forward with practical proposals for alternative fuels, including those that can he produced from crops, which offer environmental benefits over current conventional fuels. Following the challenge, a new reduced rate for bio-diesel was announced in recognition of the environmental benefits that it delivers.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In that the Government are committed to a low-carbon economy, will he give the House some evaluation of how the 40p per litre rebate on fossil LPG compares with that of 20p per litre for bio-diesel and nothing at all for bio-ethanol?

My Lords, the issue is what those rebates can stimulate and deliver. As the noble Lord knows, a further assessment is being carried out of whether fiscal incentives or any other government support are appropriate for bio-ethanol. Some of that looks promising. We have a panel looking at the potential for non-food crops, which is focusing on bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. The exact fiscal details are being considered by the Chancellor as the Budget approaches.

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that these developments could be to our national technological advantage? As well as adding to the contribution made by renewable sources of energy, bio-fuels could help the agricultural and rural economies.

Yes, my Lords. It is important for environmental and agricultural policy to look at the uses of biofuels of all sorts. The policy commission on agriculture and the panel on alternative fuels, to which I have referred, are both considering that.

My Lords, have the Government decided on the extent to which crops should be devoted to energy purposes and, if so, whether the resultant processes should be used for road fuel or for electricity generation?

My Lords, the green fuel challenge has already promoted the further development of the non-food uses of crops for energy and for road fuels. No doubt the policy commission report on farming and food will also refer to that. The Government have already provided substantial sums of money to develop a market for biomass energy. It is not an either/or situation. There are different crops for different uses and there will be different fiscal regimes surrounding them.

My Lords, I understand that bio-diesel performs identically to ordinary diesel, but contributes only half as much to CO₂ build-up in the atmosphere. As it could also help to revitalise the farming industry if used as a rotational crop, does the Minister agree that it would be prudent to encourage our farmers to use God-given sunshine and rain to produce at least some of our road fuel and so help clean up the atmosphere?

In principle, yes, my Lords. The issues of how economically we can meet our environmental objectives are being addressed. However, a substantial amount of oilseed rape, for example, needs to be planted for use as bio-diesel before a significant impact can be made on the total diesel market. The use of agricultural hectarage and the economic cost have to be taken into account.

My Lords, will my noble friend be cautious about extending yet another direct subsidy to agriculture particularly in the post-Doha period when we have to reform agriculture and agricultural subsidies if we are to enlarge the European Union? Is he aware that the use of red diesel in agriculture involves a subsidy of 42.69p per litre? The 6,879 million litres used in the past year resulted in the Treasury forgoing approximately £3 billion of revenue. Most of that was a hidden subsidy to agriculture.

My Lords, there is a problem with the continued use of red diesel, but fuel is a substantial cost in the hard-hit agricultural sector. For the immediate period, I do not think that it is appropriate to increase the duty paid by farmers, although I agree that that is a long-term problem. The use of biofuels is of a different order. If red diesel is an environmental problem, the potential for biofuels is an environmental advantage. It will be helpful as an alternative crop for farmers and will contribute to meeting our Kyoto targets.

My Lords, have the Government considered providing assistance to people trying to get fuels such as liquid petroleum gas to fuel consumers, or to garages when they initially equip themselves to connect the supply with the users of such new fuels?

My Lords, there is already a significant advantage to the use of liquid petroleum gas, and grants are available to convert vehicles. The activities of the Energy Saving Trust and others have also helped to develop what is a growing infrastructure for liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas in garages. I agree that the infrastructure needs further development, but much of the government support for those fuels is already in place.

My Lords, can crops used for biofuel be grown with less fertiliser than crops used for food, so that fewer nitrates and nitrites are put into the water supply?

My Lords, the advantage of biofuel is more the reduced use of pesticides than of fertilisers. However, such crops certainly require less application of fertilisers overall, and therefore have that advantage as well.

My Lords, will the Minister consider reorientating priorities for alternative fuel? Is he aware that it would be far more pleasant to use crops to produce fuel rather than waste acres—square miles of land—to produce energy from wind power, which is wasteful, inefficient, very noisy and destructive of the countryside?

My Lords, I accept that in certain circumstances and certain locations there are problems with wind power. Nevertheless, wind power—both offshore and, in the appropriate place, onshore—is a renewable source of energy that can contribute towards our environmental targets. The advantage of biofuels, if we can develop the market and the technology, is clearer because the technology uses existing agricultural space—its use for food having perhaps reduced—for purposes that could offset the use of fossil fuels. That is the advantage. As your Lordships may be aware, 100 years ago a very high proportion of cereal growth went to transport, mainly in the form of oats for horses.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, following their decommissioning in Nepal, Gurkhas may take up employment in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, I should like first to express the Government's—and I think I can say the House's—continued appreciation of the soldiers of the Gurkha Brigade. They serve this country with integrity, loyalty and supreme dedication.

Following discharge in Nepal, Gurkhas, like any other non-European Economic Area nationals, can apply for entry clearance to come to the United Kingdom. For that to be approved they would have to demonstrate that they qualify for entry under the Immigration Rules. For those wanting to take employment, that would generally mean that an employer has obtained a work permit for them.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that I held a heavy goods vehicle licence for 45 years? Is he aware also that the freight industry is suffering from a severe shortage of drivers? Surely, would it not be better if the industry were able to employ ex-members of the Gurkha Brigade, who speak English and have driven on the left-hand side of the road, rather than Europeans, who often do not speak very good English and drive on the right?

My Lords, I spent quite a bit of time reading up on the noble Baroness, if only to try to spot what her supplementary question might entail, but I certainly did not expect that question. As I said in my initial reply, the United Kingdom has a very successful work permit system. This year, it has enabled some 200,000 people with specialist knowledge to enter the country, which is almost double the number who entered last year. It is also an employer-operated system, although we are considering other systems to manage migration. Although I am sure that specialist, heavy goods vehicle drivers would qualify under the current scheme, it is, as I said, an employer-based scheme. It is for the employer to make an application.

My Lords, I declare an interest as one who had the honour of serving in the Brigade of Gurkhas. I should like to press the Minister on the point. We owe an extraordinary debt of obligation to the men who have served in the brigade over the years which has by no means been discharged by the rather limited pay and pensions that we have paid them. I ask the Minister to treat this not as an ordinary work permit issue, but as a debt of obligation for the country as a whole.

My Lords, I am trying to give a targeted answer to the targeted Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies. The answer is in no way attempting to undermine or diminish the debt that we owe the Gurkhas. However, as the noble Lord will know better than I, the whole system is based on a tripartite agreement between the Nepalese Government, the Indian Government and the British Government. The system has worked extremely successfully over the years. From my own constituency experience of knowing people who served with the Gurkhas, I understand the arguments on pay and pensions, but I shall not deal with the details of those issues now. There are both advantages and disadvantages to the system. As I said, the system is bound by a tripartite agreement between the three governments.

My Lords, even with that agreement, will the Minister confirm that—given the enormous service that they have performed for this country, to which he has rightly paid tribute—the Gurkhas will receive at least equal if not favourable treatment in relation to others entering the country or seeking permits to work here?

My Lords, that is absolutely the case. They will be treated in exactly the same way as other applicants. Depending on the nature of the work, some applicants will have better skills and qualifications than others. In her example, the noble Baroness pointed to two aspects in which there is a clear advantage to a particular employer. We have a very successful operation. I have been amazed at the relevant figures. We take on some 220 Gurkhas a year and there are some 20,000 applications each year for those places. They are much sought after, for reasons that we all understand.

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister about the Fijians that we employ in the Army. About two years ago, we employed about 316 Fijians; maybe the figure is higher by now. When they are decommissioned, will they be able to take up normal employment in this country or will they have to obtain work permits?

2: My Lords, all credit to the noble Lord; I have to say that I have not got a clue. I do not know the basis on which those Fijians are employed in the Army. As of about now, I am probably the expert on Gurkhas—just for a few minutes! I suspect that the arrangements for the Fijians will more or less mirror those for the Gurkhas. They will probably have to be discharged in Fiji, not in this country, and will be able to apply, like other people. But I do not know. Obviously, I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, 21 days before the Second Reading of a Bill, Ministers could make available the substance of the reasoning on which they base their statement that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

My Lords, it may be that the noble Lord was unaware when he tabled his Question that the Government have agreed that Explanatory Notes for all government Bills first introduced after 1st January 2002 will draw attention to the main convention issues that each Bill raises. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor announced that development in his reply to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on 18th December 2001. It can be found in the Official Report, at col. WA 43. The relevant guidance for those preparing government Bills has been amended accordingly. This is a positive development, which should further focus ministerial attention and enhance our debates on these matters.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. In our other embodiment, it is somewhat akin to a very satisfactory compromise statement made in open court. I am grateful to her. Does she agree that this framework of guidance, which we saw on 26th December and which was devised by her department, could or should disclose adequate reasoning in support of the certificate and could and should dispose of the situation that arose in relation to the representation of the people legislation at all three stages? There was a well-founded challenge to the rectitude of the certification but the Minister gave no answer at all. As a result, corrective measures have now to be taken, as explained in the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, of 10th January.

May I ask one question? Can we have in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, if possible, 21 days before the Second Reading of a Bill, draft Explanatory Notes so that we may give consideration to them?

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that this is a very helpful development. As many noble Lords know, that development was in response to suggestions made to the then Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Jack Straw, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Lester, in the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We thank them for that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that Explanatory Notes are made available as soon as they are published. I cannot say that all Explanatory Notes will be available 21 days before Second Reading; they would or should normally be available the day after the Bill is first introduced and at least 14 days before Second Reading. We will use our best endeavours to produce them as quickly as possible but until a Bill is published it would be impossible to explain definitively the basis upon which that certificate would be granted. However, we shall do our very best.

My Lords, although it is obviously helpful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to identify in the Explanatory Notes what the Government think the issues are, would it not be much more helpful if the Government explained why, at the end of the day, their advisers found that there was no incompatibility?

My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord refers to the disclosure of the legal advice on which a Minister may base his decision. Noble Lords will know that successive governments have made it clear that it would be inappropriate to disclose such legal advice. This Government do not intend to depart from that practice, for good reasons with which the noble Lord will be more than familiar. This helpful change will help us with scrutiny and is much to be applauded. We think that this is as far as we need to go at this stage, although I reassure the noble Lord that we shall continue to scrutinise the issues to see how we can best assist.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches welcome the change to which she referred? It should enable this place to do its job of legislative scrutiny more effectively. However, pursuing that logic a little further, is it not a cause for regret that the new administrative procedure was not applied to the Animal Health Bill, which had its Second Reading yesterday?

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says about the Animal Health Bill. It is a matter of great celebration, as he rightly said, that this practice will be adhered to in future. We all rightly celebrate that.

My Lords, I briefly seek clarification. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she accepts that I am not seeking disclosure of legal advice for which public immunity from disclosure is properly available? I ask only for adequate disclosure of the substance of the reasoning.

My Lords, I fully understand that that is what the noble Lord seeks. The current structure will enable the essence to be understood and proper debates to be had. The new method will be effective. Of course, if there are signs that it is insufficiently effective, we remain open to reexamining it.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What responses they have received to their statutory guidance to councils regarding charges for home care published in November 2001.

My Lords, the department has received 13 responses. Most of them posed detailed questions on practical aspects of the guidance.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the present system of care charging for disabled people is absolutely chaotic? Some councils provide the services free but others charge up to £200 for exactly the same service. Can my noble friend tell us about the national guidance? It is admirable so far as it goes, but why should councils be allowed to evade some parts of it until 2003? What are the Government's plans for monitoring the rogue councils that neglect and ignore the guidance? What sanctions are being prepared with which to hit them when they are found to be neglecting charges?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that in the current situation charges are applied in a wide variety of ways throughout the country. The Audit Commission reported on the matter some time ago. It drew attention to wide discrepancies between local authorities and a lack of transparency. The statutory guidance will lead to a much clearer understanding among users and much greater consistency across the country.

On implementation, it is fair to point out to my noble friend that by this October, all users who receive income support and whose overall income equals or is less than basic defined levels plus 25 per cent should not be charged. Users who receive more than 10 hours of home care weekly should receive an assessment of their disability-related expenditure if disability benefits are taken into account. In addition, earnings should be disregarded by that date. The remainder of the statutory guidance should be implemented by April 2003.

So far as concerns monitoring the implementation of the guidance, I can assure my noble friend that it will be performance-managed. If we come across cases where local authorities do not implement the guidance satisfactorily, we can of course use the various mechanisms available to us to point that out to those local authorities.

My Lords, what is the Government's view of the Scottish Parliament's proposal for free personal care for the elderly? I understand that that was recommended by the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for the United Kingdom as a whole. Is it true, as reported today, that the Government are refusing to allow the Scottish Parliament to implement its proposal and denying it the use of some £23 million that would be saved by the abolition or suspension of constant attendance allowances?

My Lords, that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. So far as concerns England, the Government considered very carefully the recommendations of the Royal Commission. At the end of the day, it is a question of priorities. The Government decided that the resource that might have been spent on free personal care was better spent on such services as intermediate care. That will enable us to ensure that many thousands of people do not have to enter the care sector but can return to their own homes. We considered that, together with providing for free nursing care, the resource was much better spent on intermediate care.

My Lords, if disabled people's benefits entitlement is to be correctly calculated in the assessment of charges, will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that councils are properly resourced in providing expert welfare benefits advice in this very complex area of benefits which social workers are not sufficiently trained to provide? Will he say what percentage of local authorities currently have trained welfare benefits advisers in post?

My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that in the development and implementation of the statutory guidance it is important that local authorities make available adequate and effective welfare advice to potential users of services for which charges are made. It is worth informing the House that the Torbay local authority, which is seen as being a good practice authority in this area, has shown that, through good welfare advice to local people, people can claim more benefits. In addition, that local authority probably raises more income through charges than many other local authorities. We very much wish all local authorities to follow that example to ensure that good quality advice is available. I am absolutely convinced that the effective implementation of the statutory guidance will lead to that.

My Lords, under the guidance, income from earnings is disregarded but income from pensions is not. As the Minister said, the guidance, as written, refers to income support and the minimum income guarantee, which the Government intend to replace with the pension credit. Can the Minister say how the guidance will be changed to reflect the Government's principle behind the pension credit that pensioners should not be penalised for having saved for their retirement?

My Lords, my understanding is that we shall lay regulations before the House in due course. We are considering those matters at present.

My Lords, what is the present situation in relation to severely disabled people living in their own homes who cannot now receive help with bathing and washing because some councils do not provide that service?

My Lords, I should be very concerned if appropriate services were not available from local authorities. In relation to the performance management of social service authorities we are very concerned to see that effective services are available. I am sure that this is one aspect of overall performance management that will be undertaken by the Social Services Inspectorate.

My Lords, given the Government's excellent record on putting users centre-stage in the new arrangements for monitoring social care, can my noble friend tell us whether any plans have been made for monitoring the effect of the new charging arrangements on disabled people and their carers?

My Lords, as part of our performance-management arrangements generally, we shall keep a very close eye on the way in which the statutory guidance is implemented. I can also say to my noble friend that, in introducing changes to their own charging regime, if they do make charges, each local authority will also be expected to consult users locally.

My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that last week when I raised the question of the difference between Scotland and England on the matter of payment for nursing care in nursing homes—in England the policy was for payment to be made but not so in Scotland—I was given the impression that there would be no interference and that Scotland could go its own way?

My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Scotland can, indeed, go its own way. It has made its own decision in relation to free personal care, as opposed to the decision in England. It seems to me that that is perfectly appropriate and follows the logic of devolution.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 6, at end insert—

"() Any such review or homelessness strategy shall be included as an integral part of the wider housing strategy of each authority."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, perhaps I may say that everything in the Bill points to the fact that it is essentially about two things: the duties of local authorities in housing the priority homeless, the relevant categories being extended as a result of the Bill to those in the Housing Act 1996; and their allocations policies. If one reads the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, it becomes abundantly clear that local authorities will have to consider the first aspect as an integrated policy of the second.

Indeed, the Minister agreed with me when I raised that point in Committee. He said that the,

"homelessness strategy will inevitably be an integral part of its wider housing policy".—[Official Report, 10/12/01; col. CWH7.]

That is as it should be. The homelessness strategy, if a local authority were so unwise as to try to implement it on its own, would simply be unworkable. Therefore, it must be part of a full housing strategy, aligned to the authority's allocation policy. While there may not be a statutory requirement for there to be a housing strategy, since this legislation adds to the provisions for both homeless people and the allocations policies, it would be nonsense for them not to be part and parcel of a whole.

If the Minister believed that it would make any difference to his willingness to accept what I consider to be quite an important amendment, I would change the wording from "housing strategy" to "housing policy" so that the amendment would read,

"as an integral part of the wider housing policy of each authority".

In Committee we rehearsed the extra burdens which will be borne by local authorities in terms of finding and securing accommodation for an increasing list of priority categories—in altering their housing allocation structures and providing both temporary and permanent housing. Guidance as to the desirability of integrating the two does not seem to be a strong enough answer to this difficult and somewhat delicate question. I beg to move.

My Lords, my views on this matter have not changed since we discussed it in Committee. I have some sympathy for the comments of the noble Baroness. However, given the history of tackling homelessness in this country, I believe that in the first instance we need to give these strategies a high priority. I can foresee a time when they will perhaps become involved in a wider strategy.

My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation of the amendment given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and for the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that Committee stage was not held in the Moses Room but upstairs. From the Government's point of view we found that a useful and genuinely constructive process, as I hope did other noble Lords who participated. I hope that that constructiveness has been reflected in the amendments we have now tabled, which cover a number of areas and meet a number of the points made. Therefore, it is a process and technique which worked.

Amendment No. 1 would require local housing authorities to incorporate their homelessness strategy into their wider housing strategy or, if the proposed amendment to the amendment is adopted, their wider housing policy. We think that that would impose an inappropriate requirement on local housing authorities. There is no statutory requirement at present for authorities to have a housing strategy, although in practice it is necessary to have one under the housing investment programme framework. Therefore, it would be an inappropriate burden to impose a statutory requirement for an authority to make its statutory homelessness strategy part of its wider housing strategy. It would be asked to make the homelessness strategy part of a wider housing strategy when there is no obligation to have the wider housing strategy.

However, as I said in Committee, I agree that an authority's statutory homelessness strategy will be an integral part of its wider housing policies. Clear advice to local housing authorities on that matter will be given in guidance, which I am sure is the right approach. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, who has a distinguished career in local government, would not want over-prescription on the face of Bills. Discretion must be left to the local authorities to act sensibly. On the basis that we give an assurance that the matter will be dealt with in guidance, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I start by addressing the initial observations made by the Minister. I believe that we all found the Committee stage helpful. That does not mean to say that we shall go on to find the whole process helpful. The Committee stage was held in Committee Room 4, which we believe worked much better than using the Moses Room. I have informed the Chief Whip of that, and hope that that arrangement will be continued.

However, I shall probably not be any more helpful on Amendment No. 1. I note the Minister's comments about the housing strategy not being a requirement. That is one of the reasons why I tried to adopt his words in Committee when I tabled an amendment to my amendment, to make the strategy part of a wider housing policy. I remain extremely concerned that the homelessness review cannot be carried out satisfactorily unless it works within the whole gamut of the local authority's housing policies. If an authority does not have enough housing, it does not make sense to try to work in the priorities that are coming forward in the Bill if that is not within the policies that are already there or are being constructed. I believe that it would make sense to have the provision on the face of the Bill either within the wider housing policies or within the wider strategy. I sense that the Minister is not with me. However, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 9, after "homelessness" insert ", including rough sleeping,"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 3, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is also in this group.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 address the question of whether rough sleepers should be mentioned specifically on the face of the Bill rather than leaving the assumption that anyone sleeping rough is without question deemed to be homeless. In Committee, the Minister drew my attention to Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996. He suggested that it included rough sleepers as being those who have no accommodation available for their occupation. We had some amusing descriptions of people who got on trains at Newcastle on their way to London but got off at Nottingham by mistake. Even though the Minister got his route slightly wrong, there is still an element of doubt about this category.

It is my contention that if a number of rough sleepers were properly investigated, it would be found that they do have homes from which they may have departed for a number of reasons—dispute within the family, lack of jobs or enthusiasm to find the streets of gold. But in reality, they will be found to have a very reasonable place to go. The fact of the matter is that even after the most tenacious efforts to get them to return, many choose to stay on the streets. That is not at all what anyone here wants.

As I understand it, the current thinking on the future of the Rough Sleepers' Unit is that it should join up with the new bed and breakfast unit. That may be helpful, but it would be better if each local authority was also responsible for identifying and helping those rough sleepers within its boundaries. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 3 which is in this group. The amendment concerns another group of people—older homeless people. I hope that today I shall get some commitment from the Minister with regard to guidance on this issue.

Little work has been done on the scale of homelessness among older people. Last year some research was commissioned by Bondway, St Mungo's and Thames Reach. That highlighted some of the problems facing single homeless and older homeless people. Many end up spending a long time in hostel accommodation. In the 50 to 59 year-old group, 32 per cent of the men and 26 per cent of the women had been resident in hostel accommodation for more than two years. In the 60-plus group the equivalent percentages were 60 per cent for men and 87 per cent for women. Even more worrying for women is that 59 per cent of women over 60 years old had been in hostels for more than 10 years. Therefore, we have a problem in that area.

The Government have recognised this problem, in particular when looking at the various problems experienced by people coming out of the Armed Forces. Better provision is made for them by the Armed Forces. However, older homeless people on the streets age much more quickly. They may suffer from bronchitis. They may have mobility problems or mental health problems. Some have problems with alcohol.

I talked in Committee about what I thought should be included in homelessness strategies. Local authorities must pay particular attention to that area and to ensuring that the health, social care and voluntary agencies are involved. It is obvious that offering a little help at the right time can make a huge difference. Preventing or at least slowing mental decline that sometimes leads to older people being institutionalised or ending up on the streets is important.

In Committee, I spoke about the implementation of the Supporting People scheme in 2003. The Bill is an opportunity to establish new ground rules for multi-agency working; older homeless people are important in that regard. Local homelessness strategies must assess the real level of need and services required for the older homeless. I hope that when the Minister responds he can give me some comfort on the matter.

Much as many of us support what we hope will result from the Bill, there is a real problem with resources—not just in relation to older homeless people. We lack affordable homes for people and, especially with regard to older people, there is a lack of move-on accommodation or accommodation that specialises in their care. We need more small residential homes for old people. Many people over 50 with chronic alcohol and behavioural problems cannot manage independently. We need housing especially for them. Again, I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government are addressing that issue.

My Lords, I should like to add a word to the exchange that took place between the Minister and my noble friend Lady Hanham during our debate on Amendment No. 1. I entirely concur with the Minister and my noble friend that holding the Committee debate upstairs worked well and was constructive. However, I hope that that will not be taken as meaning that we should take a whole series of Committee debates off the Floor of the House, because we in this House gain enormously from being able to take part in several different Committee debates, rather than, as in the House of Commons, being locked up in one Committee and unable to speak more widely.

I mention that only in case that exchange, which was most felicitous, had been misunderstood. I should also like to add a word based on experience in the City of Westminster in support of what my noble friend said in moving Amendment No. 2.

There was concern during the homelessness count a year or two ago that the numbers in Victoria Street had suddenly risen sharply. There was therefore an attempt to verify why that had happened and whether the figures were accurate. As chance had it, a count was taken at 10 p.m. and at 2 a.m., to see what movement there was in the figures during the particular night in May on which the count was held. It transpired that at 2 a.m. a number of people were present who those taking the count knew perfectly well had flats—who were in accommodation—but who had decided to come down to chat with their friends who were sleeping rough. The picture is therefore potentially blurred. The greater focus that we can bring to the facts the better.

In terms of historic continuity, between the period when the Savoy Palace belonged to John of Gaunt and the time when the Savoy became a luxury hotel, there were hostels for the homeless in the Strand on a fairly continuous basis—during the Tudor and Stuart periods. The fact that people still sleep in shop doorways in the Strand is an index of the extraordinary continuity that sometimes occurs in our affairs.

However, when we clear such an area that is notorious for rough sleeping—I mean notorious in the sense of attracting public attention—by an holistic method, such as was referred to in Committee upstairs and may have been referred to on Second Reading, displacement will occur. That is what had produced the sudden upsurge of numbers in Victoria Street—including, tragically, a murder in Strutton Ground that some of your Lordships may remember. Imposing an obligation on the local authority—in that case, Westminster City Council—to treat rough sleepers in its municipal area is therefore thoroughly desirable.

To reinforce what my noble friend said at the close of her speech, the Westminster branch of the Council of Churches has a sub-committee on homelessness with which I used frequently to meet when I was in the other place. It was clear from parish experience across Westminster that there were a fair number of rough sleepers whom it would be difficult to persuade not to sleep rough, because they had always followed that life. We should not take the focus off rough sleepers, whatever previous legislation says—I recognise what the Minister said in Committee. The last thing that we want is to slip back after the achievements that the Government can rightly claim from the initiatives that they set up under the homelessness czar.

My Lords, I also rise to support Amendment No. 2. On 15th November, when rough sleepers were counted, the figure totalled 532 for the whole of England, which I found hard to believe. It has since been proven wrong by many institutions that look after rough sleepers, such as the Simon Community. It said that there were many more rough sleepers but that that night there was a purge by police, when it is alleged that the police used a heavy hand and forced many people into hostels. Parties were also given on that night in cities, which brought in homeless people. That was, to say the least, rather strange.

In Sheffield, the count was one; in Birmingham, the count was two; in Liverpool, where a lot of people sleep rough, the count was not high, although I do not know exactly what it was. People sleep rough in my home town of Southport, but that did not figure in the count.

So I am concerned that people who sleep rough are not included in any kind of register or strategy by housing authorities. As a member of a local authority, I know that many slip through the net. How can the Minister ensure that rough sleepers are included among those who need accommodation?

My Lords, this group of amendments gives me the opportunity to welcome what the Government have been doing to devote greater thought and energy to the question of rough sleepers and those who are homeless. However, estimates of their numbers nationally and in London may be too low. I question whether May is the best and most representative time of year at which to take a census. From my observations in and around Victoria Street, the number has not fallen, it has remained fairly steady during the past three or four years. In that connection, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Passage Day and Nightshelter and the Cardinal Hume Centre—and, no doubt, by other voluntary organisations—in conjunction with Westminster City Council.

I imagine that the Minister is well seized of the point that it is not just a question of providing more houses or hostels but one of total care and rehabilitation of people who have fallen out of normal society.

My Lords, perhaps I may turn first to Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 which address the position with regard to rough sleepers. I agree entirely with the policy aim enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke; we must maintain our focus on rough sleepers and not lose the ground gained by Louise Casey and the Rough Sleepers' Unit over the past few years of their operation. We believe that we have achieved that in the following way. Homelessness, as defined in Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, includes rough sleepers. That is the advice we have received and which has been reaffirmed since this matter was raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.

I believe that local housing authorities arid housing practitioners fully understand that any definition of homelessness must include rough sleeping. If there is any remaining doubt, first, the point has been asserted both in Committee and again on Report and, secondly, the draft code of guidance which has been sent to the noble Baroness, along with copies to all other interested noble Lords, states explicitly that authorities must take account of rough sleeping in their reviews and when devising strategies. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the policy aim is the same, and that it is simply a legal question as to how that policy is achieved.

I should like to deal with the wider points raised in our debate on the position of rough sleepers. I reiterate that rough sleepers must be included in local authority strategies. It is vital that that focus is maintained. The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Fearn, referred to the issue of the rough sleeping count. Counts are not undertaken only in May; they are made regularly throughout the year. The most recent count was undertaken last November. The method used is to take a count of all those sleeping rough on one particular night. Everyone accepts that such a count provides a useful snapshot of the numbers involved. The methodology employed by the Rough Sleepers' Unit was developed by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in partnership with the voluntary sector. Despite occasional criticism, independent evaluations have shown consistently that this method is the most effective one for evaluating the changing levels of those sleeping rough. It provides only one of the tools used to improve the effectiveness of our strategies to deal with rough sleepers.

The noble Lord, Lord Fearn, referred to a number of allegations that have been made. For example, he pointed out that there had been a police purge of rough sleepers in London. Inquiries were made by my department on this point, but there is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that there was such a police purge preceding a count. Although it has been suggested that there are inaccuracies, it is widely believed among those directly involved in the care of rough sleepers that the numbers have been dramatically reduced as a result of the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit. It is extremely important that that point should be acknowledged. It is also important to note that allegations made in relation to the count are not stated as facts, as the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, put them in relation to the count made at the end of last year. Lastly, it is important to ensure that the gains achieved are consolidated so that the problem does not continue.

My Lords, as exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, in the statistics he quoted, the most recent count was broken down by district. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could confirm that that will continue to be the case so that, for example, all the London boroughs will record their counts on one night. Of course I acknowledge that undertaking one count in May and one in November is a sensible compromise; counts are taken once in warm weather and once in cold.

My Lords, I know that the count is broken down between cities; that is, counts are taken for Birmingham, Sheffield and so forth, as well as for London. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with regard to the specifics of how the count for London is broken down.

I turn to Amendment No. 3, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. The amendment would require housing authorities specifically to assess the levels and likely future levels of homelessness among older people in their district. The noble Baroness was candid and told the House that this is a probing amendment seeking certain assurances from me. First, I should say that this is an important issue. Homelessness, or the threat of homelessness, among elderly people is a specific problem which needs to be addressed by local authorities. It is a particularly frightening prospect for people as they grow older.

I am pleased to say that the draft good practice guide on homelessness strategies, which I sent out to noble Lords under a covering letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, explicitly points out the need to provide specialist and preventive support services for older people, among other groups. It addresses certain specific needs and refers to the good practice guidance published by Help the Aged, Coming Home: a guide to good practice by projects helping olderhomeless people, published in 1997. I hope that this meets the concerns of the noble Baroness and that she will not press her amendment.

I turn now to two specific issues. Supporting People is an important initiative which seeks to embrace the needs of elderly people, ensuring that they can stay in their homes, while supporting the needs of those elderly who do become homeless. The noble Baroness also referred to the problems caused by the lack of affordable housing. That is an important issue which is even more significant in parts of London and the South East, as well as in other areas. It is a matter which we keep constantly under review. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.

My Lords, I believe that my small amendment, which develops an argument we began at the previous stage of the Bill, has encouraged quite an interesting short debate on the question of rough sleepers. Perhaps my lack of experience of this House is beginning to lead me to the view that some of the worth of tabling amendments lies in putting on the record in Hansard the views of noble Lords with regard to certain aspects of an issue so that they can be referred to later.

The question of rough sleepers vexes us all, in particular the underlying reasons; namely, why are some people in that position and what will happen to them in the future? It is absolutely essential that an eye is constantly kept on the situation and that responsibility for addressing it is firmly pinned down. For as long as the Rough Sleepers' Unit still exists in one form or another—I acknowledge again today as I did in Committee the extremely valuable work undertaken by the unit—perhaps the amendment we are considering would not matter all that much. However, if there was any question that the Rough Sleepers' Unit would no longer continue its work, it would be fundamentally important to ensure that local authorities take up responsibility for looking after the homeless and rough sleepers.

Having listened to the Minister and to the debate, for which I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 12, after first "authority" insert "and its strategic partners, to include registered social landlords and housing co-operatives, landlords of houses in multiple occupation registered with the authority under the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52), members of landlords' forums"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. The amendments seek to provide amplification on the face of the Bill as regards with whom the local authority should consult in assessing the resources available from all sources in order to implement the housing review and the homelessness review; namely, those from whom specific action may be required and those who should participate in the consultations before the review is adopted. I know that the Minister will argue that it is unnecessary as the bodies I have specified are already implicit in the legislation. However, if only some groups and organisations are mentioned on the face of the Bill, then it is anomalous not to mention them all.

Again, I am sure that the words used in the draft code of guidance will be mentioned. However, the interpretation of legislation is made easier if it is explicit and mandatory. That is what I seek to achieve with the amendments. I beg to move.

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will treat me with some forbearance if I have a little to say about Clause 2 as well as about Amendment No. 4. Illness kept me away from your Lordships' House for most of last year and I was not able to take part in the earlier deliberations on this Bill, which I very warmly welcome.

Clause 2 spells out how a central purpose in the Bill is to be achieved. It imposes an obligation requiring local housing authorities to take a more strategic and multi-agency approach to the prevention of homelessness. All of us who have worked in the neediest areas of our cities know that we need all the allies that we can find. I hope that local housing authorities will make the most of the allies described in the clause and the amendment. The clause speaks of social services,

"other public authorities, voluntary organisations and other persons".

The amendment wants us to spell out on the face of the Bill what "other persons" should mean—all categories of landlord. I hope that landlords will be drawn into planning and partnership with local housing authorities, but I am not sure that they need to appear on the face of the Bill. "Other public authorities" could be spelt out, too, including, for example, health authorities, prisons and the probation service.

I want to say something about the contribution that voluntary bodies make to the prevention of homelessness. Last month, I was delighted to receive from Liverpool a report entitled Homelessness and the Diocese. It reports on a project that was launched after I retired. In partnership with the Church Army, the diocese appointed a homelessness officer. The project offers a great example of how voluntary bodies can act as bridges, bringing together different allies. Public grants to voluntary bodies give good value for money, drawing in a wide range of resources.

The homelessness officer in Liverpool, Ralph Upton, is a Church Army captain. He writes:

"There are no specifically Anglican projects in the diocese—all are partnerships with other Church or secular bodies".

They include ROC in St Helen's; the Salvation Army citadel joint project in Bootle; Adulam Homes; and, in the Roman Catholic archdiocese, Nugent Care and the Bond Scheme. Those projects build bridges across which unexpected volunteers can bring practical help to homeless people. When I went to be Bishop of Liverpool, I learnt to cease to mock the Mothers' Union, a strong and useful body. I was delighted to read in the report that the diocesan Mothers' Union had provided over 700 toiletry packs every year for refugees, asylum seekers and other homeless people.

Other parts of the voluntary movement in the frontline of helping homeless people in Liverpool include the Whitechapel Project, Petrus and the Merseyside Accommodation Project, which I remember visiting. The Merseyside project works through the rather traditional, old-fashioned idea of having landladies who offer supported lodging to 16 to 18-year olds. It is very effective.

Ill health often marches hand in hand with homelessness. The homeless outreach team of the Liverpool Area Health Authority reports that half of the 223 people found sleeping rough in Liverpool at various times over two years were found to have mental health problems. In St Helen's and Knowsley, the director of public health welcomed the approach from the diocesan homelessness officer. He raised with her the issue of the gap in healthcare provision for the homeless people who attended the ROC centre in St Helen's. She said that they discussed the need for a GP to attend the centre on a sessional basis, along with a chiropodist, a dentist and a nurse practitioner. They also discussed whether a health visitor could come occasionally to give health education. She said that health action zone funding was identified and that some staff had put themselves forward enthusiastically to become involved.

The Government identified those leaving prison as a priority group. The Church Army captain to whom I referred came to his present post after years as a prison chaplain. He speaks of the high number of people who have been in care who are in prison and in the homeless community. He works in partnership with the chaplains and staff at Liverpool prison, Hindley young offenders institution and Ashworth hospital. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders tells us that prisoners released homeless are twice as likely to reoffend as those who have a home. Prisoners who have no family support are between twice and six times as likely to reoffend. The Government's Headstart scheme has made money available at Hindley, and three prison officers are now working full-time on the resettlement and rehabilitation of those young offenders.

Should all the categories of landlord appear in the Bill? I hope that local housing authorities will make serious attempts to draw them in. The strategic multi-agency approach should also mean that the National Asylum Service should be required to provide information to local housing authorities. My brief tells me that Liverpool City Council is almost powerless to help. Refugees and asylum seekers are hidden behind the confidentiality of private agreements between NAS and private landlords. Nobody is prepared to tell the city council where those people are, and some of them have been the victims of dreadful housing provision.

Whether we make the Bill work effectively will depend on the attitude of local housing authorities. The report Homelessness and the Diocese tells me that one council has been good to work with. It is open and readily shares information, and the head of its rough sleepers initiative is also manager of the two direct access hostels. She values church input and other voluntary input. The report says that working with another local authority has not been such a positive experience. Most contact has been on its terms, when its wants something, and it tends to withdraw behind confidentiality.

I hope that local housing authorities will welcome the Homelessness Bill and take on with a good heart their obligation to adopt a multi-agency approach to the prevention of homelessness.

My Lords, I welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. We missed him at Second Reading and at Committee stage. He has a huge amount to offer, because of his experience in Liverpool. I shall underline three points that my noble friend made. First, there is a need for alliances, if we are to make the Bill work; secondly, the attitude of local authorities will determine how effective the Bill is; and, thirdly, multi-agency working is vital to making the Bill work. All of us would agree about that, but other examples would include the probation service, voluntary organisations working with young people or with those suffering from mental health problems.

An authority's strategic approach to tackling homelessness will, of course, be effective only if it is exercised in co-operation with the organisations in the authority's area that provide services and assistance to homeless people. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that there will be clear guidance on the organisations with which authorities should engage in the carrying out of homelessness reviews and formulating strategies, but it would not help—indeed, it would be harmful—to prescribe some but not others.

We all agree that working in partnership is vital, that the attitude of local authorities will be central and that they should be encouraged to work with the people in their area who can be most effective as regards homelessness. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, appreciate the intervention of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard. He has great experience and it was good to hear his voice.

I am seeking to spell out on the face of the Bill not all of those who will be involved in homelessness but those who will be required to provide housing. It is inconceivable that the Housing Corporation, with its ability to provide housing accommodation, and local registered social landlords—and, indeed, landlords in the private sector who are already co-operating with local authorities—should not be statutorily required to help with this very major problem.

I sense that I shall not move the Minister. I well understand the wider implications of who should be involved, but I still believe that all of those housing bodies should be included on the face of the Bill. None the less, I sense that I shall not get any further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5A:

Page 2, line 35, at end insert "including persons with accommodation consisting of a movable structure, vehicle or vessel designed or adapted for human habitation, but where those persons have no place where they are entitled or permitted both to place it and to reside in it"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that in local authority strategies for securing that sufficient accommodation is available for people in their district who are or may become homeless, attention is given specifically to the needs of gypsy families among others in the community.

As your Lordships may know, gypsies and Irish travellers are among the most extreme victims of social exclusion, suffering from lack of education, poor access to health and social services and severely limited job opportunities. They should benefit from the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, which imposes a duty on all public authorities to promote equality of opportunity, but, as far as I am aware, no steps have been taken by Ministers or local authorities to eliminate the huge disparities which exist between the gypsy community and the rest of the population. The lack of decent accommodation is at the root of the problem, as it has been ever since I first came to Parliament some 40 years ago.

There have been no studies on gypsies and homelessness, but all the travellers camping on unauthorised sites are homeless by the definition in Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, to which reference has already been made. In comparison with the 532 rough sleepers indicated by my noble friend Lord Fearn, there were 2,608 families—not individuals—at the half-yearly count of gypsy caravans in January 2001.

Yet these people are not normally seen as homeless by the policy makers in the DTLR and its predecessors. The Green Paper did not mention gypsies and travellers at all, and the White Paper, Quality and Choice: A decent home for all, has one single paragraph on gypsies in all its 66 pages—and that refers simply to the £17 million refurbishment grant over a period of three years which has already been announced in the 2000 spending review.

The only other initiative mentioned was a research project to look at the availability and condition of sites, to be used as a means of assessing the need for new sites when it is finally published. As I understand it, this project is not likely to be ready in time to influence the 2002 spending review. Even if it concluded that the additional provision of private sites will never match the demand—and hence that homelessness would persist indefinitely for gypsies—Ministers have no idea of how to make up the shortfall.

It would be very difficult to reinstate the duty placed on local authorities by the 1968 Act after this distance in time. No local authority will make provision for gypsies on a voluntary basis. In fact, those authorities which have sites, in many cases have already off-loaded them onto housing associations.

It would be possible, perhaps, to encourage registered social landlords to provide group housing for gypsies and Irish travellers. There is anecdotal evidence to show that if schemes of that nature were developed they would be very popular—as they are, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland and, more recently, in the north of Ireland. Group housing is the preferred solution for travellers in all parts of the island of Ireland and it is highly unlikely that preferences would be completely different in Britain.

Novas, a housing association which already manages some gypsy sites, has indicated that it may be willing to develop group housing schemes, and the Housing Corporation has said that it would fund them in principle. In a letter from the Housing Corporation, Mr Norman Perry, the chief executive, said that it would consider applications for funding but that,

"housing for travellers would have to be identified as a priority in the regional housing statement and local authority housing strategy in order to attract funding".

Of course individual local authorities are not going to provide accommodation for gypsies in isolation from their neighbours because they would expect to become thereby more attractive to homeless travelling people from elsewhere in the region, and thus incur more rather than less unauthorised camping. If the Government really want to solve this problem, they will have to provide some incentive for local authorities within each region to determine jointly what has to be done. A major weakness of the clause is that authorities are not required to consult with neighbouring districts, as I imagine would be desirable more generally than on the needs of gypsies in particular.

The noble and learned Lord said on Second Reading that,

"if we produce a Bill that puts a duty on local authorities to produce their own homelessness strategies, then it is incumbent on central government to set out with some degree of precision what they intend to do in this area".—[Official Report, 12/11/01; col. 408.]

Presumably they will go into some detail on how they intend to assist—for example, the 13 districts in Kent to harmonise their strategies for dealing with homelessness as it affects gypsies.

Ideally there should be a plan for each of the regions, involving the government offices for the regions, whose purposes include the promotion of coherent regional approaches to social cohesion. This would fit in with the objectives of the Reaching Out action plan published by the Government, which states that government offices have a valuable regional perspective to bring to policy making, using the huge experience and expertise at regional and local level. The local housing authorities, and counties as well, have a great deal of knowledge of operating gypsy sites, but none of them can solve this problem by themselves.

Where would the money come from? The European Regional Development Fund would be a possible source, while in Britain money ought to be available from the New Deal for communities, which has already allocated no less than £10 billion over the next 10 years. That money is earmarked for neighbourhood renewal, but the Deputy Prime Minister said, when the fund was launched in September 1998, that the Government were,

"committed to tackling the problems facing our most deprived communities".

As I have already said, the gypsy community is perhaps the most deprived of all. The fact that gypsies are not concentrated into particular neighbourhoods ought not to deny them access to that money.

In his wind-up speech on Second Reading, the Minister also said that the code of guidance dealing with homelessness would be sent out early this year. Can he give the House a sneak preview and tell your Lordships how authorities are to be advised to deal with the situation that arises from the case of Clarke v. Secretary of State [for the Environment, Transport and the Regions] and Another, which was heard in the Queen's Bench Division on 9th October last year? In that case it was found that taking into account the fact that a gypsy had refused an offer of conventional housing was contrary to Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That was a planning case, of course, but it would have to read across into homelessness.

If a gypsy becomes homeless and does not want to go into fixed housing, then, as I read the case, the authority would have to be able to offer him a pitch on a caravan site. That could be rather awkward, considering the national shortage of pitches. Hitherto, authorities would have been able to offer a homeless gypsy family bed and breakfast accommodation, knowing that it would almost certainly be refused. Now, they might have an obligation to provide space for a caravan, even though such a duty does not appear to fall within the scope of "housing functions under this Part" in Section 206 of the 1996 Act.

I hope that the Minister will confirm, first, that a strategy for homelessness has to cover the traveller families on unauthorised sites, as in Section 175(2) of the 1996 Act.

Secondly, I hope that he will confirm that local authorities, where gypsies reside or to which they resort, must explicitly declare how they are going to resolve any shortage of accommodation which is shown to exist by the fact of unauthorised sites in their area. That is a totally different question from the management of unauthorised encampments to which the Government have given a lot of attention.

Thirdly, and assuming that the answers to the first two questions are positive, I hope that the Government will undertake that their national strategy will enable local authorities to link up with their neighbours so that the patterns of new accommodation to be provided by gypsies themselves—and by, I hope, registered social landlords if they can be enlisted in the way I have described—match the demonstrated need and will eliminate gypsy homelessness. I beg to move.

My Lords, this amendment seeks to make clear that homelessness strategies should include a strategy not only for securing that sufficient accommodation is available for people in the district who are, or may become, homeless, but also for people who, broadly speaking, have some type of mobile accommodation available, but do not have anywhere available to site it and live in it.

I am very sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that people who find themselves in such circumstances—that is, they have a mobile home but nowhere to place it—are already included in the definition of statutory homelessness which is to be found in Part 7 of the 1996 Act. Indeed, as the noble Lord knows, he has borrowed the relevant part of that definition, which is to be found in Section 175(2)(b), in order to construct his amendment. So the answer to his first question is a clear "yes". The definition of homelessness would include such people as I have defined earlier in these remarks.

Since the reference to people who are, or who may become homeless in Clause 3 of the Bill, must mean people who are or may become homeless as defined in statute, all those who fall within the definition of homeless in Sections 175 to 177 of the 1996 Act, also fall within the definition of people who are homeless within Clause 3. So the strategy must, as appropriate, deal with that category of homelessness.

The Government believe that it is right that homelessness strategies and reviews, which must consider all forms of statutory homelessness, as I have just said, should be conducted by local housing authorities. The guidance to authorities which will accompany the Bill will spell out clearly those groups to whom the authority owes a homelessness duty and how provision for these groups will need to be considered in the process of formulating its homelessness strategy.

It is vital that local authorities should have effective strategies for managing gypsy and traveller issues. Such strategies have to be driven at the local level and involve communities. The local agencies—in particular, local authorities and the police—have a vital lead role to play. They are best placed to bring both the settled and traveller communities together in developing effective strategies.

The noble Lord asked a second question about travellers on unauthorised sites. He asked whether that meant that the homelessness strategy for that district has to deal with that specific problem. I do not believe that I can answer that question categorically yes or no. It will depend on the circumstances in each case. But as I have made clear, gypsies and travellers in the circumstances identified can be homeless within the meaning of Clause 3. All categories of homeless people have to be addressed in the local authority strategy.

The noble Lord then widened the horizon of the debate and said that we should go beyond simply local authorities and talk about a strategy which might be sub-regional or regional because one cannot look at this matter by reference to individual local authorities. Of course, we have no objections to local authorities co-operating across a wider area to consider provision for gypsies and travellers. Indeed, we believe that it is a sensible way to ensure that their accommodation and wider needs are met. However, it is also important that these issues are considered at local level as sites need local acceptance to be sustainable.

The noble Lord referred to work that has been done in looking at the issue. We have researchers working at present to investigate, among other matters, the availability, quality and management of gypsy sites; site provision, both in terms of what actually exists and what the demands are for all kinds, and other housing provision and how those demands can be met.

The aim of the research, which is due to report this summer, which, as the noble Lord said, would be after the date of the spending review report, is to give a much clearer picture of the situation on the ground and the likely need for sites in the future. We would wish to evaluate this research and consider how it should inform our future policy on these issues.

I believe that I have gone quite some way in giving reassurance to the noble Lord. I share his concerns. Work has been done to address the issue on a broader basis than simply local authority by local authority. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I shall write to the noble Lord about government offices for the regions. I shall also write to him about the Clarke case because I am not in a position to say what guidance, if any, was given in relation to that matter.

My Lords, I had a very helpful reply from the noble and learned Lord. He confirmed, as I hoped he would, that gypsies are covered by the strategy. He said that, where there are unauthorised sites in the area of a district or housing authority, the needs of the gypsies on those sites would have to be taken into consideration in formulating the strategy. The noble and learned Lord did not go quite as far as I had hoped in confirming that any gypsy on an unauthorised site was homeless by definition because he had no legal right to station his caravan on that particular land, whether he be on the side of the road or on land without the permission of the owner.

The definition in Section 175 of the 1996 Act would imply that any person not on a legally authorised site was in fact homeless. But that is a matter which I dare say local authorities will consider on an individual basis because there are some sites which in the past have been described as "tolerated". That is where a local authority has not taken any enforcement action. I suppose that the implication of the Minister's answer is that where a site is tolerated, the people living on it would not be treated as falling with the category of homeless. However, recently the Government have abandoned the use of the word "toleration" because they said that there was confusion with the police when deciding whether to take enforcement action on such sites for alleged criminal activities. The use of the word "tolerance" as regards planning enforcement was confused with the use of the word in relation to criminal offences that might be committed on the site. Therefore, that word is no longer in the vocabulary and nothing was used to replace it to describe sites against which local authorities do not intend to take enforcement action. Such sites may be the home of a gypsy or a number of gypsies, over a period of many years and without disturbance.

I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for endorsement of the idea that these problems cannot be solved by local housing authorities themselves and that they will need the help of the regions. When he writes to me I hope that he includes the government offices for the regions, because they are the logical organisations through which policy can be implemented over a wider region and money can be found to provide extra accommodation where that proves to be necessary.

I very much look forward to the national strategy which the Government intend to announce shortly. Unless one has a complete idea of the shortages that exist whether as regards rough sleepers, as we discussed a few minutes ago, or in this case the number of places required to accommodate all the gypsies living in the country, one cannot make plans within those totals as to what should be done within each of the regions and local authorities. The concerted action of government, regions and local authorities will be needed in order to solve this problem. I hope that the Government have the political will to see that all the districts have the means of carrying into effect the strategies that they put together, and that they will have the full support of Ministers in doing so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

Clause 5 [Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally]:

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 4, line 2, at end insert "provided that the authority are satisfied that the exercise of this discretion shall not significantly reduce their opportunities to offer accommodation to such persons as are mentioned in section 167(2)(c), (d) and (e) of the 1996 Act (allocation in accordance with allocation scheme) as amended"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 5 extends to local authorities a discretion to provide accommodation for those who are homeless but who are not in priority need and who are not considered to be intentionally homeless. These will tend to be single people, for whom very little can be done at present, and couples who are not vulnerable and do not have children. To some extent these are the people who have been left to fend for themselves even if a local authority had accommodation in the past.

My concerns relate to the number of priority categories that are being developed under the terms of the Bill. Although it may be clear that there are some areas where the impact of extra discretion In terms of responsibilities may not matter, there are areas of the country where any further extension of the power to assist will become completely meaningless, as accommodation is simply not available. I refer to London and to some metropolitan areas; indeed, some rural areas may be in the same position.

The extension in terms of those who may be considered for help will mean that the needs of those delineated in Section 167(2), amended and increased by Clause 15(3) of this Bill, may realistically have to be prioritised if there is any possibility of their being offered accommodation at any stage.

My amendment would provide local authorities with a means of attempting to ensure a balance of allocation within their allocation policies, and would give authorities some discretion as regards the implementation of their policies. I am sure that guidance will be issued on this matter. However, it brings into sharp focus the difficulties which some of the more beleaguered authorities will have in implementing this part of the Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, perhaps I may add to my comments in Grand Committee. The amendment concerns a discretionary power. Therefore, it is not necessary. There are areas of the country where the demand on housing is much lower, which enables better use to be made of the housing. For that reason, although I understand the noble Baroness's comments, I do not believe that such an amendment is needed to enable local authorities to do what she requires.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, effectively encapsulates in three sentences the objection to the amendment. I shall go slightly further and say that it would restrict a discretion on the face of the Bill when the kinds of decisions that have to be made are ones that one very much wants to leave to local authorities.

The noble Baroness's concern is that those who have been accepted as statutorily homeless should not be given undue priority over others in housing need who seek local authority housing—particularly so in the case of homeless people who do not have a priority need for housing. That is her basic complaint.

As I explained in Grand Committee, Clause 5(1) does not affect the preference or priority which must be given to applicants under an authority's allocation scheme. An authority might in theory exercise the discretionary power to use non-secure tenancies to accommodate unintentionally homeless applicants who are not in priority need, to the detriment of needy households who had applied through the authority's allocation scheme. But would it happen in practice? That is the point the noble Baroness is making. I do not believe that it would—not least because it is in the interests of authorities to build stable communities.

Proposed new Section 192(3) needs to be read with Section 159(1) and (2) and with Section 167(1) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996. These make clear that the grant of a secure or introductory tenancy or a nomination to an RSL tenancy can only be done through a formal allocation under Part 6 and in accordance with the authority's allocation scheme. So proposed new Section 192(3) is not an easy or alternative route to a secure tenancy or RSL nomination which bypasses Part 6.

Authorities recognise the legitimate claims of those on their waiting lists to a fair chance of being offered accommodation. Many on the waiting list may be housed in unsatisfactory circumstances and may have been waiting for some time, particularly in areas of high demand. Others may have a pressing need to move on medical or welfare grounds or for the avoidance of hardship to themselves or to others. I cannot envisage that, in practice, any local housing authority would put the claims of homeless people whom they recognise as being "not in priority need" ahead of needy groups applying for accommodation through the allocation scheme.

Local authorities must act reasonably and are publicly accountable. We do no favours to local government in specifying every last matter that it must consider. Too often, we preach the principles of local accountability while tying the hands of local authorities. I am glad to see noble Lords on the Benches behind the noble Baroness nodding in agreement. I believe that this is an area where local authorities are unlikely to get it wrong and consider that the amendment would be an unnecessary fetter and complication to the Bill—which I know the noble Baroness would wish to avoid. I therefore invite her to listen to reason, to listen to those on the Benches behind her who have great experience of local government, and who would regard it as unwise of her to press this matter to a vote.

My Lords, I am fascinated by the Minister's reply. I do not seek to fetter anyone with this amendment. All I am doing is giving authorities greater discretion. The words of the amendment are:

"provided that the authority are satisfied that the exercise of this discretion shall not significantly reduce their opportunities to offer accommodation".

It widens the scope of local authorities and enables them to shift what is in Section 167 an important group of people for whom priority allocation is required.

However, the Minister has exercised his usual charm in putting forward arguments against the amendment. Even if he does accuse me of all sorts of strange things in regard to local authorities, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 4, line 4, leave out "(5)" and insert "(8) (as inserted by paragraph 11 of Schedule 1)"

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 33.

These amendments have been brought forward in response to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, in Grand Committee, when her comments received widespread support from other noble Lords. The concerns centred on the fact that not all local housing authorities deliver a good service when discharging their duties to provide advice and assistance to homeless applicants who have been found not to have a priority need for accommodation or to be intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness.

The Government share the noble Baroness's view that it is extremely important that local housing authorities provide a good service and ensure that they meet their statutory obligations under the homelessness legislation. However, I am mindful that much of her concern arises because of the perception that some authorities are not doing what they are already required to do by statute.

The Bill already provides for the existing duties to provide advice and assistance to be strengthened, but Amendments Nos. 30, 32 and 33 will take this further. They will require an assessment of the applicant's housing needs to be made before any advice and assistance is provided—with an unspecified but clear inference that the assessment must be taken into account in the advice and assistance proffered. The amendments will also require that the advice and assistance given must include information about the type of accommodation that would be appropriate for the applicant. That, in turn, must include information about the likely availability of accommodation within the local authority area and where the applicant should go, and to whom he or she should apply in order best to locate it.

Amendment No. 9 is minor and consequential to the amendment—and also to Amendment No. 34, to which I shall speak later as it concerns Clause 15.

Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8) in Section 195 of the Housing Act 1996. One effect is to displace what would have been new subsection (6) of Section 195, as inserted by Clause 5(2) of the Bill, and require it to be renumbered as new subsection (8) of Section 195. Amendment No. 9 gives effect to this renumbering.

The Government feel very strongly that there must be increased emphasis on the provision of good quality, properly tailored and timely advice for those experiencing, or facing, homelessness. The amendments that I have introduced will help to focus local housing authority minds on what must be done. Clearly, placing statutory duties on authorities may not always be sufficient to ensure that good quality and consistent results are delivered on the ground. We shall reinforce our message through clear statutory guidance—both on the advice and assistance duties, and on putting together the local homelessness strategy—and through the national homelessness strategy.

I commend Amendments Nos. 9, 30, 32 and 33 to the House. In the light of my introductory remarks on these amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will not feel the need to move her Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 10:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

"PROVISION OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

() A local authority, in providing (or securing the provision of) advice and assistance under sections 190(2)(b) and (3), 192(2) and 195(5) of the 1996 Act, shall ensure that—

(a) an assessment of an applicant's housing and related needs is carried out, and that the results of that assessment are taken into account in the provision of advice and assistance;

(b) appropriate and timely information is provided about the availability of accommodation in the area; and

(c) information and advice is provided about the applicant's right to a review of a decision under section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision)."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that these Benches warmly welcome the amendments put forward by the Government. They do meet the concerns that we raised in Grand Committee. I should point out that other people supported such amendments; and, indeed, many people gave me support throughout the Committee stage. I have in mind the National Housing Federation, of which I declare once again I am a vice-president, as well as groups such as Shelter and Crisis.

However, perhaps I may press the Minister on one point. I should stress that I do not intend to speak to Amendment No. 10, or to move it. Can the noble and learned Lord indicate how he intends to monitor local authority performance in the area? For example, will it be a matter for the Housing Inspectorate to consider? I ask that question because it is the key to the whole initiative being a success. Having said that, I shall certainly not move Amendment No. 10.

My Lords, I warmly welcome the amendments put forward by the Government. They are exactly what one would have desired. As this is the first occasion upon which I have had the opportunity to speak this afternoon, perhaps I may mention the general enthusiasm of those agencies working with young homeless people. I have in mind the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit and its great achievements over the past three years. There is a history here of difficulty that was outlined in Shelter's report Singles Barred. In the past, assessments have been inconsistent between different local authorities; for example, in one metropolitan authority, a 17 year-old man was forced to leave his home due to family breakdown. He was properly assessed by that authority and suitable accommodation was arranged for him in a shared house. However, the same man had a different reception from another London authority. On that occasion, he was simply told that, without identification and a letter providing proof that he was homeless, there was nothing that that authority could do for him.

The homeless persons' units have been the Cinderella of local authorities. The Bill will bring them into the spotlight and that, in turn, will improve the service provided, thus preventing people from becoming unnecessarily homeless. I shall give noble Lords an example of another problem experienced by a London charity. Young people were being told by local authority homeless persons' units to go to certain places. However, on arrival, and after having travelled all the way across London, they would find that some of those places were closed. They had been given out-of-date information, and those young people with so many other difficulties were faced with a further problem. Moreover, because of the changes introduced under the new Rough Sleepers' Unit, many hostels that were previously open to emergency cases—that is, direct access hostels—have now become "referral only" hostels. Again, local authorities were referring young people to them despite the fact that their doors were closed.

As I said, I warmly welcome the government amendments. Because of the failures in the past, I wish only to add my support for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, regarding the importance of monitoring this area. The Minister was good enough to make it very clear in Grand Committee that he, or his successor, would be keeping a very firm eye on performance in the area. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to reiterate that commitment at this stage of the proceedings. I also wonder whether he would be good enough to say what role the Housing Inspectorate might have in the continuance of that monitoring process.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that she will not be moving Amendment No. 10. As regards monitoring, I can tell the noble Baroness that, as announced before Christmas, a homelessness directorate will be established within the DTLR. Its purpose will be to streamline and co-ordinate all the work carried out on homelessness by central government. In relation to delivering results in the area of homelessness, we recognise that the people in the front line will be those working in the local authority.

The homelessness directorate must have a sufficient relationship with local authorities to enable it to know what is going on in the area, and establish whether or not the measures taken are effective. The provision of advice and assistance pursuant to the terms of this amendment and the wider duties are important matters for the homelessness directorate to consider. Separately from that, noble Lords will know the various means by which local government performance can be monitored. The relevant inspectorates, some of which cover homelessness and housing, will also need to consider the level of performance in the relevant local authority.

Finally, one of the effects of the Bill is that a homelessness strategy must be published. Plainly, such a strategy will have to set out how, for example, the provision of this expanded duty would be delivered. Therefore, there are three methods by which monitoring can take place. I repeat: this is an important aspect of dealing with homelessness. It is one that we would expect to see delivered.

On Question, Amendment No. 9 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

Clause 7 [Events which cause the duty to cease]:

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 4, line 40, at end insert ",and states that the offer shall remain available for such period as the authority may determine is reasonable in all the circumstances"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a fairly simple amendment to Clause 7. Its purpose is to provide for local authorities to give homeless applicants a reasonable period of time in which to accept or refuse a final offer of accommodation.

We discussed the issue in Grand Committee. I know that the Government agree in principle with the thinking behind my amendment. However, the Minister argued at that time (at col. CWH 31 of the Official Report) that local authorities were already under a general duty to act reasonably in allowing applicants time to decide whether or not to accept an offer. However, we know that local authorities frequently do not act reasonably in this area. There is evidence that homeless applicants are often given as little as 24 hours, sometimes even less, to decide whether to accept an offer of accommodation. Such a short period of time places those applicants under considerable pressure to accept an offer. I believe that it undermines the intentions set out in the housing Green Paper as regards providing homeless people with a greater choice over the housing in which they wish to live.

Although strong guidance in this respect would be welcome, we continue to believe that current performance in the area and the lack of regard that authorities often have for the guidance mean that a stronger statutory duty is required. My amendment would achieve that aim without interfering with the local authority's discretion by simply specifying that a "reasonable" period of time must be allowed to consider a final offer. The concept of "reasonableness" is used extensively in the Bill, and elsewhere in the Housing Act 1996. I dealt with that aspect of the matter in more detail in Grand Committee, so I shall not repeat my arguments today.

It is worth noting that the Conservatives tabled similar amendments in another place that would have given applicants a minimum period of four days in which to decide whether to accept a final offer of accommodation. There are a number of factors that may impact on the ability of an applicant to make a quick decision. Applicants may be working in a different area; they may have children and care commitments; and they often have problems as regards visiting another area if it is different from the area in which their children attend school. People who are homeless find life pretty difficult anyway. Expecting a quick decision is unfair on many vulnerable people.

One in three of those accepted as homeless and in priority need are single people without children who are considered vulnerable. The remaining acceptances are families with children or families including someone who is pregnant. We are talking about very vulnerable people.

The pressure that homeless households are under is compounded by the many other disadvantages that they face when they apply for social housing. Homeless households are likely to get many fewer offers of accommodation and they get less choice over the area in which they live. The previous department—the DETR—produced figures showing that since 1991 there has been a sharp increase in the proportion of authorities operating a policy of one offer only. By 2000, that figure had increased to 75 per cent. We are talking about vulnerable people in real situations.

I believe that I have demonstrated the need for further action. I hope that the Minister can respond positively. I beg to move.

My Lords, I was not going to intervene on the amendment, but I have been moved to do so by the recollection of my time as a housing chairman. I found that it was important not to allow too much time for a decision. There will always be more priorities in London than housing accommodation available. If somebody sits on an offer for four, five or six weeks and is allowed any amount of time, they may prevent somebody else making a decision and getting a property that they want. The question is how the word "reasonable" is interpreted. I have heard an almost infinite number of debates in this Chamber on that subject. There is a real problem with people having too long to make a decision and others being put in jeopardy as a result.

My Lords, I cannot help pointing out that, once again, the noble Baroness is trying to fetter the discretion of local authorities. Surely responsible local authorities are capable of deciding what is reasonable. The word is very common in statute. I am sure that they would not have any difficulty and that they would not allow those offered housing to take so many weeks to respond that they deprived others of the accommodation.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, says that sometimes the period is too short and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, says that sometimes it is too long. Plainly, the period needed will differ from circumstance to circumstance. A reasonable time will have to be given. That is the current position and no amendment is required to say that. There is already an implicit legal duty to ensure that applicants have a reasonable time to consider a final offer of accommodation under Part 6 of the 1996 Act. That includes allowing a reasonable period for final offers to be considered. That duty of reasonableness can be discharged only if account is taken of the applicant's particular circumstances and the wider considerations.

I agree that it is important that authorities should act reasonably, particularly when making final offers of accommodation, as they have the potential to bring the homelessness duty to an end, whether accepted or refused. To place the requirement to act reasonably for final offers on the face of the legislation is superfluous and might even lead to the incorrect assumption that a reasonable period need not be offered in respect of any other offer. I am happy to reiterate the commitment that I gave in Grand Committee that a clear reminder will be given to authorities in statutory guidance—to which they must by law have regard—that they must allow a reasonable period for final offers to be considered. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, expressed concern that local housing authorities should not be able to bring the main homelessness duty to an end with a qualifying offer of an assured short-hold tenancy with a private landlord until it was absolutely clear that the applicant had understood the written statement that explains that he has no obligation to accept the offer and that if he accepts it the homelessness duty will end. In emphasising the importance of real understanding, she had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Amendment No. 13 would provide that the applicant must acknowledge that he has either read or had read to him the statement.

We thought about the issue and decided that the critical point in what the noble Baroness said—the point that had the support of other noble Lords—was that the applicant must confirm that he or she has understood the statement. That may involve him reading the statement himself or having it read to him by someone else, but it might also include, for example, translating the statement into another language or explaining to the applicant, step by step, the effect of his acceptance of an offer.

I suggest that the solution is that it is unnecessary to refer on the face of the Bill to the means by which an applicant has come to understand the content of the statement. All that is needed is that the central requirement that he has understood it is specified. Our Amendment No. 12 would achieve that and would simplify the existing provision in the Bill. It would have the additional benefit of emphasising the key requirement that the applicant has understood the statement. I therefore commend Amendment No. 12 to the House. It is intended to deal with the point that gained widespread support around the Committee. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not move Amendment No. 13 when the time comes.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I shall certainly not move Amendment No. 13. I am grateful to him for accepting that there was room for improvement in the sense and sensitivity of that aspect. I am glad that he has accepted this small but important change.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. We pursued the issue in Grand Committee. I am pleased with what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 5, line 25, leave out "read and"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

My Lords, because Amendment No. 12 has been agreed, Amendment No. 13 is pre-empted and therefore cannot be called.

Clause 9 [Abolition of duty under section 197]:

[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 15:

After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—

"SECTION 202: REVIEWS

After section 202 of the 1996 Act (right to request review of decision) there is inserted—

"202A SECTION 202: REVIEWS

(1) This section applies where an applicant has the right to request a review of a decision by an authority or authorities under section 202.

(2) If the applicant is dissatisfied with a decision by the authority—

(a) not to exercise their power to continue to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review under section 188;

(b) in a case where the authority have secured that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation under section 190(2)(a), to cease to secure that accommodation is so available before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant);

(c) not to exercise their power to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation pending a review, under section 200(5); or

(d) to exercise their power under either section 188 or 200(5) for a limited time ending before the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, the day on which an appeal is brought by the applicant) or, in either case, to cease exercising their power before that time,

he may appeal to the county court against the decision.

(3) An appeal under this section may not be brought after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or, if sooner, after the date on which an appeal is brought).

(4) On an appeal under this section, the court—

(a) may order the authority to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation until the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 has expired (or such earlier time as the court may specify); and

(b) shall confirm or quash the decision appealed against,

and in considering whether to confirm or quash the decision the court shall apply the principles applied by the High Court on an application for judicial review.

(5) If the court quashes the decision it may order the authority to exercise any of the powers mentioned in subsection (2) in the applicant's case for such period as may be specified in the order.

(6) An order under subsection (5)—

(a) may only be made if the court is satisfied that failure to exercise the power in accordance with the order would substantially prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue the review against the authority's decision in his case;

(b) may not specify any period ending after the time available to the applicant to bring an appeal under section 204 of the Act has expired.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is another amendment that we discussed at some length in Grand Committee. Although the Minister has been very helpful in correspondence and has tabled amendments that cover some of our concerns, I regret that this was not one of them, so I shall pursue the issue once again.

We believe that Amendment No. 15 would increase access to justice by providing homeless applicants with a right to appeal to the county court against the decision of a local housing authority not to accommodate him or her during the review of that decision. Currently such appeals are heard in the High Court.

The Government have accepted that, at the subsequent stage at which an applicant can appeal the review decision on a point of law, the equivalent power to order an authority to provide accommodation should lie with the county court. An amendment has been included in the Bill to achieve that objective, and Amendment No. 15 mirrors that amendment.

When we discussed the issue in Grand Committee, the Minister had four main arguments against the new clause. The first was that it would interfere with local authorities' discretion. He said, secondly, that there is no filtering process in the county courts, so that there would be an influx of unmeritorious applications and applicants would be encouraged to bring vexatious cases. He argued, thirdly, that cases should be brought only in exceptional circumstances, and that judicial review in the High Court is therefore the appropriate legal remedy. He said, fourthly, that giving the same power to the county court at the subsequent appeal stage makes administrative sense, although it seems that the same logic does not apply at the review stage.

When I was a Member of the other place and we were considering the Housing Act 1996, Labour Members pressed much more wide-ranging amendments on the issue than I am proposing in Amendment No. 15. I suspect that I supported them in those amendments. I am therefore somewhat disappointed that the Government are not continuing the line that they thought was right in 1996.

I shall deal with the Minister's four objections, the first of which was on local authority discretion. We believe that the amendment does nothing to increase the presumption that local authorities should provide accommodation. It leaves existing relevant statutory powers precisely as they are; it would merely transfer the route of appeal, if an authority refuses to provide accommodation, from one court to another. We also do not believe that it would lead to a large number of unmeritorious cases. The argument that doing this would interfere with local authority discretion therefore simply does not stand up.

The Minister dealt, secondly, with the need for a filtering process, which is perhaps the most important point. He argued in Grand Committee that judicial review procedure provides a filtering process that is not present in the county court. Currently, when a decision not to accommodate during a review is challenged, an application is made to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review and for an injunction to accommodate pending the outcome of that review. If the court is satisfied that there is a case to answer, permission and an injunction will be granted, and the full judicial review hearing will be listed. At that point, the overwhelming majority of authorities will reverse their original decision and agree to provide accommodation after all. I am grateful to Shelter for informing me that its legal team is not aware of any examples in which the foregoing has not been the case.

Although it is right to say that procedures differ in that there is no formal permission stage in the county court, the most important point is that, in practice, the principles that would be applied by the court in deciding the case would be exactly the same. Those were set out in the Court of Appeal's judgment in R v London Borough of Richmond. They also represent a stringent test in deciding whether accommodation should be provided. It is difficult to see how the new clause would provide an incentive to bring unmeritorious cases as it does absolutely nothing to encourage people to think that they would be successful. Therefore, in practice, we do not believe that the new clause would lead to many more cases.

The Minister's third point in Grand Committee was that challenges should be brought only in exceptional circumstances and that the appropriate legal remedy is in the High Court. I agree that applications should be made only when there is a strong case. However, the Government's argument seems to be that the power to require an authority to provide accommodation should remain in the High Court in order to keep the number of applications down. We believe that judicial review is a remote and inappropriate remedy for homeless people, and that current arrangements prevent them from exercising their legal rights effectively when they have a strong case. I think that that point is particularly important. Despite guidance, local authorities rarely provide accommodation during the review process, even when the applicant has a strong case.

The Minister's fourth point was on simplifying administration. He argued that giving the parallel provision to order an authority to accommodate an applicant at the subsequent appeal stage would simplify the process as the appeal itself is already held in the county court. We believe that similar arguments can be applied in relation to the review process.

I have spoken to the amendment at some length, and I spoke to it in Grand Committee. I believe that the Minister understands our objective in the matter. We have also tried to answer the points that he made in Committee. I therefore hope that, today, I shall receive a slightly better response from him on this rather complicated amendment. However, it has to be technical because of the very nature of the issues that it addresses.

My Lords, it might be helpful if I were to give an example of the matters just dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, as there seems to be some concern about them.

A man approached Shelter for assistance. He was 17 and had been living with his father, with whom he had had a very difficult relationship. His father had made him leave their home several times in the past. On this occasion, the young man was on licence from prison and had to be resident at an address to avoid being returned to prison. The authority accepted that he was homeless but said that he did not have a priority need. That was despite guidance stating that

"the Secretary of State would generally expect to find homeless … 16 and 17 year olds to be vulnerable and hence in priority need for accommodation".

A review of the authority's decision was requested, but the authority refused to provide accommodation pending a review. Shelter brought judicial review proceedings to require the authority to provide accommodation during the review. The authority subsequently issued its review decision, stating that it had re-examined the situation and found that the client was, in fact, owed a full housing duty.

I hope that I have given the example at the appropriate stage of our proceedings. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, it is a very complex matter, and I am afraid that I may have misunderstood the particular provision.

My Lords, the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was right on target. It demonstrated, did it not, that judicial review provided an adequate remedy in that example?

I shall try to be brief in dealing with the point made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I am afraid, however, that we still disagree on it.

An applicant who is dissatisfied with the housing authority's decision on his homelessness case has the right to request the authority to review the decision. If dissatisfied with the authority's decision on review, the applicant has the right to appeal to the county court on a point of law.

Under current provisions, applicants who wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate pending either a review by the authority or an appeal to the county court must seek judicial review of that decision in the High Court. The example given by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is relevant to that point. The provision provides an avenue of redress for applicants in the event that an authority does not make a proper decision; for example, by failing to give due consideration to all the circumstances, or perhaps failing to consider them at all. It is appropriate that the authority should have discretion whether to continue to accommodate applicants once it has completed its detailed enquiries and satisfied itself of the facts of the case.

Amendment No. 15 would give the county court a power to intervene in decisions by a housing authority not to continue to accommodate a homeless applicant pending a review. However, applying to the courts to overturn an authority's decision should be a matter of last resort and should only be considered when it is clear that the authority has not made a proper decision. I believe that the principle of judicial review by the High Court remains valid where applicants wish to challenge an authority's decision not to continue to accommodate pending a review by the authority of the homelessness decision—that is, at the first procedural stage.

The Government are concerned to ensure that local authority discretion in these matters is not completely undermined. That is my reason for resisting the move to give the county court the power to intervene in the decision by an authority not to continue to accommodate at the review stage.

The Government believe that if the power to intervene in local authority decisions not to continue to accommodate an applicant pending a review were moved from the High Court to the county court, that would have various consequences. First, the county court would be duty bound to consider every application that was made to it. Secondly, there must be a strong likelihood that the court would be minded to require the authority to continue to accommodate in just about every case until the court had the opportunity properly to consider the application. Having done that, the court is very unlikely to want to take any action that would result, directly or indirectly, in the applicant becoming homeless.

I was not sure but I thought that the noble Baroness said that applications for injunctions pending the hearing of judicial review invariably led to the injunction being granted once leave had been given. If that experience were taken to the county court, where there is no filter, could not the same possibly occur? In effect, one would in practice take away discretion from the local authority.

My Lords, perhaps I was not being very clear. If I remember rightly, my argument was that there comes a point at which the local authority gives in, as it were, and therefore does not need to carry on. That is why the situation probably would not arise.

My Lords, if one gives the county court the right to intervene in the decision about whether one should house someone pending a review, and the invariable practice of the court became that it would always intervene to secure continuing accommodation pending a review, discretion about whether or not to continue to house pending the review would, in effect, be taken from the local authority and given to the court. That would mean that although there was a category of people whom the local authority thought should not be housed, accommodation would nevertheless need to be provided for them. What impact would that have on those with needs that were greater than those of the people whom the local authority had just assessed as not being sufficient to justify continuing housing?

The third consequence would be that the net effect would be an incentive for every homeless applicant who received a decision against his interests to ask for a review by the authority and apply to the court for an order requiring the authority to continue to accommodate him until the review was completed, thus completely undermining the local authority's discretion to decide whether to exercise its power.

Local authorities have an immediate duty to secure accommodation for new applicants where there is reason to believe that they are homeless and in priority need, until the authority has had a chance to look into the circumstances and to satisfy itself whether there is indeed homelessness, whether that homelessness was caused by the applicant and whether there is priority need.

It is right that authorities have that immediate duty and that applicants should have the right to ask the authority to review any decision that goes against their interests—for example, that they do not have priority need or that they became homeless intentionally. However, it is important that authorities themselves should have the discretion to decide whether there is good reason to continue to accommodate applicants during a review and that that discretionary power is not undermined by the possibility of intervention by the courts on a routine basis.

I earnestly ask the noble Baroness to consider what we have said. Our approach is not the result of penny-pinching but because we think that it is the right approach. I therefore urge her to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister once again for a very full answer. He will be aware that the Housing Law Practitioners Association strongly supported the approach, as did Shelter. People would not take such cases forward unless they had a very good case because they would not get legal aid or funding. Part of what the Minister said would not happen. However, I thank him for making even clearer his reasons for disagreeing with me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Application of Part 6 of 1996 Act to existing tenants]:

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Clause 13 [Abolition of duty to maintain housing register]:

moved Amendment No. 17:

Leave out Clause 13.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for pausing for a moment. I thought that I should have a nice little rest while the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, moved Amendment No. 16. In relation to housing, it always seems to be my role to move amendments quickly one after the other.

The amendment involves a matter that we raised in Grand Committee. Significant concerns have been expressed about the Bill's provisions relating to unacceptable behaviour, which makes someone unsuitable to be a tenant. In Grand Committee, the Minister made a strong statement and set out how he expected local authorities to implement the provisions. He also highlighted several factors that must be considered by an authority, and that will be incorporated into guidance. We welcome that statement and the correspondence I have had with him on some of those matters.

We have already raised the relevant issue today. Given the poor record of some local authorities in following guidance, the application of the provisions is likely to be the subject of legal challenge when the legislation is enacted. It is important that there is no doubt about the Government's intentions. I hope that the Minister will state that he will oversee the wording of the guidance and closely monitor practice, including any legal proceedings that are brought under the provisions to ensure that the intentions that he has set out are met.

Our concerns about unacceptable behaviour are that the unacceptable behaviour test could go much wider than anti-social behaviour and would allow local authorities to apply it to a wide range of other situations, particularly where rent arrears are concerned. The Bill will give authorities the discretion not to house tenants in circumstances other than those involving anti-social behaviour. That is extremely common under current legislation.

Local authorities routinely apply for possession orders when they are not entitled to them. In 2000, 150,000 possession actions were taken by social landlords, the vast majority of which were for rent arrears. If such a landlord takes proceedings as far as the court, it is presumably satisfied that it is entitled to a possession order. However, of those 150,000 cases, only 65 per cent resulted in any order being made, of which only 18 per cent resulted in an outright order. In more than 80 per cent of cases where social landlords presumably assumed that they were entitled to a possession order, the court ruled that they were not.

It is important that housing and support needs are taken into account at this stage. People with problematic histories, such as rough sleepers and exoffenders—we have already discussed them today—many of whom have been evicted from previous tenancies, may fall foul of the unacceptable behaviour provisions. Resettlement work and the policy on homelessness more widely could be undermined. I refer to the work of the Rough Sleepers' Unit in that regard.

It is also important to consider the way in which the provisions will be interpreted and applied at the local level. I hope that the Minister will give as firm a statement as he gave in Grand Committee. I beg to move.

My Lords, the noble Baroness was clear about her concerns in Grand Committee and was clear again today. It may well be appropriate for me to reiterate the assurances that I gave in Grand Committee.

I therefore restate that the Bill as drafted would not allow an authority to decide to treat someone as ineligible for an allocation simply by assessing his behaviour and not considering any other factors. Proposed new Section 160A(7) will give authorities a power to decide to treat individual applicants as ineligible for an allocation of housing. It will apply only where a person—either the applicant or a member of his household—is guilty of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority and, in the circumstances at the time of the application, unsuitable to be a tenant by reason of that behaviour.

Where an authority receives an application and has reason to believe that either the applicant or a member of his household has been guilty of behaviour that may make him unsuitable to be a tenant, there are a number of steps which the authority must follow.

First, it must satisfy itself that behaviour has occurred which falls within the definition of "unacceptable behaviour"; in other words, the applicant or a member of his household must have behaved in a manner that would, if the applicant were a secure tenant, entitle the authority to a possession order under Section 84 of the Housing Act in relation to certain grounds. The grounds are those in Part I of Schedule 2, except ground 8. They are fault grounds and include behaviour such as conduct that is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance and use of the premises for immoral or illegal purposes.

In considering whether a possession order would be granted in the circumstances of a particular case, the authority will have to consider whether, having established the grounds, the court would consider that it was reasonable to grant a possession order. In case law it has been established that, when the court is deliberating, "reasonable" means having regard to the interests of the public and the interests of the parties. Therefore, in deciding whether it would be entitled to an order, the authority would need to consider those interests, including all the circumstances of the applicant and his household. That is stage one.

Under stage two, having concluded that it would he entitled to an order, an authority will need to satisfy itself that the behaviour is serious enough to make the person unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. For example, it will need to be satisfied that, if a possession order is granted, it will not be suspended by the court.

Thirdly, the authority will need to satisfy itself that in the circumstances at the time of the application the applicant was unsuitable to be a tenant by reason of the behaviour in question.

Those three criteria provide a fairly stiff test. Only if it is satisfied in all three aspects may the authority consider exercising its discretion to decide that the applicant is to be treated as ineligible for an allocation. In reaching a decision on whether or not to treat the applicant as ineligible, the authority will have to act reasonably. That means that it will need to consider all the relevant matters before it. They will include all the circumstances relevant to the applicant, including health, dependants and other factors. In practice, the matters before the authority will include the information provided on the application form.

Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that it would be impossible for an authority to take a view cm whether it would be entitled to a possession order without considering fully all the factors that a court would take into account in determining whether or not it was reasonable to grant an order. Then, in reaching a decision as to whether or not to exercise its discretion and treat someone as ineligible, the authority must consider all the relevant factors.

I believe it is important that housing authorities are clear about the implications of these important provisions. Accordingly, I undertake to ensure that these matters are included in the statutory guidance, for which I shall take personal responsibility, and that they will be issued to accompany the Bill. I also agree that it is right that the application of this measure is monitored. The type of factors to which I referred in answer to an earlier question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will inform the way that that monitoring takes place.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is the best way to ensure that authorities act reasonably and consider all the circumstances of a case before deciding to treat an applicant as ineligible for housing. I hope that in the light of that, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he tell me whether there is a database of cases where the courts have granted possession on grounds similar to those which are being considered by the local authorities lo which local authorities can refer in deciding these matters? He said that they would have to consider whether the court would have granted a possession order if it had had such facts before it. If a local authority can refer to such a database and can see that in a certain set of circumstances the court has or has not granted a possession order, that will obviously be very useful

However, if there is no such database, and with the enormous variety of circumstances that might apply not to the applicant but to any single member of his household, how will the authority judge whether the courts would have granted possession in those circumstances?

My Lords, as in all issues relating to how a court will react, a large number of cases will have been decided by the courts. Not all those cases will be reported or accessible on a database. There are a large number of databases which refer one to decided cases in court, including those concerning housing, but they are not comprehensive. I know from my own experience that all county court decisions—that will be the relevant court—or Appeal Court decisions are not reported. However, databases exist to provide some assistance in relation to this matter. The more access there is to the widest possible range of decided cases, the better.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive response to my amendment. In view of the assurances that he has given me and his oversight of practice in this area, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 [Applications for housing accommodation]:

moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 10, line 7, at end insert "and shall be entered in a register complying with the requirements of Schedule (Housing Applications Register) to this Act".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37, which contains a proposed new schedule. It is a matter to which I return following the Grand Committee. The abolition of the requirement to keep a housing register is something of a false dawn. As I said previously, few will mourn the passing of a register amounting to some 8,000 to 10,000 applications. However, there will still be an administrative need for a record to be kept of those applying for consideration under the allocation scheme.

While I recognise that there are varying degrees of pressure on housing across the country, it seems somewhat lax not to have any indication within the Bill that the freedom of release from the formal housing register brings with it requirements to record applications which are made and their outcome, even if that is only to say that there is no entitlement, no priority or no realistic possibility of housing in a defined period.

Monitoring and auditing of the housing position across the country will become infinitely more unreliable than it is already if there is no requirement to maintain administrative probity. My schedule in Amendment No. 37, of which I was quite proud—that is the reason why it has appeared again—gives the outline of how I consider the matter should he implemented. I beg to move.

My Lords, the Bill seeks to encourage authorities to move away from fixed registers and to consider more flexible ways of operating their allocation schemes which will enable them to offer more choice to those who seek a social housing tenancy. Amendments Nos. 18 and 37 would require the opening of a register of applications for allocation of accommodation; that is, they seek to lay down specific requirements as to how authorities keep records of the operation of their allocation scheme.

I understand the concern of the noble Baroness that all authorities should keep good records in order that they may be held accountable for their allocation decisions. In fact, it is inconceivable that any authority wanting to protect itself from a maladministration charge would not keep records of what happened in the course of an application made to it. Therefore, some form of list or register of applicants and decisions taken with regard to their applications is likely to be retained. However, I do not believe that it is right to prescribe in legislation the format of that record.

The Bill builds in safeguards to ensure that all applicants, including existing tenants who apply for a transfer, have their applications considered properly. It also ensures that applicants can obtain the necessary information that will allow them to assess how long they may have to wait for an allocation.

The Bill provides a sensible framework which gives individual authorities flexibility to construct their allocation scheme as they think best while providing safeguards that will ensure that reasonable preference is given to the categories of applicants most in housing need. It is for individual authorities to decide how best to conduct the detailed administration of their allocations.

In effect, the Bill specifies the ends that we wish to achieve through local authorities. But we want local authorities to be imaginative in doing so—to give advice and information and to develop choice-based letting systems—rather than simply being passive in the way that some authorities have been in the past, with waiting lists being constructed but with little happening thereafter. I do not believe that we need to tell them the means of fulfilling those goals; it would be potentially negative were we to do so. Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he intimated, and as we both know from the past, there are authorities and authorities. Some have better procedures than others and some adopt better practices than others. It was in seeking to ensure that the best practices were adopted that I sought to have the matter put on the face of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 [Allocation Schemes]:

moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 10, line 19, after "accommodation" insert "(including temporary accommodation) which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 24. Amendment No. 19 addresses one of the most serious issues, particularly in London: the availability of decent temporary accommodation. There is rightly a move towards reducing the numbers of people in bed and breakfast accommodation and the amount of time they spend there. But in order to provide for all those who present themselves as homeless, it is a fact that many will continue to be placed in conditions which are less than satisfactory.

There may be options for applicants to be placed outside the authority in question if there is accommodation available in a particular authority. That position should be made clear. The homeless are as entitled as anyone else to know the true position and what options may be available. In Committee the Minister drew my attention to the fact that this clause came under Part 6 of the 1996 Act. I accept that that is the case. However, as Clause 15(2)(a) relates to people who are homeless within Part 7, it seems to me that it is relevant to refer to temporary accommodation for that aspect alone.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are designed to follow one upon the other and to draw on to the face of the Bill all those who, as a result of the changes being made, will be entitled to priority consideration for housing. They would amend Section 189 of the Housing Act 1996. No one to whom I have spoken is, in general, against any of the principles of what is being proposed. However, there is great anxiety about the implications of the extra priority categories. In reality, in places such as London, housing authorities are in dire straits coping with the priorities in the 1996 Act. The Bill extends those priority categories. It is my view that they should all be in one place rather than scattered through the two pieces of legislation. Priorities will have to be prioritised. As I said in Committee, decisions will have to be made as to who is more vulnerable than the vulnerable. There needs to be recognition that that is the position. This is the best way I can think of doing that.

Amendment No. 24 returns to the concerns I expressed in Committee about the need for housing authorities to be able to balance their housing allocations to take account of the make-up of the community in any part of their area of responsibility. It helps no one, least of all those concerned, if too many vulnerable people are placed in one estate or statutory housing area without a balance of those who can help and support them. There have been too many incidents of sink estates in the past to allow that to happen again. Local authorities are well aware of that.

In general, I expect that what I seek in tabling the amendment happens in well-managed authorities. However, in view of the greater emphasis being placed on the young and the vulnerable, as well as those already categorised, it must be allowable for such a consideration as outlined in my amendment to be taken into account. I beg to move.

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 24, which were either moved or spoken to in this group.

Amendment No. 19 deals with local housing authority schemes for the allocation of accommodation. It would require authorities to include in their allocation schemes a statement on offering applicants accommodation, not only within the authority's own boundaries but in other areas also. The noble Baroness indicated in Committee that she tabled the amendment because in some high demand areas even temporary accommodation may not be available in the authority's own area and, she says, applicants should be made aware of that.

I do not believe that it is necessary to place such a requirement on the face of the Bill. Shortage of affordable housing is a problem localised to some parts of the country, one of which the Government are well aware and are investing to alleviate. However, as it is localised, the desirability of an authority indicating the likelihood of an application being successful is, I believe, a matter for guidance rather than legislation.

Part 6 of the 1996 Act is concerned, with long-term allocations of secure, introductory or assured tenancies. Therefore, the reference to temporary accommodation could be said not to be in the right place. The provisions of the 1996 Act for allocations relate to the selection of tenants of an authority's own stock and nominations to tenancies of accommodation held by other housing providers, whether other authorities or RSLs. An authority's policy on offering people a choice of housing implicitly includes its policies in relation to its own accommodation and its arrangements with other authorities. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 19.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would insert additional categories of housing applicants who must be given reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation under Part 6 of the 1996 Act. Put simply, the additional categories covered by the amendments are unnecessary because they are already covered by the existing categories in the Bill.

Amendment No. 20 would insert four new categories, which exactly match the categories of homeless applicants who have a priority need for accommodation under the homelessness legislation. Those comprise Section 189(1)(a) to (d) of the 1996 Act. All homeless applicants who fall within one or more of those categories and who are homeless or threatened with homelessness will be owed a duty under various sections of the 1996 Act. Clause 15(3) of the Bill specifically requires that housing applicants who are owed such duties must be given reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation by virtue of new Section 167(2B). The point made by the noble Baroness is already covered.

Amendment No. 21 would insert five new categories of homeless people who must be given reasonable preference for an allocation. Four of those are already covered in Clause 15 of the Bill by new Section 167(2)(a), which provides that anyone who is homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the 1996 Act must be given reasonable preference for an allocation. "Homelessness within the meaning of Part 7" means statutorily homeless as defined by Sections 175 to 177 of the 1996 Act. Broadly speaking, those sections provide that a person is homeless if he or she does not have accommodation which is legally and physically available to him or her and his family, and which it would be reasonable for them to continue to occupy. That will include rough sleepers and all others who do not have a home, for whatever reason.

The fact that someone is homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the 1996 Act does not necessarily mean that he or she will be owed a substantive homelessness duty. That would require them to have become homeless unintentionally and to fall within a priority need group. There may be some misunderstanding about the effect of new Section 167(2)(a). Its application is not limited to people who are owed a main homelessness duty; it extends to anyone who is homeless, whatever the reason for the homelessness.

I said that four of the categories proposed by Amendment No. 21 are already covered by new Section 167(2)(a). The fifth and last category proposed by the amendment is not so embraced because it does not address people who are homeless. It deals with existing secure or introductory tenants of a local authority who are seeking a transfer. Applicants in this position cannot expect to be given reasonable preference unless they fall within new Section 167(2)(c), (d) or (e). These categories would apply if they were living in insanitary, overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory conditions, or if they needed to move because of medical or welfare reasons or to avoid hardship to themselves or others. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness that Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are unnecessary.

Amendment No. 24 allows an authority to suspend the new provisions inserted into Section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 by subsection (3) of Clause 15. Most of those provisions confer a discretion on the local housing authority when framing its statutory housing allocation schemes. This is the case with new Section 167(2A) to (2E). Nothing would be gained by allowing authorities to suspend those provisions when the extent to which they use them is anyway at their discretion. Furthermore, some of these provisions are particularly helpful in meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness.

New Section 167(2), like its predecessor, requires allocation schemes to be framed in order to give reasonable preference in allocating housing to those who, in general terms, have the most pressing needs. This is a duty but the preference required to be given is one which is "reasonable" in all the circumstances. In determining priority between applicants who fall into a "reasonable preference" category, an authority may specify factors it will take into account—such as an applicant's financial resources or behaviour. They also allow authorities to ensure that local circumstances—for example, on a particular estate—can be reflected in allocation schemes.

Under new Section 167(2E)(b), authorities would be able to allocate particular housing accommodation to persons of a particular description in accordance with schemes known as "local lettings schemes". These could include key worker schemes where it might help attract modestly paid but essential staff to high-cost areas. In another area, such a scheme might he used to lower the child to adult ratio on an estate with a high child density. Or the scheme might be operated to provide housing for those who do not usually receive high priority on an authority's register—for example, young single people.

It is up to the authority, in consultation with its partners, to draw up a scheme which meets local housing needs and which supports the development of sustainable communities. The provisions of the Bill provide the foundations for this work and, within the statutory framework, wide discretion is given to authorities and schemes can be adapted to reflect local circumstances.

It is important to keep local letting schemes under review, and to monitor their impact on those who are not part of any local lettings schemes. Of course, local lettings schemes should not override the reasonable preference categories across an authority's stock when taken as a whole.

Taken together, the provisions of Clause 15(3) provide a robust framework for authorities. They will ensure that, in general, authorities allocate their housing to those in greatest need. But they will also provide flexibility to adapt schemes to local circumstances. In that way, looked at as a whole, the Bill, as drafted, meets the principal purposes behind the amendment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 24.

My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the Minister, perhaps I may say a few words. I have waited to hear the Minister's response to my noble friend's amendments because I was conscious that we were going over ground covered in Grand Committee. I wanted to see whether any new arguments were to be adduced.

I have sympathy with the Government's attitude on the central point of not introducing unnecessary complication and leaving a degree of freedom to local authorities. The Minister implied that applicants fully understood the situation. Therefore, it did not need to be spelled out in writing or in terms of how local authorities responded to them in the way suggested by my noble friend.

I do not want to go back over ground that I introduced during the Grand Committee. However, I indicated that in London there is a major series of transfers between local authorities whereby one local authority will move its applicants into another one, while simultaneously the other local authority may be moving its applicants into the original one. I shall not go over all that ground, except to say that the Member of Parliament on the receiving end has to cope with the exportee's views. He can express a whole series of views about the local authority which suddenly exported him. The Member of Parliament is, by definition, ignorant of the practices of the other local authority and does not know whether his new constituent is trying it on or is genuinely ignorant about the circumstances in which the local authority finds itself.

As I say, my sympathy is with the Government. I am not in favour of complicating the issue. However, the Minister should not imagine that every applicant is fully aware of the circumstances. In that respect, my noble friend's suggestion would have illuminated his ignorance.

On the other hand, with regard to what my noble friend said about other categories, an analogy springs to mind from long in the past. It is not wholly irrelevant to this place. There was a discussion about whether an archdeacon whose father was a Peer was the venerable but honourable or the venerable and honourable or the honourable and venerable. The judging of these priorities will be a matter for local authorities when reaching a decision on the applicant in question.

That said, I agree that it is probably better to allow the local authority to make up its own mind how it exercises those preferences and those priorities, provided that it has a policy which can be communicated to applicants so that they can understand what is happening. I am perfectly content for the matter to be left to the local authority, but the local authority needs to have a policy.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. It probably covered more or less the same ground as previously, except for Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 where I was seeking to put on to the face of the Bill the categories of people affected. I accept more or less what the Minister has said. I can see the difficulties and perhaps the lack of necessity for these amendments.

I felt more stroppy about Amendment No. 24 until I heard what the Minister said. I wanted it to be absolutely clear within the scope of this legislation that the local authority has the right to adjust the make-up of its housing estates. I am very anxious about sink estates. I am very anxious about far too many people with priority needs being, perhaps, lumped together. I hope that people will not misunderstand what I mean by that. That is always the effect of having vulnerable people all together who cannot support each other. I think I have the Minister's assurance that the Bill will state that it will be the local authority's responsibility and that it will have the right to adjust its lettings to ensure that that does not happen. If I understood the Minister correctly in that, I shall not press Amendment No. 24. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 19.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 11, line 1, after "any" insert "deliberate, wilful, or negligent"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the group of amendments deal with housing allocations. Amendment No. 22 deals with a tenant's suitability. I shall speak to that amendment later. However, I turn briefly to the other amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 23, 26 and 27 are about information and review. The Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 25 and 28, which cover the matter, and put their name to Amendment No. 26. I warmly welcome the Government's amendments and their action. When we raised the matter in Committee, the intention was for the onus to be on local authorities where unacceptable behaviour was found, and the amendments achieve that.

I return to Amendment No. 22. The draft guidance that I have seen on the matter is rather weak. A pre-consultative draft relating to the clause circulated in October 2001 states only:

"housing authorities can take into account the applicant's behaviour (or that of a household member) in relation to suitability as tenants. This can include serious or wilful rent arrears, deliberate unacceptable behaviour or deliberately creating unsatisfactory living conditions in pursuit of a quicker route to rehousing".

I am grateful to Shelter for providing evidence of how the policy and practice of some local authorities and registered social landlords currently means that people in housing need are denied access to social housing.

I emphasise that the amendment is designed to promote consistency and to ensure that the Government's policy intentions are met. In paragraphs 9.15 and 9.16 of the Green Paper, the Government clearly set out their policy intentions in the allocation of social housing. They state:

"Any decisions to suspend applications would need to take account of the circumstances of the household in order to safeguard vulnerable groups such as those with mental or behavioural problems, or the children of the Families concerned. We would expect suspensions to be exceptional and that other ways of managing problems or risk may be more appropriate in many cases".

But the key sentence is:

"Meeting housing need remains the priority for lettings and transfer".

I raised that matter in Committee.

Under the Bill as drafted, local authorities could reduce priority because of rent arrears or for other reasons. That is common under current arrangements. In reality, in many parts of the country, a decision to reduce an applicant's priority effectively means that he or she will not be housed. Current practice shows all too clearly how important it is to get the legislative framework right in that area. Despite strong guidance to the contrary, it is common under current legislation for local authorities either to suspend or exclude people with rent arrears or other debts. Those arrears are sometimes trivial and, in many cases, caused by the failure of the local authority to administer housing benefit payments.

Research for the previous Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions found that more than one in 10 authorities and registered social landlords that responded to a survey took account of council tax arrears when considering rehousing eligibility. That was despite the fact that draft guidance says that authorities should not take account of such factors. There is much other similar evidence. I therefore hope that the Minister will make it clear that housing need should be the main factor in deciding the priority of an application. I hope that he will emphasise the sort of behaviour that should not lead to an applicant being given a lesser priority—especially rent arrears caused by housing benefit problems and council tax arrears. I beg to move.

My Lords, this returns us to an issue that the noble Baroness raised in Committee. Amendment No. 22 would ensure that an authority could take account only of deliberate, wilful or negligent behaviour that affected the applicant's suitability to be a tenant when determining the priority and preference to be given to an applicant who falls within the categories of applicant who must be given reasonable preference.

The provision in the Bill as drafted would allow authorities to take account of both good and bad behaviour which might have been demonstrated by individual applicants. Bad behaviour might include unacceptable behaviour which was not serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant, but was nevertheless a factor to be taken into account in assessing the level of priority deserved relative to other applicants.

For instance—this addresses the issue raised by the noble Baroness—let us consider an applicant who has a history of persistent but minor rent arrears not caused by any problems with housing benefit and another applicant, perhaps an existing tenant applying for a transfer, who has demonstrated that he is a model tenant. All other factors being equal, the authority may understandably decide that the latter deserves a degree more priority than the former.

The issue of what relative priority individual applications should receive for an allocation is a matter for the authority to decide, in accordance with the principles of its published scheme, where the basis for determining priority will have to be set out. It is right that the authority should have discretion to decide whether, and how, applicants' behaviour should be taken into account. The amendment would in effect reduce that discretion on behaviour to those aspects of behaviour that fall within the rubric, "deliberate, wilful or negligent". I should remind noble Lords that applicants will have the right under Clause 15(4) to obtain information about the facts on which the authority has taken its decision, and to request a review of that decision. For the reasons I have given, I ask the noble Baroness not to pursue her amendment.

As it is in the same group, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 25. I have already spoken at some length about the provisions in Clause 13 that allow an authority to decide to treat an applicant as ineligible for an allocation because it is satisfied that he is guilty of unacceptable behaviour serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. Where an authority is satisfied that an applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority, it may decide to treat him as ineligible, or it may instead decide to consider his or her application but not to give any preference for an allocation.

As the Bill stands, the authority must notify the applicant of a decision to treat him or her as ineligible, and of the grounds for the decision. As regards a decision not to give preference, applicants have the right to ask to be informed, but the authority is not required to notify them unless requested to do so.

In Committee, the noble Baroness pressed for an amendment that would have required authorities to notify applicants about such decisions. Unfortunately, because of its construction it would also have required authorities to notify applicants about routine decisions taken about the facts of their application.

At the time, I said that I thought that the right balance was to leave it to local authorities to decide who to tell and when. I have, however, reflected on what the noble Baroness said. I can see the force of the argument that in areas where pressure on housing is high, a decision not to give preference could, as she said today, have the same practical effect as a decision to treat as ineligible. That is to say, as she put it, it could remove any realistic opportunity of the applicant being allocated accommodation. Moreover, the additional requirement—to notify—should not add significantly to authorities' workload, as I expect that, overall, only a small proportion of applicants will receive such decisions. I understand that the local authority associations support the proposal.

I therefore think that authorities should be required to notify the applicant when they decide not to give any preference because of unacceptable behaviour. Amendments Nos. 25 and 28, in conjunction with Amendment No. 26, will achieve that effect, and I invite noble Lords to support them.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his long response. I am slightly disappointed as regards his comments on Amendment No. 22. I had hoped that he would reiterate the point I made that housing need should be an important part of deciding priority. I had hoped that he would also reiterate the point—as I believe he did in Grand Committee, although I cannot remember exactly—that people in arrears due to problems with housing benefit should not be penalised through this part of the legislation. As regards the Minister's other comments, I am grateful to him for taking on board the other points that we raised in this area in Grand Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 11, line 37, at end insert—

"(aa) is notified in writing of any decision that he is a person to whom subsection (2C) applies and the grounds for it;"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 11, line 40, leave out from "case" to end of line 41.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 11, line 46, after "paragraph" insert "(aa) or"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 14, line 1, at end insert—

"7A In section 188(3) (interim duty to accommodate in case of apparent priority need), for "continue to secure" there is substituted "secure"."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said she was grateful to the Housing Law Practitioners Association for drawing her attention to gaps in the existing provisions which give the local authority the power to accommodate certain applicants pending a review by the authority of its homelessness decision and pending an appeal to the county court on a point of law. I, in turn, am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing my attention to these points.

The policy which underlies the current provisions is that, pending a review or an appeal to the county court, the authority should have the power to accommodate those applicants who have a priority need for accommodation; that is, those who are most vulnerable. I think that is the right policy and it accords with the central thrust of the legislation, that only this group are owed the main homelessness duty to secure accommodation.

An assessment of the current provisions, however, reveals two main gaps in the achievement of that policy. The first applies in respect of those applicants who have a priority need but are considered by the authority to have become homeless, or threatened with homelessness, intentionally and who, for whatever reason, were not provided with accommodation under the Section 188 interim duty pending inquiries. This will include, for example, priority need applicants who were threatened with homelessness pending the inquiries (and so did not need to be provided with accommodation). Where the authority finds that they became threatened with homelessness intentionally, the applicant may request a review of that decision and may become homeless during the course of the review. However, at present the authority has no power to accommodate in such circumstances.

The second "gap" applies more broadly to applicants pursuing an appeal to the county court. Current provisions (namely Section 204 of the 1996 Act) leave some doubt as to whether there is a power to accommodate applicants if the authority has not already exercised its power to accommodate pen ding the review.

Amendment No.34 will close the first gap and provide authorities with a specific power to assist those applicants whom the authority has decided have priority need but have become threatened with homelessness intentionally. The power will allow the authority to take steps to prevent homelessness or, if the applicant becomes homeless, to secure accommodation, pending a review of the homelessness decision.

Amendment No. 36 amends Section 204 of the 1996 Act and makes clear that, pending an appeal to the county court, the authority has a power to accommodate the same categories of applicant as it has a power to accommodate pending a review. This includes a specific reference to the new power provided by Amendment No. 34. Amendment No. 36 also makes clear that the power to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to the county court applies whether or not the power to accommodate pending a review had been exercised.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 35 amend Sections 188(3) and 200(5) respectively. These are the current provisions which give authorities the power to continue to secure accommodation for certain applicants pending a review. The concept of being able to continue to secure accommodation limits the scope of power and is unduly restrictive. Amendments Nos. 29 and 35 therefore change this to a free-standing power to secure accommodation. As regards the change to Section 188(3), this will clarify in particular that, pending a review, authorities have the power to accommodate applicants who have priority need but have been found to be intentionally homeless. Under Section 190(2)(a), such applicants must be secured accommodation for such period as will give them a reasonable opportunity to find accommodation themselves but this duty may end before a review of the homelessness decision has been completed. There is currently some uncertainty whether authorities have a power to accommodate this category of applicant during the period after the Section 190(2)(a) duty has ended and until the review is completed. This is because there is no explicit provision giving a power to continue to accommodate under Section 190 and it is questionable whether the power to continue to accommodate under Section 188 should apply in a case where the applicant is being accommodated under Section 190.

I apologise for the complexity of the explanation, but it reflects the complexity of the provisions. It may explain why there are gaps in the current provisions and why it required a combination of the Housing Law Practitioners Association and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to draw our attention to the situation. However, we have worked hard on trying to fill the gaps.

In Committee I said that there was a need to consult with the local authority representative bodies before making any amendments. This has been done and I understand that they are content with the thrust of these proposals. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments close the current gaps and achieve the right policy. I commend Amendments Nos. 29, 34, 35 and 36 to the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, if my noble friend Lady Hamwee were present I am sure that she would thank the Minister for his comments on behalf of herself and the Housing Law Practitioners Association. It is a complicated area. I wish to make two comments about Amendments Nos. 34 and 36. I hope that I express them correctly as I am not a lawyer by training.

Amendment No. 34 provides a power to secure temporary accommodation pending a review of a decision that a person has become threatened with homelessness intentionally. The amendment refers to paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of Section 195 of the relevant Act. If the reference to paragraph (b) were omitted and the amendment read:

"If the authority decide that they owe the applicant the duty under subsection (5)",

I am told that the amendment would also cover decisions of no priority need.

The Government have evidently accepted the need for the temporary accommodation power where there has been a finding of intentional homelessness. It is not clear why they do not see the same need where the decision concerns priority need.

As regards Amendment No. 36, there is a view that it does not quite plug the gaps in Section 204(4) which concerns temporary accommodation pending appeal. That section currently provides that where the authority is under a duty under Sections 188, 190 and 200 to secure accommodation for the applicant's occupation, it may continue to secure that accommodation, if available, pending an appeal. With Amendment No. 36, the section would read:

"Where the authority were under a duty under Section 188, 190 or 200 to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation, or had the power under Section 195(6) to do so, they may secure that accommodation is so available".

I have been told that the reference to Section 195(6) should be a reference to Section 195(8), which is inserted by Amendment No. 34.

There is a view that the formulation is unnecessarily complicated by the reference back to earlier duties or powers. It could be simpler if it said simply that the authority may secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation. That would bring it into line with the new wording of Section 188(3), as inserted by Amendment No. 29, and would be compatible with Clause 11 of the Bill. That would forestall arguments about whether one of the earlier duties existed. It would also allow for discretion if the authority accepts that it owes a duty on the day of the application, so that the duty under Section 188 does not arise, and the appeal concerns the suitability of the accommodation offered.

I am advised that that will help with the interpretation of this rather complicated section. It will probably be difficult for the Minister to respond in any detail at this stage, but we may be able to return to the matter at Third Reading. The Minister might have to read all that in Hansard, although, as a trained lawyer, he will perhaps manage it better than I did.

My Lords, it is traditional to say that I am grateful for the response. For this, one would need a wet towel and every section of the Bill in front of one. It was a clear exposition, but the matter needs some thought. I suggest that we proceed with the amendment, but on the basis that we will consider the proposals made by the noble Baroness and that, if there is scope for improving the draft, we will return to it. We should, however, make the amendments now.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 14, line 4, at end insert—

"8A At the end of section 190 there is inserted—

"(4) The applicant's housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (2)(b) or (3).

(5) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (2)(b) or (3) must include information about the likely availability in the authority's district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).""

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 14, line 4, at end insert—

"In section 190 (duties to persons becoming homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

"(4) In any case where the local housing authority are advised by a social services authority that a child who is in need within the meaning of section 17(10) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) resides with an applicant to whom they have secured that accommodation is available under subsection (2) above, they shall—

(a) continue to secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant and any such child for so long as the social services authority advise them that accommodation is required to enable the social services authority to provide services to such a child to promote or safeguard the child's welfare; or

(b) provide such assistance to the social services authority as shall enable the applicant to secure that accommodation becomes available from some other person.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is the same amendment as I introduced in Committee. My intention is simply to keep the issue of the separation of parents and children by homelessness on the agenda. I am aware that the Minister and his officials are also concerned about the issue and are working to find ways of sorting it out. In Grand Committee, the Minister said:

"We were in the process of investigating whether there had been any change in practice in the way that local authorities provide assistance for families with children who are homeless. We regard it as a very important matter and we need to get to the bottom of what is going on".—[Official Report, 10/12/01; col. CWH 69.]

Meanwhile, more evidence is emerging from local authorities and from Shelter that there is separation of children and parents. I still believe that the issue of intentional and unintentional homelessness is confused and is not the hub of the matter.

I understand the difficulties caused by the interpretation of the Children Act 1989, which emphasises the needs of children above all considerations when offering council services but runs into difficulty on this issue. The result is that local authorities appear to have no power, let alone duty, to provide accommodation for children with their parents if no other accommodation is available. For example, there is no duty owed to parents who have been found intentionally homeless, although actual parenting is not in question. The result is that the only power that can he exercised to provide accommodation involves separating the child from the parents

I realise that the Children Act cannot be our concern here, although its implications can. I also know that there are moves to amend the Act. Nevertheless, I hope that, in this Bill, a clause can be inserted to offer protection to parents and children who are made homeless. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.

My Lords, in Grand Committee, I supported the noble Baroness on this issue. There have been various reports in the press, so I hope that the Minister can update us. If there is a possibility that we could use this Bill to deal with the situation, I hope that that will be considered at Third Reading.

My Lords, my concern was that the loophole that has been discovered is being used as a threat to families to drive them out of local authority offices. That concern has been expressed by charities. Children are rarely taken into care, but overworked housing departments are using that loophole as an excuse to push families away. The families then disappear from sight, and there is a great fear that they will simply go into inadequate and inappropriate accommodation.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Massey for indicating that Amendment No. 31 is a probing amendment, giving me an opportunity to update the House on where we are. It is an important issue, about which great concern has been expressed. The concern is that if a local authority says that it may take a child into care, the family will simply disappear, rather than have the child taken into care.

The issue of accommodation for children in need and their families—covered by Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which provision was the subject of the recently decided cases referred to in Committee—is important and will be considered in another place in the context of the Adoption and Children Bill. That will address the central issue of concern, namely the power of social services to provide accommodation under Section 17.

There is also the separate question of ensuring that there is good co-operation between the housing and social services departments in meeting the needs of such families. In Committee, said that I had met several social services directors to discuss the situation and their approach to meeting the needs of such families. I was heartened by what they said. They all have arrangements in place to ensure that the social services departments work with the housing authority—or housing department, in the case of unitary authorities—to find an appropriate solution for the whole family, when dealing with families with children who have made themselves intentionally homeless.

In Committee, I also said that I had asked my officials to work closely with their counterparts at the Department of Health to see how we could ensure that such a sensible and co-ordinated approach would be adopted more widely. We are now agreed on that policy. Housing authorities will be required to notify the social services authorities as soon as it becomes clear that they are dealing with a homeless family with children who will not be owed the ma in homelessness duty, either because they have intentionally made themselves homeless or they are not eligible for housing assistance. Where the social services department requests the housing authority to assist it to discharge its functions under Part III of the Children Act 1989 in meeting the needs of the child, the housing authority will be required to co-operate. We are also considering ways of ensuring that housing and social services departments in unitary authorities work together on such cases.

Implementing the policy will require amendments to the Homelessness Bill. I had hoped to be in a position to table amendments today, but unfortunately I am not, as they are still at the development stage. However, I intend to table amendments at the earliest opportunity and undertake to do so before Third Reading.

In support of the policy, my department and the Department of Health will issue joint guidance to housing and social services departments about cooperative working. As I said in Committee, I do not think that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, is the right way in which to tackle the problem. However, she has not necessarily put that line forward and has, rightly, been concerned about the issue and wishes to ensure that it is properly discussed. We will return to the matter at Third Reading.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I simply wanted to raise again the issue of homelessness of parents and children. I am reassured by what the Minister said, and I know that he will work to find a suitable way of dealing with the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 14, line 7, at end insert—

"9A After subsection (3) of section 192 (as inserted by section 5(1) above) there is inserted—

"(4) The applicant's housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (2).

(5) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (2) must include information about the likely availability in the authority's district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).""

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36:

Page 14, line 24, at end insert—

"(c) after subsection (5) there is inserted—

"(6) The applicant's housing needs shall be assessed before advice and assistance is provided under subsection (5).

(7) The advice and assistance provided under subsection (5) must include information about the likely availability in the authority's district of types of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's housing needs (including, in particular, the location and sources of such types of accommodation).":"

Page 14, line 24, at end insert—

"(d) after subsection (7) (as inserted by paragraph (c) above) there is inserted—

"(8) If the authority decide that they owe the applicant the duty under subsection (5) by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection, they may, pending a decision on a review of that decision—

(a) secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation; and

(b) if he becomes homeless, secure that accommodation is so available.""

Page 14, line 31, at end insert "; and

(b) in subsection (5), for "continue to secure" there is substituted "secure"."

Page 14, line 44, at end insert "; and

(b) in subsection (4), for ",they may continue to" there is substituted ", or had the power under section 195(6) to do so, they may"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, Human Genetic Databases: challenges and opportunities (4th Report, Session 2000–2001, HL Paper 57).

The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Our committee decided to undertake the inquiry because it believed the subject to be of great importance and technically complex. It decided to do so when it did because it appeared that parts of our work could usefully complement that of the Human Genetics Commission. The work of that commission extends far beyond ours and we address a number of matters which fall outside its immediate remit. However, there is an important area of overlap where science, medicine, ethics and the law are inextricably interwoven.

Throughout our work we have kept in touch with the commission and I am glad to acknowledge a most constructive interaction between the two bodies. I look forward today to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, bringing the House up to date with the commission's latest thinking. I am also delighted that the noble Lord, Lord May, has chosen this occasion for his maiden speech. We look forward to hearing that and the contributions of other noble Lords.

The committee is most grateful to those who gave up their time to give evidence and instructed us in the complexities and implications of the fast-moving field of molecular genetics. However, the fact that the report was completed not only to a very high standard but in record time because of the impending dissolution of Parliament is due to the exceptional efforts of three people: first, our outstanding special adviser, Professor Paul Elliott of the Imperial College School of Medicine; secondly, Dr Adam Heathfield, our special assistant; and, finally, Mr Roger Morgan, our clerk. All burnt an amount of midnight oil that went far beyond the call of duty and the committee is most grateful to them.

We are also most grateful to the Government for their published reply to our report. It is gratifying to find a high degree of agreement on such an important matter.

Human genetic databases are simply organised collections of genetic data relating to particular individuals, or organised collections of human tissue that could be used to provide such data. Each of us has imprinted in the chemistry of our cells a unique genetic code that contains elements inherited from both our parents. Although the codes of all human beings are similar and distinct from those of other animals, there remain minute differences between individuals that allow us to develop as distinct individuals with different body types, different personalities and different resistance to disease. How we exploit or indeed suffer from the different genetic potential that each of us has depends on what we eat, on how we live and on our external environment.

It is the highly personal nature of these data and their growing potential to reveal some of our most intimate details that makes them sensitive and suggests that human genetic databases might he in need of regulation.

In practice, genetic databases are of interest to three distinct groups for rather different reasons: first, the Home Office and security agencies; secondly, the insurance industry; and, thirdly, health practitioners and researchers. I shall deal with the first two rather briefly.

I shall deal first with the Home Office. Minute samples of human tissue—perhaps a hair or fragment of fingernail—can provide genetic data about the person from whom it came. Matches can then be sought against the police database that contains the data of people convicted of particular crimes, or with data collected from a small group of suspects for the purpose.

Even if no match is found, it may be possible to deduce some personal characteristics of the person from whom a sample came. It is already possible to specify whether it is a man or a woman and, in future, it is likely that it will be possible to specify racial type and the colour of hair and eyes.

That is clearly a very important forensic tool. Equally clearly, there are civil liberty considerations related to the protection and use of the police database. We were a little uneasy that adequate safeguards do not appear to be in place both to protect the interests of individuals and to protect the police from unjustified complaints concerning that database.

Turning now to insurance, I must remind the House that this use of genetic data has been the subject of a valuable recent report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place. We would not dissent from the findings of that report.

Until late last year, some insurance companies expected insurance applicants to disclose any available personal genetic data on the ground that it was relevant to insurance risk. However, the industry recently announced a welcome five-year moratorium on this practice.

The concern is that people may choose not to undergo genetic testing that could be important for their health if it could make them a poorer insurance risk. In fact, personal genetic data contain little information pertinent to insurance risk that is not already available from family histories, disclosure of which is readily accepted.

The main substance of our report concerns the use of genetic databases for therapy and biomedical research. I must, however, at this point digress to emphasise that, regardless of their practical applications, genetic databases are the essential tools for research at one of the most exciting and fundamental frontiers of human knowledge—the nature of life itself—and merit support for the same reasons that we support pure research in other areas, such as astronomy and particle physics. The difference is that this is one of the rare occasions when the advance of pure science walks closely hand in hand with its practical application. It is also one of the rare occasions when one may justly claim that, along with the United States, the UK research community is a world leader.

So why is there a problem? The problem is that making sense of the genetic data, which is acquired by detailed and careful analysis of tissue samples, depends crucially on linking those data to individual medical records. The usual method is to compare the genetic data of many individuals who display a particular medical condition and to search for elements of the genetic code that they have in common and are absent in others. Such studies obviously require that genetic data be associated with individual medical histories, individual by individual. However, current legislation (the Data Protection Act) requires that sensitive personal data be used only for the purposes for which permission was given at the time the data were originally collected; and that is the nub of the problem.

Collection of medical history begins at birth and continues over a person's whole lifetime. It was impossible to anticipate when such data began to be collected decades earlier what the focus or requirements of future research might be. Equally, it is impracticable to find and seek the permission of many thousands of individuals every time a new experiment is contemplated

Smaller-scale experiments, such as the Avon Longitudinal Study, are indeed possible under present arrangements but national and international studies, which are increasingly important, would not be feasible.

In looking for ways around this problem we believed that a balance had to be struck. On the one hand, society should respect the desires of individuals both to preserve their privacy and to withhold consent for the use of their personal data in research of which they disapprove. On the other hand, the case histories and personal data of earlier generations are the practical basis of today's medical knowledge. We felt that there is a general moral obligation on us all to do for succeeding generations what our forefathers have done for us.

Naturally this dilemma is not unique to the UK. Drawing on our observations of practice in other countries, we proposed a solution based on the concept of "the trusted third party". The idea was that, on a one-off basis, everyone should be invited to agree—or not—that, as long as their personal privacy was protected, their medical data could be used for medical research that was approved by the "trusted third party".

We proposed that the "trusted third party" should be an independent non-governmental medical data panel containing lay people, medical, legal and ethics professionals, as well as representatives of government departments. It would be their duty to pronounce on the acceptability of research proposals in the light of what they judged to be public sentiment of the time. We saw the independence of such a body as essential, perhaps ensured by having its members nominated by different social and professional constituencies.

The proposal appears to a significant extent to have been overtaken by events. The Health and Social Care Act 2001 established a Patient Information Advisory Group that appears to carry some or all of the responsibilities that we foresaw for our medical data panel, albeit in a rather different way.

To avoid any confusion, will the Minister be good enough to confirm that the new group will be able to pronounce on all requests for access to personal medical data for biomedical research, regardless of whether they originate within or outside the NHS? Furthermore, will the group recognise that it is in the nature of research that a successful and therefore beneficial outcome cannot be guaranteed at the outset? Otherwise it would not be research. Finally, will the new group have the resources and the procedures required to deal with applications speedily and effectively?

In a commendable effort to move the research forward and to circumvent some of these problems, three major medical bodies have come together to fund jointly an experiment of truly gigantic proportions. The Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council and the NHS plan to enrol a cadre of 500,000 volunteers for genetic testing, who have agreed from the outset that their medical records may be used for research. This should help the UK to maintain its already commanding position in the field. But it will take time to establish and there will also be projects for which a different patient sample is required. It therefore remains urgent that the problem of existing data and patient records be addressed.

What benefits will such research bring, and when? Broadly, there are three areas currently in prospect. First, because the genetic basis of some diseases, currently untreatable, will be understood, it will be possible to design new drugs to target them. Even existing drugs may be used more effectively because genetic differences mean that the same condition in different patients may need to be treated differently. It will also help to avoid prescribing drugs that will do no good, or even harm.

Secondly, it will be possible to advise individuals that by living in a particular way they will reduce their chances of suffering particular illnesses.

Thirdly, and further into the future, it may be possible to repair genetic defects, whether they are inherited or are the result of subsequent damage.

These benefits will come gradually because the field is still in its infancy, but it is not unreasonable to expect that practical benefits will begin to flow within the next 10 years.

As well as humanitarian benefits, the advances will bring commercial opportunities. The design of new drugs that will be effective in individuals with a known genetic make-up will form a major part of the future business of pharmaceutical companies. That raises important questions that could merit an inquiry in their own right; namely, what aspects of such research should be patentable? Our committee did not explore those questions in full detail, but if a commercial company is to invest in R & D, it must be able to look forward to a period when it sees a return on its investment.

On the other hand, the fundamental mapping of the basic human genetic code is human physiology that most people agree should remain in the public domain. It is, however, primarily the workings of the code that need to be understood for useful therapeutic intervention and it is this that is both in its infancy and of the most commercial interest. In my view, it will be easier to see a fair way of protecting legitimate intellectual property in this area when the science itself is better understood.

Before we get that far, however, other hurdles need to be overcome. It is easy to think that the challenges are all for biomedicine. That is far from the case. Our current success in genomics may come to nothing if the enormous challenges for computer science are not tackled as well. Here the UK position is less encouraging. The challenges are of two kinds. First, there is the need to develop computational methods to deal with prodigious amounts of heterogeneous data in ways that are quite novel. Although we have some excellent research groups in the UK, this country as a whole is not an international leader in these disciplines. Secondly, it is not clear that the UK will be able to find sufficient trained people to support the computational needs of the work. Our committee saw a major need both for computational research and for trained people. Unless the issues are addressed through the research councils and the university funding councils, UK genomics efforts could founder.

Before concluding, I shall say a few words about the NHS. With patient records extending back over 50 years for more than 50 million people, this should be a gold mine for health researchers. In fact, partly because computerisation has come in so late, so patchily and with such a diversity of incompatible systems, and partly because use of the NHS number, which should be our unique health record identifier, is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, this potential is unlikely ever to be fully realised. We are aware that things are changing and that there is a shortage of resources, but progress has been glacially slow. It does seem, however, that things are rather better in Scotland than in England.

I have attempted to sketch some of the highlights of our report and to set the scene for our debate. Many of the important matters that the committee touched on will, I have no doubt, be taken forward by the Human Genetics Commission. However, it is essential to emphasise that exceptionally the UK is poised to make groundbreaking advances in fundamental biomedical science that will carry with them improvements in health and important commercial opportunities. However, those opportunities will be realised if, and only if, we have a responsive and sympathetic regulatory environment for handling medical data, a fair and effective way of handling intellectual property and a properly supported computational infrastructure. I commend the report to the House.

Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee, Human Genetic Databases: challenges and opportunities (4th Report, Session 2000–2001, HL Paper 57).

My Lords, it is quite daunting to follow a wide-ranging and superb speech such as we have heard from our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. It was a great pleasure to serve under his chairmanship on the committee, where he carried out his duties with good humour and great skill. I hope that in your Lordships' House in the future a proportion of seats will continue to be given to Cross-Benchers such as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.

I, too, pay tribute to our excellent specialist adviser, Professor Elliott, our specialist assistant, Adam Heathfield, our Clerk, Roger Morgan, and his staff for making life easier for us, despite us being sometimes quite elusive.

Of the five Science and Technology Committees on which I have served, I found this one much the most conceptually difficult—not because of the complexity of genetics itself but in understanding how the prodigious quantities of data are handled and the tricky ethical issues involved.

The Sanger human genome research centre at Hinxton, which we visited, deposits 50 million base pairs of genetic data every 24 hours. Using the full power of its computer resources, which are huge, it would take about a week to sequence the genome of only one individual. Senior staff at the Sanger centre were concerned that the highly qualified IT staff that will be needed for future development are in short supply. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, will address this issue later.

Of course, most genomic data held on a database consists of only a fraction of a total genome of an individual. For conditions dependent on the expression of a single or small number of genes, comparatively small databases may be sufficient for research purposes. But the inheritance or susceptibility of most common diseases is polygenic—dependent on quite large numbers of genes—and so large numbers of individuals are needed to detect the genetic differences, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, pointed out.

Professor John Bell, who is Professor of Clinical Medicine at Oxford, put it this way in evidence to us. He said:

"The ability to use genetic factors diagnostically will be … to put people into risk groups where they are either at a higher or a lower risk of developing particular outcomes. That is a terribly important difference. In my view, the public—and, indeed, some of the medical profession—have got confused over the clear distinction between single gene disorders … and common diseases where you are really looking at epidemiological-like risk factors of which genes are one. That is not to say that they will not be useful, because one of the great challenges in health care is to try and stratify people into those at high, medium or low risk of different diseases".

He was referring, of course, to diseases such as cancer, in its various forms, coronary heart disease and so on. This approach is also relevant to responses to certain drugs, a matter described more fully by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.

That is why it is necessary to recruit and follow up large numbers of people who are representative of the population as a whole, who have different lifestyles and who are exposed to different environmental and socio-economic influences. If, at the same time, we have access to tissue or blood samples giving genetic information on the individuals in this population and follow their health status over the years, it should prove possible to identify the genetic profile of, for instance, smokers who succumb to lung cancer compared with those who also smoke but do not get lung cancer. This would make it possible to identify and target vulnerable individuals before their cancer develops. Some may say that that would be a bad thing because it would give the green light to other smokers. I doubt if it would work that way. Perhaps liability to coronary heart disease would have been a better example.

It is often suggested, more in hope than experience—again as described by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh—that because the National Health Service holds health information on almost everyone in the country, particularly those on GP lists, we could have a ready-made, vast database. The reality of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, indicated, is very different. The basic problems are twofold. First, the data recorded by each trust and each GP practice is incomplete, inconsistent, often out of date and therefore inaccurate, particularly in relation to addresses and post codes and so on, which are very important as indicators of the environment to which people are exposed.

Secondly, the systems of recording the data are many and various and not necessarily compatible. In the GP field, of which I have some experience, software firms were encouraged by the previous Government to compete in selling their programmes to GPs. In any case, these systems were mostly set up to help GPs in their own practices with, for example, repeat prescriptions, appointments systems and so on, and not for record linkage. Similarly, each trust developed its own system. The Department of Health is now having to mount special, expensive exercises to enable the transfer of patient data from practice to practice, practice to hospital and hospital to hospital.

In its response, the Department of Health put on a very brave face about what is happening. I know that the department is fully aware of the enormous benefits to be gained from an integrated system for the administration of the National Health Service alone, but important epidemiological research benefits would also follow.

As the Government's response indicates, increasing amounts of money are being allocated to IT by the department. As an indication of the importance it gives to this issue, four out of the 15 pages of its response refer to IT. I recognise that it is a huge task, but I am a little concerned that the approach being adopted may be too bureaucratic.

For instance, the four pages to which I referred contain references to the titles of 14 separate new National Health Service organisations or initiatives. I attempted to find out more about two of these—Information for Health, a 1998 document, and Building the Information Core, a 2001 initiative—on the web. When I searched for them, I came up with the answer, "not scanned". I hope and trust that these initiatives, and the rest of the department's IT strategy, are more accessible to those directly involved.

I know that information technology is one of my noble friend's particular areas of responsibility. I am sure that he will have a suitable riposte to my remarks. But there is a target date of 2005 for the achievement of the department's internal objectives on IT and I hope that he will be able to use global warming to speed up the glacial pace mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.

In the meantime, there is a pressing need to harness a sufficiently large population to carry out the population-based research described earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. The MRC/Wellcome/NHS collection will help to fulfil this need. An important reason for setting up the collection is that each subject will have been given full details of the scheme and will be allowed to opt out if they so wish. Other existing large population databases, such as the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), would not have this opportunity, as well as there being other disadvantages.

Finally, I should like to touch on the ethics of secondary use for research of data originally assembled for another purpose or as part of a routine medical record. It is difficult to be brief in such a complex area, so I shall jump several stages of the argument and go straight to the report's recommendation for the setting up of a medical data panel,

"to provide a single clear process for approving projects".

In their response the Government say that Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 would fulfil this function better through the Patient Information Advisory Group which it sets up. It will have statutory status and will be able to advise on regulations. These are certainly important points.

However, information reaching me from the first meeting of the PIAG suggests that a form of bureaucracy may be creeping in in that a number of decisions were put off. But that is only one meeting and it is early days yet. However, I suggest that there may still be a role for our medical data panel to clarify, amalgamate and present the requests of researchers to the PIAG in a more convincing way.

I believe that I have spoken for too long already. I am sure that noble Lords are impatiently waiting to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord May. I hope that my noble friend and his department will continue to refer to the report and will listen to and act on the more erudite speeches which are to follow.

My Lords, I do not know whether what I wish to say will form one of the erudite speeches, but I shall give my non-scientific view of the matter. I thank the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for doing a marvellous job. I was enormously impressed throughout the inquiry by his breadth of intellect and his enormous ability to bring some expert knowledge to every aspect of what to me was a very complicated issue indeed. I am most grateful to him for helping me to grasp something which I never believed I would understand. I am also very grateful to him for giving a much more scientific explanation of the report. I can only give noble Lords the non-scientific result of my sitting through what I considered to be a most fascinating period of several months when we took evidence from experts in the field and on all aspects of it.

I would like to concentrate on what appeared to me to be the highlights of the proceedings. As has already been said, our scientific adviser was Professor Paul Elliott. At the first meeting we received a presentation from him concerning the main issues that we were likely to come across in hearing the evidence. What impressed me about his presentation was the very important environmental issues and their impact on the genetic influences. The implication was the enormous amount of extra information that one needs in a database. It was not just genetic information, but the environmental implications that went with it. That point will arise later when I refer to the need to understand one's genetic make-up and the environment in which one lives.

The presentation also added significantly to the amount of information that has to be included in a database. Our attention was drawn very early on to the enormous computerised resources that would be needed to store all that information not only in a databank, but in a way in which it could easily be understood and used later on. I shall come to that point later. That was the first main issue, which for me was an important part of the inquiry.

As has already been stated, the background to a great deal of the evidence was the proposed United Kingdom population medical collection of 500,000 people, how that would work, how the information would be collected, saved and protected when collected, and how it could be used later on in a significant way. That drew me to one of the main and fascinating issues which emerged from the inquiry.

All the information is enormously important to the individual. It can be used by others against the interests of the individual. It is the individual's private information and we consider that such information is private. Yet for the population as a whole to gain any benefit from that information at some stage it has to be used. I was interested in Professor Bell's evidence to us. He emphasised that there was little purpose in having a data collection of 500,000 individuals unless one could draw on it in future.

To me it is not just a question of drawing on it in the light of what we already know, but also in the light of issues which are beyond our comprehension at the moment. We do not know what new ideas and possibilities will unfold as a result of the genetic information which is now being collected and understood more and more. How can we persuade an individual to give up the information and put it into a databank on the basis that it may well be used in a manner about which we have no idea at the moment, but in the hope and the knowledge that it will bring benefit to many people although not all?

We pondered this matter a great deal, as was mentioned by the two previous speakers. We came to a view about the setting up of the panel. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has explained the Government's response. I believe that they accept the principle of having an independent group look at these matters, although they are already covered by existing structures. No doubt the Minister will refer to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, is in her place. We were most grateful to the noble Baroness and others for giving evidence on this matter which we found fascinating. But it was not completely consistent. Some believed that there was greater responsibility as regards the benefit to society as a whole, whereas others felt that the powers and rights of the individual probably came first. But it was not a fixed feast. In that regard fascinating evidence was received from a number of people that at no stage can one say that this particular point is the balance between the rights of the individual against those of the majority: it moves in relation to public opinion. How does one define and encapsulate it? We still have to ponder that question.

Although we have, and can still, draw attention to known specific benefits that can come from genetic research, we have not yet seen it all. I believe that until people understand more about what can be done and the benefits, which not everyone will recognise as benefits, we shall return to the issue time and time again. In my view there is no better place for these matters to he pondered than in the House of Lords where we can bring such a wide range of knowledge, experience and skills to try to find a consensus on how these matters change. It may be that the best panel to deal with these issues is the House of Lords itself under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh.

There is another point which I found quite fascinating. I shall read a part of the evidence which was received from Professor Sir George Radda. He said,

"but perhaps in the longer term what is important is that it—

the genetic database and genetic information—

"is going to lead us to a completely new understanding of the nature of disease and its progression. Not only will we have new drug targets, but we will also have a new approach to medicine, thinking about preventing heart disease much more than treatment, informing the public about in what way they can avoid the interaction between bad environment and their genetic makeup. That is not going to happen in the next five years … but in the next ten or fifteen years I think we are going to have a tremendous amount of new information on those sorts of environmental gene interactions"

I believe that returns to the point of how we can relate these issues of genetic knowledge, environmental knowledge and future health. It is a question of tying together a system that allows us to trace the future health of an individual whose genetic basis and make-up we know. Then, we can begin to bring out the enormous advantages referred to by Professor Radda.

Bringing all these resources to bear will not be the job of government alone, although government must ensure the computer power and the skilled operators—who are in extremely short supply; it was drawn to our attention that every time a suitably able person is found to deal with the computerisation of these matters, he or she is whipped away to a job in the City or to some other higher-paid job. Government must be aware that, if we are to achieve these things, the provision of highly skilled people is be a vital factor. There will have to be a commercial element; and it is important that it should be allowed free knowledge and free expression. It is important that there should also be sufficient flexibility in the regulatory system which is bound to be involved in such issues to allow the commercial world to grow these opportunities for the benefit of all.

Perhaps I may conclude by quoting from the final part of a recent interview with Mr Bill Heseltine, founder and chief executive officer of Human Genome Sciences in the United States. He says:

"I can imagine a world in which we level the genetic playing field so almost everyone can live to between 120 and 125 years, and where most accidental damage can be repaired. But that should be shared by all people, not just a few. That is health Utopia".

That is the kind of ambition that many people have.

Twenty years ago, I learnt that I was a diabetic. I was told then that if I wanted to live very long I must not eat any more fatty food and must take plenty of exercise. I took not the slightest notice of that advice. Even if people were told when they were young that a certain lifestyle would make all the difference to them and they could live to be 125, I do not believe it would make the slightest difference to their behaviour. Although we shall have the knowledge, it does not necessarily follow that we shall all live longer.

But there will be advantages for many people. There is great potential for opening up new health opportunities in areas of the world where few such opportunities presently exist—the kinds of areas in which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is involved. As a nation—together with the Government and the commercial world—we must embrace and support these advances in every possible way.

My Lords, at the outset, I want to thank the many people who have helped to induct me into the workings of this House—especially the staff, who have been unfailingly thoughtful and willing. On a personal note, as your Lordships may have guessed, I am a joint Australian/British citizen, and a relative newcomer at that. I like to think of myself as part of the UK academic brain gain in 1988.

The Select Committee report on Human Genetic Databases: challenges and opportunities is a most thorough and altogether excellent account of the issues. I want to comment on a couple of its detailed recommendations.

I begin, however, by saying that as you read this report, and consider the range of biomedical advances it envisions, you might blanche at the possible cost implications for the National Health Service. There are many, however—and I am one of them—who think, to the contrary, that as medicine becomes more based on genetic and molecular understanding, it might at the same time become more oriented to prevention and less oriented to heroic intervention. This could, at least in some areas, reduce rather than increase costs—just as the advent of polio vaccines reduced the costs of iron lungs, along with reducing suffering.

Turning to the report's recommendations, I wholeheartedly underline the succinct summary in paragraph 11. It says that past achievements have resulted in the UK being in a unique position in the field of genetics. Nevertheless,

"To succeed, we must … ensure that we have a regulatory regime that is sympathetic to the work, but which offers individuals the privacy they have a right to expect".

In particular, I warmly commend the Population Biomedical Collection, as proposed jointly by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health. This project aims to take advantage of the some of the unique aspects of the comprehensively embracing nature and history of the UK National Health Service. However, I agree with the statement in the report that, in order to do this successfully, three things must be done:

First, as my noble friend Lord Oxburgh said, the unpredictability of future secondary uses of the database—and such unpredictability is the only certainty—requires that a medical data panel be created along the lines proposed.

Secondly, the adoption and implementation of uniform protocols and standards for medical records is long overdue. I realise that this is easier said than done, but done it should and must be. In parenthesis, my noble friend Lord Oxburgh said that it is already being done somewhat better in Scotland. I hope that he will sympathise when I say that, as a Celt, with a father born in Carrickfergus and a mother whose maiden name was McCredie, I simply say: "Of course".

Thirdly, attaining the benefits foreseen in the report will require substantial investment, particularly in people with skills which are often more conventionally thought of as lying in the physical sciences rather than the biological sciences—information technology; statistics; computing science; mathematical aspects of the genetics of populations, as distinct from a focus on the detailed genetic constitution of individuals. This is indeed the century of biology, but physicists and engineers will continue to play a crucial role in creating the enabling instrumentation and analysis. We forget that at our peril.

The report says many other important things. However, I want briefly to widen the discussion from human genomes to those of other creatures. More and more, we are learning to reconstruct the evolutionary tree of life, from the evidence contained in the genetic make-up of other organisms. There are many surprises. We humans are less genetically distant from other animals, and even from plants, than was previously thought. For example, almost half the genes found in bananas are also found in us—a fact which I sometimes think is more evident in some of my acquaintances than in others!

There are potential practical implications here. For instance, of roughly 300 genes known to be associated with diseases in humans, almost 200 are also found in the genome of the fruit-fly. This raises the possibility of future alternatives in some particular kinds of biomedical research involving non-human animals. But much more important, I think, are the ethical implications for how we see ourselves as part of a larger web of life on earth.

In conclusion, the issues raised in this Select Committee report—hugely important though they are—are ultimately but a shadow of things to come. The century just ended saw more advances in our understanding of the external world than in all previous human history. We have used that understanding to make life better in both the developed and the developing world. However, we are only just beginning to realise, and grapple with, the unintended adverse consequences of our well-intended actions: climate change and diminishing biological diversity are two examples.

In the century just begun, however, our understanding begins to reach beyond the external world, down into the molecular machinery of life itself. The doors opened by this understanding will increasingly raise ethical and other questions, compared to which today's excellent report is a whispered preamble. We need to ask what kind of world we want to create with the possibilities that science offers, subject to the constraints that science clarifies, rather than just letting things happen. So today's report, wise though its recommendations are, is even more interesting and even more important for the questions of tomorrow which we here foreshadow.

My Lords, what a pleasure and a privilege it is to have heard such a marvellous maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord May, is a very distinguished scientist, as was pretty obvious from the way that he spoke this evening. Of course, he is president of the Royal Society, in which position he has the role of representing the scientific view at large; and he did so this evening in an exemplary way. It was a fascinating speech to which, if I did not, unfortunately, have to intrude, in a way, in order to give my own speech, I could have continued to listen for a very long time. If noble Lords were worried that the introduction of people's Peers might somehow lower the tone of your Lordships' House, I believe that such fears have been allayed tonight. It is obvious that the noble Lord will contribute greatly to our deliberations.

I, too, should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who chaired our committee so gently, so wisely and so carefully. Indeed, it was a great pleasure to work with him. I also commend our specialist adviser, Paul Elliott, and the secretariat that gave us such excellent support.

I shall focus my remarks on the two parallel concerns that have been mentioned by other speakers. These formed the essence of our deliberations: the need to protect the rights and interests of individuals from whom genetic data may be obtained, and, at the same time, to be able to use those data for the good of society as a whole and for other individuals within it. It may be thought that this requires a choice to be made, or a balance to be struck, between two conflicting aims: between society and the individual. But, in this case, I believe that it is vital for us to keep both. It is quite possible to achieve both provided that we do not become side-tracked by extreme cases, and instead take the reasonable, rational approach that I believe our report took.

Perhaps I may elaborate a little on the latter. In general, patients are very happy to be given treatment for their ills. They may, or may not, realise that they are virtually all heavily dependent on research that has been carried out with the help of previous patients. Further, they have been largely unconcerned hitherto that information about their own case might be used for research that is aimed at helping future patients—providing that they themselves are not harmed, disadvantaged or embarrassed in any way. This give and take has worked remarkably well, even though it may have been largely achieved below the level of consciousness of many.

I believe that individuals do have a moral responsibility to society to allow information about themselves to contribute to the pool of knowledge that can lead to improvements in the care of others, provided that they are not harmed or embarrassed in any way. I do not use the words "moral responsibility" lightly; such matters have be considered along with the rights of the individual.

It is worth considering what are the potentially undesirable outcomes of access to this information about patients. These largely involve access to information by those who might use it against the best interests of the patient—insurance companies are often quoted in that respect, as are employers, and a wider public where codes of confidentiality do not exist.

I have looked long and hard for evidence of patients being inconvenienced in any of these ways by this give and take in which patients accept both the treatment in the NHS and a tacit responsibility to contribute to the health of others. As far as concerns the use of data, I have not really found any such evidence in practice. However, when we come to genetic information new fears are raised because genetic data have the additional capacity to predict the future; that is, future susceptibility to the risk of getting a disease which is not yet apparent in an individual, and, perhaps equally importantly, has some predictive capacity for susceptibility in close relatives—that is, people not directly tested.

But even here, as has been suggested by others, we should not ascribe to genetic tests an accuracy that they do not have, and probably never will have. In fact, with the small number of exceptions of rare genetic diseases, prediction by DNA analysis for the vast majority of illnesses is not much better than simply asking patients about what illnesses have occurred in their close relatives. Both family history and DNA tests can give an idea of the risk of developing a disease but, with the rare exceptions such as Huntington's disease, are not nearly as clear cut as some would have us believe.

It was at least in part for that type of reasoning that the committee recommended that there is no real need to seek additional legal provisions over and above those provided by the Data Protection Act and the common law. In most instances, we can rely on these and two safeguards that are extremely valuable; namely, the principles of anonymity and of consent. Where anonymity can be guaranteed, you c staid argue that consent is unnecessary. That is certainly the case as regards the Data Protection Act. But this does not take account of the possibility that an individual may wish to object to certain lines of research being pursued with data—even anonymous data—derived from him. So consent is clearly desirable.

If anonymity and consent was all that there was to it, there would be few problems. But, unfortunately, neither anonymity nor consent—or "fully informed consent", as some would have it—is always possible. On the one hand, many types of research using genetic data cannot be carried out unless one knows from which patients the data have been derived. Does a particular DNA pattern lead to a risk of developing a certain disease? That can be determined only if you follow named patients over time. So anonymity is problematic.

On the other hand, consent is not always possible either. As we have heard, in many instances the type of research that will be done at some time in the future is not known when the data are collected. That is the case for the large cohort study being set up by the MRC, Wellcome and the NHS. It will probably provide for the possibility of much future research, the nature of which we cannot possibly predict. How can individuals give informed consent to research that cannot be predicted? Furthermore, by the time that such research is performed, many of the individuals will be untraceable or dead, so it will be impossible to go back to them to obtain new consent.

That is why an alternative route had to be found. The committee proposed the establishment of an independent guardian of such data—the medical data panel—which would examine research proposals to ensure that the data that it was protecting were used only for legitimate research and that the patient's interests were taken into account. The idea was based on a Danish model which has been shown to work very well, at least in that country.

Unfortunately, in their response the Government did not accept the proposal and pointed instead to two other types of committee, which they thought would be adequate for the purpose—the research ethics committees and the Patient Information Advisory Group, set up under the Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. I believe that in this rare instance the Government are wrong. First, research ethics committees are heavily overburdened with a large number of different types of research proposals. The committees are largely made up of volunteers from a variety of backgrounds. While they do a marvellous job, they cannot be expected to have all the necessary expertise to take on that additional role. There is already evidence that the conclusions that ethics committees are reaching about such research proposals differ markedly around the country. Local and multi-centre research ethics committees need help. That could be provided by a medical data panel that had a specific remit, the necessary knowledge and the expertise to command the confidence of the public while facilitating the pursuit of important research.

Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act has appeared since our report. I am afraid that the incredibly bureaucratic system involved seems intent only on delaying or preventing research rather than facilitating it. Its working so far gives little confidence that it will be capable of changing the image that it already unfortunately conveys of being the enemy of research. I believe that there is even more need now for an independent medical data panel that works on common-sense principles and can advise on important matters openly and transparently. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least agree to leave open the possibility of looking again at the proposal. I cannot believe that it would not have wide support.

Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for leading us so wisely and gently through the morass.

My Lords, I, too, take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord May of Oxford on his brilliant maiden speech. I look forward to hearing him on many other occasions. I also take this opportunity to thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for providing such excellent chairmanship.

This is one of the key reports that will help shape the development of healthcare in this country. I welcome the fact that the Government's response was positive on the whole. Human genetic databases have the potential to identify genes involved in the development of progressive diseases. Such information should increase understanding of the biological mechanisms of disease and indicate ways in which a disease might be prevented or treated.

The Medical Research Council has already provided grant support for a number of genetic databases focused on specific diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma and Alzheimer's disease. Those databases are being developed in partnership with charities and patient groups. Plans are well advanced for the creation of a large prospective cohort—BioBank UK—that will collect medical and lifestyle information on about 500,000 people aged between 45 and 69, as well as DNA samples. Data collected through BioBank UK will act as a national resource for studies of the interaction between genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors in the development of the common multi-factorial diseases of adult life. The importance of the public ownership of that national resource is underlined by the experience with the private sector genetic database initiative in Iceland. That cannot be over-emphasised.

It is clear that, while the setting up of a national genetic database is at an early stage of developing protocols for the collection of samples and data, the cost involved in that process and subsequently in the ability to identify individuals in the databank throughout their lives and link genetic information with health information for individuals or groups of individuals will require a long-term commitment of resources. As it cannot be possible at this stage to identify all the costs and as the eventual cost will also depend on other initiatives, such as our ability to collect patient health data electronically, can the Minister comment on the Government's commitment to supporting the cost of BioBank UK and to future costs? Is he able to comment on the current status of the initiative on the electronic collection of reliable patient information?

The report's recommendation for a national identification number given at birth or at registration as a citizen is important. There is some doubt that that is currently widely used, that general practitioners are informed of the hospital number or that it is used widely in communications. It has been suggested that the system seems to work better in Scotland. As someone who works in Scotland, I can tell your Lordships that it does, but not as well as you might think.

It is important that there is public ownership of the national resource of a population-based genetic databank. Experience in other countries, not only in Iceland, has shown that commercial ownership is unacceptable to the public and has run into other difficulties.

Having said that, if the potential benefits of such a databank are to be realised fully, particularly in the development of treatments for diseases, it has to be possible for industry, particularly bio-industry, to have appropriate controlled access to the data, including for genetic research and especially for pre-competitive research. Clearly, access to such data must be made known to the public, particularly to the individuals who are participating in the databank. Commercial organisations should not have ownership of the database itself.

The issue of consent has already been alluded to. The initial process of giving consent to opt in to the databank, following relevant and appropriate information, is absolutely right. However, the subsequent consent to further research requires clarification. The recommendations in the report are right. They protect the rights of individuals, while also allowing the use of the information for secondary research purposes.

That leads me to the issue of the medical data panel. As has been said, that recommendation has been superseded by the establishment of the Patient Information Advisory Group under the Health and Social Care Act 2001. We should wait and see how the group works in practice. There is no reason why it should not do all that the medical data panel would have done. If it does not work, the case for replacing it will be even stronger.

None the less, there may be a need for an independent oversight body for a genetic data bank—to establish policy on access to samples and databases, to protect participants and the public interest, and to ensure confidentiality and data security. Perhaps that role should be performed, without legislation, by the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. Other genetic databases also should come under the remit of that body.

The report also points out the need for training in computing science, bio-information and genetic science. Although I am pleased to note that the Medical Research Council has increased the number of awards for training PhDs and post-doctoral scientists, more is needed. I also believe that universities have a role to play in establishing training not only for scientists, but for genetic counsellors. If we are to meet the population's future needs in genetic information and decision making, we shall need more genetic counsellors. Establishment of genetic databases and the knowledge that will follow from other research in genomics will lead to a need for the appropriate provision of genetic services.

I also believe—although it is not directly relevant to this report—that the issue of genetic services needs to be addressed now. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us what plans the Government have on genetic services.

Based on the available evidence, I believe that there is a further need for the General Medical Council to clarify its guidance to doctors on prior consent before passing patient information to disease registries or for audit purposes. The current guidance seems to produce constraints. At another meeting, evidence was presented showing that that is causing problems.

Much public anxiety about genetic information centres on its use and control. This report, and the Government's response to it, should go a long way to reassuring the public on the issue.

My Lords, it was daunting enough for a layman to take part in this inquiry, but to follow the President of the Royal Society and two extremely distinguished medical men only makes the problem more difficult, especially as I feel that it is sometimes dangerous for laymen to intrude.

Perhaps, however, I have a couple of justifications. Some noble Lords may remember that, at the end of 1998, having already debated the NHS's 50-year record, we debated a Motion moved by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on looking ahead to the next 50 years. Looking back on that debate, I was rather pleased to find that my own contribution to it concentrated entirely on the advantages that were to flow from the genome revolution. Nothing that we heard in Committee cast any doubt on the somewhat starry vision that I sought to express in 1998. We have heard today that we are still only at the threshold of realising not only what can be done because of the science, but the consequent ethical considerations—which were described in an outstanding maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. We can now see the possibilities of harnessing the new science for better prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.

At this stage in the debate, I should like to concentrate on one particular aspect of the report and the Government's response to it. The report acknowledges, right at the beginning, at paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5, that the inquiry started when the Select Committee visited the laboratories of SmithKline Beecham, in Harlow. In a presentation there, its then research director, Dr George Poste, a most distinguished member of the pharmaceutical industry, pointed to the key role of human genetic databases. He went on to say that, in Britain, the NHS should constitute a uniquely valuable source of information.

At the time, I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the then Select Committee chairman, that the Select Committee should examine that possibility. Happily, we did. The investigation turned out to be both challenging and fascinating. I fully endorse the remarks that have been made by other noble Lords about our chairman, our specialist adviser and those who helped us to draft the report.

I return to George Poste's point: the NHS should have the capacity to be an enormously valuable source of data for the purposes that we are discussing now. The Select Committee made various recommendations to that effect. However, it was not only Dr Poste who made that point; we heard a good deal of evidence from various sources that harnessing that NHS data, in the form of computerised genetic information, was an essential precursor to maximising the benefits to patients and to public health. I shall give only two examples, both of which are drawn from a fascinating seminar that was arranged for us at Imperial College, where we heard from some of those who are engaged in compiling, using and analysing databases.

First, Professor Ian Purves, professor of health informatics at the University of Newcastle, said:

"large-scale projects to interpret the impact of genetics on disease would need good quality primary health care information about a large number of patients: computerised records were the obvious way of producing such data".

Secondly, we had what I might describe as an electric presentation by Professor Carole Goble, of the department of computer science at the University of Manchester. She described

"the challenges created by attempting to link (or fuse) the extremely large databases that were increasingly common in genetics research".

Professor Goble went on to describe the differences between the various sources of information within the NHS. As much of the information had been compiled for a very wide variety of purposes, and because of the use of different terminologies, there was bound to be what she called this inherent "semantic heterogeneity" which limits the ability of computers to do the huge amount of analysis that our report consistently recognises will have to be done. Additionally, as Professor Goble said, "intelligent input" will continue to be needed, with the clear implication that, without common standards, full value cannot be gathered from the databases.

Those concerns, which were echoed by many of our witnesses, led us to make some key recommendations, although I shall draw attention to only three of them. In paragraph 5.28, we said:

"GP databases need to be made compatible with one another and held in a way that allows the computer retrieval of the wealth of clinical information they contain … Achieving this will require an NHS-wide standard protocol for data capture and retrieval, and that will need to be in place much sooner."

The noble Lord, Lord May, said that universal protocols were long overdue. One does not doubt that the Government have a great task before them.

Paragraph 6.23 of our report states:

"We recommend that the Government should review the strategy for instituting electronic patient records throughout the NHS, to include clinical information contained in GP, hospital and other health records. Delivering a fully functioning national system … will require firmness of purpose to drive forward the development of robust and standardised systems".

The third recommendation to which I draw attention relates to the use of the NHS patient number. We stated,

"we recommend that the Government should urgently make use of the NHS number mandatory as a common identifier".

One has to ask: how did the Government's response measure up to those three demanding but entirely necessary requirements? They are very clear, and essential if we are to realise the aim of using NHS data as recommended by Dr Poste.

I have to say that I do not find the Government's responses to those three recommendations in the least convincing. In their response to the first recommendation, which was about compatible GP databases, we were treated to a description of a quite different problem—the question of the use of the NHSnet. Well, we have a parliamentary net, and most of us are now familiar with its use. With the greatest of respect to Ministers, that has nothing to do with standardised patient information.

The Government's response went on to describe various other measures that were being taken to strengthen GPs' ability to use computers, with the emphasis, quite reasonably, being on measures that will improve the delivery of care. However, measures that are devised to improve the delivery of care and all that goes with that are not by themselves going to begin to meet the requirements involving the use of standardised records to realise the benefits of the genomic revolution.

We called for an,

"NHS-wide standard protocol for data capture and retrieval".

Is the Minister really going to argue that the Government's response to the first recommendation, about records, will achieve the NHS-wide standard protocol for which we asked? If so, how? And if not, why not? I turn to the second of our three recommendations, which called for a,

"strategy for instituting electronic patient records throughout the NHS",

and for "standardised systems". And the Government's response? That refers to the development of,

"electronic patient records to support many aspects of its"—

that is, the NHS Plan's—"vision". It also referred to "Lifelong electronic health records", "Round-the-clock … access", "seamless care", "public access", and,

"effective use of NHS resources".

Those are all no doubt highly relevant to the proper functioning of the NHS but they bear very little relation to the requirement for the standardised data for which we called. It is even more disturbing that the department that drew up the response to this recommendation has not recognised that what it has described has fallen so far short of what the Select Committee asked for.

I turn to the third recommendation, which was about making use of the NHS number mandatory as a common identifier. It is interesting to hear that it does not work in Scotland quite as well as we had been told. The Government say in their response that the NHS number is,

"a requirement of NHS Information Technology Standards".

Yes, some efforts have been made to increase its use. And yes, there is now a system—the NSTS system—for tracing NHS numbers. Again, however, that bears absolutely no relation to the recommendation. The response is totally silent on our recommendation that the number should be made mandatory throughout the NHS. The Government do not even tell us why it should not be made mandatory; that is simply left in the air. I find that an inadequate response to a very straightforward and essential recommendation.

My final point has not been raised by other noble Lords. I was fascinated to read in The Times this morning an account of the interview with the Secretary of State for Health. We seem to be heading for a very different kind of health service. A sub-headline in the article quoted the Secretary of State as saying:

"We must redefine the NHS from a centrally run monopoly. It is time to let go".

He is also quoted as saying:

"The job of government should not be to run the system but to oversee it. We want greater community ownership and less state ownership, leading to greater diversity and plurality in local services".

Many of us say, "Hear, hear", to that. Some of my honourable friends in another place have been making powerful speeches along exactly those lines. Now we have it from the Secretary of State himself. He went on to say that one cannot run the NHS from the Secretary of State's office in Richmond House. I was conscious that I could not do so from the Elephant and Castle. One simply cannot do so. Yet the structure seems to suggest that one can.

The point that I wish to make is that there is nothing in that more diverse NHS that Mr Milburn now seems to be offering the country—we shall certainly need to see the details—that would preclude the NHS from adopting the IT standards that we have been discussing and for which the Select Committee called. He may not have had IT standards in mind, but Mr Milburn said:

"All this will be held together by a common set of values about care being largely free at the point of delivery and a common set of standards".

It is perfectly possible to reconcile the more diverse NHS that Mr Milburn is advocating and the unified—standardised—information service for which the Select Committee called. The Government's response to the Select Committee's three recommendations falls far short of what will be required to enable the doctors, scientists, informatics technologists and all the others to begin to realise the potential that the new branch of science can offer to people. Nothing need inhibit the common standards for which we have called.

I return to George Poste. It was his vision that the NHS is such a source of information that sparked us off. I find it very disappointing that the first reaction to our report, in which we called for that, falls far short of what is required. I do not detect the clear purpose or robust resolution for which we called, and I find that disappointing.

My Lords, I found the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, agreeable and stimulating. He is to be congratulated on having extracted from us an excellent report on such an important subject and on having introduced it so clearly to the House this evening.

It was good to hear the remarkable maiden speech of my noble friend Lord May of Oxford. He speaks with the awesome authority of the Royal Society and has much to contribute to your Lordships' House.

It was pointed out in 1999 by a working group of the National Institutes of Health in the United States that during the latter half of the 20th century two scientific fields stood out for their speed of progress and their evident implications for society. One was biomedical science; the other was computation.

Our report dealt with the developing convergence—to use a popular word—of biomedical research and computing science in the construction of genetic databases. That convergence looks set to dominate much of biomedicine for decades to come and to require continuing developments in the techniques of computing science.

Most of our report, of course, was concerned with the biomedical content of genetic databases and with their regulation to address public concern about their use. From that point of view, our most important recommendation, made in paragraph 7.56 and explained by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, was that databases as such did not require separate regulation. In so far as the privacy of personal data is concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said, the Data Protection Act 1998, together with the common law, is a sufficient basis on which to provide adequate regulation.

Since that was written, however, I have become more acutely aware than I was that the need in genetic research repeatedly to copy, combine and edit data from one database to another may make it difficult, if not impossible, to ascribe ownership to the data. It seems to me that that point will need to be looked at closely in the interpretation of the Act.

However, those issues are being addressed today by several noble Lords who are well qualified to deal with them, and I am not. Instead, I want to say a few words about one particular recommendation that occurs in paragraph 5.27 of our report. I shall paraphrase it because it is rather long. It states:

"We recommend that the Government [and other relevant bodies] should give high priority to funding training and supporting research in the areas of bioinformatics, statistical genetics and the computing science underlying database management".

In other words, we recommend that those bodies—the Government included—should give close attention to the convergence of which I have just spoken between biomedical research and computing science.

Of course, when any new interdisciplinary subject emerges, one starts by assembling teams of researchers containing representatives of the relevant disciplines. Thus, in genetic database research the teams contain computing scientists as well as biomedical experts. But that is not enough. As the NIH working group, to which I have already referred, said:

"What is needed is a higher level of competence in mathematics and computer science among biologists themselves".

It goes on to make as its first recommendation the creation of a number of centres of excellence in "biomedical computing", which, as well as getting on with the job, would play a major role in educating practitioners of the new discipline.

A scientist who wishes to seek out a gene that may be responsible for the onset of some disease—for example, breast cancer—will wish to assemble a database that he or she hopes will show the pattern being sought. The data that is involved may come from a new experiment or, much more likely, as I have already mentioned, from reinterpreting data already entered into other databases assembled for other purposes. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, Professor Carole Goble of the University of Manchester, of which, I should declare, I was Chancellor at the time, described to us the difficulties of linking together extremely large databases of quite different natures—annotated DNA sequences and clinical trial data, to mention but two.

The DNA from one human being amounts to the equivalent of about 3 billion characters of text, which can easily be stored on a small computer such as the one that I have on my desk at home. The same applies to many other noble Lords. However, building databases that account for genetic variation, in which we must store the DNA sequences from a possibly very large number of individuals together with much other information, poses serious problems for data management, organisation and storage—many orders of magnitude more than I have available at home. Searching the combined data for significant variations presents new challenges for the designers of computer software.

Obviously great computer power must be, and is, available in the major centres of genetic research. But in order to harness that computer power, a number of powerful algorithms must also be available. These are the building blocks of the software that instructs the computer how best to go about its allotted task. In the case of genetic databases, the algorithms are pieces of computer software specialised so as to encapsulate the biomedical hypotheses being tested. They constitute the bridge between data and understanding.

Clearly such algorithms, which are the core of computer software, allowing the efficient assembly of a new database, possibly from disparate parts, and the scanning of such a database for desired patterns, should be devised by someone steeped in biology as well as in mathematics and computing science.

To be a little more explicit, the development of algorithms and the design of databases are core problems requiring much research in mathematics and statistics and, of course, in computing science itself. But the tools provided by computing scientists will be useful only if we have people available who understand both fields. That is why we need training as well as research in the new field.

I could give other examples of convergence, but I shall end, if I may, with a question to the Minister. I know from the government response that funds are supposed to be available for bioinformatics. But is he satisfied that adequate policies have been made for the training of specialists in biomedical computing equivalent to those being made by the National Institutes of Health in Washington? I am bound to say that the evidence that we received from bodies such as the research councils did not convince me that his answer should be "yes".

My Lords, I start by adding my garland to the many laurels already received by the noble Lord, Lord May, on his very fine maiden speech. He is a great advocate for science and, indeed, a great advertisement for the benefits of immigration. It is good to see him here in this House.

The noble Lord reminded me that recently I was at an international forum where I heard the Foreign Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, speak. He said that it is not philosophers who change the world; it is scientists. But then scientists have to persuade the philosophers that they have got it wrong. Having heard the noble Lord, Lord May, speak on a number of occasions, I can tell your Lordships that there is no end to his powers of persuasion. I know that this House will be greatly enriched by his presence in our many philosophical discussions of genetic issues.

I have just returned from India, where the Prime Minister launched for the British Council a festival of science. That was a glorious event, which brought together many eminent scientists from Britain and India. We had there our own Nobel Laureate, Sir Paul Nurse; Sir Walter Bodmer; Professor David King, The Chief Scientific Advisor; and Professor Richard Sykes from Imperial College. There was a whole range of truly wonderful scientists from Britain. The event was greeted with huge enthusiasm. I think that we would all agree that that confirms the esteemed place of British science in the world. There was also great interest in the Human Genetics Commission, which I chair. While greeting the benefits and advances that are coming with genetic science, the world also shares many of the concerns that the public have about some of the challenges that go hand in hand with that.

There is an avid desire to know how Britain will meet those challenges. The way that I always respond is to say that all sources of wisdom are to be welcomed and embraced. Indeed, that was the response of my commission when the Science and Technology Committee said that it would look into genetic databases and asked what we felt about that. We greatly encouraged the committee to have such an investigation. Indeed, it has proved to be as helpful as we imagined. The Human Genetics Commission thoroughly welcomes the report. In particular, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his colleagues for their complete treatment of this complex matter.

This may be a complex matter, but it is one which affects people in an immediate sense. In the commission we undertook a large-scale public survey of attitudes towards personal genetic information. We found—this was not a result which surprised us—that people are concerned about how information on their DNA will be stored and used. For that reason it is vital that any regime of controls around that sort of database should be strong, clearly understandable and capable of securing public trust. There are several reasons why that is so. Some are reasons of principle. Human rights considerations require respect for the privacy of the individual. At the core of this is the right to keep personal medical information, including genetic information, private. That is nothing new, It goes right back to Hippocrates and has long been recognised as a cornerstone of ethical medical practice. We must not allow that principle to be weakened.

Apart from such reasons for taking the security and confidentiality of genetic data seriously, there are practical and pragmatic considerations to be borne in mind. Genetic knowledge has made immense strides. We all know that we are on the verge of great medical breakthroughs. Continued research is vital. That will require the co-operation and trust of large numbers of people. The setting up of genetic databases is an important part of that research, as other noble Lords have explained. How we regulate those databases will have an effect on their success. The stakes are high.

How are we to achieve that public trust? If we are called upon to identify the absolutely central principles which must govern genetic databases, I believe they would be, first, as others have said, that the principle of consent must be centre stage. That requires open explanation and voluntary agreement. Your Lordships have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the proposed population database known as BioBank UK. The commission is discussing with those responsible for that database how the overall research protocol will embody respect for the principle of informed consent.

Secondly, there must be what we call the principle of minimalism. Here, others may differ from the general consensus of the commission. Personal data must be used only for those purposes which have been agreed to by the person who provided it. That means that in general, databases set up for one purpose should not be used for quite different purposes. Again, there is a lot at stake here. If the public were to think that genetic data stored in medical research databases might be accessed for police purposes or for establishing paternity, we can be pretty sure that a lot of people would be unwilling to participate. We must work out ways of ensuring that the integrity of research databases is fully respected and that people's trust in them is not betrayed. The recommendation of a panel to oversee databases is one that we support.

Those are the general points. I shall now say a few words about particulars. First, your Lordships debated the issue of forensic DNA databases during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. In the course of that debate I raised certain doubts about changes to the conditions governing the taking of DNA samples from those suspected of having committed a criminal offence. As noble Lords are aware, I am a criminal lawyer. I expressed concern at the fact that the samples of those who are subsequently acquitted, or who are not even charged—for example, those who volunteer samples for elimination purposes such as the husbands of the victims of rape or persons in a village who volunteer their samples when a child has been killed—may none the less have their samples retained on a national DNA database. Those protestations did not have the desired effect, or at least not the effect that I desired. I do not want to rake over them. However, in allowing those data to be retained in respect of innocent persons, we are out of step with every other comparable jurisdiction which uses such databases. I am not happy about that.

But the law has now changed. We need to ensure that the independent body which the committee recommended should be established to oversee that the national DNA database is set up. I note with satisfaction that the Government have said that they will give consideration to the need for independent oversight. There is an important point here, which I want to emphasise. Two things are stored. The first is identifying information which consists of a series of numbers forming the basis of the so-called DNA fingerprint. The second is the sample of cells from which that information is obtained. Both of those are retained; one in a computer and one in a fridge.

It is important that there is independent oversight of both of those. That means that not only will there be supervision of matters such as access to the DNA fingerprints in the computer and over who has that access, but also there will be control of anything that is done to the samples; that is, the cells which are stored in individual containers. Representations have been made to us at the commission that there is no real justification for keeping the samples. The answer given by those who keep them is that there could be, for example, a breakdown in the computer. But the question of whether they need to be retained is one which should not be forgotten.

There may be some who take the view that the state does not have the right to retain the tissue of individuals who are innocent in the eyes of the law. We should be careful to remember all the anguish and embarrassment experienced over the retention of organs and tissues within the National Health Service. People feel strongly about their tissue, and are entitled to those feelings. We should be conscious of the ways in which we can undermine the trust that needs to exist between citizens and the state.

The other particular aspect of the report about which I should like to speak is the question of how we ensure that the law adequately protects the security of genetic data. The committee has placed its trust in that regard in the Data Protection Act, which sets out the conditions under which data is stored in this country. In general, the data protection legislation provides valuable protection against wrongful disclosure of personal information. However, there are respects in which the protection may be considered to be on the weak side. In particular, the wrongful disclosure of such data is not an offence. We have had submissions to the commission that that should be reviewed. Indeed, the commission is currently looking closely at the issue of whether there should be created a criminal offence of wrongful disclosure or misuse of genetic information. After our considerations we shall make recommendations to the Government within the next few months.

Finally, the report has been most timely. Not only has it helped us on the commission to address these issues, but it has been very closely looked at by others engaged in work involving genetic databases. Its influence will be far-reaching. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his colleagues on the committee for this very important work.

When the Prime Minister was in India at the launch of the science festival, he spoke about the extraordinary strides that are being made. He quoted Gandhi and said that there should not be politics without principle. He also said that there should not be science without values. I think that we all would agree with that.

My Lords, may I first compliment the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and all the members of Sub-Committee II on the quality and clear-sightedness of their report on human genetic databases. Although I am a member of the Select Committee, I was not a member of the sub-committee that conducted this interesting and worthwhile inquiry. But I have read it and the Government's response with a great deal of interest.

It strikes me that many of the report's recommendations are of value, not only in addressing the issues that arise specifically in relation to genetic databases but also much other research into human disease, as well as cost efficiency in the NHS, tracking down wrongdoing and many other issues. This multiplies the value of the report several-fold.

Perhaps I may also compliment the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, on his fascinating maiden speech. I am sure that the Minister fervently hopes that his crystal ball gazing about possible savings to the NHS from this work can be achieved. He opened our eyes to future possibilities in a way that was both inspiring and terrifying in terms of the Pandora's box of ethical dilemmas which we are soon to face, far beyond those so ably addressed in the report.

I personally have already benefited from the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord May, in my capacity as chairman of Sub-Committee I and our current inquiry into systematic biology and biodiversity. Therefore, it gives me particular pleasure to welcome him to this House. I know that we shall have many future opportunities to be grateful for his knowledge and expertise.

I turn now to some of the issues raised by the report. I comment first on the recommendations about electronic NHS patient records in paragraph 6.23. That is a matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, was somewhat critical of the Government in his speech. I believe that investment in this area will have untold benefits in the future. Not only will a fully functioning national system by 2005 enable a wide range of research to be carried out more quickly and efficiently, but I can envisage a situation where appalling cases, such as that of the mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman, could be prevented from happening in the future. If we had had a centralised easily accessible electronic database system with built-in alerts, morbidity trends such as Dr Shipman's caseload contained, which were missed over many years, could have been picked up and a number of tragic deaths avoided.

The hardware, software, systems development, training and oversight of such a national system present an enormous undertaking, but the benefits overwhelmingly justify that. Is the Minister able to update the House about progress in the matter? Perhaps he can address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and others about it being overly bureaucratic. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in regretting the Government's rejection of the recommendation of the need for a unified system.

Much of the Select Committee's deliberations concerned the matter of patient privacy, ethics and consent. There have been a number of high profile cases about which the tabloid press have gone to town in a way which I do not regard as being universally helpful, although, to be fair, they raised some very important issues. Sadly, however, their tendency sometimes to go over the top can get in the way of real progress by frightening people unnecessarily. However, I particularly welcome the provisions in the Health and Social Care Act 2001 which set up a Patient Information Advisory Group. Can the Minister update us about how it is getting on in its early days?

The suggested procedure for informing patients laid down by the committee in its report has been welcomed by the Government. It is however very important that the operation of this procedure is carried out by staff who have had adequate training and with the utmost sensitivity, since some of the issues involved are highly emotive.

The establishment of the UK Population Biomedical Collection is one of the most exciting research initiatives under way in this country. The committee had something to say about the consultation which needs to take place, particularly about the remit of the oversight committee. It is vital that the oversight of this project is done in a way that does not get in the way of the science but which at the same time protects the rights of the volunteers who take part with regard to secondary usage. It is a balancing act that needs, as do so many issues covered by the report, the wisdom of Solomon. I wish it a fair wind.

I turn to the recommendation about an independent body having oversight of the workings of the National DNA Database. In the Government's response they claim that safeguards are already in place. However, we now have an anomalous situation as regards the retention of DNA samples taken from innocent people in the course of an investigation. Those who volunteer to give samples in order that they can be eliminated from an inquiry can insist that these be destroyed when they have served their purpose. However, those from whom samples are taken because they are under some suspicion cannot so elect, even though they are subsequently proved to have had nothing to do with the offence. That strikes me as totally wrong and an affront to human rights.

In the debate on the Criminal Justice and Police Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury put the case against this strongly. The noble Baroness has done so again today. In an audit of the National DNA Database, over 50,000 samples were found to have been retained illegally by the police from suspects who had subsequently been cleared and whose samples should have been destroyed. Instead of putting this illegality right, the Government moved the goalposts and legalised the police behaviour—a matter of great regret to my noble friends and I. This is the kind of abuse which an independent body, as recommended by the Select Committee, overseeing the National DNA Database should be in a position to prevent in future.

In their response the Government say that they recognise the importance of having a system in which people have confidence. However, the Government do not accept the need for such an independent body. From these Benches we do not feel that the justification they give in their response holds water. Can the Minister offer any more convincing justification in his response to the debate today?

I now turn to the patenting of genes. Here I believe that the committee's report strikes exactly the right balance. The principle should be to enable adequate reward to come to those who invest time, money and brainpower in gene research but to avoid a straitjacket that would hinder future research. Patent rights should be granted only when a significant gene function has been established. That does not need to preclude further research based on that gene. I hope that the Government will continue to work within Europe to ensure that the existing balance remains in the interests of future research.

Current safeguards should prevent patents being used in an anti-competitive manner. This is a rapidly developing area. I urge the Government to keep a close eye on it. The stakes are high and the regulators need to be one step ahead, not one step behind, those who would seek to stifle competition and the advancement of science for personal gain. The Select Committee urges the Government to do that in paragraph 8.31. It is one of the most important recommendations of this fine report.

My Lords, much of what I had planned to say has already been said, so I shall not repeat it. In particular, our splendid chairman the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has expressed so succinctly the essence of our report. I should like to pay tribute to his excellent chairmanship, expertise and humour.

We are also grateful to the advisers and especially to our clerk, Roger Morgan, whose industry and courtesy, good humour and frankness were of great help to us.

I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, on his outstanding maiden speech.

As our chairman has said, genetic databases will unlock the health benefits of the human genome project and reveal how much of our health is determined by the genes we inherit and how much by the way we live—and, even more important, what can be done about it.

Incidentally, as more and more is discovered in the genetic field, perhaps that will make people more sympathetic to those with congenitally determined diseases, many of which are rare but others are quite common. For instance, who would have thought that patients with pityriasis capitis, which as noble Lords will recognise, is Latin and Greek for dandruff, would be congenitally predisposed to this fungal infection, which can be kept under control by using the appropriate anti-fungal agent.

Some adverse reactions to certain drugs may be genetically determined, and it will prove of great benefit to patients if that is known beforehand. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned smoking. There is now solid research evidence that half of chronic smokers take on average 20 years off their life. I hope that funds will not be spent to find out how to identify the other half who do not take 20 years off their life. Surely, nothing should be done to encourage smoking.

Much has been written about the problems raised by the complex subject of human databases, and we had the benefit of advice from many different sources. Paul Martin provided a good analysis of how technological and scientific change in the field of genetics demands new governance arrangements. He stated that he doubted,

"whether the existing governance system of medical research in the UK is adequate to respond to recent changes. In particular the system is marked by the absence of a clear policy framework, it is underdeveloped with respect to genetics and suffers from lack of agency; as a consequence there is a strong case for both the reform of these arrangements and the creation of new institutions specifically designed for the task of governing genetic research and the emerging market in genetic data. Without such measures there is a danger that declining public confidence in the conduct of medical research and growing fears about the misuse of genetic data will have a damaging impact on the development of new health technologies".

Several speakers have already stressed that general practitioners are the key players in the management and delivery of health. Their data input is vital in obtaining an overall picture of health needs and provision. As we pointed out at paragraph 5.14 our report, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, emphasised, substantial parts of the information in GP records is wrong or incomplete. In some cases, there were errors in 25 per cent of the postcodes alone. Sir John Pattison said that a system of holding each person's data in electronic health records in the National Health Service would not be fully implemented nationally until the year 2005 at the earliest.

Perhaps I may wholeheartedly support the chairman and all those who have made a plea for the right scale of funding in the field. Of course that will be essential but what is even more important is that those who will be working in it have the appropriate expertise. Computer experts have already been mentioned. I wonder whether the government would especially ensure that the computer experts are actually at the cutting edge of the subject. It must be most difficult for civil servants working in a government department for any length of time to continue to have the kind of computer expertise which is essential.

It is disappointing that the Government have not accepted our recommendation that a new medical data panel be set up. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, stressed, that would have gone a long way to deal with public concern about confidentiality in health records, genetic makeup and the enormous amount of genetic data that will inevitably accumulate. There is genuine concern that the increasing amount of data will bring to light new and unforeseen situations, the solution to which would have been greatly helped had the government accepted and agreed to our recommendation.

In their reply, the Government argue that confidentiality of patient information is already adequately protected under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001. They suggest that such a medical data panel would have a much wider remit than just the use of genetic data bases. They point out that Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 provides powers to require patient-identifiable data to be used for specific medical purposes, and that that is restricted to where there is a benefit to patient care or public health.

As the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned, one of the problems with research is that it is difficult to be absolutely sure that a piece of research will be of benefit to patient care. As the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford, emphasised, the results of much research are unpredictable. To put it another way, research and prophecy are two separate subjects.

In their response, the Government mentioned that they have asked Sir Gareth Roberts to undertake a review of the supply of skilled scientists and engineers in the UK, and that the report be available next spring. Knowing how long these committees and working parties can take, will the Government consider asking for the report to be ready within six months? There is an enormous urgency to the matter.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that there will be adequate funding and staffing for this great project. I make a special plea for the Government to avoid the ever-present temptation to swamp the proposed committees with people who have often been described as congenital snag-hunters.

My Lords, the opportunity arising from the use of human genetic databases can hardly be overstated. As we have heard, they can be crucial tools in developing a full understanding of the effects of genes and their variations. Armed with such knowledge, we could see a revolution in healthcare. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, spelt out many of the potential benefits, as did my noble friend Lord Rea. But with such potential comes a number of real challenges about the use of such databases including information about individuals and their health, and, as the noble Lord suggested, embraces many questions surrounding science, education, health, the law and ethics.

The Select Committee has undertaken an invaluable job in setting out the scope of the key issues that need to be tackled. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his committee for producing such a clear and lucid report on such a complex subject—in, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, suggested, double quick time.

My noble friend Lord Rea, in an attempt to take us down the route of a discussion on House of Lords reform, testified to the quality of expertise available to your Lordships. If the forecast mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is correct and we all live to be 125, some of the calculations that have been made as regards when most of us will die and when elected representatives will assume a higher proportion of the membership of your Lordships' House will be fatally flawed and gross underestimates.

The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord May, was outstanding. He certainly represents an academic brain gain to this country and to your Lordships' House. I was fascinated to hear his description of the human tree of life and the interconnection between bananas, fruit fly and humans. He postulated that in the future that may provide alternatives for research in relation to non-human animals. The issue of animal research has been debated a number of times in your Lordships' House. At the current state of knowledge, I believe that properly regulated animal research is crucially important to medical research in this country.

The report made a number of important recommendations to which the Government formally replied in their published response. I welcome the kind comments of the noble Lords, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Patel. I very much agree that the UK has a major role to play in the development and use of human genetic databases and disease registers. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred to ground-breaking advances. My noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to the crucial role of science in the UK in ensuring that we make the most of those developments.

The Government are well aware of our responsibility to ensure that the UK continues to take a leadership role. Tomorrow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will host a major conference on genetics which will outline measures to ensure that the UK is well placed to take advantage of advances in genetics. He will also refer to the Government's proposed Green Paper on genetics which will be guided by an advisory group ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Turnberg.

Integral to this matter are human genetic databases. They make it possible for personal genetic information to be linked to the wide range of other information that is already available to us. It will soon be possible to link genetic make-up with susceptibility to disease. Most are agreed that that heralds a new way of looking at disease in terms of cause, progress and treatment. I was intrigued by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord May, that ultimately that could lead to a reduction in NHS costs. Of course, Nye Bevan thought that in 1948, but so far we have not seen any sign of it. I say to the noble Lord that it is better not to tell that to the Treasury until we have absolute proof that that will be the case.

The inquiry report also indicates how genetic databases can be used for other purposes. My noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to the national DNA database, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill the Government gave an undertaking to review the need for independent oversight of forensic DNA samples. I shall, of course, ensure that the comments of both noble Baronesses are fully considered as part of that review.

The inquiry report refers to the many databases that already exist. Most of those databases have been created for specific purposes; for example, to study a specific disease from a pathological, epidemiological or public health perspective. The power and utility of those databases are not in doubt, but I suggest that they lack the ability to be able effectively to study the complex interactions between individuals' genotypes, the environment in which they live and the lifestyle which they choose to adopt which together determine susceptibility to disease indication or acquisition.

Those studies need access to different sorts of genetic databases that are longitudinal in nature, collect data in a prospective manner and are able to make associations that are not always obvious. Those considerations led to the proposal to establish the initiative now known as BioBank UK. I was particularly interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in that regard. An expert group has developed the detailed protocol for the study which has now been submitted for peer review.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked me about funding. Funding decisions by the sponsors, my department, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust are expected in April. The noble Lord will not expect me to comment further on that tonight but I acknowledge the importance of his comments on funding. We remain committed to the principles of BioBank UK, which we regard as an extremely important strategic initiative which we believe the UK is uniquely able to undertake.

Of course, we cannot neglect concerns that have been raised about the study, particularly as regards consent, confidentiality and the security of samples and data. The joint sponsors take those matters seriously and propose to create an independent monitoring body with functions not dissimilar to those of the medical data panel proposed in the inquiry report. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy so ably described, the Human Genetics Commission provides the Government with strategic advice on such developments. We are always anxious to listen to that advice.

The current proposal is that the monitoring body I mentioned should be established as a company limited by guarantee so that it can provide independent oversight free from the influence of sponsors and government. Appointments to the board of directors will need to remain open and transparent to assure the independence of that organisation. Advice from the Human Genetics Commission on the appointments mechanisms will be welcome.

Much has been said about the role of the NHS in collecting and supplying clinical data. The inquiry makes a number of helpful recommendations in that area. I do not pretend that the delivery of information systems does not set a formidable challenge for the National Health Service. Anyone who looks at the history of information technology within the NHS over the past 20 years will discover that it has been characterised by a series of failures and of resources ill spent. Frankly, its whole history of information technology reveals that it has been handled poorly.

However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who was particularly critical of the Government's response, that I believe that we have turned the corner. The information strategy that was developed two or three years ago is fully accepted within the National Health Service. I believe that there has been a sea change in attitudes among people in the National Health Service who are committed to providing effective information systems. The need for national standards is clear. However, we also have to recognise that difficulties exist, particularly in primary care, where in the past IT systems were not put in place with a clear understanding of the standards that should apply and where requirements for the accreditation of systems have perhaps not kept pace with the need for a more considered national approach. However, we are making progress. We have established four boards that will oversee the development of standards in several key areas. There is increased recognition that, although it may not be possible to have an all-singing, all-dancing uniform information system, we can draw together what we have to make sure that communication across systems is much more effective. More resources are going to the National Health Service to allow for greater expenditure on IT.

That must be matched by local determination. As part of the process of agreeing franchise plans for the new strategic health authorities, we will examine closely the proposals that they make for information systems. We will want to see whether enough investment is being put in place and, in the large areas covered by each strategic health authority—with populations of anything up to 2 million—we will want to ensure that the whole health community is committed to a much more integrated approach.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has suffered more than most over the years from inadequacies in the information system. I agree with him about the need for high calibre staff. In some cases, we have very good staff employed within the NHS, but we should look to private sector partners to provide the required skills.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, rightly singled out the importance of GPs, generally and with regard to information. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, thought that our protestations of success for the NHS Net were a little wide of the mark, but we must recognise that, although there are problems with the number of different systems that GPs have brought into the NHS, many GPs are at the cutting edge of using information. We must embrace that.

I agreed with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in the context of the speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State today. I always suspected that it was not possible to micro-manage the NHS from Whitehall; after three years in the Department of Health, I know that it is not possible. That is why I welcome the statement made by the Secretary of State today. He is absolutely right that, in a more diverse National Health Service, information can often be a unifying factor. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that the kind of progress that the committee wishes to see will happen.

Data protection and confidentiality are important matters. We have debated them on several occasions in your Lordships' House. As a result of the Section 60 order, we have created a group that will be able to deal with the issues raised by the committee in its report. I listened carefully to the comments and potential criticisms that some noble Lords made about how the advisory group will operate.

I accept the comments made by my noble friends, Lord Rea and Lord Turnberg, that we must ensure that the advisory group operates in as unbureaucratic a way as possible. The Department of Health has put forward proposals for what is described as broad class support for activity—primary research activity—in which the likelihood of detriment to patients is small, the infringement of privacy is minimal, and necessary and appropriate safeguards are in place. Those proposals were developed with the help of key interests, including the Medical Research Council, and should provide a basis in law for the great majority of referral proposals that would otherwise prove difficult to get under way.

We cannot get away from the fact that there will be a certain amount of bureaucracy or administration. We will work hard to minimise that. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested, it is early days; we must see how it works in practice. However, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, that the power provided by Section 60 extends to all those who may seek to undertake research using patient information. It is not limited to the National Health Service. I accept that a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed for research. That should in no way constrain properly conducted research. Nor should the Data Protection Act or any foreseeable use of the Section 60 mechanism have that effect.

Several comments were made about the remit of research ethics committees. My noble friend, Lord Turnberg, expressed particular concern. Research ethics committees are bound to follow Department of Health guidance, which is available in the Red Book. A new version, entitled Government arrangements for NHS Research Committees, was published in July 2001. It will come into force in April 2002. The Red Book helpfully clarifies the roles and responsibilities of research ethics committees and allows for the provision of a single, clear process for obtaining ethical approval for the secondary use of health and related data. I accept that local and multi-centre research ethics committees are overburdened, but procedures are being streamlined through the central office of research ethics committees. I can assure my noble friend that we will keep that matter under close review.

Although it has not been mentioned particularly in our debate tonight, the committee raised some concern about the patenting of gene sequences. The Government were asked to monitor patenting practices in genetics. As indicated in our response, we are in broad agreement with the findings of the committee, and we will continue to monitor developments in that important area.

The noble Lords, Lord Flowers, Lord May of Oxford, Lord Oxburgh and Lord Rea, raised several important questions about the availability of people skilled in this area. We accept the thrust of the arguments put forward by the committee. There is no doubt that there are skill shortages in bio-informatics, statistical genetics and computing science. We accept the relevant recommendation. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, referred to the review being undertaken by Sir Gareth Roberts of the supply of skilled scientists and engineers in the United Kingdom. I can reassure him that "next year" was next year in 2001. We expect the report in spring 2002. The review will focus on the high-level scientific and technical skills possessed by postgraduates and well qualified graduates. I understand the noble Lord's concern for speed; the Government share that concern. It will be to our everlasting advantage if we tackle skill shortages in such a crucial area once and for all.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, challenged me to describe in some detail the Government's overall plans for genetic services. I have already referred to the speech that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make tomorrow. It will take the matter forward. We look forward to a Green Paper on genetics. A national network of genetic testing is being developed, with the aim of improving the quality and equity of access to genetic services for patients and their families in the United Kingdom. We are also committed to the creation of two genetic reference laboratories and to improvements to the commissioning process for genetic services through the Genetics Commissioning Advisory Group.

The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, referred briefly to the discussions and agreements that have been reached in relation to insurance. I do not believe that I need go into that further, but I want to take this opportunity to welcome the agreement and the terms of a new five-year moratorium.

In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and his committee for what I believe on any count is an excellent report. It will, I am sure, continue to influence the thinking of government and other decision makers in this country. It is essential that we harness advances in human genetics in a way that is ethically based, commands the confidence of the public and, above all, brings to the people of this country the many advantages which I believe such research can give. Once again I thank noble Lords for the quality of the report and the quality of the debate.

My Lords, we have had an excellent debate and have heard some excellent speeches. I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord May on an exceptional, eloquent, clear and insightful maiden speech, delivered with rare authority. It will be some time before we hear its like again.

There are several points on which it is worth briefly touching in conclusion. Perhaps for the purposes of clarity one should emphasise that the way in which criminal genetic databases and those set up for medical purposes are used are quite different. It was our intention that the medical data panel should have oversight only of the latter.

The medical data panel would, if functioning as we intended, oversee both genetic data and general medical data. It is essential for the practical operation of research that the same body oversees both matters; otherwise the hurdles for those contemplating research work would become ridiculous.

I am most grateful to the Minister for his assurances relating to the Patient Information Advisory Group and for the other assurances that he has been able to give us. None the less, I believe that certain unease remains about the advisory group. It lacks independence of government and the moral legitimacy that a panel such as we proposed would carry. That is a pity. I understand that the group has had its first meeting and we must watch carefully how it operates. I look forward to learning the detail, of the independent supervisory body to which the Minister referred. I commend the Motion to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.