—Took the Oath.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will seek full information to ascertain how many deaths in the United Kingdom of drivers or front seat passengers were wholly or partly due to rear seat passengers not wearing seat belts.

My Lords, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is currently investigating the numbers of front seat occupants' injuries attributable to an unsecured rear seat passenger. We have commissioned Transport Research Laboratory Limited to make an assessment. A report is expected during May.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. While waiting for that report, does he accept overall the conclusion of a Japanese inquiry that a very substantial number of deaths of drivers and front seat passengers in vehicles is caused because the rear seat passengers were not belted in? Without the need for further evidence from the awaited report, surely the time has come to prosecute back seat passengers who do not wear seat belts. Further, should we not start a campaign to warn drivers that under no circumstances should they drive with rear seat passengers who are not belted in, both for the safety of those passengers and for the safety of the drivers themselves?

My Lords, the Japanese experience is not directly comparable because they do not have any laws requiring people to wear rear seat belts, whereas we do. In terms of wearing rates, the position has improved very significantly over recent years. Now some 90 per cent of children under 14 years of age wear their seat belts when seated in the rear. We believe that that is largely attributable to the success of the publicity campaign that has been run since 1998. A number of noble Lords will have seen that film, which shows how dangerous it is when a rear seat passenger, whether a child or an adult, is flung forward and hits someone sitting in the front seats of the car. However, we want to go much further in persuading adults in the rear seats of cars to wear seat belts, because that is where the problem lies. Only around 57 per cent of adults wear seat belts when sitting in the rear of cars, I think in the belief that they are safer in the back. They may be a little safer, but certainly drivers and front seat passengers are not.

My Lords, the noble Lord may have observed that the Government declined last week to reduce the limits of alcohol for drink driving offences. They have consistently refused to do anything about people such as those just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. They have consistently refused to do anything about mobile phone use. Bearing in mind that over the past two years the number of crashes has risen by 2,000, how do the Government intend to achieve the 50 per cent reduction in casualties declared in the 10-year plan?

My Lords, I am minded to have a go at the first statement made by the noble Lord, but to let someone else take the second one. Focusing initially on drink driving, the noble Lord is right to say that, without doubt, we have further to go on this problem. But we should also mark the significant improvement that has taken place. The number of deaths as a result of driving while having taken alcohol over the required limit has halved over the past 10 years.

The noble Lord is right in that a number of other European countries still enforce a level of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. In essence, it is the Government's view that we have developed a pretty strong consensus across the country that it is unacceptable, as well as being illegal, to drive under the influence of excess alcohol. We do not believe that taking the level lower would lead to a significant improvement. The problem lies with a group of hardcore drinkers and a limited number of young people who are in fact drinking way over the 80 milligrams limit. Dropping the level to 50 milligrams might risk losing the very strong consensus within society without addressing effectively those groups where the problem lies.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of concerns that have arisen over a significant number of people who are driving under the influence of cannabis as a result of the "softly softly" approach now being taken by the police in some areas? Will he say what action the Government will take to deal with what is likely to be a major problem?

My Lords, I have not seen evidence of such concerns, but I should be pleased to receive it and for the department to consider it. The Government's position on this matter is absolutely clear. Cannabis is an illegal drug. People should not take any drug or substance, whether legal or illegal, that might interfere with their capacity to drive safely. Clearly, cannabis is a substance of that kind. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that the legislation with regard to drug use is more complicated than that for alcohol in terms of detection, but the position of the police is very much to try to increase their ability to identify drivers who have taken illegal substances when they are stopped at the roadside, thus increasing the potential to prosecute such offences.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that London taxis display many signs telling one either to do something or not to do something, but that I have never seen a sign in a London taxi saying, "Please wear your seat belt"?

Taxis do display such signs.

Noble Lords amaze me. I have not seen those signs.

My Lords, perhaps I may invite the noble Baroness to take a taxi ride with me one evening after the House has risen—

Oh!

My Lords, I suspect that signs are frequently displayed, but that the rate of observance in the back of taxis is pretty slim. I shall not make a personal confession from the Dispatch Box, but I am sure that all noble Lords could set a better example.

My Lords, many prescribed and over-the-counter drugs can cause drowsiness. Can my noble friend say what action is being taken in regard to such drugs, the use of which can cause havoc?

My Lords, as opposed to the illegal drugs referred to earlier, when GPs prescribe medicinal drugs they make it fairly clear in most cases that people should not drive when taking such substances. Although I do not think that there is any hard medical evidence, most common-sense people take note of that warning and either desist from driving or get other people to give them a lift in such circumstances.

My Lords, returning to the issue of seat belts in taxis—I intended to raise the matter before my noble friend referred to it—the reality is that if you get into a London taxi the chances are probably two to one that the seat belt is not working. Is there any chance of the back seat belts in taxis being inspected regularly as part of an examination similar to an MoT test for a car?

My Lords, I am speaking without certainty but I would be very surprised if, when it licenses taxis, the London Public Carriage Office did not carry out such a test. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall make sure that the department draws the matter to the attention of the London Public Carriage Office to ensure that back seat belts are in working order when they are tested.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many animals of each species have been slaughtered as foot and mouth disease suspects or contacts since 30th September 2001.

My Lords, in total, 6,113 animals—that is, 5,781 sheep, 330 cattle and two goats—have been slaughtered since the last case of foot and mouth disease on 30th September. These animals have been slaughtered as either dangerous contacts as a result of a sero-positive blood sample or as "slaughter on suspicion" cases.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong in my understanding that if animals are sero-positive they may be expressing live virus but that virus will be so coated that it will not be infectious. If that is so, why are the Government taking extreme precautions in such cases when they still have not closed the outlets at the airports for meat coming into this country?

My Lords, the scientific basis on which we have engaged in the slaughter since 30th September is, in broad terms, the same as it was prior to that date. Individual sheep tests may show that the virus has passed through but they also indicate that the virus was present in the flock. Therefore animals which are sero-positive are slaughtered for a pro-bang test. Most of the animals slaughtered recently have not been sero-positive cases but suspect cases, with one "clinical signs" case. As to the import situation, the Government have significantly intensified their efforts in that area. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State held a meeting with all the enforcement authorities, the airlines and the ports only last week, during which we further determined to coordinate more effectively the checks on meat imports at ports and airports.

My Lords, I do not suppose that the noble Lord will hurry to agree with me, but is he aware that many people feel that the ex-Ministry of Agriculture usually responded to scientific and well thought-out questions in a way that led one to doubt the merits of the scientific basis on which those answers were founded?

My Lords, I am aware that in a number of fields the advice that the Government have received from their scientists has been queried in this House and beyond. In a sense, that is as it should be. The nature of science involves varying interpretations of facts. However, both the Ministry of Agriculture, and my present department, had and had available to it the best scientific advice in their fields anywhere in this country and probably anywhere in Europe. That there are different opinions within the scientific community is a fact of life. Science is never 100 per cent certain, in this as in other fields.

My Lords, can the Minister say whether any of the animals he classified as "contacts" were slaughtered as a firebreak and did not have contact with any infected animals? What is the Government's policy on this issue at the present time?

My Lords, of those animals which have been slaughtered since the last confirmed case, about a third were slaughtered as a result of decisions taken prior to 30th September and may well have involved some contiguous cull premises, which I believe is what the noble Lord means. The majority were slaughtered because of sero-positive tests or other signs in the sheep rather than as part of a contiguous cull. Our policy in this regard is as set out in our interim contingency plan—that is, were the disease regrettably to recur, we would continue with a contiguous cull, although it could be subject to substantial local discretion in particular circumstances.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that 3,305 of the farms which lost their animals under the cull did not test positive for the virus and that 98 per cent of the animals slaughtered were killed unnecessarily? What progress has been made with regard to vaccination? And, to follow on from the question of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, how quickly can we expect the report of the group considering the issue of the importation of meat and food into this country?

My Lords, we have a continuous process of improving the checks on imports. There are certain matters that will require report, but a great deal of action is under way both by government agencies and by the industry.

On the question of what proportion of contiguous cull animals were subsequently found to have the disease, I do not entirely recognise the figures indicated by the noble Baroness; but it is bound to be a low number. The disease has a 21-day incubation period. Therefore, it would not necessarily be found immediately. However, had those cattle not been slaughtered, not only is it highly probable that many of them would have developed the disease, but also it would have led to a further spread of the disease in those premises that were contiguous to the initial contiguous cull. Indeed, in circumstances where there was a slow-down in engaging in the contiguous cull arrangements, there was a worse spread of the disease.

In response to the noble Baroness's other point, vaccination during the course of the disease would have been unlikely to avoid the death of the animals, as we saw in the Dutch case. The question of whether there should be a new European policy in relation to vaccination and to control of the disease in general is being pursued at that level.

My Lords, in the event of a return of foot and mouth disease—which I am sure we all hope will not happen—does my noble friend consider that there are sufficient powers in place to deal with it?

Not entirely, my Lords. In the interim contingency plan we have identified a number of measures that we would take to ensure that we had tight control. We have also identified, in relation to the Animal Health Bill, additional plans and powers which the Government would need to ensure the maximum containment of the disease. That Bill will begin its Committee stage in this place tomorrow.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they are taking to implement the commitment made in the White Paper Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century (Cm 5086, paragraph 3.22 i that the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills "will work together to find out more about the numbers, characteristics and outcomes" relating to disabled children in residential schools.

My Lords, a joint Department of Health and DfES officials working group has been set up to take this work forward. It has met several times over the past three months and is currently agreeing a programme of work to improve the information collected about disabled children in residential placements, including schools, and to ensure that they are properly supported and protected. It will report by the end of this year.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Is he aware of recent research by the Norah Fry research centre indicating that the current legal framework is not working effectively to safeguard the interests of disabled children in residential schools and that there is confusion among local education and social services staff about their duties to these children? For instance, one in four social services departments does not recognise its duties under the Children Act to review the placements regularly and to consult the children about their wishes. Is the noble Lord further aware that the same research found that some children remain at school for possibly 48 or even 52 weeks a year, and yet parents generally receive no help at all in maintaining contact with their children? What are the Government planning to do to rectify the situation?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness may be referring to a report by the Rowntree Foundation. Yes, that has drawn attention to a number of areas where we believe there is a need to improve standards and practices in a limited number of local authorities. The data collection that I mentioned previously is intended to give a clear foundation as to exactly where children are and what are the particular circumstances of their need. It is true that there has been some confusion about when children are in care and when they are not as a result of joint funding placements, as opposed to placements simply by an education authority rather than with a social services authority.

There is a range of action, but the key to bringing about progress is that, from April this year, the national care standards commission will come into being and will be inspecting all such places in an attempt to ensure that they meet the kind of standards indicated in the Question and that they meet the 33 specifications for good quality care, as well as good quality educational facilities in special residential schools.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the 1998 Quality Protects programme should, by now, have yielded some practical results for disabled children? What has been done in practice under that programme for disabled children with special educational needs?

My Lords, the early signs—and it is still relatively early given that this is a 10-year programme—are that it is making a considerable difference already. One example is that £60 million of funding in the Quality Protects programme has been earmarked specifically for services for disabled children. We have a lot of confidence that that is raising the profile of care that is important for children with disabilities, both in social services and in local education authorities.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that many of these children who are placed in long-term residential schools have a tremendous problem when it comes to adult life, and are often moved merely from one institution to another? They are usually moved to long-term care institutions, where much of the company is of a much older nature. Are the Government examining this problem and attempting to get such people into a situation where there is a far higher amount of social inter-activity with their own age group?

Yes, my Lords, the Government are aware of the problem and of the poor quality of life of young people with disabilities as they move into adulthood. The proportion of those who have their own home, or have a job or have choices over their own form of care is much lower than we believe is desirable or should be the case for the future. That is clearly why the White Paper, Valuing People, set out a range of actions to try to improve the quality of care in that respect.

Perhaps I may make two specific comments. First, we should try to determine the extent to which it is possible to provide the appropriate level of education and social care without putting people into residential schools. A number of local authorities are doing some pioneering work in that respect which may reduce institutionalisation and may increase contacts. Another element is the Connections programme, which attempts to target disabled people as needing specific support so that, wherever possible, they can obtain appropriate work when they finish their full-time education. One should not expect a transformation in either area, because these are difficult and intractable problems. But there is certainly a commitment to make progress in them.

My Lords, the Minister will agree that there is a tendency to describe improvement in terms of the amount of money that is being spent. My noble friend asked for practical examples of how the Quality Protects programme is working on the ground for children in residential homes.

My Lords, it is a good question. It may be best if I give a comprehensive reply in writing.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Government's proposal to harmonise the two great departments of state on this issue is very welcome? However, in a sense that deals with only half the problem. Many of the serious difficulties involved for such children lie at local level. There is no legal requirement on local departments to work together; and, often, they do not. Sometimes, they are in conflict, and the children suffer accordingly. Will the Government consider imposing a legal requirement on local departments?

My Lords, in one respect the Government have done exactly what my noble friend signals. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 will place, from September this year, a legal obligation on local authorities not to discriminate against the needs of disabled children when making educational judgments. That is exactly the kind of thing that my noble friend was referring to. It is saying that such people cannot be given services that are second-best in quality just because they are disabled. The LEA has to seek to bend its services to meet their needs in a more committed way than might have been the case for what one hopes was a limited number of local authorities. I am certain that there are many other examples as well.

My Lords, is the number of children with autistic spectrum disorder who are funded by social services authorities to attend residential schools increasing or declining? Is the number of children with profound and multiple learning disabilities who are funded by social services authorities to attend residential schools increasing or declining? Do the Government have a view on whether public resources should be spent on such placements? Does the Minister agree that it is crucial to have proper statistical information in order to plan for such children for the future?

My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Baroness's last question and I respect her considerable experience with Childline in that area. On the other two points, my recollection is that there is sonic increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism. The central thrust of the Government's position on residential schooling has been to enable children and their parents to sustain education and normal family life in their home area as far as possible. A number of authorities are radically reviewing their policies and practices in that respect. That is often, but not always, possible, for reasons that the noble Baroness will be aware of. In some situations, either the child's needs are too specific or the family cannot sustain the pressures that are imposed on them. Over the coming years, I expect to see more children who in the past would have gone into residential schooling being helped to stay in domestic circumstances, with the appropriate range of support.

My Lords, in the time that remains, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their priorities for the next phase of the international campaign against terrorism.

My Lords, the top priority is to finish off the first phase of the international campaign against terrorism by eliminating the threat of Al'Qaeda and its Taliban support network in Afghanistan. However, the Government are also already taking action to address terrorism and its causes elsewhere, prioritising measures that suggest three types of situation: first, measures to prevent terrorists operating in areas where states lack the resources or skills to confront them; secondly, states that promote and condone terrorism as a tool of foreign policy; thirdly, sources of terrorist financing.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any military action beyond Afghanistan must be in the context of a clear political strategy, which must be explicitly straightforward about what is anticipated after the military action? Does she also agree that that must cover a regional approach and that the good will of, for example, Iran and Russia to whatever is proposed will be essential? Is not that why the explicit authorisation of the United Nations will be essential? How is it that some Ministers are saying that to go back to the UN is just one legal option available?

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that any military action must only ever be undertaken when other possibilities have been exhausted. I also agree with the implication of his question that all such action must be taken in a way that is consistent with international law and that it must be action that could lead to a successful outcome and is commensurate with the risks posed by any country against which it is taken. Of course it is desirable that any action be taken on the widest possible consensus. Action will always depend on precise circumstances. Since no decisions have been taken to launch any military action as yet, I do not wish to add to any speculation of that nature.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that if one of the goals of an operation is a change of regime, it is quite important to have some idea of what sort of regime might succeed the existing one? Does she also agree that to rely on very old and rather out of date United Nations resolutions is not the best way to get the moral support of the international community for any action?

My Lords, we should be very careful about the noble Baroness's second point. If we are saying that there is a sell-by date over a United Nations Security Council resolution, countries may choose to flout and ignore those resolutions. I am thinking particularly of Iraq, which has failed to comply with 24 of the 27 obligations placed on it under UN Security Council resolutions. If countries know that they simply have to let time go by and the rest of the world will eventually say that a resolution no longer matters, we will get into a very dangerous position. I have tried to make clear the Government's absolute adherence to the principle that any such action should always be taken under the auspices of international law.

My Lords, does my noble friend acknowledge that the threats are made mostly by terrorists and that, therefore, the Government have to respond? What immediate action are the Government taking in the light of the incidents that have taken place in the past few days at Heathrow?

My Lords, we have to acknowledge that we face a range of threats. As I said in my original Answer, threats may come from organisations based in countries that would like to be able to deal with terrorists but do not have either the capacity or the skills to do so. That is a very different position from that of a country that deliberately promotes or condones terrorism as a tool of foreign policy. The Government are pursuing a number of ways of dealing with the issues. We are doing so through the European Union, through the Commonwealth and, very importantly, through the United Nations, where Sir Jeremy Greenstock, our ambassador to the United Nations, is chairing the committee on terrorism.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Consignia restructuring announcement. It is hoped that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and before the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, during the Proceeds of Crime Bill Second Reading debate.

After the conclusion of the Second Reading debate and before the debate on Afghanistan, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Railtrack.

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

Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

• Clauses 1 to 8,
• Schedule 1,
• Clause 9,
• Schedule 2,
• Clauses 10 to 13,
• Schedule 3,
• Clauses 14 to 34,
• Schedule 4,
• Clauses 35 and 36,
• Schedule 5,
• Clauses 37 to 43,
• Schedule 6,
• Clauses 44 to 90,
• Schedules 7 and 8,
• Clause 91.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a highly complex and technical Bill. It comes to us from the other place where it received thorough and detailed scrutiny over several months. It runs to 304 pages and contains 454 clauses and nine schedules, many a repetition of the same issue so that Scotland and Northern Ireland are dealt with in the same way as England and Wales.

The huge profits made from crime are often flaunted and give force to the old saying, "Crime pays". This causes deep offence to hard-working and law-abiding members of the community and it makes harmful role models for our young people. Above all, the proceeds of crime provide the working capital for future criminal enterprise. Recovering the money must therefore be an inherent part of our crime reduction strategy.

The June 2000 report from the Government's Performance and Innovation Unit leaves no doubt that far too many defendants pass through the criminal justice system with little or no effort being made to deprive them of the benefit they derived from their crimes. Police and Customs experts believe that following the money trail provides an effective route to identifying major criminals and disrupting criminal organisations as well as relieving crooks of the proceeds of their crimes.

I am not asking for approval of this important legislation—voluminous though it is—in isolation. It must be supported by other action, the first of which is on resources. Very little priority has been given to financial investigation and the recovery of criminal assets. The Government have therefore made money available in the current settlement period to fund 86 additional financial investigator posts for the police service in England and Wales.

Next, we need action on expertise. This is extremely complex work demanding the right skills—people properly trained in financial investigation and prosecutors and judges equipped to deal with difficult cases. Moreover, we need action on international cooperation. Criminals use national boundaries to protect both themselves and their money. Improvements made by the Bill will apply to the recovery of money generated by crime overseas as well as by domestic crime. We can also make better practical use of powers and procedures, both now and in the future. The Government have set themselves a target of doubling receipts from the proceeds of crime. In real money, the target is £60 million in three years' time. The Government and the law enforcement and prosecution agencies have drawn up a strategy, which has been published, for achieving that goal.

As we are asking the House to approve a large tranche of new legislation in this Bill, I should briefly describe some of the problems with current legislation. We have identified some weaknesses. The first is that the separate treatment of drug trafficking from other criminal activity makes current legislation ineffective in dealing with today's versatile criminal entrepreneurs. When dealing with such criminal groups, it is often impossible in practice to distinguish between the proceeds from drug trafficking and their other activities.

Furthermore, modern technology makes it possible to transfer money from one bank account to another, or from one country to another, at the touch of a button. We must have powers to track such transactions. Currently, even if investigators locate the assets, they have no power to freeze them until the defendant is about to be charged. By then, the defendant will often have realised that he—sometimes she—is under investigation and will have placed the assets beyond reach. The complexity of the confiscation system deters the courts and practitioners. In fact, the system produces only about 1,100 confiscation orders annually, compared with 65,000 defendants found guilty of offences in Crown Courts. Furthermore, the enforcement process is ineffective. Only 40 to 50 per cent of the value of confiscation orders granted is actually recovered.

Another problem is that many major criminal figures have become untouchable by prosecution and confiscation. They organise or finance the criminal activity of others and then profit from the results. Subsequently, they are subject to our current processes, but, as I said, are almost untouchable. In many such cases, law enforcement has compelling evidence that assets were derived by unlawful activity. That evidence is often supplemented by evidence that property has been concealed, or by the absence of any rational explanation for the legitimacy of a person's assets. The Bill addresses that key issue.

The Bill comes to your Lordships' House from the other place in fairly good shape. It was substantially debated for more than 115 hours, including 96 in Committee and more than 10 on Report. Some 28 distinct aspects of the Bill have been amended and there are a number of issues on which, in response to points raised in another place, we shall be bringing forward further amendments for your Lordships' consideration. I shall comment on some of those later. The Government are grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House for their reports. I shall comment later on some of their findings.

First, however, I should like to outline what the Bill will do. Part 1 establishes an assets recovery agency which will be dedicated to recovering the proceeds of crime. The agency will share the confiscation functions of the law enforcement and prosecution authorities. It will also have sole authority to operate the civil recovery procedures in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under Part 5 of the Bill, and will exercise taxation functions throughout the United Kingdom under Part 6. I shall deal with that point separately. The agency will also train and accredit financial investigators, who will then be able to apply their skills in their own organisations. The agency director will be accountable to the Home Secretary although he will act independently on all the cases he handles. We envisage that the agency will be staffed by a multidisciplinary team of between 100 and 150 people including investigators, lawyers and accountants.

Part 2 sets out a consolidated scheme for restraining and confiscating the proceeds of crime in criminal proceedings following a conviction for any acquisitive offence. Parts 3 and 4 contain similar procedures for Scotland and Northern Ireland. As I said, there is a good deal of repetition of the issues in the Bill, for reasons which will be clearly understandable.

The power to restrain the assets of a suspect will be made available at an earlier stage, from the start of a criminal investigation instead of at the point a charge, and applications will be heard by the Crown Court instead of the High Court as at present. Normally, a confiscation order will reflect the convicted defendant's benefit from his particular crime. However, when the defendant has a criminal lifestyle, the confiscation order will reflect his benefit from his general criminal conduct—that is, all criminal conduct committed by him.

A defendant has a criminal lifestyle in cases in which he is convicted of drug trafficking, money laundering or other specified offences. We have placed in the Library a list of the types of criminal conduct that we believe should normally be indicative of a criminal lifestyle. In response to debate in the other place, we shall be bringing forward in Committee a new schedule listing criminal lifestyle offences. We shall also consider amending the power to add further offences by use of the affirmative resolution procedure, as recommended by your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The Bill identifies two other criteria for a criminal lifestyle: when a single offence is committed over a period of at least six months, for example a conspiracy; or when an offender is convicted of three or four offences from which he has benefited. I should say a few words about the assumptions. When a defendant has a criminal lifestyle, the court must assume that assets held since conviction regardless of when they were acquired, and property transferred to the defendant or expenditure incurred by him during the six years before criminal proceedings, represented the proceeds of crime. The Joint Committee's report appeared to accept the public policy arguments for applying the assumptions in drug trafficking cases.

The Joint Committee has, however, questioned applying the assumptions in other cases, arguing that the criminal lifestyle criteria are too widely drawn.

We have carefully examined this issue, but we currently do not consider that the Joint Committee has given sufficient weight to the substantial safeguards that the Bill provides, or to the recent judgment of this House in the Rezvi and Benjafield cases. As I said, this is not new in principle. Similar challenges against the use of the existing assumptions procedure in drug trafficking cases were rejected by the Privy Council in McIntosh, in February 2001, and by the European Court of Human Rights in Phillips, in July 2001. In the Bill the court must not apply the assumptions if the defendant shows them to be incorrect, or if doing so would give rise to a serious risk of injustice. The courts have regarded these safeguards as sufficient to ensure compliance with human rights.

I should also deal with the provisions on the family home, which is treated differently as between England, Wales and Scotland. The Joint Committee on Human Rights argued that the provisions in Part 3 which place certain limits on the realisation of a family home in Scotland should apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. Parts 2 and 4, which apply to England and Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, require a family home to be confiscated when that is necessary to satisfy a confiscation order in the same way as any other property liable to confiscation. Part 3, which applies to Scotland, empowers the court to refuse realisation of a family home when the authorities are unable to prove that it was acquired with the proceeds of crime. This reflects other provisions in Scottish law that restrict access to the family home in certain types of proceedings. The two provisions are different, but the Government are satisfied that they are both consistent with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Part 5, on civil recovery, empowers the director of the agency to sue people in the High Court for the recovery of property derived from unlawful activity. This is a civil action to which civil rules and procedures will apply. In Scotland, Scottish Ministers will be responsible for civil recovery and proceedings will take place in the Court of Session.

It is important to take on board the fact that the prosecution of criminals must always take priority—that is a key element—and it will continue to do so. However, it is not acceptable that ownership of the proceeds of crime should remain immune from any form of legal challenge where criminal proceedings are not available. The director will have access to the investigation powers in Part 8 of the Bill, prior to the start of litigation. If the court is satisfied that he has a good, arguable case, he will be able to seek an interim receiving order that freezes the property, pending the outcome of the case, and places it under the control of a court-appointed receiver. Civil recovery will not seek to establish guilt or innocence but will focus on whether particular property is, or represents the proceeds of, unlawful conduct.

The scheme contains substantial safeguards, as everyone will expect. The burden of proof will be on the director. There will be a financial threshold below which proceedings will not be initiated and we expect to set that at not less than £10,000. Civil legal aid will be available and where the director loses, the court will be able to order him to compensate respondents for any financial loss they have incurred.

There is a substantial and detailed protection for people who show that they have purchased property in good faith for full value and without notice of its tainted origins and for other innocent interests. In the light of all those safeguards the Government are confident that the civil recovery provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

My Lords, the Minister has said that there is to be a limit of £10,000. Is that merely to relate to the part of the Bill that deals with recovery or will it also relate to confiscation under the Crown Courts?

My Lords, I shall take advice on that. Effectively, it will operate de minimis, so that we do not go after trivial amounts. The sum of £10,000 is not trivial but in the scale of rampant organised criminal activity, for which there are substantial benefits, £10,000 is chicken feed and therefore can be regarded as trivial. It will operate de minimis, and it may cover both aspects raised by the noble Lord. If I am incorrect, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General will correct me when he replies to the debate.

We have looked carefully at the Joint Committee's suggestion that civil recovery will amount to a criminal penalty under the ECHR. However, we continue to believe that a better view is that civil recovery is a civil remedy.

In reply to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, there is no limit to criminal confiscation. In effect, the £10,000 would not apply to criminal confiscation. There is no limit for criminal confiscation.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Explanatory Notes in reference to Clause 305, on the minimum amount, state:

"The current level in respect of the forfeiture of … cash … is £10,000 or more and the Government intends that the same level should be imposed in respect of this scheme".

My Lords, that does not relate to the criminal confiscation aspect to which I referred earlier. I shall take further advice and I shall return to the matter later if necessary. I do not believe that that note applies to the relevant part of the Bill.

Part 5, on cash forfeiture, provides for the extension of current powers to forfeit cash in magistrates' court proceedings. At present, cash forfeiture is only available in relation to drug trafficking and terrorism, and, where drug-related cash is concerned, only for cash discovered at external borders. Police and Customs report that they regularly discover cash in-country which they know or suspect to have been derived from or to be intended for use in criminal activity, but where no intervention is possible under current powers. The Bill will empower police and Customs to seize cash discovered anywhere in the United Kingdom. They would then be able to seek its recovery in civil proceedings.

To ensure that the powers can be exercised effectively, the law enforcement authorities will need to be able to search for suspect cash where they believe an individual is carrying it, or that it is on premises where they are lawfully present. Part 5, therefore, establishes a new search power for that purpose, with appropriate and substantial checks and safeguards.

Part 6 deals with taxation of the proceeds of crime. It gives the director taxation powers. Experience overseas has shown that taxation is a powerful tool for recovering criminal assets. The agency will be better placed than the Inland Revenue to deal with cases of this kind because it will have as its focus the reduction of crime and will use the taxation system to this end, whereas the Inland Revenue has as its focus the effective and efficient collection of tax.

The director will, with one exception, apply all normal Inland Revenue rules and practices. The exception is that, unlike the Inland Revenue, the director will be able to raise an income tax assessment even where he cannot identify the source from which the income has derived. The director will be required to treat tax information with the same confidentiality as the Inland Revenue, and the same avenues of appeal and complaint will be available. Part 6 will have no impact whatever on ordinary taxpayers, who will continue to be dealt with by the Inland Revenue. Tax evasion cases will not fall within the purview of the director. They will remain under the present system.

Part 7 deals with money laundering. The Bill updates and unifies the existing money laundering offences. There are three substantive offences: first, concealing, disguising, converting or transferring criminal property; secondly, assisting another to launder criminal property; and, thirdly, possessing, using or acquiring criminal property.

The distinction in current legislation between laundering drug proceeds and laundering other criminal proceeds has been removed. Furthermore, we have removed the distinction between the laundering of one's own proceeds and the laundering of another's proceeds. Those artificial distinctions have contributed to the small number of prosecutions. There were only 129 in 2000, and, as I said earlier, there was a low rate of just 50 convictions out of those 129 cases, or 39 per cent.

It will be an offence for a person working in the regulated sector, who knows or suspects that another person is engaged in money laundering, to fail to report that knowledge or suspicion to law enforcement. The offence will also be committed if the defendant had reasonable grounds to know or to suspect that money laundering was taking place. But the court will be required to take account of whether a defendant complied with industry guidelines, provided that the Treasury has endorsed them.

We think it reasonable to expect people working in regulated areas to work to certain standards of competence and vigilance. But we accept the argument made in another place that staff at any level who have not been properly trained by their employer should have a defence against the negligence offence, and that now appears on the face of the Bill. In addition, we shall consider further the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's points on tile power to amend the definition of the regulated sector and will return to the issue in Committee.

In Part 8 the Bill provides powers, subject to court approval, for tracing and investigating suspected criminal assets. Those powers will include a new customer information order, requiring banks to inform the investigator if they hold an account for a person under investigation; and an account monitoring order requiring banks to inform the investigator of movements of such an account over a period. Civilian staff working for the police service and government departments and agencies will a so have access to investigation powers, provided they have been trained and accredited by the agency as financial investigators.

Part 8 also gives the director (in Scotland, the Lord Advocate or the Scottish Ministers) a new power—a disclosure order—to require persons to answer questions and to provide information. That is based on the similar power already available to the director of the Serious Fraud Office. Information given under compulsion will not be admissible in criminal proceedings against that person, but it will be admissible against that person in confiscation or civil recovery proceedings.

Part 9 governs the relationship between confiscation and insolvency proceedings. Part 10 regulates the disclosure of information to and by the director, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Ministers. All disclosures made under Part 10 will he subject to the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Part 11 will enable Orders in Council to be made to enable overseas requests for the freezing and recovery of criminal assets to be executed and for the exercise of the powers in Part 8 of the Bill on behalf of overseas jurisdictions.

Before concluding, perhaps I may turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Our intention is that the order which sets the threshold for the cash forfeiture and criminal recovery proceedings will be £10,000. No limit is intended for the criminal confiscation under Parts 2, 3 or 4. That is the distinction. I am sorry if my original answer was not clear.

In conclusion, the Bill is innovative. It is not a surprise to anyone; it has been around for a considerable period of time—even before, I think, the last election. It strengthens the law substantially. We make no bones about that. But we believe that it is fair and proportionate to the issues we have to address. We have taken account of experience both here and abroad and of the many consultations last year and have made many changes in the light of consideration by the other place, which spent a substantial amount of time debating the issues. We believe that the Bill will be practical and workable, and the extensive debate has reinforced that view.

I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House. With my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, I shall be responsible for the Bill in Committee. My noble and learned friend will wind up the debate. I regret that due to other circumstances, I shall be unable to be present when the debate resumes following the Statement. I shall ensure that I have read everything before we begin the Committee stage.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this Second Reading debate on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition. The Proceeds of Crime Bill introduces new powers and enhances existing and anti-terrorism measures to crack down on terrorist finance and organised crime. It is an important Bill and deserves careful consideration by your Lordships.

We are broadly in favour of the Bill. Indeed, we take exception to the statement by the Prime Minister, during Prime Minister's Question Time on 13th March 2002, while referring to the Bill, that,

"many of its provisions are being opposed by the Conservative party in Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/03/02; col. 881.]

This was an entirely inaccurate statement from a Government who felt discomfort, even angst, in the face of on the whole very constructive criticism from all sides, including the government side, during the passage of the Bill in another place. If we cannot pass comment and probe, what on earth are we here for?

Indeed, for me the most telling comment came in another place from the honourable Member for Glasgow, Pollock, at col. 589 of the Official Report, Commons, when he referred to your Lordships as,

"the old boys along the corridor".

While "a boy", I suspect that the Minister would take equal exception to that although perhaps we should be glad to hear signals clearly indicating that Members of another place are so conscious of the influence of this House.

I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Opposition made many helpful suggestions and comments during the 39 sittings in Committee and on Report resulting in significant improvements to the Bill. That said, we have work to do in your Lordships' House and I hope that my contribution today will signal a will and a wish to assist the Government in producing a workable and effective piece of legislation.

In general terms, the Bill seeks to consolidate and build upon the confiscation regime which was introduced by the former Conservative government in the form of various Acts of Parliament passed in the mid-1980s. It was the proceeds of drug trafficking which initially concerned the legislators but other types of offence came to be covered by other statutes. Civil recovery of assets not dependent upon any criminal conviction became a reality in the 1990s.

In many respects, the Bill is a work of consolidation not only of criminal procedures but also of civil recovery procedures set up by the Conservative government. While this is not the time for a detailed exposition of our proposed amendments, I want to flag up some of the themes which will govern our approach. I begin by asking three questions. First, does the Bill as drafted provide a practical framework for those seeking to use its procedures? We suggest that some of its provisions do not yet reflect—we hope that they will—a full appreciation of the realities of practice. Secondly, by means of the Bill, is the Government's true aim the deterrence of crime and punishment of criminals or merely the raising of revenue? We suggest that those two aims do not necessarily go hand in hand. Thirdly, bearing in mind the potential impact of the provisions of the Bill on those innocently caught up in the proceedings—for example, dependants of drug dealers—are their legitimate interests and rights adequately catered for in every respect?

I turn to Part 1. It concerns the setting up of the assets recovery agency which is to be responsible for the administration of the new confiscation and recovery regime. Importantly, under Clause 3 the new body will be responsible for the accreditation and training of financial investigators. It is hoped that the wealth of knowledge and experience accrued by those who have until now been responsible for financial investigations will not be lost. For example, in drugs offences financial investigations are carried out by police officers with practical experience in the detection of drugs crimes. A similar point is made with regard to existing databases in the control of the Financial Services Authority and the Serious Fraud Office.

The recovery of assets must not become merely an exercise in arithmetic. It should be targeted effectively at those persons who have either made significant gains from crime or those whose financial diminution or humiliation would destroy or damage a known criminal network. Such knowledge can come only from officers who have worked in the field, we suggest, and must continue to play a part in the judgments of financial investigators. In short, we very much hope that the establishment of a new authority with newly accredited investigators will not represent year zero in terms of financial information about criminal activity.

Part 2 sets out the criminal confiscation regime for England and Wales. We have abiding concerns about the drafting of Clause 6. This clause relates to the making of confiscation orders by the Crown Court wherein the court must proceed to a determination of assets if the prosecution simply asks the court to proceed or if the court believes that it is appropriate so to do. Reassurances by the Government in another place that the court's discretion is somehow preserved are not enough in our view. Under Clause 6(3)(a) the prosecution is the gatekeeper of this procedure not the court. We shall seek to reverse that role. This is particularly important when bearing in mind that at the end of the day the assets recovery agency will need only the lesser burden of proof—on the balance of probabilities—to win rather than the higher standard of evidence required in a criminal court.

Further, there are many cases where defendants with no background of drug dealing admit to supplying to friends on a small-scale basis with the aim of feeding their habit. Counsel for the prosecution and the judge will no doubt sensibly take the view that the commencement of confiscation proceedings under the Bill would be a costly and futile exercise. Contrary to the general rule—for example, the court's power to stop a case for insufficient evidence—the court will have no discretion to avert the commencement of proceedings. All that is needed is an over-zealous investigating officer and a time-consuming exercise is then embarked upon with the judge being powerless to stop it.

The new procedure does not just cover drug dealing. The point made by my honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary during the Second Reading debate in another place that the process of confiscation may be started although a person may have committed only three exceptionally minor offences for gain over the previous six years remains unanswered. In our view, it is unanswerable.

It is timely to ask this question. Is the subjugation of the court's discretion compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights? We believe that it is not. As the proceedings would be criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article 6 of the convention, can a court whose discretion can be potentially fettered in the way I have described be properly regarded as "independent" within the meaning of Article 6(1)? We have doubts. The same point is made in respect of Clauses 94 and 161, relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

Moving on, the court has a duty to decide whether the defendant has a criminal lifestyle. The condition of a criminal lifestyle will apply only if one of several tests is met. including one specified by the Secretary of State in regulations under Clause 75. It is our belief that those regulations should be subject to affirmative resolution procedures. I was pleased to hear today that the Minister agrees with that point and will introduce the change at Committee stage.

A further concern centres on the definition of "defendant's benefit" from the proceeds of crime, referred to in Clause 9. The calculation of the benefit figure is vitally important because it determines the amount of money to be confiscated from the realisable assets of defendants. Although we accept that Clause 9(3) appears in one respect to exclude the prospect of double recovery by excluding from benefit any amount ordered to be paid under previous confiscation orders made under the old regime, the Bill does not address the danger of double recovery in, for example, a drugs case in which the defendant's benefit is taken to include the purchase price of the drugs already confiscated.

We accept that under the present regime the figure of benefit calculated and presented to the, courts pursuant to, for example, Section 11 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, will include the estimated purchase price of the drugs seized. However, we suggest that the Bill represents an opportunity to ensure that the system is fair and reflects common sense. A right-thinking observer would be justified in thinking that the term "benefit" may more appropriately be applied to the acquisition of goods, property and services by those who have made crime their business, rather than to the trade itself.

There may be some attraction in the argument that the inclusion of the purchase price of the goods seized, whether drugs or some other form of contraband, will serve to increase the potential amounts to he confiscated. However, the primary purpose of the Bill must be to ensure the effective punishment of offenders. We make no apology for conceding that, to be effective, the punishment needs to be lair and realistic. Alternatively, it may be reasonable for the prosecutor to include the estimated cost of the drugs or contraband as part of the estimated benefit where the goods or drugs themselves have not been seized by the authorities. Precisely the same points are made in other clauses about Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Parts 3 and 4 set out the criminal confiscation regime for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. I should say now that my honourable friend's efforts to ensure consistency of approach in all parts of the United Kingdom did not go unrewarded in another place. Unfortunately, however, consistency did not always go in the right direction, as in the case of the courts' discretion enjoyed in Scotland when deciding whether or not to proceed with a case at the behest of the prosecutor.

Further, in one key respect, there remains an inconsistency of approach regarding disposal of family income. Clause 101 provides welcome safeguards over the homes of families of those in Scotland who have profited from crime, to the extent that those who are innocent of any crime do not suffer unduly as a result of these provisions. We strongly believe that those safeguards should be extended to families in England. Wales and Northern Ireland, and new clauses will be tabled to that effect.

Part 5 of the Bill will give the director of the assets recovery agency power to bring civil proceedings to recover property that is, or is represented to be, obtained through unlawful conduct. The basis of such proceedings is "unlawful conduct", defined in Clause 249 as,

"Conduct occurring in any part of the United Kingdom is unlawful under the criminal law of that part".

Conduct that occurs in a country outside the United Kingdom and is unlawful under the criminal law of that country and would be unlawful under the criminal law of the United Kingdom is also unlawful conduct.

If the conduct is not criminal, there can be no proceedings in the civil courts to recover property that is or represents property obtained through unlawful conduct. Proceedings for the recovery of such property plainly relate to a criminal offence, albeit in the civil courts.

Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed, nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

"This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations."

In my opinion—I look forward to the Attorney-General's opinion when he responds to this debate—this clause will result in a heavier penalty being imposed in respect of a criminal offence. We respectfully suggest that if the criminal offence was committed prior to the Bill coming into force, there would be a breach of Article 7. That view is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in paragraph 26 of its 11th report:

"In accordance with its views on the classification of civil recovery proceedings, the Government consider that they are not proceedings for a criminal offence or a penalty, and so do not engage the right to be free of retrospective penalties under ECHR Article 7. For reasons which we have already developed, we disagree. The Government accepts that, if it is wrong on the classification issue, the civil recovery provisions would violate ECHR Article 7 because of their retrospective operation. We draw this matter to the attention of each House."

This Bill seeks to impose a heavier penalty for an offence committed before it comes into force than that which was applicable when the relevant offence was committed. It is the penalty that is relevant rather than the procedure, which merely happens to be in the civil courts. Surely, therefore, that is a breach of Article 7. Since we do not want to obstruct the key objectives of the Bill, that is a real concern. We want to see those who have committed criminal offences deprived of their ill-gotten gains.

I draw your Lordships' attention to a recent newspaper article accusing me and other Peers of obstructing the fight against drug-related crime. In relation to this Bill and in all other respects, my response is that no one is more committed than I am to fighting drug-related crime. As a responsible Opposition, we are asking Ministers whether this route requires unlawful conduct of another kind; namely, a contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. If that is so, I hope that your Lordships will agree that we must work to overcome that obstacle.

We have additional concerns about Part 5 regarding rights of compensation, particularly the costs incurred by innocent third parties as a result of interim receiving orders and interim administration orders.

Part 7 of the Bill deals with money laundering. We greatly support the objective of tightening up and consolidating existing legislation by creating five money-laundering offences: concealing, disguising or converting criminal property; entering into an arrangement suspected to facilitate the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property; acquiring, using or possessing criminal property; failing to disclose suspicions that another person is engaged in money laundering; and making a disclosure likely to prejudice any investigation that might be conducted following the disclosure of suspicions—known as "tipping off".

We have concerns in Part 7 with regard to both retrospectivity and the reversal of the onus or proof, the latter appearing to become a feature of our law, which is regrettable.

We shall table amendments designed to tighten up the loose drafting of Clause 330 and remove from its ambit those who act in good faith and take a genuinely different view of someone else's conduct from that taken by the state or a court.

It must be remembered that we are dealing in the regulated sector with professional people who, in all fairness, may know a good deal more about the often extremely complex subject than a police officer or even the fraud squad. To say that someone is a criminal because they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone else is, is to go too far. It is right to add that for an innocent professional man or woman arrest and all its consequences, possibly including loss of employment, can be as damaging as a conviction. We should be mindful of that, no matter how much some honourable Members from the Government Benches in another place may wish to see all accountants and lawyers suffer.

It is also pertinent to draw your Lordships' attention to a comment made by the British Bankers' Association which, while welcoming the Government's intention to consolidate and simplify the money-laundering offences, has reservations. It has some difficulty in accepting the statement that,

"persons who are employed in the regulated sector should be expected to exercise a higher level of due diligence in handling transactions than those employed in other businesses … In particular, we firmly believe that criminal sanctions for negligence should not be extended to junior staff".

We accept that the Government have now included a defence to the offence of failing to report knowledge or suspicion of money-laundering that a person had not been provided with relevant training. However, we remain curious to know how the proposed order will define and spell out the "relevant training".

I entirely understand where the Government are coming from; co-operation by banks will be fundamental to the success of many investigations into money laundering. However we want to use the Committee stage of this Bill to understand its true scope, not least because we have been approached by a number of organisations, including the Law Society, the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Taxation, all of which continue to have a number of concerns relating to the disclosure of information.

Again we do not object in principle to Part 8, which relates to investigations. However, we shall bring forth amendments to give clarity and, in some instances, endeavour to assist effective implementation of the Bill. For example, with regard to Clause 338, we feel that the definition of "judges" is very broad. Indeed, Crown Court judges are given very little, if any, training in fraud, money laundering and bank procedures. I am told of a recent case where a circuit judge, hearing fraud trials at a specialist trial centre at Southwark. London, had never heard of coded interbank communications by Key Tested Telex; had never seen a copy of the Banker's Almanac, and thought a hank would confirm the genuineness of a 100 million dollar instrument over an open telephone line to a third party not named on the instrument.

Part 9 deals with the interaction between insolvency law and the criminal confiscation legislation. The Bill excludes property subject to, inter alia, a restraint order from a bankrupt's estate. The effect is that if a restraint order is made, the property which is subject to that order is not available to be distributed among the bankrupt's creditors. Property in respect of which a receiver or an administrator has been appointed under this Bill is excluded from the bankrupt's estate as well. The effect is that any property subject to a restraint order or where a receiver or administrator has been appointed goes first to satisfy any confiscation order rather than being distributed to creditors. Indeed, similar provisions apply in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We believe that those provisions will be unfair to creditors. Those creditors are likely to be entirely innocent of any offence or wrongdoing and may even be a victim of the very crime committed by the bankrupt in respect of which a restraint order has been made. Under existing law, creditors share in a bankrupt's estate equally subject, of course, to the rights of preferential creditors such as the Inland Revenue, which always has the first bite of the cake. Equality is fair and just in those circumstances. Even the victim of a crime shares equally with other creditors. The provisions in this Bill give priority to the assets recovery agency or the prosecutor and give him the first bite of the cake, and the first bite may be the only bite. The agency may well have the whole cake, leaving nothing over for the innocent creditors.

It may even turn out that the victim of the very offence giving rise to the confiscation order fails to obtain compensation out of the bankrupt solely because of the confiscation order. Let me give an example. A serial fraudster may well defraud many people in the course of his unlawful business. Some of those whom he defrauds may lose all their savings. They may, however, realise that they are being defrauded and sue the fraudster for damages. They may even obtain a freezing order restraining the fraudster from disposing of any of his property. In the normal course those victims will obtain judgment. They will be able to bankrupt the fraudster and will be paid a dividend in the bankruptcy. They may not recover all they have lost because they will have to share the bankrupt's estate among all those who have been defrauded and other creditors. But at least they may get some of their money back.

However, if the agency applies for a restraint order, the property subject to that order is excluded from the bankrupt's estate. Property subject to the restraint order could comprise almost all the assets and money owed by the fraudster. All that will be excluded from his estate if he is adjudged bankrupt and will not be available to the victims of the fraud, nor will it be available to the fraudster's other creditors. That surely cannot have been intended by the Government.

We shall also bring forward amendments to those clauses regarding tainted gifts wherein innocent creditors, and even the victims of crime, will it seems lose out because tainted gifts will be dealt with under this Bill when it becomes law, rather than insolvency law. Those creditors will be unable to claim assets given away.

There is a good deal to consider in this Bill and I hope that I have succeeded in highlighting most of our concerns. We are looking forward to the Government bringing forward further changes during consideration of the Bill in Committee. In conclusion. I can do no better than repeat the words of Justice, the independent, all-party law reform and human rights organisation. In its briefing for today's debate it said:

"Measures such as those in the Proceeds of Crime Bill should be regarded as exceptional and can be justified only in relation to serious crimes and to the extent that they represent a proportionate response".

Time will tell if the measures contained in the Bill have overstepped the mark. It is our duty to try and limit that possibility while empowering all those active in the fight against organised crime.

My Lords, as the noble Baroness just referred to Justice, I should perhaps start by declaring an interest as one of the vice-chairmen of the council of that organisation.

Liberal Democrats welcome the principle of recovering the proceeds of crime from those who obtained those proceeds. In deciding what are the proceeds of crime, we accept that the civil standard of proof may be appropriate rather than the criminal standard. We welcome the principle of civil recovery orders under Part 5, and the provision for restraint orders and interim receiving orders to reduce the possibility of assets disappearing as soon as the criminal becomes aware that he is being chased.

The attacks reported in a Scottish newspaper this morning on the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and on my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, as being people who want to block this Bill, are completely misleading and totally unjustified. But that does not release us from our duty to scrutinise the Bill, and I have to say that the powers in the Bill are draconian. Those powers must be exercised with restraint; they must be proportionate; they must not be exercised so as to create injustice. That is a difficult tightrope to walk.

We need to know what is the philosophy behind the Bill. Are confiscation and recovery orders a kind of punishment? Alternatively, are they akin to civil judgments for damages? That is a significant question, particularly when we are considering whether, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, recovery orders under Part 5 form part of civil or criminal proceedings. It is clear that the way in which they are described in the Bill is not conclusive of the answer to that question. To me, they certainly look more like criminal than civil proceedings; they are plainly intended to have a deterrent effect. Nor are they, in any ordinary sense, compensation for any loss suffered by the state.

I suppose it could be argued that citizens have a duty to the state to lead law abiding lives and must account to the state for any profits made from a breach of that duty. That would be an interesting argument, but it would be inconsistent with the law of the United Kingdom as recognised not very long ago, for example, in the George Blake case. If that is not the argument and the Government are not saying that somehow there is a civil duty to account for the proceeds of crime, what is the basis for saying that Part 5 involves civil rather than criminal proceedings?

I shall now move on to the Bill itself. I am afraid that it convinces me that there is something wrong with the way in which we are now drafting Bills. It is elephantine. The confiscation of the proceeds of crime is an important subject, but does it really need 454 clauses and nine schedules spread over 304 pages? For example, the 88 clauses in Part 2, which relate to England and Wales, and the 87 clauses in Part 4, which relate to Northern Ireland, are nearly identical. I wonder whether they could be properly merged.

The layout is confusing; for example, Clause 6 imposes a basic duty to make a confiscation order. That duty is dependent on the concepts of the defendant having a criminal lifestyle and having benefited from criminal conduct. We then have to go all the way to Clauses 75 and 76 to find out the nature of those concepts. For civil recovery, Clauses 248 and 250 make it clear that the basis of jurisdiction is the recovery of property obtained through unlawful conduct. The clauses then proceed to define "unlawful conduct" and what is meant by,

"property obtained through unlawful conduct".

But Clause 251 switches to the somewhat different concept of "recoverable property". It is not until we reach a group of clauses, starting at Clause 306, that the relationship between property obtained through unlawful conduct and recoverable property is explained.

The Bill will be seriously confusing to anybody who has the essential job of trying to interpret it. I do not like to criticise parliamentary draftsmanship because I know how difficult it is for parliamentary counsel to produce a really good result. But something has gone wrong in this Bill.

I shall now turn to the substance of the Bill and the concept of criminal lifestyle. Clause 75 lays down certain criteria. If those criteria are satisfied, the court then must conclude that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle, which gives rise to a series of problems. Let us examine the criteria. Under Clause 75(3)(b), for example, a person convicted of three minor shoplifting offences, over a period of six years will be treated as having a criminal lifestyle. If the prosecution seeks a confiscation order on the third occasion, the court must proceed with considering the order, and must assume that all the property belonging to the defendant is the proceeds of criminal conduct. Of course, the prosecution has a discretion as to whether or not to seek a confiscation order, but, if it decides to do so, the court is bound to go ahead. We believe that the court should have a power to refuse to hold that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle when it is satisfied that such a holding would be unreasonable in all the circumstances.

There is another, and perhaps even more serious, problem with the criteria. Clause 75(2)(c), as it stands, provides that conviction of any offence specified in regulations made by the Home Secretary establishes criminal lifestyle and triggers the confiscation proceedings. I greatly welcome the Government's undertaking to specify what I call "lifestyle offences" in a schedule to the Bill, and to make a power to add further offences exercisable only by the affirmative resolution procedure. That will properly deal with the issue.

Let us assume that a criminal lifestyle has been established. The court then has to go ahead and see what property has been derived from the defendant's criminal conduct. Under Clause 11 the court has to make a series of assumptions, which broadly lead to the conclusion that all the defendant's property is acquired as a result of criminal conduct and is, therefore, liable to confiscation. Those assumptions can he rebutted only if they are shown to be incorrect, or if there would be a serious risk of injustice if such assumptions were made.

I accept that a defendant who has a nice house, expensive cars and a lot of money should not be able to sit back and say, "You say that I have made all this from criminal conduct; prove it." Such defendants should have to explain the source of their property, how they came to acquire it, and where they got the money to buy their house and cars. If a defendant gives a credible explanation, the burden should be on the prosecution to prove that that explanation was not true; in other words, the burden of proof should be an evidential burden, rather than a persuasive burden. The Government accepted in a number of cases, especially under the Terrorism Act 2000, that that was an appropriate course of action when the burden of disproving was initially placed on a defendant. We believe that the same should happen in this Bill.

There are other problems with Part 2, but I shall not go into too much detail. First, why is a defendant required to claim legal aid for resisting a confiscation order, instead of paying for it out of frozen assets? Secondly, if a confiscation order is made, why does it take priority over the rights of bona fide creditors of the defendant? Thirdly, and I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on this, why does not the law of the rest of the United Kingdom contain the same restrictions on the sale of the family house as Clause 101 does in the case of Scotland? What is sauce for the Scottish goose should be sauce for the English, Welsh and Northern Irish gander.

Part 5 on civil recovery is controversial because it imposes a penalty where there is no criminal conviction. We accept that it should be possible to make a civil recovery order in the absence of a criminal conviction, but we share the doubts of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Justice as to whether, in reality, this is not a criminal remedy rather than a civil remedy; and whether, therefore, defendants should be entitled to the protection given to criminal cases under the European Court of Human Rights. As I said, the designation in the Bill of these proceedings as "civil proceedings" cannot be conclusive.

We need to examine closely the interaction between, on the one hand, proceedings under Parts 2, 3 and 4, and on the other hand those in Part 5. For example, if a defendant is prosecuted but acquitted of a criminal offence, can the enforcement authority still go for a recovery order, based on the same conduct, relying on the lower standard of proof in civil proceedings? If so, is that not double jeopardy? If the enforcement authority goes first for a recovery order—for example, because it is thought at some stage that a prosecution would be unlikely to succeed, or the defendant is abroad and unexpectedly returns—can the person concerned be prosecuted later for the criminal conduct that justified the recovery order, or would that also be a case of double jeopardy?

If the civil proceedings are in fact criminal under the European Convention on Human Rights, it would also seem that any attempt to claim recovery of the benefit obtained from unlawful conduct that occurred prior to the enactment of the Bill will fall foul of the rule against retrospective criminal penalties under Article 7. That point was raised by the noble Baroness.

We are also concerned at the separate system of taking summary proceedings for forfeiture of cash in magistrates' courts. I accept the need for a summary procedure for seizing cash as the first step in obtaining forfeiture, because seizure often has to be done quickly. But forfeiture is a different matter. Forfeiture of property on the basis of criminal conduct, but without a conviction, is a serious matter. It is inappropriate for that to be left to a magistrates' court. I recognise that at present there is power to seize and forfeit cash, which can be exercised by a magistrates' court. But of course there is no corresponding forfeiture proceeding in the form of a recovery order in the ordinary civil courts.

Now that there will he such a procedure, we believe that forfeiture of cash should be dealt with by the same court that has power to order forfeiture of other assets; namely, the High Court. That is particularly so because the minimum level for forfeiture of cash will be quite substantial. We are told that it will be £10,000, so we are not talking about peanuts. These are substantial sums of money. We cannot see the justification for having a different process for forfeiture of cash from that for forfeiture of other assets.

I have no problems with Part 6. Part 7 deals with money laundering. I have some problems with Schedule 6, which is concerned with the regulated sector having to provide the authorities with information if it suspects money laundering is going on.

Under Part 1 of Schedule 6, the definition of the regulated sector limits it to financial services. But Part 3 gives the Treasury power to amend Part I by way of resolution in the statutory instrument under the negative procedure. The European Union has adopted a directive that extends the reporting obligations to sectors such as solicitors and estate agents. We entirely support that move; indeed, it is absolutely right that there should be such an extension. However, this is an important step, and we believe that it should be achieved by the affirmative procedure. I am sorry that the Minister did not go as far as saying that the Government would do that. He simply said that this was a matter for further consideration in Committee. I know that the Law Society has a number of concerns relating to matters such as delays in getting clearances from the authorities. We shall want to probe that matter in Committee.

Part 8 gives extensive powers to obtain information. So far, there do not appear to be any serious problems, but that will need further detailed study.

Part 9 deals with insolvency. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that, in the case of a defendant's bankruptcy, bona fide creditors should have priority of claim to the assets recovery agency. Of course there are some debts that may be bogus or manufactured in order to reduce the estate, but those can be spotted in a proper insolvency procedure. In fact, we would suggest that the director should have power to appoint a nominee as trustee in bankruptcy or in liquidation just for that purpose, in order to scrutinise the debts on the basis that the nominee has a basic knowledge of how criminals would operate in an attempt to create artificial debts.

Finally, we support the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. But the Bill will give the Government very extensive powers. We need safeguards to prevent the abuse of those powers, and we are not at present satisfied that enough safeguards exist.

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

"I should like to draw the attention of the House to the declaration of interests contained in the Register.

"I would like to make a Statement on the announcement Consignia made this morning about its restructuring plan for Parcelforce and the outcome of its review of its distribution systems.

"This announcement, although it is a blow to many hard-working employees and their families, is the first of several necessary steps that will lead to the renewal of postal services in Britain.

"As is well known, Consignia plc—the company running the post office network, the Royal Mail and Parcelforce—has been losing money. Its costs have risen at a time when the rate of growth in mail volumes has slowed, with competition from fax, e-mail and the Internet affecting demand. The company is losing more than £1.5 million every day and Parcelforce Worldwide alone is losing £15 million per month.

"In the 10 years of its existence, Parcelforce has never made a profit and has now amassed losses of close to £400 million. Parcelforce's business model has failed and repeated attempts to make it work over the past 10 years have not succeeded. The losses on parcels have drained investment from the rest of the Post Office. For the sake of the company as a whole Parcelforce now needs to be restructured and restored to profitability.

"It is important to consider how the company got into this position. The British Post Office used to be admired across Europe for its high standards of performance. But in the 1980s and 1990s, other postal services across Europe began to modernise and invest so that they could deliver better services in a rapidly changing market. But successive Conservative governments did not care about improving delivery. They allowed the Post Office to stagnate and starved it of investment. While new technologies and changing markets were transforming the communications sector, our postal services were allowed to drift and decline.

"Since 1997, this Government have given the Post Office the greater commercial freedom to meet these challenges that management and unions had long called for. Greater freedom within the public sector has meant freedom for the company to make more commercial choices. But with freedom comes responsibility—responsibility to control costs, to organise the company to meet the demands of customers and to modernise the way it works.

"Government have a responsibility too—to ensure that the company has the best possible management and the resources needed for investment. This way we ensure that the public and business customers will get the best quality service.

"We have already taken several steps to strengthen the management. Today I have announced that Allan Leighton has been appointed the new chair of Consignia, a role that he has been playing on an interim basis since January. He will be responsible for getting a grip on this situation: to stem the losses; reform the company's industrial relations; and to develop a new vision and strategy for the future.

"Allan Leighton has a proven track record of success in business. I believe he has the determination, drive and energy needed to transform the Post Office's performance. As the interim chair and a non-executive director of the company, he has seen at first hand both the problems that exist in the company but also the tremendous potential it has. He has already spent a considerable amount of time in sorting offices, post offices and delivery offices around the country. He was out there again this morning, talking to some of the workforce about the changes the company announced today.

"These changes are: first, the integration of the universal parcels service into the Royal Mail itself. Under the universal service obligation, which we have enshrined in legislation, the company is responsible for delivering parcels up to 20kg to every part of the country. By giving this responsibility to the Royal Mail the company will create a more efficient service, safeguarding the 30 million parcels sent by the general public every year. This means people will still be able to send parcels from their local post office, just as they do now.

"Secondly, there will be a radical reshaping of the remaining Parcelforce business, which will in future concentrate on high value, time-guaranteed express services.

"Thirdly, there will be changes to the mail distribution system. The existing network of road, rail and air has developed on a piecemeal basis. It has been causing delays, imposing excessive costs and reducing the quality of service to customers. The necessary rationalisation will increase the volume of mail carried by rail. Although the practice of sorting mail on trains will be phased out, bulk mail will now be carried by rail during the day. The total number of road journeys undertaken by Royal Mail will be reduced, as will the number of vehicles used, cutting pollution as well as costs.

"Fourthly, the company is stripping out layers of management and jobs in its operations and support services that are no longer needed as a result of the other changes.

"The company expects that together these changes will mean the loss of 13,000 jobs over the next three years with a further 2,000 jobs going through natural wastage. The company has also made it clear there will be further unavoidable job losses over the next three years, and I will of course continue to inform the House as the restructuring of the company is taken forward.

"I can also announce today, as a contribution to supporting the company as it restructures, that the Government will forgo a dividend for this financial year.

"I understand the deep disappointment that postal workers will be feeling at this news today. This is not a decision the company has taken easily or lightly. But it is one that is unavoidable if we are to create a high quality postal service, offering good and secure jobs. I know that the whole House will welcome the fact that the company will offer as many of those affected as possible the option of continued employment with a different part of the business or a voluntary redundancy package. The company is of course in discussion with the trade unions. And we will do everything we can through the Employment Service, and other agencies, to provide support, assistance and new opportunities to those losing their jobs.

"These are difficult times for the company as management and workforce grapple with their legacy of under-investment, poor industrial relations and undertake the changes that are necessary to face the competitive postal markets of the 21st century.

"I have made it clear to the new chairman that there needs to be an effective partnership relationship between the management and the workforce if we are to deliver this. This was recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, in his report published last year and he believes that there is a genuine commitment to change from all sides within Royal Mall to achieve this.

"The benefits of such a relationship have been demonstrated since the report was published: 1,352 days were lost to unofficial action in the three months from October to December compared to 43, 198 between April and June. This is a tremendous improvement and the whole House will want to see it maintained.

"I am confident, however, that the path we are pursuing is the right one: greater commercial freedom, strengthened management and universal service enshrined in primary legislation. In other words, a delivery to every address in every part of the country—something that strongly underpins today's announcement.

"Today marks a turning point for the company. In the words of the new chairman, the measures announced today,

'will ensure that real progress is made in the first year of a three year strategy to restore profitability, deliver positive cash flow, improve services and make the business a better place in which to work'.

"Central to Allan Leighton and the company's task will be the relationship with the regulator. As honourable and right honourable Members will know, the postal regulator recently announced an extension of the consultation period, a welcome response, in no small part, to the concerns expressed in this House. In the coming weeks, Allan Leighton, the company and the regulator must have further talks and reach a shared analysis of both the company's financial position and the postal services market.

"We know that today's news will come as a blow to many workers. But these changes, however painful, are unavoidable. Today must be the first step towards renewal, creating a postal service that justifies the pride, and lives up to the expectations of the millions of people in Britain who depend upon it every day".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I feel sure that he is as saddened at having to make a Statement of that kind as I am to have to hear it. The current crisis in the Post Office, in my belief, is another public service failure of this Labour Government. It is a direct consequence of the Government's failure to allow the company to modernise in the way that it should and to give it the commercial freedom to deal properly.

Less than two years ago when the Postal Services Bill went through both Houses the then Secretary of State said in the other place of that Bill:

"It will ensure a strong Post Office that is better able to serve all its customers in all parts of the country".

Since then a profit of nearly £400 million has turned into losses currently running at over £1.5 million a day. In the past year alone 547 more sub-post offices have closed and 63,000 days have been lost through industrial action.

There is nothing in the Statement to say why that has happened other than it is the result of years of Conservative government. What has happened has been an absolute disaster. The arrangement was, in the words of the Chancellor's then spin doctor, "a dog's breakfast". I shall not call it that; it was, however, a kind of hybrid animal. The company was not given full commercial freedom so that it was able to compete on a level playing field. Neither was it fully in the public sector and protected against competition. During the same period, companies in Holland and Germany, its main competitors, have become global, world market leaders: all we have is this terrible Statement.

Can the Minister tell the House something about the 10,000 urban post offices that will close? Will Her Majesty's Government compensate the postmasters who will suffer from these closures that now appear inevitable? Sub- postmasters in rural and urban areas run private businesses. They have invested their money. Now it appears they will face worse situations. Will the Government tackle the company's underlying financial problems instead of saying, as they have done, that it is a matter for Consignia? The Government have constrained Consignia from doing things the company felt it needed to do.

The Statement says nothing about the proposals of the regulator to introduce competition in the delivery of postal services. Since the Statement does not say anything, can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government support the regulator? They cannot pretend that they have no responsibility in this matter. This is crucial to the future of the Post Office. Is the timetable set by the regulator realistic? Will the universal service obligation remain a first requirement of the Post Office with an affordable, universal tariff?

The Statement also speaks of 13,000 job losses and a further 2,000 job losses through natural wastage. It also states that there will be further unavoidable job losses in the next few years. What are we talking about? Newspapers are writing about 40,000 job losses, but nothing about job losses to that extent appears in the Statement, simply a reference to further, unavoidable job losses.

The Evening Standard comments on 40,000 job losses being am attempt to stem the £1.5 million that the Post Office is losing every day. Could the figure be worse than 40,000? I shall be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say.

Can the Minister say what the cost of rebranding Consignia back to Royal Mail is going to be? Will he confirm that this whole enterprise was an expensive and ludicrous mistake with no advantage whatever to anybody? Given that Parcelforce itself has lost so much money and the Statement says that it is to be integrated with the Royal Mail, is the Minister certain that it will not cause severe problems for the Royal Mail when it has to take on Parcelforce as part of its operation?

The Statement also mentions changing the distribution service to making far more rail deliveries. Is the Minister confident that the mail can be delivered safely and speedily by rail, given the Government's track record? My final point is that we know that Allan Leighton has a fine business record. Because we wish the Royal Mail—as will be its new name—well, we hope that he succeeds.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place, but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we cannot help but consider the background and history of the Post Office, or Consignia. I must say that my recollection differs somewhat from that of the noble Baroness.

It was not this Government that year after year refused to give the Post Office the commercial freedom it wanted; it was the Conservative government. Hansard should record that, because it would be misleading to those who study Hansard if a wrong impression of history were given. As we all remember, what happened was that during that government's period of office, the Post Office was significantly profitable and the Treasury received significant revenues from it. In the run-up to the 1997 election, the Conservative government were extremely reluctant to allow the Post Office the commercial freedom that it wanted because they wanted to keep the revenue to secure the Treasury's finances.

So we should take no lectures from the Conservative Party about what has happened. The problem was that by the time the present Government gave in to the Post Office's pressure for commercial freedom—presumably the Treasury was overruled at that stage—deregulation had occurred and the Post Office proved to be in an insufficiently strong position to withstand the significant worldwide competition. That is what happened and that is why the Statement is being made today.

The Conservative Opposition cannot have it both ways. Either the Post Office has now been given the commercial freedom that the noble Baroness says that it ought to have had, but which her government never gave it, in which case the criticism is of Consignia, not of the Government, or it has not. As I understand it, the Post Office now has that commercial freedom, which is why the proposals have been brought forward today. Of course, bearing in mind their significance to the United Kingdom economy, it is entirely appropriate that the Minister should make a statement on the proposals, but if the Post Office has that commercial freedom it is not for us to suggest to the Government what they ought to be doing about it. That is a matter for Consignia. Our comments should be limited to what the Government can do. I have two or three suggestions.

First, as an aside, I share the view of the noble Baroness. I am delighted that Allan Leighton has accepted the permanent appointment as chairman of the Post Office. If the Post Office has such commercial freedom, someone of his track record is manifestly well qualified to act as chairman of the company, and the Government are to be congratulated on the arm-twisting that led him to take the job permanently. I must say—although this is a matter not for the Government but for Consignia—that I hope that not all the job losses will be among the poor bloody infantry, to coin a phrase, but that some officers will also bear their share of the costs of necessary restructuring.

I should like to press the Government on one or two matters. First, as they have rightly said—the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, is to be commended on the work that he has done in this area—there have been significant labour relations issues in the Post Office. Those of us who live in certain areas of the country will know that for a long time unofficial action has affected the delivery of the service. I am especially pleased that the Government bring that fact out in the open in the Statement and that the Minister has had conversations with Consignia emphasising the importance of improving employee-employer relationships. There is no doubt that a long- standing, serious problem has affected not only the workforce but the public.

My second point is also within the framework of what the Government can do something about and relates to a fact that still puzzles me about the Post Office. In response to a debate initiated by a Conservative Member earlier this month, the Minister said that the Government were committed to ensuring the maintenance of the universal service obligation. If the regulator determines that there is to be significant deregulation and competition in postal services, how will the Government maintain the universal service obligation? Will they impose a subsidy requirement on companies licensed to compete with the Post Office or will the Government themselves subsidise the universal service obligation? The Minister will be aware that there is significant concern that that decision has not yet been taken. In the light of the commitment that he gave in a recent debate, this may be the opportunity for him to explain how it is to be achieved.

My Lords, I, too, am saddened to have to make the Statement, but I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that it is necessary not because we have denied the Post Office commercial freedom. The Post Office may have made mistakes and not controlled its costs or increased productivity, but we cannot say that it has not had the freedom to take commercial decisions both in this country and in becoming a global player—if that was its strategy. It has had commercial freedom and has made decisions, and it is on the basis of those decisions that it must be judged.

As for the urban network, which is a separate issue, reorganisation is taking place, as it should, which will involve compensation. Despite her statements on commercial freedom, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, also wants us immediately to interfere with Postcomm's proposals. The whole point of having an independent regulator is that he is independent and that the Government do not intervene on the issues that he considers.

My Lords, I did not say whether I agreed, I simply asked whether the Government agree with the regulator's proposals. I did not say what was my view; I asked what was the Government's view.

My Lords, as I explained, the proposals are just that: proposals for consultation. As I said, the regulator has extended the consultation period and it is for him to seek views from the company and everyone else who wants to make representations and then make his decision.

I hope that I did not say—because it is not in the text of the Statement—that Parcelforce is going totally back into Royal Mail, only the part of it that relates to the universal service obligation, which involves parcels weighing up to 20 kg. I also share the respect of the noble Baroness for Allan Leighton, whom I know from personal experience to be a good retailer, which is a skill the Post Office needs. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. The point is that we have given it commercial freedom for the first time ever. What he said was correct: it has had the commercial freedom but not the experience necessary to deliver on what it should have been doing.

It is for management and the trade unions to sort out industrial relations. They must sort them out, if they are to create a profitable and successful business in the new world of commercial freedom. The universal service obligation is the first, overriding responsibility of the postal regulator. That is his priority and comes even before any question of competition. It is not a question of subsidies. The first responsibility of the regulator is to make certain that the company that has the universal service obligation can maintain it profitably.

My Lords, just over two years ago, I had the dubious pleasure of forecasting today's announcement in the House. With due respect to the Minister, his office, and the Minister in the other place, it is no good his trying to blame previous governments for the state we are in today.

At the 1997 election, the people of Britain were asked to vote on a manifesto that included protection of the Post Office, the universal service and the workers in the industry. I declare an interest as a former postman and a former official of the Post Office Workers Union. It is no good blaming other people; we have had five years of this Government. In the first couple of those five years, people messed about and did not make up their mind. We knew what the Government wanted to do, but that was not on the cards. The idea was to give the Post Office commercial freedom. Much has been said about that. The Post Office has had two years to make commercial freedom work. In those two years, nobody has addressed the major problem—underfunding.

In the previous debate, to which the noble Lord. Lord Razzall, referred, I said that one penny on postage would produce £182 million. If it had been two pennies—still the cheapest postal service in Europe—we could have wiped out the deficit that the Post Office faces today. I shall not go on; I will have plenty of opportunity in the future. I hope that the House will debate in depth the Government's failure to honour the commitment that it gave the British people and the failure to maintain the service in which I worked for over half a century.

I could do a delivery to businesses in Hampstead in the morning; do a 9 o'clock collection; deliver parcels between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock; do a 12 o'clock collection; and still go on the sorting before I went home. It is no good the Government blaming Post Office management. The problem is that the service has been starved of the capital it needs to do the job. Parcelforce was always integrated with Royal Mail. It was divided into distribution and collection, and parcels were separated out. People said that that was nonsense at the time, but we had to learn the hard way.

I shall ask a question specifically about the enhanced redundancy packages. The Post Office pension fund is made up of two elements: the former Post Office staff superannuation scheme and the Post Office pension scheme. One of those is a shared cost scheme; the other is based on the Civil Service scheme. Under the trust deed of one of those schemes, there is the ability to enhance redundancy payments by six and two thirds of service, to make it a better deal. I want an unequivocal assurance from the Minister today that no money from the Post Office pension fund will be used to fund the redundancies that are to follow. If I am right in my suspicion that it will be, can I have an assurance that any money that is used will he returned to the pension fund within a reasonable time—a maximum of five years, rather than something like 40 years, which will probably be the Government's answer?

We will have a chance to talk about industrial relations, so I shall not deal with that subject now. Today, I am sad that the predictions have come true. Only one group of people is to blame for the situation in the Royal Mail, Parcelforce and the Post Office: the British Government. They have failed lamentably to serve the British people and the people who work in the postal industry.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, can fairly claim to have foreseen this. However, I think that his arguments were wrong. Today's events have nothing to do with the Post Office Act or with starvation of capital. It is, of course, true that any organisation that has a monopoly and raises prices can get out of trouble, but today's events have everything to do with the management of the Post Office and the situation that it is in as regards costs and the growth of revenues.

Over 10 years, Parcelforce has never made a profit. It has losses of £400 million. That is nothing to do with the Post Office Act. That business has not focused on its structure, adapted itself to the changing marketplace or controlled its costs. After 10 years of losses and two major attempts to put in capital investment, it is now time to make certain that it gets back onto a profitable basis.

I do not believe that it would be possible under the terms of the pension fund for it to be used to make redundancy payments, even if there were a desire to do so. If I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord. Lord Clarke of Hampstead. I think that it is simply not possible, and it would not be desirable.

My Lords, I must press the Minister to answer the question asked from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench today and in the recent debate when he failed to answer it.

We have heard much about commercial freedom, but there is a universal postal obligation, and we have a regulator. We have also heard that the regulator has proposed opening up a substantial tranche of the most profitable parts of the Post Office's business to competition. How can one have true commercial freedom in a situation in which there is a universal postal obligation and a regulator who proposes to open up some of the most valuable parts of the Post Office's business? What happens if that leads to further substantial losses? Those questions were pressed in the recent debate and have just been pressed by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. In the previous debate and again this afternoon, the Minister failed to address that issue.

My Lords, that is not strictly correct. I answered that specific point by making it clear that the first responsibility of Postcomm—the regulator—is to maintain the universal service obligation. That is the regulator's priority. Only when that has been achieved can he consider the question of competitive forces. If he introduces competitive forces and liberalisation, and that means that the universal service cannot be delivered by the body that has the obligation, he will have failed.

In a situation in which there is, essentially, a monopoly, there is no surrogate for market forces unless there is a regulator. Commercial freedom in a monopoly situation is meaningless. The commercial freedom will be within a market situation set by the regulator.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a Post Office pensioner. I am not sure which scheme I belong to—one or the other. This is a sad day for those of us who care about the Post Office. I guess that goes for all of us. However, the appointment of Allan Leighton is good news. I congratulate the Government on securing his services.

In the Statement, the Minister referred to the tremendous potential of the Post Office. I agree with him. In saying that, however, and in saying that the decisions on the monopoly rest with the regulator, had he noted that Allan Leighton is recorded as saying that Postcomm's proposals represented "death by a thousand cuts"? I wonder if the Minister can be so confident of this great potential if the man they have just appointed is right?

Secondly, the Minister will be aware from correspondence of my concern that the regulator, in taking his decisions, may not be required to have regard to the national interest in all respects. I would be grateful if the Minister could, today or on another occasion, enlighten me.

The whole House is concerned about the future of the Post Office. I am not defending a monopoly. I think that to some degree it has to go hut, if we are to emerge from all of this with a very prosperous business, leading the post offices of Europe, it is a case of how fast and how extensively.

My Lords, I share the respect that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has for Allan Leighton. I can only say once again that the overriding responsibility of Postcomm is to maintain the universal service obligation. If he opens up the market and it leads to a failure of that obligation, then to that extent he will have failed.

I know that the noble Lord is particularly concerned about the Post Office having a strong and profitable base in this country, from which it can become an international and global player. I would argue that if one looks across Europe, the strongest players internationally are those which have had to face the toughest competition. It is not at all clear that making certain that your national players have a cosy life—in fact the record is entirely against this—is the way to breed companies which can be very profitable on an international basis. I agree with him, however, that it is important that the Post Office, and the Royal Mail in particular, is not constrained so tightly on a financial basis that it cannot take a global view of its responsibilities.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one can only excuse this Statement if one believes that it is written by a political adviser and not by the Minister at all?

To blame the last Conservative government five years ago for what is happening now is grotesque in the extreme, particularly as the Minister himself admitted that Parcelforce had been losing money for 10 years and had never made a profit. Surely that does impose some condition upon the Post Office, and perhaps even on the Government, to have done something before now?

Everyone blames the industrial relations, and the management must take the chief responsibility for that. My experience of the people who deliver the mail, however, particularly in country districts, is that they are loyal, decent, hardworking people.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, I think that the whole House has a responsibility to the Post Office. At a time when the Government need support over this matter, the sort of Statement they have made will not go down well.

My Lords, the noble Lord made a very telling point when he said that this situation with Parcelforce goes hack 10 years. To say that and then to blame it on the Government seems to me curious. It may be argued that we should have tackled it earlier. We did have a strategy to invest more into it, to try to put it on a sound footing, but we have not been able to do so. However, this has been going on for 10 years.

The point I make is that the Post Office did not have commercial freedom until recently, and commercial freedom is an essential part of this situation. I agree with the noble Lord that there are many areas, as we say in the Statement, where the members of the Post Office work both hard and very effectively in difficult situations to deliver the mail. However, one would be hard put to say that the industrial relations situation in the Post Office was not a major contributor to its difficulties, in particular the very marked service failures in recent years. If this business is to do well in the years ahead, it is absolutely fundamental that it improves that situation. A business like this cannot be run effectively and well if industrial relations continue as they are, taking up so much time.

As Allan Leighton said in a recent letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, "If we spent as much time attacking the competition as we spend attacking ourselves, we would be doing a lot better".

My Lords, I must first declare an interest, because the Commercial Managers Association is a section of Amicus, of which I am a member. Could I ask my noble friend to join with me in expressing sympathy and concern for those who are losing their jobs? They certainly have not had a "cosy life", as he put it.

Perhaps I may now ask about the regulator. The regulator, while he may have extended consultation, was due in April to open up 40 per cent of the most profitable part of the Post Office to competition. Will that he delayed? Will he also be asked to think again about the fact that he is not going down the line recommended to him by the European Commission, and also the fact that we are opening up our market far faster than anywhere else in Europe?

My Lords, I think that I have already said, but let me say it again, that I share the sadness about this Statement because of the many hardworking people who will have to change or lose their jobs. I do not think that I have said anything in the Statement about a cosy life.

It is for the regulator and Postcomm to make decisions about how quickly the market is opened up, subject to the overriding consideration I have mentioned with regard to the universal service obligation. He will have to do that. Thy most important aspect is that there is a proper dialogue between Consignia and the regulator to establish the facts, so that there is a clear view about what is happening and what can be done.

Finally, it is by no means clear that we are opening up our market faster than others. There are certainly some countries which have already opened up their market completely, in situations where the major national post office has maintained a very large share of the total market.

My Lords, may I return to the question posed by my noble friend regarding the closure of sub-post offices?

The Minister in his response to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, said that the Postal Services Act did not have implications. Perhaps I may beg to differ with him. Under that Act, the Post Office has several responsibilities. One is for postal services and one is now to be for a parcel service. The other is the question of how we pay welfare benefits to millions of people.

It is one of the great problems that we have debated in this House. Indeed, we were reassured that it would happen by 2003. I understand that some £480 million was taken from the Post Office to invest in the Horizon project. We were told that it would all happen and that it would be perfectly all right. Now we hear of even more closures of post offices, urban and rural. Pensioners, and many people claiming welfare payments, already spend a good proportion of those payments in actually travelling to get them. If more post offices and sub-post offices close, I do not know what will happen.

This Statement does not refer to the implications it has for the payment of social benefits. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that?

My Lords, this is an issue that I remember well from the Postal Services Act. It was true then and is true now that the Postal Services Act has very little to say about these particular questions. In particular, there is no connection between the question of the new ACT system and the payment of benefits from post offices.

The original question of automation of the Post Office in relation to the payments of benefits goes back long before this Government. What has been debated and changed is the way that has been done.

However, that is an issue about automation of the postal network and the introduction of ACT in 2003. That is on track and moving forward. As I have said many times previously in the House, we are committed to ensuring that people are able to collect their benefits in cash from post offices, as they have been able to do in the past, without any additional charges.

My Lords, I am extremely saddened by the Statement today, having spent most of my life representing the interests of workers and their families. I regard this as another stab at working-class people, who face tremendous difficulties.

I appreciate the Minister's views on commercial freedom and I know what the Conservative government did when they were in power, but I had expected more from a Labour government. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said that this is a matter for Consignia, not the Government. I had always thought that if, as a result of commercial freedom, anything happened which had an adverse impact on working people, then it was the Government's responsibility to intervene. There are many examples of such intervention. If I am not mistaken, I believe that it was a Conservative government that, for example, nationalised Rolls Royce. If the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, thinks that this is a matter for Consignia and not for the Government, perhaps he will take the same view when the next Statement on Railtrack comes before the House. There seems to be a measure of contradiction.

Over the past two decades, I have seen the closure of mines, the closure of steelworks and reductions in the number of people in work. What do we find? We have found that areas of this country are now destitute, with the male working population enormously reduced. We have found considerable increases in the levels of state benefits that have had to be paid. We have also found that many of these areas are becoming havens for crime and vandalism. If we anticipate, as has been reported in the newspapers, that something like 40,000 people are to lose their jobs in the Post Office and 3,000 post offices are to close, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench could tell me whether that will impact on the Government and the public purse in terms of the increased benefit payments that will have to be made?

My Lords, Parcelforce is a business which has been in considerable trouble for some 10 years. During that period it has not made any profit. The situation has grown much worse over recent years as a result of the sharp fall in the number of parcels being sent out in the particular range in which Parcelforce has concentrated most of its business. It makes no sense for Parcelforce or the Post Office not to tackle that situation. If it is not tackled, then the drain on the public purse will simply increase ever more. Parcelforce has to maintain a very large infrastructure while it simply does not have sufficient parcels to process through. Not only does it make commercial sense, it makes national sense to restructure the network.

The final point I should like to make is that the Post Office has made it clear that it will seek to redeploy those who lose their jobs, or deal with the job losses through voluntary redundancy or natural wastage. Every attempt is to be made to redeploy people, but it does not make commercial sense and it is not in the national interest to maintain a large infrastructure serving a parcel delivery service which is declining at a very rapid rate.

My Lords, I suggest that it is safe to say that everyone supports the objectives of the Proceeds of Crime Bill. There is something very unattractive about criminals enjoying the proceeds of their crimes when they come out of prison, even if they have served a long sentence. Of course it is even less attractive when they have never been convicted and thus never punished. We all agree about the end to be achieved, but I have to say that I have serious doubts about the means which have been proposed.

My first doubt concerns whether in reality the elaborate procedure now being proposed by the creation of a new agency will he any more effective in recovering the proceeds of crime than are the existing procedures. Will this new body, which it must be remembered will cost some £40 million over the next two years, be truly cost-effective? That question requires the answer to a preliminary question: why is the existing legislation thought to be working less well than had been hoped? Surely we should be given a satisfactory answer to that question before we throw yet more legislation and yet more new agencies at the problem.

My second doubt is more than a doubt. It arises in connection with Part 5 of the Bill. Is it acceptable for a civil court to have the power to impose what will be in effect a criminal sanction—I have no doubt whatever about that—on a mere balance of probabilities? I suspect that Part 5 forms the centrepiece of the new legislation, but I must say with regret that, as it stands, in my view—with the exception of Chapter 3—Part 5 is simply unacceptable. In due course I shall come back to my reasons for taking that view.

I shall first make three or four short preliminary points. In so far as the Bill consolidates existing law contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended on numerous occasions, and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, it can do nothing but good. At the least the Government should get a pat on the back for that. Perhaps I may add here that I am glad to see that Ministers have not made any attempt to consolidate with the two Acts that I have mentioned the forfeiture provisions contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. As I tried to point out in my report on the question of legislation against terrorism, forfeiture under terrorism legislation serves a quite different purpose. I do not think it can be said that terrorists benefit from their horrific crimes in any ordinary sense of the word and it is that benefit which we are trying to get at with this Bill. I am glad, therefore, that terrorism has not been included in the consolidation.

Some of the provisions in Part 2, covering the consolidation of the two existing Acts, go further than I would like. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned some of them in her excellent and very comprehensive speech. I agree also with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in relation to the reverse burden of proof. Surely it should be made clear that this ought to be what we lawyers call an evidential burden and not a persuasive burden, although I doubt any layman will understand. These are largely matters which should be dealt with at a later stage of these proceedings, not today. I do not propose to say anything more about them.

My second preliminary point is that when we are considering a Bill such as this—which is in part pure consolidation, in part consolidation with amendments and in part brand-new law—I, for one, would find it very convenient if there was a simple way in which one could distinguish what is old from what is new. Otherwise one can spend many hours, as I have spent, ferreting around and, if one can find it at all—it is not always easy—comparing one piece of legislation with other pieces of legislation.

When I was chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills—a post which I can confidently say is the dreariest job in the Palace of Westminster—it was made very easy for us; we could see what was old and what was new. Perhaps the same kind of thing could be done when we are considering the immensely long Bill that we have before us today. Perhaps it could be included in the Explanatory Notes, which would enable us to take a more intelligent interest in the provisions of the Bill and save a lot of time.

My third preliminary point concerns the structure of the Bill. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Goodhart, said about that. If it is any comfort to him, I was just as much confused as he was in trying to find my way around until I suddenly came to a definition many, many clauses later.

Turning to the language in which the Bill is couched, there was a time, not so long ago, when clauses in a Bill consisted of one or more sentences—sometimes quite long sentences, but sentences which one could understand as one went along. Indeed, there was a time, even longer ago, when whole statutes consisted of a single sentence without any punctuation. I do not suggest that we should go back to those days, but have we not gone too far in the opposite direction? I find the staccato method of modern draftsmanship very trying. It reminds me of filling up those endless forms that we all have to fill up in which it states, "If the answer to question four is 'yes', go to question five; if the answer to question four is 'no', go straight to question six" and so on. It is almost as though we cannot be trusted to join up two sentences. Every sentence seems to be a separate clause or a separate paragraph throughout the Bill. Does the Minister know whether this is something that we have wished on parliamentary draftsman, or is it only the fashion of the moment?

My fourth preliminary point is of a different nature. When looking at the proceedings at the Committee stage in another place, it seemed to me that the Opposition Benches put up a splendid and well sustained fight, even if it was not wholly successful. However, I noticed that when they were hard pressed they would say, almost as an argument of last resort, "Well, you wait until this Bill gets to the House of Lords and see what the Law Lords have to say". I seem to be the only Law Lord here today and I feel that I should call up reinforcements. Certainly I feel as though the members of the Standing Committee in the other place are breathing down my neck. I hope that I come up to their expectations, but I doubt somehow that I shall.

Turning to the Bill, Part 1 creates yet another agency—and one almost groans as one says so—which will cost, as I have said, £40 million over the next two years. Will it be cost effective? The main function of the new agency, as I understand it, is to act as the enforcement authority under Part. I shall come back to that. But the director also has what I call a kind of walk-on part in relation to Part 2. He can ask the court to proceed under Clause 6—in which case he must provide statements of information under Clause 17—and will then act as the enforcement authority under Clause 35.

However, I cannot understand why these tasks cannot be equally well performed by the Crown Prosecution Service. Why do we need two separate agencies doing exactly the same thing in relation to Part 2 of the Bill and performing precisely the same functions? How will they divide the work between them? Will they take it in turns? Will they say, "It's your turn now to deal with this and it's my turn to deal with the next one"? It seems to me that this is not only, at best, quite unnecessary duplication of effort but, at worst, a recipe for confusion or, even worse, for disaster.

That brings me back to the question of what the Bill is trying to achieve. What exactly are the shortcomings or defects which Ministers see in the present legislation? How exactly will the new legislation cure those defects? If the Minister was to say—I do not think he has said this yet—that the judges are somehow reluctant to make confiscation orders, or are not to be trusted to make them when they are appropriate, he would be wrong.

Only last month, there was the reported decision of the House, to which the Minister referred, in the case of Benjafield. In that case, the defendant was charged with 14 offences of theft. He pleaded guilty to two of those charges, involving about £5,000, and might have expected a fairly modest penalty. Quite unexpectedly, one imagines, the other 12 charges were simply dropped; the Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed with them. What was the reason? It was perfectly straightforward—the defendant found himself the subject of a confiscation order, based on the two charges, in the sum of £214,000. It would have been £500,000 if that sum had been available, which it was not.

So the existing legislation is working. Judges are not reluctant to make confiscation orders if they are asked to do so. Quite the contrary, they make them whenever they are asked and their decisions are, as we have seen, upheld on appeal.

If the Minister was to say that judges are not asked to make confiscation orders as often as they should be because the Crown Prosecution Service is too busy to do the necessary legwork, then surely the answer is simple—the Crown Prosecution Service should employ more staff specifically dedicated to that task. Why duplicate the task by setting up a new agency?

When the Minister was giving what he said were the defects of the existing legislation, he referred to its complexity. When replying, he may have some difficulty in persuading the House that the proposed legislation is any less complex. Indeed, it seems to be much more complex than the existing legislation.

The true reason why larger sums—more in total— are not recovered is quite different. It is perfectly simple. The sophisticated criminals who operate today are just too clever to be caught with recoverable assets in their hands. If that is the true reason, how will the creation of a new agency make any difference? Is the idea that the Crown Prosecution Service is a tired, old-fashioned organisation and that we need a new agency to inject new life into the idea—new men, new ideas? If that is the idea, I hope that the Minister will say so.

I turn in conclusion to Part 5 of the Bill, which has been described as the centrepiece of the new legislation. Despite the fact that one suspects that Ministers are quite proud of their new Part 5, I noted a rather significant health warning in a Cabinet Office report dated June 2000. It stated that Part 5 might be viewed as contentious by some. That seems to me to be the under-statement of the decade.

The basic objection is simply as follows—and one would have thought that it was shared by everyone. Let us suppose that a person is charged with the theft of a car or a sum of money. He is acquitted by the jury on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt. Along comes the director. He cannot, of course, overturn the verdict of the jury, but all the same he thinks that the car was stolen and he is prepared to prove it, if he can, by calling the same evidence and using the same arguments on a lesser burden of proof—on a mere balance of probabilities. If he succeeds, the car or its value is transferred to another newcomer, called the trustee for civil recovery, who then sells the car and transfers the proceeds back to the director, who hands them over to the state just as if it had been a fine. That is mere facade. What is in fact happening is that the state is enforcing a criminal penalty without bringing criminal proceedings or, worse still, when the defendant has actually been acquitted.

A Home Office Memorandum, dated 7th January 2002, advances a number of arguments in support of Part 5. It says that the critics of Part 5 have got hold of the wrong end of the stick and that the civil recovery proceedings are reparative in nature. It states that society as a whole, not merely the previous owner of the car, has been damaged by the theft of the car and society as a whole is, therefore, entitled to be compensated.

That is simple nonsense. It is the kind of argument which, as Lord Atkin once said in a famous case, might have found favour with the Court of King's Bench in the time of Charles I, but surely should not find favour today. One might as well say that a prisoner's sentence is reparative in nature because in some way he is paying a debt to society.

I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will seek to support the view expressed in the Home Office Memorandum. It was utterly demolished by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its further report on the Bill. Its view is that Part 5 may well fall foul of the European convention. One sometimes forgets that the convention is intended as a minimum, not a maximum, of what is required for the protection of what I still like to call the liberty of the subject. I do not care whether or not Part 5 will fall foul of the European convention. It is sufficient for me that it falls foul of what I regard as acceptable in English law.

Therefore, if any Member on the Liberal Democrat Benches or on the Conservative Benches, or indeed any distinguished lawyer on the Government Back Benches feels bold enough to oppose the Question that Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill, I will give such amendment my fullest possible support—except for Chapter 3, which seems to me to serve a useful, or at any rate a legitimate, purpose.

I shall say nothing more about the other provisions of the Bill. I found 190 pages out of 304 pages all that I could manage.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart complained about the length—or, it might be said, the weight—of the Bill. History records that in 1716 the Act of Attainder passed on my noble kinsman, the 6th Earl of Mar, the confiscation of his estate and the estate's transfer to the commissioners of the forfeit estates. All that took less than one page. So, clearly, confiscation is a matter that we are revisiting. Parliament is familiar with the idea from earlier times.

The Bill sets out to improve the legal system's ability to collect in the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity, and so to take more effective measures to disrupt organised crime and, it is to he hoped, make it less worthwhile. That is clearly necessary, as it would seem that drug trafficking in Scotland may well he worth £800 million per annum—which I understand to be 1 per cent of Scottish GDP.

Of course, my remark about "the legal system's ability" is all wrong—for the Bill deals with all three legal systems within the United Kingdom, and does so openly and constructively. My interest is, inevitably, in the Scottish clauses. However, I fully appreciate that the aim of the Bill is to create as uniform an approach to the proceeds of crime as the three distinct legal systems will allow.

The Scottish clauses exist in the Bill because of the passage of a Sewel Motion in the Scottish Parliament in October last year. Indeed, some aspects of the Scottish legislation have yet to be brought before the Scottish Parliament. The Bill is a good use of the Sewel Motion procedure. However, we must always be on the look-out for significant amendment to the Scottish clauses, because significant amendment would raise the question of what exactly the Scottish Parliament agreed to last October.

The Minister has explained the Bill to the House, and it passes the test of expediency. By that, I mean that it contains several measures which are necessary to improve performance in the recovery of the proceeds of crime. During the passage of the Bill through this House, I hope that the House will be persuaded that the measures are more than expedient, and that they are just.

There has to be some concern about the conditions required to satisfy the court in Clause 94, on making confiscation orders in Scotland. I am encouraged by the Law Society of Scotland to suggest that there ought to be a fourth condition at this early stage requiring a statement of information from the prosecutor. That would be similar to the requirements in Clause 104. I accept that the statement would be somewhat limited because the investigation would be only in its earliest stages, but I believe that it should be there.

Similarly, in the case of restraint orders—in Clauses 122 and 123—the Bill is rather forward in freezing property in all cases at the earliest stage of investigation. I am being encouraged to believe that restraint orders at the earliest stage should be made only if it is arguably necessary, with a real risk of dispersal, rather than on a blanket basis.

In the measures for civil recovery, I hope that there is sufficient imperative to start at the top of the hierarchy, with criminal proceedings, not just an easy option of going straight to civil recovery, or even taxation.

Finally, I must mention the Scottish matrimonial home provisions in Clause 101. It is right to observe the practice of the Scottish courts towards matrimonial homes in existing confiscation legislation. This is not a problem of devolution; it is evidence of an acceptable lack of symmetry between the legal systems, which are rightly pre-Union institutions of considerable antiquity.

I wish the Bill well in its passage through the House. Its heart is in the right place at least. It has been surprisingly well scrutinised in the other place, with more than 115 hours of debate. I welcome that. Ministers will be pleased to hear that I believe that the Bill is not too far from being ready for the road.

My Lords, as one of only three Members of your Lordships' House taking part in the debate who are not Front-Benchers, I already find myself in agreement with much that has been said. I hope that it will not be felt that my remarks are merely repetitive.

For example, one could not fail to agree with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, when he described this as a substantial Bill. Given the number of pages and clauses, to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred, it would be fair to say that it is rather larger than the average novel. One could not possibly suggest that it was not a highly complex Bill. I have tried to read the whole Second Reading debate in the House of Commons, but I have not succeeded in reading anywhere near the whole of the Bill. I was much attracted to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that it should be colour coded so that we know which parts we need to read. If I have misunderstood the intentions behind the Bill or the way in which they are carried out. I hope that it will be put down to the complexity of the Bill. I apologise in advance if I am mistaken in some of the assumptions that I have drawn.

Of course, as everyone has said, the Bill is desirable and welcome. Everyone in the country would agree that any measure that improves the power of the courts, particularly the Crown Courts, to prevent the criminal benefiting from the proceeds of his crime is welcome. Like others in this House, I have spent much of my professional career prosecuting or defending in the criminal courts or sitting as a recorder trying cases at that level. I am, therefore, aware that greed is a major motive of crime and concerned about the enormous profits involved in major crime. That covers the proceeds not only of drug trafficking, but also of major customs fraud, or any other kind of fraud, including long firm fraud, as well as major armed robberies.

I accept that the proceeds of crime have a corrosive effect on society and provide the money to breed further criminal activity. The drug dealer—whether he is dealing in cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy or heroin—is making, or setting out to make, large sums of money at the cost of creating human misery for many other people. Equally, and perhaps in some ways more disturbingly, it was clear when I sat as a recorder that the vast majority of petty crime—one might call it "acquisitive crime"—is a means of obtaining the funds to feed that individual's drug addiction.

Much has recently been said about decriminalising or legitimising the use of cannabis. I have one remark to make about that. No one can decriminalise or legalise the use of cannabis without realising that, in doing so, he will be bound to decriminalise or legalise the supply of cannabis. We cannot make it an offence to supply a person with goods that he is free to use. Unless we sort out the supply before we consider how to deal with decriminalisation, my worry is that we will simply spread the drug dealer's power and influence to start young people on cannabis and then work them through to ecstasy, heroin and the other much more dangerous and addictive drugs.

I have no doubt about the importance of the overall aim of the Bill. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe said so effectively, it is equally important to remember that the responsibility of Parliament and of this House is to scrutinise legislation to ensure that, while achieving laudable and desirable aims, we do not go beyond what is necessary or practical and do not set aside or undermine principles that have been accepted as the foundation of our legal system and our liberty for many years. I refer to three principles: the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof in criminal cases, and the rights of innocent third parties. The Bill has to be tested in detail on how it meets those issues, as well as achieving its main objective. Those principles should be set aside only if it is considered necessary to do so after proper scrutiny of their need.

That leads me to have cause for concern on three areas of the Bill. The first is the whole concept of a criminal lifestyle: on what it is based, how it is proved, and how wide it goes. The second is the right in all cases to seize and recover goods through civil proceedings without recourse to the criminal courts. The third is adequate protection of the innocent third party. In the Bill's laundering provisions, we may be in danger of making the test of negligence rather than the test of knowledge the basis of a serious offence. I shall very briefly deal with those three matters.

If I have understood the position on criminal lifestyle aright, if someone is convicted of any offence in a criminal court and the court is asked to do so by the prosecution, the court must proceed with the process of making a confiscation order. The court has no discretion. When proceeding to make that confiscation order, the court is required, first, to decide whether that person has what is described as a "criminal lifestyle". It must then go on to decide whether he has benefited from his general criminal behaviour. But what is the test of that "criminal lifestyle"? If I have understood the Bill correctly, if the man or woman has been convicted of a drug trafficking offence, that in itself would establish that he or she has a criminal lifestyle. The same would apply if it was a money laundering offence or an offence specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The crime could also be said to constitute conduct forming part of a criminal lifestyle. I was therefore glad to hear the Minister say that he has placed in the Library of the House a list of the likely offences. I was also glad to hear of the Government's intention to amend the Bill as the Minister described.

If the crime meets any of those tests, the court would have to proceed to assume effectively that any property given to that person in the past six years, any expenditure he has made on property in those years, and any property in his possession are the result of his general criminal conduct. If the defendant wished to challenge that, the burden of making that challenge would rest on him. It seems to me that those are fairly draconian powers.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, used an example that I was going to use. Should such powers be used against a possibly rather pathetic defendant with three separate shoplifting convictions in the previous six years? Should they be used against someone who has committed one offence of possessing drugs for the purpose of supply, however small that amount of drugs may be? Or should we include in the Bill a de minimis clause, as the Minister says he plans to do in Part 5? Perhaps better, should we not adopt the proposal by my noble friend Lady Buscombe to give the courts the discretion to decide the type of case in which these powers should be used? If we do not choose one of the latter options, there is a danger that much of the agency's time will be taken up unnecessarily in pursuing minor cases, rather than concentrating on the major cases as it should.

As for the power to recover through the civil courts, I fully understand the argument advanced in the paper from the Home Office that it is still necessary to recover money obtained from crime when the person has died or gone overseas. However, should not the power to use such a provision at least be limited to cases in which there is an apparent reason why criminal proceedings could not be brought and a conviction obtained? I am concerned that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, the Bill's drafting is such that the civil burden of proof could be used to recover goods even in cases where there has been an acquittal, or where a conviction is doubtful, because of the criminal burden of proof.

So I believe that there are issues—the burdens of proof, the presumption of innocence, the risk of not providing sufficient protection for the rights of the innocent—that will have to be examined in Committee. I apologise that part of my speech has been repetitive and somewhat rambling. However, I believe in and support the Bill's principles. I also support what the Government wish to do. Nevertheless, like others who have spoken, I hope that the Government achieve that goal by means that are compatible with and do not endanger some of the major principles of our legal liberty.

My Lords, I feel that I should first declare an interest as a practising criminal lawyer who has had some practical experience of the existing confiscation legislation. As the particular case that I have in mind is still undecided, I say no more about that. However, it does help to have had some practical experience of how these provisions are currently working. Your Lordships will recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked why the current legislation is not adequate.

The Bill's complexity conceals its draconian effect. These confiscation orders are no small beer: they involve the possibility of long sentences of imprisonment in default. In Section 139 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, certain maximum periods are set out for the non-payment of orders. Accordingly, a confiscation order that exceeds £1 million can attract a further 10-year sentence if the compensation payable is not paid, and default on a £250,000 order can attract a five-year sentence. As the Bill's provisions, particularly Clause 14, provide that the confiscation order is to be left out entirely—not taken into account at all—in considering the sentence that should be passed on an offender, the offender could receive, for example, 25 years for a drug offence, but then be subject to an order in excess of £1 million with the possibility of another 10 years should he default. That is how the Bill can operate.

Currently, the prosecution presents its case at trial and may maintain that the defendant is not a major player in events. Nevertheless, if the unit concerned with recovery—not the Crown Prosecution Service, but the police or Customs and Excise—decides that assets have passed through his hands, he would be responsible for those assets regardless of the fact that the prosecution maintains that he has never touched them. He may be an accomplice; he may play a small part in the particular offence of which he is convicted. If he is convicted the assumptions operate, and it is for him to prove what has happened to the assets.

Very often that is a completely impossible burden because the money may have passed to confederates abroad. There is no way in which he will be believed when he gives evidence, nor will he be able to call his confederates to say what they have done with the money that they may have received from, for example, the sale of contraband, or to prove what has been paid to suppliers. Consequently, he will be pursued not for any money that is necessarily in his hands, but for the whole of the money that may simply have passed through a bank account in his name. That is tough. It may be that that is the kind of draconian instrument that we require. I am seeking to establish before your Lordships that the existing legislation is already tough.

I admit to a certain frisson of excitement when I saw an attractive picture of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in one of today's daily papers next to a picture of me, with the headline "Shame on you". That is nothing to the frisson of excitement that will have passed through the relatives of my wife in Scotland, which is where they are at the moment. It is simply daft to suggest that the Opposition Benches in this House are in any way weak on crime and are anxious to support drug dealers or those who have made large fortunes out of criminal activities. That is not the case.

But there is no point in passing legislation through this House that is inconsistent with an Act of Parliament that this Government have already introduced, namely, the Act that placed the European Convention on Human Rights upon our statute book. Therefore, it is necessary to consider to what degree these provisions comply with the provisions of that European convention.

The previous legislation required that the target was a proven offender. In my view, the civil recovery provisions in Part 5 of the Bill have been rightly attacked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who speaks with great authority, as a facade. An entirely new concept is being introduced. The burden of proof circumvents the safeguards that exist for those effectively charged with a criminal offence. That is one of the aspects that, in previous decisions, have caused the judges in this country to say that the current legislation is proportional, but will future legislation be proportional?

Another item on which the courts have relied has been that the prosecutor exercises a discretion to bring proceedings under these provisions. The court also has a discretion. Perhaps I can refer your Lordships to the judgment of the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in the recent case that came before the Privy Council from Scotland. He said:

"The confiscation order procedure can only he initiated if the accused is convicted of a drug trafficking offence. The court is therefore dealing with a proven drug trafficker. It is then incumbent on the prosecutor to prove, as best he can, the property held by the accused and his expenditure over the chosen period up to six years, including any implicative gifts relied on … It is only if a significant discrepancy is shown between the property and expenditure of the accused on the one hand and his known sources of income on the other that the court will think it right to make the section 3(2) assumptions, and unless the accounting details reveal such a discrepancy the prosecutor will not in practice apply for an order".

I pause there. That decision was that the existing legislation is proportional and complies with the Act. It is for the court to "think it right", so the court has a discretion as to whether to apply the assumptions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, continued:

"It would be an obviously futile exercise to seek an order where the assets and expenditure of the accused are fully explained by his known sources of legitimate income. If a significant discrepancy is shown, and in the first instance it is for the prosecutor to show it. I do not for my part think it unreasonable or oppressive to call on the accused to proffer an explanation"—

not to prove where the assets came from, but "to proffer an explanation". That puts into simpler terms the concept of an evidential burden upon the accused rather than the persuasive burden to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in particular, have referred. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said:

"He must know the source of his assets and what he has been living on".

It is proportional; therefore, if the court has a discretion to make the assumptions and if the prosecutor has the discretion to make the assumptions, all that is required of the accused is that he offers an explanation and that he produces evidence in support of his possession of property.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said something similar in the case of Benjafield, in the Court of Appeal:

"It is very much a matter of personal judgment as to whether a proper balance has been struck between the conflicting interests. Into the balance there must be placed the interests of the defendant as against the interests of the public, that those who have offended should not profit from their offending and should not use their criminal conduct to fund further offending. However, in our judgment, if the discretions which are given to the prosecution and the court are properly exercised, the solution which Parliament has adopted is a reasonable and proportionate response to a substantial public interest, and therefore justifiable".

Again, I draw attention to those words. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the current Lord Chief Justice, emphasised the discretion in the hands of the court as to whether to proceed with those draconian provisions against an individual.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made similar points in a Scottish case:

"The Act provides that [the assumptions] can only be made where the accused has been convicted of a drug trafficking offence … In order to embark on this process the crown must first prove that the accused is guilty of such an offence. That is the threshold that first must be crossed".

So, as far as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is concerned, part of the proportionality was that a specific offence had been proved against an individual. Consequently, it is vital, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart has said, that we should know what those offences are on the face of the Bill and that they should not be brought in by a side wind through regulations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, continued:

"Then there is the nature of those offences … The essence of drug trafficking is dealing or trading in drugs. People engage in this activity to make money, and it is notorious that they hide what they are doing. Direct proof of the proceeds is often difficult, if not impossible. The nature of the activity and the harm it does to the community provide a sufficient basis for the making of these assumptions. They serve the legitimate aim in the public interest of combating that activity. They do so in a way that is proportionate. They relate to matters that ought to be within the accused's knowledge, and they are rebuttable by him at a hearing before a judge on the balance of probabilities".

There the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, focuses upon specific allegations with which a person can deal and not upon a broad concept. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, referred to a broad concept of a criminal lifestyle that is almost impossible to define.

The Government cannot rely—as did the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—upon the decisions which have taken place under the existing legislation. They cannot rely on the fact that this legislation is proportionate when it invades the very matters which affected the judges who came to the conclusion that the existing legislation complies with the European convention. For that reason, we shall consider in detail in Committee the provisions of the Bill.

Having said that, we entirely support the concept that criminals should not enjoy the fruits of their crime. That is obvious. But we also support sensible, fair and just legislation which will not be struck down at some future date. We also support the creation of a properly funded agency to take over from the hard-pressed units of the police and Customs and Excise. I have seen them in operation. Their morale appeared to me to be low. I may be wrong. With wholly inadequate resources, they sought to grapple with the very clever criminals whose means of concealing crime are multifarious.

There is much in the Bill to discuss in Committee. We shall do our best to improve it.

My Lords, the quality and comprehensiveness of your Lordships' contributions to the debate today have made my task easy. The Opposition thoroughly support the objectives of the Bill.

As my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said, the proceeds of crime have a corrosive effect on society and in themselves breed crime. But, at the same time, I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will agree with me that the Bill changes, in some respects dramatically, the balance of power between the state and the citizen. I hope that he will further agree that it is right that your Lordships' House should scrutinise the text extremely carefully.

My contribution will be in inverse proportion to the length of the Bill. I propose to refer only briefly to three parts. Part 2 was addressed by almost all noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, congratulated the Opposition in another place and the Liberal Democrat Party for the excellent way in which the Bill was scrutinised in Committee. I believe that there were no less than 39 sittings.

At least two important concessions were made by the Government as a result of that process. The first was the undertaking to schedule a list of offences which were likely to give rise to the definition of criminal lifestyle and we welcome that. The second was the decision to apply the affirmative resolution procedure to any new offences which would fall within the definition of criminal lifestyle. We think that both initiatives are very constructive. We are much obliged for them.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the most difficult paragraphs in Part 2 are connected with the definition of a course of criminal conduct. It could be satisfied either by offences which were very grave or which were rather trivial. In circumstances where the offences which gave rise to the mandatory assumption were, let us say, three shoplifting offences I share his view that the Bill's reaction is disproportionate. When the noble Lord tables an amendment to the provision, the Opposition Benches will support the solution he proposes: that there would be circumstances where a judge might take the view that it is wholly unreasonable to move from such a course of criminal conduct to the mandatory assumptions.

I hope that noble and learned Lord will reflect on that issue between now and Committee stage. Another place gave some consideration to the matter. I know that your Lordships' House will be thinking carefully about it again.

I make two further points, telegraphically, on Part 2. One is the obvious point about the difference in the treatment of the family home between Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. In my submission, that is in principle discriminatory and could well fall foul of the provisions of the Human Rights Act. The other refers to a point made most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when he distinguished between the persuasive and evidentiary burden in circumstances where the burden of proof is reversed in criminal matters. Again, I share his views on that.

With regard to Part 5.1 need do little more than refer noble Lords to the remarkable speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I entirely endorse his conclusion that it is highly likely that the courts would decide that the procedure laid down in Part 5 is of a criminal and not a civil nature. If that conclusion is correct, Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies and would condemn those parts of the Bill which gave force retrospectively to Part 5.

Moreover, a decision in favour of the agency under Part 5 could be reached by evidential rules which were much lighter than the rules which apply in a criminal case—with regard to the balance of probability and with hearsay evidence and compelled evidence also admissible. For such a grave outcome for the individual, those rules of evidence are not tight enough. They do not provide the individual with sufficient protection.

I refer again to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Were the civil procedure to follow a failure to convict, much of the evidence that arose in the criminal trial could be re-run in the civil trial to favour the state. Equally, a decision to recover under Part 5 in the civil trial could be used in a subsequent criminal trial, perhaps calling into question a presumption of innocence. Therefore, although the Opposition entirely understand the point underlying Part 5, and would not go so far as to say that it should not be there, they believe that the procedures implied by the civil approach are not sufficiently tight to guarantee the protection we would expect for the citizen.

Finally, so far as concerns the procedures with respect to money laundering, we wonder whether a negligent act by a professional in a City firm should give rise to the penalty of imprisonment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think again about that issue too.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Subject to certain reservations, the overall effect of the speeches by noble Lords is support for the legislation; and for that we are grateful. The importance of the legislation was explained by my noble friend Lord Rooker in opening the debate. I welcome the comments made by your Lordships in support of what he said. I welcome the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, based on his experience as a criminal practitioner and judge, as to the corrosive effect—I use the language of he noble Lord, Lord Kingsland—of the proceeds of crime, if we cannot remove them from the system, if we cannot starve criminals of their working capital. Removing the working capital of crime—removing the role model to which peaceful enjoyment of the proceeds of crime gives rise—is an important objective. I am glad that it is shared generally in the House.

However, the present system does not produce the results. It is estimated that the value-added of drugs is 1 per cent of GDP—perhaps as much as £8.5 billion in the United Kingdom—but less than £20 million was recovered in 2000–2001 by the existing procedures. Therefore, a key issue is to have a workable Bill. I noted the promise made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. If I took down her words accurately, she said that it was the will and wish of the Opposition to assist the Government to achieve a workable piece of legislation. The Government will be happy to judge that promise by the results of what takes place in Committee In that connection, it will be important to discover whether the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, of at least part of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said in relation to Part 5 actually amounts—I thought he was working towards it—to denaturing Part 5 to such an extent that it would not work. That would not provide a workable Bill, and I shall return to that point.

In a Bill of this size, it is inevitable that there will be divergent views on some issues. My fundamental point is that we very much hope we can work together in Committee to ensure that the Bill's central themes are not significantly weakened. Although a balance has to be struck about which there is no difference of view, the Government's overall approach is to ensure that the legislation is not applied unfair ly or disproportionately. We owe a duty to the public to ensure that the law is not reduced to such a level that it renders the legislation powerless to act against those who will take every opportunity to circumvent its effect.

I shall do my best to deal with the points that have been raised. It is helpful to know what issues will be raised in Committee. However, some points are perhaps more appropriate for Committee Stage than Second Reading, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if' I omit some of them. I do not intend, however, to tread the interesting paths started by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and continued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, about the quality of the draftsmanship, the absence or presence of punctuation, or whether it is right that Scotland should have its own provisions separately set out in a single, comprehensive part. No doubt parliamentary counsel will read their comments with interest. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said in opening the debate, this is a complex and heavy Bill. We shall do what we can outside this Chamber to assist noble Lords who seek such assistance to understand how the Government believe the legislation will work. I make that offer to noble Lords.

I deal, first, with Part 1 of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Rooker said that this Bill is part of a wider programme, including the provision of funds for more financial investigators. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked whether the establishment of the new agency would result in a loss of existing expertise in financial investigation. I can assure her that that certainly will not happen. There is a need to improve Financial investigation skills. The priority to be given to financial investigation was a key recommendation of the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, which preceded this Bill, in June 2000. The agency will not entirely take over confiscation investigations from existing law enforcement agencies. However, it will share the confiscation functions of the law enforcement and prosecution authorities.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked whether it was necessary to have a new agency. The Government's view is that it most certainly is necessary. If I may draw on my own experience, I have seen the operation of a similar agency established in Dublin, and I have been much impressed by the joined-up way in which it is working with tax, Customs and police authorities, and financial investigators. I am quite satisfied that the PIU's recommendation that there should be a separate agency is a good one.

We need the legislation because of the defects in the current scheme. Those defects are referred to in the PIU's report, and many of the concepts contained in the Bill derive from the recommendations of that report. It emphasised that the present confiscation law has been developed in a piecemeal fashion, which has contributed to its under use. The fact is that confiscation orders are currently made in only 10 per cent of drug trafficking cases, and overall in only 0.3 per cent of criminal cases.

The problems of the present scheme were identified in summary by my noble friend Lord Rooker in opening. For example, the separate treatment of drug-trafficking and other criminal activity renders the legislation ineffective against sophisticated criminals, because it is often impossible to distinguish between the proceeds of drug trafficking and the proceeds of other crime. Modern technology allows funds to be transferred with sophistication and speed, which means that it is necessary to have new investigative powers in order to be able to trace them.

I turn to the parts of the Bill dealing with criminal confiscation, Parts 2 to 4. I did not detect any disagreement from the noble Lords who spoke as to the principles that lie behind those parts of the Bill. Let me therefore address some of the specific points that were made, if only to give an idea of what we would say in Committee if probed on them.

First, I turn to the discretion to make a confiscation order. Under existing legislation, the position in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to drugs is to make such an assumption—I hope your Lordships will forgive me for switching slightly between assumptions and the making of an order—following conviction for a single drug-trafficking offence. If one reverts to the question of the order itself, it is very important to consider what safeguards are in place. First, there is a discretion vested in the prosecutor. Will the prosecutor apply for the order at all? Secondly, there is an ability to rebut the assumptions that exist. Thirdly, the court must not make an assumption if to do so would result in a serious risk of injustice. That is an important matter and one to which I shall return, because it relates to a number of points made by noble Lords.

I turn to the issue of criminal lifestyle. Again, the fact that assumptions must be made by the court is already the position in relation to a single drugs-trafficking offence under existing legislation. The question with which we are concerned therefore is the definition of "criminal lifestyle" and how it will operate. I am grateful that the Government's intentions, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Rooker in opening—to produce a schedule of the lifestyle offences and to accept the recommendation of the committee in that respect—were welcomed.

In that context, I return to the issue of serious risk of injustice. Some examples raised by noble Lords were precisely the circumstances in which one would anticipate the court saying, "There is a serious risk of injustice in making the assumption in this case, having regard to what we know about this offender and having regard to the specific circumstances of the offence". That is an important safeguard to be borne in mind.

Two issues were raised in relation to the burden of proof. One was the persuasive and evidential burden and the other the standard of proof. It was suggested, as it was suggested in another place, that an evidential rather than a persuasive burden should be placed on the defendant. The Government's view has been that a persuasive burden is necessary. Why is that the case and what is the difference?

I take the example of an allegation in the course of proceedings that there is an unexplained transaction of £10,000. If all that the offender is required to do to discharge the evidential burden is simply to say, "I am a gambler", it will place on the prosecutor a difficult if not impossible obligation to prove where that £10,000 came from. It is in the nature of the sorts of transaction with which we are concerned that there are no paper trails which can be followed for the proceeds of drug trafficking, trafficking in humans, or whatever the behaviour may be.

My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord agree that it would be perfectly possible for someone who was claiming that winnings were the result of gambling to provide a genuine paper trail which would show that he had won a substantial bet, but would fail to show that he had simultaneously made a large number of losing bets? Is not the right way to deal with that problem to make it clear that winnings from gambling should not be regarded as providing an excuse for treating those assets as having been acquired by legitimate means?

My Lords, I am grateful for the spirit which moved that observation. But the ultimate proposition that the Government should say that proceedings of gaming are illegal and can be recouped by the state may surprise some people. The noble Lord's point tends to support rather than undermine my point; that is, if one simply allows a defendant to raise the possibility to discharge the evidential burden by saying, "I got it from gaming", for example, and then places on the prosecutor the obligation to demonstrate where it came from, it would defeat a lot of the object of the Bill.

The question was raised as to whether or not such a burden is compatible with the ECHR. There is no rule of the ECH R that reverse burdens are not legitimate; indeed, the cases to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred in his opening address are exactly such cases. The cases of McIntosh and Benjafield. to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred, are cases in which there is an actual reverse burden and they have been accepted by the highest courts, as has Phillips in the European Court of Human Rights itself.

The question of the family home was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland. As was explained in another place, the difference in treatment between Scotland and England and Wales reflects existing differences in the law of those countries. The provision in Scotland replicates earlier Scottish confiscation legislation in the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, which itself developed an earlier provision along the same lines in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. That in turn reflects the fact that under a 1981 Act—we are going back a long way—Scottish law provided a right to occupy the matrimonial home to spouses who were not owners or tenants and provided for the protection of occupancy rights in a way that is different from English law.

The difference in treatment reflects the difference in protection of spouses' rights in Scotland. Both propositions in a sense have an argument of principle in their favour. On the one hand, if these are proceeds of crime, why should they be capable of retention under any circumstances? On the other hand, it may be argued that family circumstances may justify the retention even of unlawfully obtained proceeds of crime. Both arguments, in principle, are justifiable positions to take. It does not seem to the Government that there is a way of immediately producing a common approach between them. However, we shall continue to reflect on the matter and to monitor the operation of all three parts closely in any event when the Bill is in force.

I turn now to the question of creditors. I can deal with this quite quickly in view of the hour. It was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I draw a distinction between the position of secured creditors and that of unsecured creditors. Secured creditors—those who have an interest in the property—will, as the Bill shows, be able to have their interest recognised and generally protected. But if all debts were given priority over confiscation what would be the consequence? Let me suggest at least two. First, spurious creditors would emerge claiming that they have a prior debt outstanding against the defendant. In reality they could be criminal associates of the defendant. That would be difficult to prevent and would greatly weaken the compensation system. Or defendants could acquire services on credit to defeat the confiscation process.

An unsecured lender exposes himself to all sorts of risk. I accept that that would be one more risk, but nut one of a different order. However, it may turn out that the person to whom he lent the money is unable to pay it back on this occasion because it turns out that his assets are the proceeds of crime.

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised the question of potential double recovery. Under Clause 14 the court has discretion to take forfeiture orders into account, so that is a matter for the court. In cases where there is no forfeiture order, it does not seem right to take into account the purchase price of drugs. In any event, the limit on what the court can do relates to the amount of available assets—the money that the defendant actually has. That is an important observation.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why legal fees could not come from the restrained assets. As the House knows, the line taken by the Government is that legal aid will be available when it is not possible for legal expenses to be met. Legal fees should come out of assets that are not the contested proceeds of crime.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, painted a dramatic picture of penalty being imposed on penalty, but under Clause 8 the court cannot make an order for confiscation that is greater than the available assets of the defendant. Therefore, the example that he gives is of someone against whom an order of the court has been made but who refuses to comply with it. That is the case in relation to other orders, fines and so forth.

In my experience, if it is claimed that a person's recoverable assets are nowhere near the benefits that have passed through his hands, he is said to have hidden assets. That is the situation to which I was referring.

Those cases will be judged by the court, having regard to material that is put before it and subject to appeal. Therein lies the safeguard.

Generally speaking, civil recovery appeared to be supported by most noble Lords, save the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I start with the question of the classification of this part of the Bill. It is an important issue with important implications. Is it a criminal matter or a civil one? As a matter of domestic law, these will be civil proceedings. But that is not conclusive under the European convention. The Government's view, having regard to the factors that the European jurisprudence requires, is that on balance this is civil and not criminal. The reasons are summarised in the memorandum from the Home Office which is printed in the Joint Committee's report.

On the confiscation proceedings, the jurisprudence is crystal clear. Oddly—as some might think—but accurately they are civil, not criminal, in nature. That is the effect of the Benjafield case, the Phillips case and the McIntosh case; and that is why Article 6.2 provisions do not apply after there has been a conviction. The question is whether or not freestanding civil recovery is in a different position. The Government's view is that it is not. It is not a form of prosecution. The purpose is not to secure a finding of guilt, let alone a conviction or imprisonment. It focuses on property and how it was obtained. There is no necessary implication that the person holding it is guilty. Only property that has been unlawfully obtained, or funds obtained for it, can be recovered.

The elements of civil procedure apply in the process. That is why the Government take the view that it is civil in nature. There is much case law but now is not the time to debate it. The Joint Committee considered that the existing case law did not conclude the issue either way. However, the Government consider that the case law points much more strongly than was suggested by the Joint Committee, as does Irish case law. Similar legislation has been examined at the highest level in the Irish courts.

The second question is how civil recovery will operate. If the issue were criminal in nature there would be concerns about Article 7 of the Convention, but not if it is a civil issue. That is why the limited amount of retrospection that the Bill provides is justified in the Government's view.

Thirdly, I turn to the safeguards under this procedure and I invite noble Lords to consider them. The director has discretion as to whether to bring civil recovery proceedings. The burden of proof is on the director and civil recovery proceedings will be governed by the civil procedure rules. There will be protection for third parties who have an interest in the property, and those who have purchased for full value in good faith and without notice will not have to give it up. The court also has an important residual power not to include in a recovery order measures that are incompatible with rights under the ECHR. That is expressly set out.

As these are civil proceedings in the Government's view, the standard of proof is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. All noble Lords who have experience in the courts will know that, in practice, the High Court requires more cogent evidence when a claim involves an allegation of criminal conduct than it would for that of negligence.

I emphasise the hierarchy. This is not being put forward as a soft option to prosecution. The Government have made it clear that the first priority will be a criminal prosecution and not civil recovery as an alternative to it.

The money-laundering provisions received some attention from your Lordships. These were debated in another place, and I look forward to the further discussions that we shall have in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the training that all employers are required to provide under the Money Laundering Regulations 1993. The concern that the negligence offence is unfair overlooks the fact that the offence in Clause 330 of failing to report to the authorities is permitted only if the prosecution proves that money laundering was planned or undertaken.

In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Government have undertaken to strengthen NCIS's capacity to handle more suspicious transaction reports and have invested in ensuring that the systems are efficient and effective. No doubt we can provide the noble Lord with further information.

In conclusion, noble Lords have identified areas of the Bill that they wish to scrutinise. As always we welcome such scrutiny. We note that the Bill has been subjected to considerable scrutiny already, but improvements have been made. Certain matters, although looked at in detail by the Government, were not accepted. Subject to the changes that were identified by my noble friend, the amendments meet the concerns that have been raised. We all agree that the Bill is important. It should be proportionate—or just, to use the word of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The Government believe that it is and we look forward to working with your Lordships to ensure that the important principles of the Bill are not undermined, thereby making it unworkable. I commend the Bill.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

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

"I would like to make a Statement on the bid for Railtrack plc made today by Network Rail.

"As the House will be aware, Railtrack was taken into administration on 7th October as a result of a High Court Order. As Mr Justice Lightman said at the time:

'This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential, and I shall therefore make that order immediately'.

"The reason Railtrack was put into administration was that it was, or was likely to be, unable to pay its debts. But let us remember that it had failed to maintain the railway safely and properly. It had failed to gain a proper understanding of its assets. Hatfield and its aftermath demonstrated this. And it had failed to manage modernisation projects like the West Coast Main Line.

"Let us not forget that Railtrack was at the heart of the flawed and failed privatisation carried out by the Tories. The Government have always said that what we need is a successor to Railtrack that is focused on the public interest and on the needs of passengers.

"Railtrack has made some progress during administration under the management of John Armin. His appointment as chief executive has been widely welcomed in the industry.

"I agree with the Transport Select Committee which said:

'It is imperative that the process of administration be completed as soon as possible'.

"Because of the difficulties in putting together a business plan and the limited knowledge this company has of its own assets, the administrator has indicated that there will be further delays in launching his competitive process.

"What we need is an end to administration so that the improvements we all want to see to the country's rail infrastructure can be delivered as soon as possible. There is therefore a value to the Government, the taxpayer and rail users in an earlier exit from administration. Network Rail's bid reflects this approach. Network Rail say that its proposal could if accepted take Railtrack plc out of administration as early as the end of July 2002.

"Network Rail is a company limited by guarantee. It will not have shareholders so it will not be paying out dividends. Unlike Railtrack, its operating surplus will be re-invested in the rail network. Its core focus will be the maintenance and renewal or Britain's railways. It will focus on the needs of the travelling public, not short-term profit for shareholders. It will be able to raise capital for investment more cheaply. A better deal all round for the travelling public.

"The Government have always said that Railtrack shareholders should get the value in the company to which they are entitled. Railtrack Group has assets that could be used to provide value for its shareholders. My understanding is that Railtrack Group has over £350 million in cash deposits and an interest as owner in section 1 of the Channel Tunnel rail link and some property interests.

"The Government have indicated that a grant of £300 million will be made available to reflect the benefits of an early exit from administration. If such an early exit is not achieved then the money will not be available.

"An earlier exit from administration, resulting in a more focused and efficient rail network operator, would lead to the quicker realisation of efficiency savings; it would reduce performance penalties; and it would allow 10-year plan projects to proceed more quickly.

"Network Rail's proposal, based on the concept of a company limited by guarantee, is designed to be more efficient than Railtrack, with lower financing costs and no dividends to pay. That is why the Government are prepared to make this payment.

"For the Government it will be self-financing from savings that will be made. It therefore follows that if there is not an early exit then the savings will not be made and in such circumstances the £300 million will not be available.

"Since Railtrack was taken into administration the Government have said that every single penny of taxpayers' money must be used to improve the rail network. That is exactly what this grant of £300 million will do. It will benefit the travelling public. That has to be our top priority.

"The administrator has said that he is actively reviewing Network Rail's proposal in the context of administration. If the bid were successful, it would enable a company limited by guarantee to become the successor to Railtrack. As the House will know, the Government have said all along that they view a company limited by guarantee as an attractive successor body.

"Network Rail is committed to engineering excellence. Its bid has the potential to bring the rail industry together and overcome the fragmentation that has all too often characterised it in the past.

"It is now for the administrator to decide how he should conduct the process in the light of today's bid. He has confirmed that he will treat any further proposals that might be made on their merits. Getting Railtrack out of administration must be done on the basis that it will produce a viable, financially sound company, one that takes a longterm perspective and that puts the emphasis first and foremost on operating a safe, efficient and reliable rail network.

"Taking action on Railtrack has been criticised by some, including the Tories. But today's developments demonstrate what can be achieved: a railway system that is united and not fragmented: a railway industry with a shared strategic vision; a railway industry that values its employees and will invest in them; and a railway network provider that will answer to the millions of passengers and not to private shareholders. This is all now possible as we lay to rest Railtrack and develop a railway system for the future".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for reading the Secretary of State's Statement to the House and commiserate with him for having to do so. I understand why he read it with some speed, for this is nothing short of the U-turn of all U-turns. It must be quite embarrassing for the Minister to have to be associated with it. Far more, it is a real affront to the intelligence of Parliament, to the investors in Railtrack and to the British public As the Secretary of State knows, there were, and remain, serious concerns about the actions he took to put Railtrack into administration, the subsequent cost to the taxpayer—which looks now like amounting to far more than if Railtrack had been given the money for which it was asking—and the effect on the shareholders, which was dismissed at the time as being of no relevance.

It is six months since the Secretary of State impetuously pulled the rug on Railtrack, plunging the administration of the rail service and the viability of the company into uncharted waters, the individual shareholders who had invested for their pensions into potential penury, and the large investment companies into apoplectic disbelief.

Now we have a brief statement extolling the virtues of bringing the administration to an end by accepting a bid from Network Rail which is a company limited by guarantee. One of the reasons given for pushing ahead at this stage to finalise the successor to Railtrack—the company limited by guarantee—is that it will bring the costly administration to an end at an earlier stage.

Those costs are running at about £1 million a day. So if that were to be the case it would be welcome. But no one but the Secretary of State seems to think that there is the least likelihood of achieving that before the middle of 2003, whatever measures are adopted. So will the Minister give an indication of how much more expenditure he believes that the taxpayer will have to provide before this part of this sorry mess is resolved?

The company limited by guarantee—a creature previously unknown in major projects—has no shareholders. The Secretary of State has pushed it forward as the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the dilemma that he has created for himself, ignoring the fact that other consortiums were positioning themselves to bid which might provide more favourable terms.

The Minister has said that the administrator has said that there will be further delays to launching the competitive process. So will the Minister indicate whether this process is still to be followed at some unspecified time, when other bids will be judged against Network Rail? Or is the reality of the situation that this is to be a single tender to get the Secretary of State off the hook and that there will be no other options considered as to the most effective economic and administrative structure? In any other public authority this would be against standing orders and against financial instructions.

The Secretary of State has also made a feature of the fact that this company will have no shareholders. On whom will the company fall back if there are any further financial problems—the taxpayer?

Will the Minister also advise us as to whether or not the Government will be seeking representation on the board of Network Rail or any other CLG to protect their investment in both the Strategic Rail Authority and the train operators to whom they provide heavy subsidies? Will the Minister say how, without shareholders, the board of the company can be held to account? Is he satisfied that the Secretary of State has no conflict of interest since he employs the administrators, he is bidding for a company offered for sale by the administrators, and he is providing public funds to support Railtrack's successor? In all this the Secretary of State leaves many more questions unanswered than answered. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us.

I turn now to the benighted shareholders. So far, having barely had any truck with their problems, now in his Statement the Secretary of State says that the Government's position has always been that shareholders should get the value in the company to which they are entitled. But that hardly fits with his statement to shareholders quoted in the independent on 21st November that,

"There is no question of using taxpayers' money to compensate the shareholders for what was basically a bad investment".

The Secretary of State has gone from dismissing shareholders' claims as hardly justifying more consideration than their valueless share certificates, to an admission that they have to be recompensed and by the taxpayer.

Whether the proposed pay-off which amounts to a share value of £2.50, which is 30 pence below their value at the time the Secretary of State pulled the plug, will be sufficient is obviously yet to be decided by their representatives and legal advisers. But presumably the Government have a fall-back position if the shareholders do not accept this offer. It is certain, however, that the threat of legal action, as well as to future investment by the City in PPP, has finally convinced, if not the Secretary of State, then the Prime Minister, that more than the railways is at stake here.

The Secretary of State has now promised the shareholders £1.3 billion, but has fudged the Government's responsibilities for this whole sorry mess by leaving it to the new company limited by guarantee to raise that amount—£300 million from government sources— that is to say, to be taken from the £65 billion promised to the Strategic Rail Authority for the 10-year plan so recently discussed in this House. Perhaps the Minister will say whether that £300 million is to be available only to Network Rail or will it be made available if at any stage any other company is considered as a bidder? There is to be £200 million from the City and £90 million from the sale of assets which include, apparently, the yet unfinished Channel Tunnel rail link.

It is to be hoped that all this money is actually available and will not involve the company in additional borrowing in order to fund the shareholders' compensation. This whole saga is indeed a sorry tale and I doubt we have heard the last of it.

My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for making the Statement. However, I start from the position that we are here because the railways were privatised and that responsibility for the whole sorry shambles which has gone on since must be laid at the doors of the people who supported it and the method of privatisation.

Am I right in saying that the costs of administration are being borne by the shareholders and not the Government? I believe that to be the case. It is quite important. What are we paying £300 million for? I am talking about "us", the public. Is it going to the shareholders? It is not going to buy a single new sleeper, piece of rail or anything we might want. Is it just for buying off the shareholders from pursuing a law suit, which I do not believe they would win? I believe, like the shareholders of Marconi, that people who invest in something which is not viable deserve to lose their money. I have no sympathy with them. I have sympathy with people in Railtrack who may have been paid in shares, but I do not have sympathy with people who gambled on the Stock Exchange and lost.

Will it make Railtrack plc more efficient in the discharge of its functions? It is nothing to do with making the railways more united, I believe the Minister said. That is the job of the Strategic Rail Authority. It has nothing to do with giving the railways a shared strategic vision. That is the job of the Strategic Rail Authority. I do not believe it has anything to do with what we have heard today.

I believe that it might be more to do with cosying up to certain money men in the City. I was told very authoritatively last week by someone who is extremely well known as a company director—I must not say who he was—that money is available to support good schemes on the railways. That is private money in the City and he has a lot of it. So any suggestion that there is not the money for schemes is also wrong. We should not listen to a few fund managers in the City who whine and write letters to The Times. They do not represent the whole of the investing public.

I am not saying—I do not believe we ever have—that the Government are wrong, because we do not have the facts. They are not in the public domain. But we are very suspicious that this is the same story that we were told about the Underground. What we are trying to do is make PH deals and SPV deals risk-free, which they ought not to be because someone ought to carry some risk in such matters. One pays substantially more for money that way than by funding it through bonds or from ordinary public funds. It is a great deal cheaper than many of the fancy ways of getting money which are favoured by the Minister's friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but which I believe are not favoured by everybody.

Finally—and I mean this very seriously—can we have an assurance from the Minister that whatever shenanigans are going on between Mr Byers, Mr Brown, the Treasury and these companies, the money is being made available on a day-to-day basis to keep the railways safe for passengers to use—after all, we run them for the passengers and not the shareholders—and that the necessary money is available for the modernisation schemes which have to carry on? We cannot just stop the railways for years while this awful mess is sorted out.

My Lords. I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Her first question was what expense was being saved. What is made clear in the Statement is that if there is early exit from administration, that will have the effect of allowing the railways to go forward. There will be efficiency savings in that regard. It will enable the railways to focus on their core business. I believe that every sensible person will agree that the quicker administration comes to an end the better. The view taken, as my right honourable friend said in another place, by the Transport Select Committee is that it is imperative that the process of administration is completed as soon as possible. I think that everyone recognises that there will be savings if the process comes to an end as quickly as possible. Making available the £300 million acknowledges that; it seems to us a sensible course. Our concern in all of this must be the travelling public.

The next question asked by the noble Baroness was whether the competitive procedure is still to be followed or whether it is to be "a single tender", in breach, as she would put it, of all organisations' standards of order. It is a matter for the administrators to decide what is now the right course in the light of the approach that has been made. They must judge what is the right course.

The noble Baroness said that there would be no shareholders on whom to fall back. As she knows, where a company is limited by guarantee, it has guarantors instead of shareholders. Of course, shareholders in Railtrack were not going to come forward with the additional money required, so there is a parallel between guarantors and shareholders.

My Lords, who are the guarantors?

My Lords, as was made clear at the outset, the guarantors will be a range of people representing the whole industry. In answer to her next question—will the Government be seeking representation on the board?—the SRA will be represented on the board. Her next question was: am I satisfied that there is no conflict of interest? She will recall that when the CLG bid was being put together, responsibility for it was placed in the hands of the SRA. Mr Ian McAllister, former chairman of Ford Great Britain, was put in charge of running that bid. The CLG bid is therefore coming from a non-departmental public body separate from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

The noble Baroness next asked: will the money come from the £65 billion? As has been made clear throughout, the sum is self-financing because of the savings made by an early exit from administration. Will the money be available to any other bidder? The principle underlying the £300 million is that it is a sum for an early exit from administration, so if another bidder put forward a proposal that led to an early exit from administration—obviously, subject to negotiation and agreement—some sum for early exit from administration would be available.

I think that that deals with all of the questions asked by the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked whether the cost of administration is being borne by the shareholders. Currently, the cost of administration is being borne by the company itself, not by the shareholders—as is normal. What are we buying for the £300 million? We are buying an early exit from administration. As is made clear in the Statement, if there is no early exit from administration, the £300 million will not be available. Is the money to bring an end to the lawsuit? We seek by the £300 million payment without much further ado—although obviously there will be some further ado and we cannot get out of administration before July—to bring to an end what is plainly a transitional process from where we were before administration to the permanent future for the railways.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would be the first to agree that what we really want is a permanent and settled future for the railways. The quicker that we get out of administration, the better. I think that the last question with which I am in a position to deal is: who is taking the risk? The risk will obviously be taken by the CLG, in the context of the arrangement set up if it is the successful bidder.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister about the implications of what he said about the single tender bid? Did he say that Network Rail is being accepted as a single tender bidder without considering whether any other company provides a better offer, a better bid or a better outcome, and that at present the only justification for choosing Network Rail is that it may be able to get out of administration by July 2002?

No, my Lords, that is not what I said. Network Rail is making a bid. That bid includes £300 million by way of grant provided by the Government, which is a payment for early exit from administration. It is now for the administrator to consider the bid.

My Lords, can my noble and learned friend confirm that the Government are not by this announcement creating value that did not exist before, and that the payment of £300 million reflects not compensation to shareholders but an assessment to the value of the travelling public of taking the company out of administration much more quickly than would otherwise be the case? Is he aware that most people concerned with the industry will welcome today's Statement, and that they certainly believe that the decision to put Railtrack into administration in the first place was entirely justified? After Hatfield, it was a company that was clearly insolvent. It had demonstrated that it was incapable of managing its costs; it was incapable of producing a register of its assets; and it treated its customers in a scandalous and disgraceful manner. Administration was the only alternative way to deal with it.

Is my noble and learned friend further aware that there is immense goodwill towards Mr John Armitt and the fresh start that he has already made at Railtrack, and that there are already some signs that the company's performance is improving?

Yes, my Lords, I agree that that payment is not creating any new value for the shareholders, it represents the value of an early exit from administration. I agree that most people engaged in the industry regard the appointment of the administrators as the right course. I agree that most people in the industry will welcome today's announcement because it may bring closer the end of administration. I further agree with the proposition that the input of Mr John Armitt, the chief executive of Railtrack, has been beneficial to Railtrack, and that there are already some signs of improvement in Railtrack's performance.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that there would be no shareholders in Network Rail. Presumably, the capital is being formed by guaranteed share capital on the one hand and loans and grants on the other. To what extent are the Government providing assurance, cross-guarantees or letters of comfort in respect of the capital required by Network Rail to carry out this operation and to run the railways afterwards? He suggested in his Statement that no government liability will remain. Is that so?

My Lords, everyone accepts that government grants will have to be provided to keep the rail network going. No one doubts that. Network Rail's bid, just like any other, must reflect that basic fact.

My Lords, the Government have given—offered, I should say—the Railtrack shareholders a jolly good deal today. I declare an interest as chairman of a rail freight group. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, they do not deserve anything much. However, since, as my noble and learned friend said, there is no asset register, there is not much that we can do.

One significant factor that my noble and learned friend did not mention is the approach that the CLG is taking to the management of Railtrack and how it intends to get away from its arrogant approach to a much more inclusive partnership approach, which will bring great benefits to the railways and stop all the confrontation that has been going on for years.

In the Statement, my noble and learned friend mentioned an early exit and that anyone whose bid was successful and who achieved the early exit would receive the £300 million prize. How early is early?

What is the timetable for the administrator to receive other bids, if necessary, and complete the process? He mentioned July, but is that the final date?

My Lords, on the initial part of my noble friend's question, the partnership approach is most important. One benefit of a company limited by guarantee is that the guarantors can represent a wide range of stakeholders engaged in running or being a customer or financier of the rail industry. We think that incredibly important.

I must make clear that the availability of £300 million to anybody who offers the early exit depends on precisely what early exit is offered by any bidder. It would not necessarily be £300 million; it would depend on the terms of the early exit. Network Rail says that its proposal, if accepted, could take Railtrack plc out of administration as early as the end of July 2002. However, it is for the administrators to consider whether that is deliverable.

My Lords, is it not clear that this is a sensible move? It should remove the chance of a court action that would involve the Secretary of State having to give evidence under oath, which would have been highly embarrassing for him but would not have helped the railways one bit. Nobody is in much doubt that the Secretary of State's role in the affair has been less than glorious. It is better to get on with dealing with things that might be of benefit to the railways.

I find the endless harking back to rail privatisation nauseating. Any system can be made to work if we get the right management to run it. The most discouraging feature of the Government's role is that they have sat for five years criticising the system while doing nothing to improve it and make it work. After five years of what amounts to total negligence, the Government cannot say, with hindsight, that everybody knew that it was a disaster. Why did not they do something about it?

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, implied that the City was full of money and was happy to invest in all sorts of schemes. The House knows that the City will not do so, without some real guarantees, letters of comfort or assurances. I understand that Network Rail's proposals would require the borrowing of £9,000 million. How will that be guaranteed? What assurances will be given? People will not lend their money—our pension funds—unless they have a guarantee.

My Lords, that was a series of profoundly unfair remarks from the noble Lord. First, we spent five years trying to make the privatisation work. Eventually, in October 2002, in the terms that were set out by Mr Justice Lightman, Railtrack was put into administration. It was made clear, when we took office in 1997, that we thought that the right course was to try to make it work. Ultimately, it could not be made to work. The right course now is to look forward and try to find a proper future for the organisation of the railways.

I think that the noble Lord was saying that it was sensible to get Railtrack out of administration as quickly as possible. He did not say that, but I think that that is what he meant. We agree with that proposition, and we think that the details of the bid that has been announced today bring that outcome closer.

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the company limited by guarantee will have enough money to run the railway system safely and develop it?

My Lords, it is for the administrator and then the Secretary of State to make a judgment about the new arrangements. Of course, in forming their views, they will focus on safety, efficiency and a good service to the travelling public.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a fund manager—not a holder—of Railtrack shares. Does the Minister agree that the Government, in baling out the shareholders—having realised that they could not have won the case brought against them by City fund managers—have, in effect, admitted that Railtrack was put into administration wrongly? if he does not, why not?

My Lords, I do not accept that. The £300 million has been made available in order to bring an early end to the administration.

My Lords, the Statement refers to raising capital for investment more cheaply. Further on, there is reference to lower financing costs. Can the Minister explain how that will come about, without substantial government guarantees or letters of comfort, as appears to be happening already in the case of the London Tube consortia? If that is what we are to be faced with in public private partnerships, they will not have succeeded in transferring any significant burden of risk from public to private shoulders.

My Lords, a company limited by guarantee will not pay out dividends; it will be for the market to judge whether it is prepared to advance funds to it. That, in turn, will depend upon the reliability of repayment, and the market will make its judgment on that. Depending on the arrangement, it will see that it is a perfectly safe investment.

My Lords, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It always struck me that the value of Railtrack was what it was worth in the markets on rug-pulling day. The offer that has now been put up is worth about 90 per cent of that price. However, there is also the rump Railtrack. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks the value of that 90 per cent plus the rump Railtrack might be. It may well be that it is higher than the value on rug-pulling day.

In the Statement, the Minister said that there would be less fragmentation. It seems to me that there will now be one more player. There will be Network Rail, but there will also still be rump Railtrack. Will not that mean that, even after all this, there will be more fragmentation in the railway industry?

My Lords, the first question was about the value of rump Railtrack on rug-pulling day, as the noble Lord put it. I would not achieve much by speculating about that. The £300 million that we have spoken about today is the value of an early exit from administration.

The second question was about how it prevents fragmentation to have both Network Rail and rump Railtrack. The answer is that Network Rail seeks to deal with fragmentation by bringing all the players together through the company limited by guarantee so that there is substantial partnership in the running of the railways. That principle is not undermined by the existence of rump Railtrack, whatever that means in precise legal terms.

rose to move, That this House takes note of developments in Afghanistan and the fight against global terrorism.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, over the past few months, the House has heard a great deal about the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan. The events of the past week, however, justify our careful attention to the subject. Following the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence in another place last Monday and the subsequent Adjournment debate on Wednesday, I am delighted to take the opportunity to open the debate this evening.

I thank noble Lords on both Front Benches opposite and the Convenor of the Cross Benches for their kind understanding that I must leave during the debate, before my noble friend Lord Bach winds up. I must catch a plane to fulfil an official engagement overseas tomorrow. I thank everybody warmly for their understanding on that point.

It has been recognised, ever since the terrible events of 11th September, that the struggle against international terrorism will be long and multi-faceted, embracing diplomatic, financial, economic and humanitarian aspects, as well as military. In the case of Afghanistan, we are working to secure peace and stability for a country that has, for far too long, been ravaged by war.

I shall remind your Lordships of the United Kingdom's objectives in the war against terrorism. They remain as declared on 16th October last year: to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism; to deter states from supporting, harbouring or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups; to contribute to the reintegration of Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community; and to maintain a positive political agenda of engagement with Arab countries and the Muslim world.

The United Kingdom's commitment to the campaign against international terrorism is as strong today as it was when those objectives were declared. We continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States—our friend and ally—and all other members of the coalition against terrorism. We must remember the other countries that took part in the operation earlier this month against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda—Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France and Norway. There are also 18 nations contributing to the International Assistance Force in Kabul.

It is important to bear in mind that the struggle to defeat international terrorism is not over. Osama bin Laden and many other leaders of the Al'Qaeda terrorist network have still to be brought to justice. They and their supporters are still a threat.

In opening the debate in another place last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for Defence made three points to set the context before discussing the detail of deployments of British troops in Afghanistan. First, we are right to act in Afghanistan. The terrorist attacks in the United States last September were only possible because Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda had been able to draw on the support and the shelter offered by the Taliban regime. Had we done nothing, there was no doubt that bin Laden and his accomplices would have carried out further attacks: attacks perhaps by now even on the United Kingdom. We were right to act in self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. We were right to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat. We were right to act to break the links between Afghanistan and international terrorism and to reintegrate Afghanistan as a responsible member of the international community to ensure that those links are not established again.

Secondly, the action that the international community has taken has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is now a very different country. The decision to deploy considerable military force against the terrorists and their supporters has been vindicated. Osama bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda network have been dealt a heavy blow; only remnants remain of the Taliban, whose support was so important for Al'Qaeda. The decision to deploy the International Security Assistance Force, ISA F, to Kabul to help the interim authority to maintain security in the capital has also been vindicated.

Afghanistan is beginning to return to normality. Commercial life is returning to market stalls, which are full of food; people are out on the street; life is gradually getting back to normal. The Afghan New Year celebrations of this weekend were marked by the sight of kites flying over the capital, with dancing, displays of agricultural machinery and farm produce competitions—more akin to a British village fete than a country recovering from the ravages of war. Let us not forget as well the effect that this has had on the women of Afghanistan: schoolgirls returning to school last Saturday; women students once again attending Kabul University; the wearing of the burqa by choice, not obligation; and women joining in the voice of government.

Thirdly, British forces have played a vital role in this success. British forces have a reputation around the world for their skill and professionalism. Time and again, they have made a massive contribution to bringing stability to the world's trouble spots. Afghanistan is the latest example. We take immense pride in all that they do and in the credit that they bring to the United Kingdom. I wish to take this opportunity to note our appreciation of the widespread support within this House for the work that the British forces have done in Afghanistan and for the work that they will continue to do.

Almost an entire generation of Afghans has known nothing but war, poverty, insecurity, terrorism, drugs and refugee movements. Millions of Afghans have suffered appalling privations, but their resilience is extraordinary. Her Majesty's Government are determined to help make the future better than the past. We have a responsibility to help and we also have a direct national interest to do so.

In the first place, we want the Bonn agreement to succeed. The early signs are encouraging. In particular, we welcome the way in which Chairman Karzai and his fellow interim ministers are working energetically to provide effective administration. Over time, the interim administration should become increasingly broad-based and representative. That is why, for example, we are helping to fund the work of the new Loya Jirga commission, which will decide the rules and arrangements for the meeting of the Grand Assembly in June.

Secondly, we are trying to combat poverty. At Tokyo, we announced an additional pledge of £200 million over five years. In addition, we have already provided £60 million since September last year to UN agencies, the Red Cross and NGOs for immediate humanitarian and emergency aid.

Thirdly, insecurity: as is well known, the United Kingdom is leading the International Security Assistance Force. What is less well known, however, is that we have also begun training the new national army of Afghanistan and provided communications equipment for use by the Kabul police.

On drugs, we have begun work with the new government in Kabul to counter the cultivation, trafficking and consumption of heroin. The problem is urgent, as a substantial poppy crop is forecast for harvest next month. However, I wish to stress that it is wrong to make the connection, as some have done, between this harvest and the fall of the Taliban. The seeds for this year's harvest were sown many months ago, well before the interim administration took over. We have told the Afghans that we are willing to help with crop substitution—seeds, fertilisers, tools—and support for alternative livelihoods. We are also recommending to the interim administration that they should consider punitive action against farmers who fail to comply with the ban.

We are also looking at ways to enable Afghan refugees now living in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere, as well as internally displaced persons, to return to their homes.

Let me turn now to the International Security Assistance Force. British armed forces have played a significant role leading the ISAF in Kabul. This force is helping the Afghan interim authority to provide a secure and stable environment in Kabul and is contributing in a major way to creating an atrr osphere of law and order. This is particularly important as the Afghan people take the next step along the path agreed in Bonn in December towards the emergency Loya Jirgah on 6 June.

As this House is aware, the United Kingdom agreed to take on the leadership of this force from its inception for a limited period of time. It was a job that had to be done, and it had to be done well, if the Bonn agreement was to have the best possible chance of success. The United Kingdom was particularly well placed to do this. Our Armed Forces had the right capabilities and experience in expeditionary operations and rapid deployments. We knew that we could provide effective command structures and key equipment to get a force in and up and running in the timescale required, and we were right to take on this responsibility.

Turkey has indicated an interest in taking over as lead nation of the ISAF, and we are in detailed discussions on this with Turkey. Good progress has been made during a series of both diplomatic and military technical discussions with the Turks over the last few weeks, and we are hopeful of an announcement on hand-over of the leadership in the very near future.

Turkey will need continuing contributions of troops from other nations. Certainly the United Kingdom will continue to have troops in ISAF after we have handed over the lead. We have promised Turkey that this will be the case, and other nations have done so as well.

That does not, however, change our determination to draw down the number of British troops deployed as part of ISAF. Progress in securing wider international participation in the force is going well. We had, for example, the welcome arrival last week of the German brigadier to take over command of the Kabul Multinational Brigade, the ISAF subordinate headquarters, which until now has been provided by the headquarters of 16 Air Assault Brigade. This will enable us to withdraw a number of British troops and is a real demonstration of international co-operation. Similarly, confirmation from the Czechs last week of their offer of a field hospital for ISAF is very welcome.

As for the wider future of ISAF, the House will know that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 permits the force to remain in Kabul for six months, that is, until 20 June. The resolution may well be renewed, extending the duration of ISAF's deployment. Certainly it is clear that such a force will have a continuing role to play in bringing security to Kabul and its immediate surroundings, particularly over the period during and immediately following the Loya Jirgah.

Before I move on to talk about the deployment of 45 Commando Group announced last Monday, I wish to underline our commitment to the continuing success of ISAF. Our deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan is entirely separate from ISAF, and neither this nor the transfer of our role as lead nation will change the strength of our commitment. The force has done great work, not only in patrolling the streets of Kabul, important though that is, but also by helping to train the first battalion of the new Afghan National Guard, as well as helping with such basic needs as the organisation of rubbish collection and an ambulance service. Those are all vital services which help to ensure the future stability of Afghanistan.

The deployment of 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan—

My Lords, before the noble Baroness moves on from discussing ISAF, it has been widely reported that, aside from the additional contribution of troops for which Turkey is looking, it is also seeking a substantial financial contribution to its costs. The United Kingdom is being invited to contribute a significant amount to those costs. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that is the case? If so, presumably it will come out of the contingency reserve.

My Lords, I believe that that is under discussion at the moment. My right honourable friend said in the media yesterday that discussions are being held because Turkey will have to consider how it will pay for the deployment. Whether that contribution will come from the contingency reserve I expect will be, as is always the case, a matter for protracted discussion between government departments. However, I am sure that the noble Lord's intervention on the matter will be noted in the appropriate quarters.

The deployment of 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan is entirely consistent with our campaign objectives that I highlighted at the beginning of my address. Since the military campaign began, we have made clear our determination to act to prevent Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda from posing a continuing terrorist threat. That is why British forces have been involved in operations on the ground in Afghanistan for some months now.

As the Secretary of State for Defence emphasised in another place last Wednesday, we have also made clear that the military advice is that rooting out the remaining elements of Al'Qaeda will take time. This has been a constant theme of our statements since the early days of the military deployment. Contrary to what many commentators have been reporting, the Government have never said that this was going to be a quick fix. Indeed, I recall making the point about how long this would take on the second Statement we made following the dreadful events of September 11th. Certainly, while Al'Qaeda ceased to exist as a coherent force some months ago and the Taliban regime has long since been removed from power, there are still pockets of resistance.

As the recent US-led Operation Anaconda has demonstrated, elements of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban regime remain in Afghanistan, hidden away in the remoter areas of the country. We must deal with these. The threat of attack from these groups and individuals remains high. If we do not deal with them, they would threaten all that the Afghan people and their supporters in the international community have achieved so far. They would certainly work to retain Afghanistan as a base for training and organising terrorism. And, left to regroup, there is no doubt that Al'Qaeda and its supporters would continue to pose a direct threat to states outside Afghanistan, including to the United Kingdom.

That is why we are deploying 45 Commando Group with the clear mission to assist the United States troops to search out and defeat the remaining elements of Al'Qaeda and Taliban terrorists. It is simply continuing the work that we began last October. In no sense is this "mission creep". In such situations, everyone always wants to know the details of the mission. But let me be clear that we are not going to describe exactly what is to happen next, as to do so puts knowledge and information into the hands of those opposed to us who would jeopardise the safety of our troops. We would simply put into the hands of potential adversaries that which they must not have.

Estimates have been made as to the length of the deployment: of the order of three months. Nonetheless, we must be clear that military action in difficult terrain against a determined enemy is dependent on many unknown factors. Our exit strategy is simple: we will leave when the task is completed.

Equally important is the need to have a clear chain of command. The 3 Commando Brigade headquarters will be based at Bagram airport, alongside the United States operational command of Operation Enduring Freedom under Major General Hagenbeck, Commanding General, 10th Mountain Division. 45 Commando Group command and control is entirely separate to that of ISAF, and is integrated in the United States command system, for active operations in the country. 45 Commando has a long history of operating and training alongside US forces—including in northern Iraq and Kosovo. Furthermore, there is full operational interoperability of communications available, as it has been throughout our operations in Afghanistan.

Let me be clear as well on the availability of close air support for British forces. We must recognise that complete air supremacy is available in Afghanistan. Therefore at any time during the conflict the marines will be able to call upon a formidable array of air support. The expert military advice is that there is no need to augment coalition air power with our own strike aircraft in support of this particular deployment. The Royal Marines possess highly skilled forward air controllers who train regularly with United States forces.

Finally, the situation that our forces find themselves in Afghanistan is one with distinct roles: security assistance by ISAF and war-fighting by 45 Commando is by no means unique. Other nations which have contributed troops to ISAF are in exactly the same situation: Denmark, France, Germany and Norway have all sent ground forces to participate in Operation Anaconda, while other elements of their armed forces remain in Kabul under General McColl.

The decision to deploy 45 Commando Group to Afghanistan underlines our determination to continue the action against terrorism and to assist with Afghanistan's reintegration into the world community as a responsible and valued member. It is not a decision that has been taken lightly and is one that has been taken in the full knowledge of the dangers inherent in the mission. I am sure that all Members of the House will wish to join me in wishing our forces every success in the difficult job that they are undertaking and in sending a message of support to members of all three of the armed services and their families. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House takes note of developments in Afghanistan and the fight against global terrorism.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)

My Lords, noble Lords will be extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling us to hold this debate on developments in Afghanistan and also on the wider scene of the campaign against global terrorism. We understand that her duties require the noble Baroness to fly away tonight. We wish her a safe journey.

I should like to make absolutely clear at the outset that on this side we offer our total support for the Royal Marines in their unenviable and tough task, and for the deployment of 45 Commando Group into the rugged, cold and mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. It is an inhospitable and pitiless part of the world. However, they are marvellously equipped and well-trained forces and we join the noble Baroness in sending them good wishes in fulfilling their task.

Therefore, in raising certain policy issues tonight, and indeed in holding this debate, and the debate pressed for and secured by my colleagues in another place, never let it be said by anyone, and certainly not by anyone in the Armed Forces, that while they are risking their lives, back over here the politicians are differing and divided on deployment and operational purposes. We are not. We are absolutely with them and we send them our warmest support and good wishes.

Nevertheless, here at home some lessons must be learnt and certain questions have arisen. I believe that there are two lessons which in particular I wish to address. First, we have learnt, perhaps to some people's surprise, that Al'Qaeda and the Taliban forces are by no means defeated. Secondly, the way in which the Government reach crucial decisions—and there will be more decisions to take since this is a continuing, long-lasting and expanding war against terrorism that will operate in a number of countries, not only Afghanistan—seems a little sudden and disturbing. I want to elaborate on that in a moment because both in the nation's interests and in the war against global terrorism, in the future we shall need to see these things running a little more smoothly.

I shall deal first with the question of Al'Qaeda not yet being defeated. I have listened to the assurances of the noble Baroness and it is right to note that she has been saying certain things all along. Because of that, anything that I have to say by way of criticism, will she please duck since it is not aimed at her; rather it is aimed at others who are not in this place. I do not think that they have given quite such a clear impression.

On 9th January, the Prime Minister said:

"The Taliban is defeated and Al'Qaeda scattered".

That gave the general impression that that was it—the war in Afghanistan was over and we could turn our minds to other matters, particularly the question of humanitarian help and nation building in Afghanistan. In a pamphlet rushed out the other day, the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, wrote:

"Having defeated the Taliban, the international community faces new imperatives".

These seem to be somewhat premature statements which underline the dangers of instant authorship. I am not sure that they are entirely consistent with the view that the Government have been warning all along that Al'Qaeda is not defeated and that there are pockets of resistance—probably very deep pockets—which will continue to cause considerable difficulties and challenges, as they already have to the American forces who have been trying to tackle them and as they will, in very strong form, to our brave troops who are already arriving at Bagram.

Those who rush to say that it is all over—that the Al'Qaeda and the Taliban are finished—have forgotten an important maxim; that is, that in a guerrilla or unorthodox war, the terrorist wins if he does not lose. By contrast, a conventional army—and in the natural course of events we have to mount conventional armies or, at any rate, armies based on conventional structures—loses if it does not win decisively. I do not wish to make any comparison with the past difficulties in Vietnam, but the lesson gradually learnt in Vietnam was that one could not search for or achieve the goal of victory by conducting operations in the pattern of past conventional wars.

It is absolutely crucial to understand the point that one does not finish with a terrorist operation merely by imposing on it the outward trappings of defeat. The infection continues, the battles continue, the pockets fester, the terrorists live to fight another day and survive rather than being wiped out.

We have heard Ministers say—indeed, the noble Baroness said it today—that 45 Commando will return when the task is complete; when the commanding officers judge that the job has been done. When will that be? How will we know when to declare victory? How will we know that the matter is dealt with and in hand? The more realistic and more candid viewpoint that we should he hearing from the Government is that these matters will be very hard to call an end to; that there will be great difficulty in establishing whether the fire of terrorism has been put out, if it ever can be put out.

When he speaks later, my noble friend Lord Vivian will address operational questions with his usual skill, particularly the question of air cover, to which the noble Baroness referred, and to what extent relying on American air cover—which I totally accept is complete-is an entirely satisfactory pattern. We hope that it is—we are grateful for the reassurances that it is—but the matter needs probing. These issues will inevitably cause problems in the very difficult terrain in which the troops will be operating.

However, leaving that aside, the plain fact is that by April of this year the United Kingdom will have more troops on the ground in Afghanistan than the United States. We are left with an uneasy feeling that Operation Anaconda and Operation Veritas could become a war without a clear end; without a moment when it can be declared, "It is all right. We can stop now and bring the boys home". We have that worry and we seek reassurance on that aspect of our operations in Afghanistan.

Let me turn now to the International Security Assistance Force, on which the noble Baroness has given the House some useful information. The question that hangs in the air there too is: when will our obligations end? It was supposed to be the end of April. Last week, Ministers in another place were telling us that Turkey was just about to come to the point of agreement on taking over ISAF. I have listened in vain and scanned the newspapers since then, but I have not seen any sign of an agreement. I have seen a sign of the proposed bill, a matter rightly raised by my noble friend Lord King. Apparently 300 million US dollars is required from somewhere—possibly from the pockets of British and American taxpayers—for Turkey to consider this matter.

But, even if that has been discussed, the general point of principle that command of ISAF will be taken over by Turkey at the end of April has not been established. Indeed, it is now being conceded by Ministers that ISAF will remain under British command for a number of further months. Until when we do not know.

This is against a background with two worrying aspects. First, it is possible—again we would welcome reassurance that it is unlikely—that ISAF armed forces could be confused with operational forces by an enemy that may not have clear information and by terrorists, and thus become a soft target. That is one danger. The second danger we can see developing all the time. The internal situation in Afghanistan is not yet completely stable; the warlords are at each other; and the country is divided by languages and by divisions which have been there for decades, if not centuries.

There is also the question of how the king fits into this story. It may be that he will get back in time—his return has been delayed—and the Loya Jirgah will go ahead as planned. I hope it will. But what role have we taken in encouraging the king to play this obviously vital part? My impression is that. United Kingdom officialdom has somewhat ignored the king and not given him the primacy and importance which, despite his great age, he clearly has in these matters. We should like to know more about that.

As I mentioned earlier, another point has arisen over the past few days; that is, how did we get to where we are and how were the decisions made? To an outsider—and, of course, on this side of the House we are outside the inner processes of decision making—it looks as though the decision to deploy came in a back-to-front way. First, there was the week-end authorisation following an extremely urgent request from the Americans; then there was the action and the Statement; and then, in the middle of last week, there was the parliamentary debate which was secured after pressure from my honourable friends and colleagues in another place. It was not offered by the Government. It must be noted—I think this was a major mistake—that the Prime Minister was not able to attend that debate on the biggest deployment of troops since the Gulf War. One should think of the effect that it will have on their families. It is quite wrong that the Prime Minister was away attending to other matters. I gather it was to discuss foxhunting.

Of course the executive has the authority to act. In opposition, one always likes to put on a little pressure of the kind that Parliament must decide before the Government act, but I concede that real life is not like that. The executive has the authority to authorise deployments, but we must at least be assured—Parliament does not govern but it monitors those who do govern—that these decisions are taken by our system of collective Cabinet government by which all Ministers are bound. Can the Minister reassure the House that, although apparently there was not time for broader debate and discussion in Parliament before the decision was made, the Cabinet was formally and properly consulted over the weekend and that Secretaries of State were assembled and consulted in the proper constitutional way?

In my experience at the time of the Falklands expedition, that is what happened. Every Cabinet Minister round the table was asked for their opinion on whether the expeditionary force to the Falklands should proceed. Of course, there was also an inner Cabinet, but that is what happened. Did that also happen in this case? Or did the Prime Minister consult the full Cabinet on this significant and important deployment? We should like a reassurance that the proper procedures were observed.

I raise these matters because, in a way, they have implications for the next phase in the campaign against global terrorism and how decisions on that will be taken. We know that Al'Qaeda is a world-wide operation, and that it probably has access to chemical and biological weapons. Although we are not sure of the full picture, we know that these may have been supplied by the one man who used them in 1988; namely, Saddam Hussein. People are now asking: if the next phase of the campaign is to be against Iraq, what is the proof of his involvement in terrorist activity?

We must all ask, as I suspect the noble Baroness and other Ministers are asking: how much proof do people want? I believe that it is agreed between all parties that a dossier of information, like the previous dossier on Al'Qaeda and Afghanistan, would be extremely valuable. But some people are going further and saying that we must have a justification in the form of some action. I hope that that is not the view of Church leaders and others, but it seems to be implying that, until something terrible happens—another "9/11"— we cannot have any justification for mobilising attempts to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That would be a very wrong way of thinking. It would be the height of folly. Every expression of that kind increases the danger for all of us and increases the confidence of the monster in Baghdad.

We need also to establish what was briefly discussed at Question Time today; namely, whether additional UN cover is needed for any actions against Iraq. The UN Charter says that self-defence is allowed against armed attack. The trouble is that, in an age of terrorism and the assault on the World Trade Centre, that kind of language does not fit the need.

There is a long and arduous set of operations ahead. The Ministry of Defence has rightly put out a document, the "new chapter", warning us that a new sequence, a new approach against terrorism, will be needed: prevent, deter, coerce, disrupt, destroy. On this side of the House, we do not ask for operational details, but we do need to be reassured that realism prevails. We need the Government to spell out, frankly and candidly—possibly more candidly than they have hitherto—the nature of the enormous dangers ahead and the sacrifices that everyone will have to make to face up to them.

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for staying behind to open the debate, for which we are all extremely grateful. I wish her not only a safe journey but a successful outcome to the policy discussions when she gets there. I only hope that she will find a few minutes to plunge into the "wine dark sea" and enjoy it before she has to return to yet another set of debates in this House.

Perhaps I may add to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. It is clear that the nature of the request from the United States for a particular group of British soldiers is itself an astonishing tribute to their international reputation—one which I believe they will carry on their banners, as they rightly should, as they enter an extraordinarily difficult phase of what has been an extraordinarily difficult war.

Perhaps I may say in passing that I wish that the Government had managed at least privately to consult Opposition leaders in the two Houses before the deployment of troops was announced. I understood from American reports that the Pentagon seems to have known about the possibility of the deployment a couple of days before it was announced in Parliament. Had such discussions taken place, we might have warned against the exuberance of No. 10 in suggesting that there was an advanced biological weapons laboratory in a cave in Afghanistan—a statement which has now had to be broadly taken back in the light of the American dismissal of that particular report.

I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on one question. I completely exonerate, as he did, our own Minister—whose sensitivity and knowledge would prevent her from falling into such a trap. However, there have been a number of reports in the newspapers, both in this country and in the United States, to suggest that something close to complete victory was very near in Afghanistan. I have always felt that to be a dangerous approach to take on any issue of terrorism.

It is not merely that there are disturbing signs of the ability of the Al'Qaeda network, and even of some Taliban fighters, to regroup and reassert themselves in many remote parts, particularly of eastern Afghanistan. It is also becoming clear that in the troubled eastern provinces—the Pashtun provinces—of Afghanistan, they have the same advantage as obtained for a long time in relation to the IRA: namely, the ability to disappear into a neighbouring country, which officially, and indeed formally, was deeply opposed to terrorism—that is undoubtedly the case with the Government of Pakistan, as it always was with the Government of the Republic of Ireland— but where there was a certain public response, at least in some periods of the war against terrorism, which made it easy for terrorists simply to disappear into the background of that neighbouring country.

If we are honest, we have to remark on the troubling fact that, in the Pashtun provinces, many of whose tribes cross a border which is not very well protected, there is a real problem in regard to the ability of terrorist groups to disappear, then to reappear, to regroup, and then to cross back into the country. We should be less than honest if we did not recognise that as a complicating factor in the attempt to stamp out terrorism in Afghanistan.

It is clear, as the Minister has said on more than one occasion, that this is likely to be a long, hard war, even in Afghanistan itself. It is certainly not yet over. It is certainly likely to demand a commitment and perseverance which we cannot possibly try to dismiss. It is wiser for all of those engaged in the battle against terrorism to recognise that this is a profound and long battle, and one in which attacking the roots as well as the symptoms is of first importance.

That leads me to say a word or two about the roots. On these Benches, we perceive the work of 1SAF, the security force in Afghanistan, to be inescapably bound up with the military response. The one without the other could lead to our winning the war and losing the peace. It is that danger which profoundly troubles many of us.

ISAF is still, as far as one can tell, on a pretty uncertain base. The Minister said nothing to suggest that that statement is false. The mandate under which ISAF serves lasts until June. It has already been indicated that Mr Brahimi, on behalf of the United Nations, will seek an extension of the mandate. I was glad that the Minister did not in any way doubt that there would be a probable attempt to extend the mandate, or that in effect it would be unlikely that the British leadership position could be passed over as soon as next month.

There have been many questions about the Turks, who have expressed their willingness in certain circumstances and under certain conditions to take over the leadership. But as the noble Lord, Lord King, has indicated, it is clear that the Turks have not yet completed—this has now gone on for several days—their own negotiation as to the conditions on which they would be willing to take over.

The latest report suggests that the United States would be willing to put up as much as £180 million; but of that sum, £160 million would be listed under the heading of financial and economic help to Turkey, and only £20 million as a contribution towards the 300 million dollars caught up in the maintenance of ISAF over the necessary period. To say the least, that is somewhat unsatisfactory. ISAF is as important as the military deployment; it is at least of equal importance. Therefore, it is essential for the United States, the United Kingdom and other members of the coalition to perceive the way to maintain that force; and—dare I say it? —we all know that the extent of the force is wholly inadequate. It extends only to Kabul. It is clear that in other parts of the country the warlords are already beginning to reassert themselves.

The most frightening outcome of a war in which thousands of men and women have lost their lives in trying to defeat terrorism would be a situation in which Afghanistan returned to forms of civil war, which we know well breed terrorism. The Taliban came in on the back of the last civil war in Afghanistan and could easily come in on the back of the next.

I have one or two questions about ISAF. First, how far is it serving alongside some elements of the Northern Alliance? I told the Minister earlier that I would raise the question of General Fahim's activities in Kabul. He is continuing to patrol—and, indeed, to control—areas of the capital. Outside the capital the situation is even more troubling, as warlords begin to reassert their control over what had been their traditional tribal areas, as happened recently in Khost. It is disturbing, but not surprising, that Klaus Peter Klaiber, the European Union envoy to Afghanistan, said only recently that the rebuilding aid that was intended to be financed by the European Union will, in large part, not be made available until some form of stability and peace obtains in Afghanistan far outside the capital. It is still difficult to see how that situation will be reached.

I have one other comment about ISAF. I am troubled by the American attitude, which appears to be increasingly that the United States does the fighting—for which it is unquestionably extremely well equipped—with a few exceptions, such as the request for 45 Commando, and the rest of the coalition does the clearing up. That is not a happy or attractive division of responsibility. It is very important that the United States remains committed to ISAF and that it is seen to be so and says that it is so, even though its secondment of troops to ISAF is more limited than that of the United Kingdom or some of the other countries within the structure. In that context, I should like ISAF to be within the broad envelope of NATO, because that would give it credibility that it may not always have.

My noble friend Lord Roper will address some of the issues of overstretch, which have to be very much on our minds because of the heavy demands already being made on British forces. At a time when the United States defence budget equals the budget of the next 15 largest countries in the world—I shall repeat that because it is so amazing; it equals the budget of the next 15 largest countries in the world—the United States is in a position to call the quits, if you like, in a way that nobody else is.

That brings me to my final point. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the possibility of the widening of the war. That is a point at which he and I part company to a considerable extent. The Liberal Democrats believe that any issue of widening the war must be subject to discussion and broad agreement within the coalition. In that context, we cannot avoid mentioning the response that Vice-President Cheney received on his visit around the Middle East, which began with him making clear that he believed that Iraq was the single greatest threat that should concern the coalition and ended with his recognition that the Middle East was far more central to the concerns of many members of the coalition than was Iraq.

It is undoubtedly true that so great is the power of the United States, particularly its military power, that it might be able to put huge pressure on those governments to declare themselves in favour of an extension of the war. However, what frightens me—and I think that this frightens many of us—is that eventually persuading, pressurising or otherwise pushing the governments of the Arab states into saying that they would be willing to go along with an extension of the war is not synonymous with carrying the streets and souks of the Arab people, where it is troubling to see the steady rise in support for opposition to the United States and her activities and the rising level of support for the Palestinian intifada.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats believe that it would be politically wise to seek a United Nations resolution before any widening of the war might take place. We believe that the first priority must go to completing the war in Afghanistan before any extension is seriously considered. Finally, we believe strongly that it is of crucial importance to maintain the coalition, not least because the war against terrorism may go on for many years to come. The coalition can be maintained only by listening to it, taking note of what it has to say and shaping policies along lines that will attract a consensus among countries that concern themselves with opposition to terrorism and care about the principle of a free and democratic society.

My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to take stock of the situation in Afghanistan. As 45 Commando, Royal Marines, prepare to go into the mountains there, I join in wishing them well. Their experience of training in difficult terrain will stand them in good stead, although even they will find the high altitudes a tough and breath-taking experience.

I expect that the task they face is clearer to them than it is to those of us who rely on the media and the briefings and public comments by government Ministers and spokesmen. The Government's original immediate objectives, broadly stated by the Foreign Secretary soon after the attacks in the United States, were to bring Osama bin Laden and other Al'Qaeda leaders to justice, to prevent Al'Qaeda posing a continuing terrorist threat and to persuade and, if necessary, force the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to help to achieve those objectives.

The Taliban as a government are no more, but from what has been said about the role of 45 Commando, it appears that the opposition in the Shah-i-Kot mountains consists of remnants of Taliban and Al'Qaeda. They are,

"a series of small pockets of resistance".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/02; col. 341.],

to quote from the speech of Mr Hoon in the other place last Wednesday. Even allowing for the difficult terrain, "small pockets" implies that the task is not such a difficult one, but from what we have seen and learnt about the American experience earlier this year in Operation Anaconda, the pockets seem sizeable and determined. Perhaps the House can be told whether there is a significant difference between the opposition that 45 Commando will face and that which the United States forces had to face during Operation Anaconda. Meanwhile, the Al'Qaeda leadership is still at large.

As always in conflict, we must look ahead to the next stages. It is not yet clear what is to happen next in Afghanistan. The matrix of mountain caverns and remote areas along the 900-mile border with Pakistan will not be easy to police and guard. More likely it will be impossible. If the opposition decides to melt away over the borders, are we going to be allowed in principle to go after them? It is unrealistic to expect that all opposition will be killed or captured. We should do well to remember that the operations that we are now engaging in are not the classic confrontation of standing forces and nation states. We are facing more of an insurgency-type threat—one that will not rely on fixed bases, will choose its own targets, will be absolutely ruthless, will take no prisoners except perhaps as hostages and will not stand to fight it out against a superior force. The battles in the Afghan mountains are being fought by tribesmen who know their ground well and who are natural fighters, as our troops more than a century ago and more recently the Soviets learnt to their cost.

All our experience of insurgency-type activity teaches us that until there is a successful and accurate flow of intelligence, the terrorists will have the upper hand more often than not. We have learned, too, even in territory that is familiar to us—such as in Northern Ireland or previously in Borneo or Malaya—that it takes a long time to develop the flow of good intelligence and reliably to assess the raw information which may be collected. How much more difficult it will be to get that right in Afghanistan, where for the past 30 years one form of instability has been heaped upon another and our knowledge of the terrain and the reliability of the various factions is not that well developed.

I noted that Mr Hoon has repeated that the commitment of 45 Commando and the supporting units was taken,

"following a formal request from the United States".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 20/03/02: col. 344.]

That is an interesting formulation. It could imply that we were not so keen to become involved or that at that stage we did not volunteer to take part. Experience in the Gulf conflict with our American friends laid great emphasis on the political value, as well as the military one, of our contribution to the coalition forces. First, air and naval forces, then ground units, and then more such were asked for by the United States. I therefore take it that fielding ground forces alongside the United States ones in Afghanistan is as much a political gesture as anything—although that is not to underestimate 45 Commando's operational contribution.

Experience with political gestures is that they have a relatively short shelf life. Before long, if there is still conflict, further gestures are called for. I hope and believe that the Government will have taken that on board. There seems to be every likelihood that, as the Chief of the Defence Staff said, we are in for the long haul. The Minister has reminded us of that fact again today. So we must expect a series of further calls to participate in the on-going operations. That brings me to the other point that I should like to make.

The United States Government, once they had determined to take the fight to the terrorists, and recognising that that would be a long and demanding task, were quick to announce that they would be massively increasing their defence and related budgets. It really served to underline their commitment. I do not have any feel for what additional expenditures the United States has already made, but even if it is still only small, the message that came across was loud and clear.

I contrast that with the posture of Her Majesty's Government. We have had many fine expressions of resolve and determination from Secretaries of State and from the Prime Minister himself, and I believe that they are totally sincere and committed to playing as decisive a part as possible in this long-running campaign. But when we look to the substance of what has been happening in recent weeks in the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence, a rather bleaker picture unfolds. I shall list but a few of the real cuts, not enhancements, in our front-line posture.

One such cut is the disbandment of 5 Tornado Air Defence Squadron. The decision to withdraw the Sea Harrier FA2s from service by 2006 and changes to the planned Joint Force Harriers will lead to both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force losing one squadron. The fleet's air defence capability will be much reduced. The loss of half a dozen warships in the Falklands conflict, when air defences were overstretched, was a bitter lesson which seems to have been forgotten. Indeed, there must be some doubt as to whether the Fleet Air Arm will be able to sustain itself until the new carriers are available for it. The Hercules Reserve Squadron, No 57, which until now has been the operational conversion unit in peacetime, is also to disappear. Moreover, we have read a variety of articles about the lack of funds to support troop training in Canada and to keep HMS "Fearless" going. I could go on.

In peacetime one expects budgets to be tight and economies sought to contain expenditure. Indeed, throughout all my time in the Cold War, when we strove to provide a deterrent posture but would never seriously have been able to sustain conventional operations for more than a very few days, the arguments were well understood and accepted. Today, the whole scene has changed. The Strategic Defence Review, even without its new chapter, envisages expeditionary operations. However, as the cuts and other factors I have mentioned indicated, that vision is seriously under-resourced.

We are mounting a whole variety of expeditionary activities. We are occasionally at war. We are fighting and firing off ordnance. We are at risk of considerable operational losses, and we are supporting activity—sometimes at many times the normal peacetime rates for which we have budgeted—in many different parts of the world. Moreover, each and every one of these deployments and commitments has a massively long back-up of personnel and logistics support. Indeed, there can be a tendency to overlook what all this entails. It is not just the cost of the support units which now have to be bolstered by the compulsory call-up of reservists. There is a need for additional spares in the pipeline to ensure that the front line has what it needs when it is needed. We rightly concern ourselves about the lives of the troops and other service men and women who we expect to fight for us. However, we must not put them in the way of danger only for them to find that their ability to fight is curtailed, or worse, because batteries for their radios or fuses for their weapons or whatever are not to hand.

I was horrified to read in the new chapter of the Strategic Defence Review discussion paper that the Government are taking credit for announcing,

"a significant additional investment of £100 million to meet urgent operational requirements".

I deplore the use of the word investment for such operational necessities. Buying fuel for my car to get me to hospital is not an investment. The spin brigade, I suppose, think that "investment" is a feel-good word while "expenditure" is not.

The real point is that if we are to commit forces to operations way beyond those that are described as peace keeping or training, in which we could lose considerable amounts of equipment, let alone lives, it is no longer reasonable to think that we can pare everything to the bone but somehow by means of an urgent investment make good what has been lost. The battle will not wait for factories to turn out the new kit. More likely, we shall have to give up what we are trying to do or see casualties mount because our troops are unable to defend themselves properly. It is high time, if the Government wish to be a global player with our Armed Forces, to change the ways in which we used to budget and finance the forces, and to be much more ready to provide the resources needed in all theatres and in the home base from which our forces are committed. Unless we do that and more realistically fund our defence strategy and postures, or cut our commitments, we shall enter into the last-chance saloon and a military disaster may overtake us.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in wishing our troops good luck and safe return. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that it is a tribute to the quality of our fighting forces that they have been invited at very short notice to join operations in the part of Afghanistan where fighting continues.

I have some problems, however, with the way in which people have started to criticise the decision. Although I do not know the constitutional basis of the decision, I see it as a continuation of previous decisions. When we committed ourselves to fighting the war against terrorism, and specifically when we committed ourselves to fighting in Afghanistan, first we sent troops to fight and then we joined the ISAF. Now, we are taking this action. I do not see the stark break that other noble Lords see in this major event, for which we need special conventions.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, gave the analogy of the Falklands War. I would rather compare this situation to the Gulf War. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, reminded the House, the United States has requested additional troops on two or three occasions. Unless my memory fails me, I do not believe that there was a special Cabinet session, or consultation or a debate on that matter.

We must be realistic. The war will go on for a long time and it will not be an easy war to fight—no war is easy. Public opinion, which is not friendly towards what we are doing, has flip-flopped. This war started less than six months ago, and people said, "This will he so difficult; we shall be fighting through the winter; lots of people will die; there will be starvation; and we shall have many losses". That did not happen. One part of the war was fought relatively quickly. As many noble Lords have pointed out, that has not meant that the war is over. The ground war phase is over and it has now moved to a guerrilla phase.

I do not believe the analogy of Vietnam is correct. The crucial difference is that the people of North Vietnam liked their government, and the people of South Vietnam did not like theirs, therefore the American approach did not have good global support. That is not the case in Afghanistan. We have the support of the Northern Alliance; we have achieved a situation in which a government is in power; the Taliban, as a government, has been destroyed; and, without appearing to he too optimistic, that phase of the war was successfully fought. We are now in another phase of the war and we have to adapt to the conditions.

When will the war end? It is difficult to say when a guerrilla war will end. Sometimes guerrilla wars appear to go on forever. I am not an expert on such matters, but the guerrilla warfare fought by Che Guevara in Bolivia was a guerrilla war fought by an outstanding guerrilla warrior. That Bolivian war, which also took place in mountainous conditions, came to an end. It is possible that a time will come when, for two or three months, our troops are not attacked. Then we could pass the baton to the local Afghan troops and retire.

A crucial point in that respect is that we have to secure two kinds of co-operation. First we must be quite sure that the local warlords, however much they fight among themselves, do not use their intelligence to harm our troops, especially those fighting in the mountains. How can we secure their co-operation? Whether or not they agree with Mr Karzai and after all we have done for them, they should be on our side, or at least not fighting against us. Will the warlords help us rather than fight us?

The role of Pakistan is crucial. Pakistan is a haven to which the guerrillas can escape. In Pakistan more people are being recruited by the guerrillas; and Pakistan holds so much intelligence and support that our troops could use to capture those who may be escaping. In all those respects I believe that we should provide Pakistan with an important role and give it support.

There will be deaths. We must be prepared for casualties from such an operation. We should be up front about A and ensure that proper care is taken of the families of soldiers who are to risk life and limb. Also we should not spin that story. We have gone to Afghanistan for a good reason but lives will be lost. Those lives will appear valueless if we do not support the objective for which our troops are fighting.

My Lords, I support the Government in the decision they have taken on the need to continue the campaign against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. I certainly recognise that this is a campaign in which there may well be casualties, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. No one should under-rate the seriousness of the decision that the Government have taken, for which they seek the support of this House, the other place and the country.

"If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars".

We hope that it will be just small pockets, but at the moment we have no confidence. As the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Craig, made clear, we cannot be confident at this stage that that is true. What is clear is that it is vital to continue the campaign to sustain the present government in Afghanistan. Otherwise, the risks of that being undermined are great. They are likely to need considerable support for some time.

I was struck by the analogy that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, drew with Ireland and Northern Ireland. I learned something about Pakistan: that there is a large area that appears to be outside the control of any government. With her well known modesty, she referred to it as a somewhat less well guarded frontier. My understanding is that the control is practically non-existent. Most of the tribes are quite unaware of where the frontier lies. That is a wonderful resource for any terrorist organisation.

It appears to me that it is essential to sustain the present government during this period and military support will be needed for that purpose. In a wider sense, it is vital to sustain the credibility of the action that is being taken by the United States and by the coalition. If it were seen to fail, there would be serious consequences around the world. My noble friend Lord Howell, in an excellent contribution, put the matter extremely well in saying that terrorists win if they do not lose. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, asked how we will know when we have won. That will be a real challenge.

While I support the Government. I recognise that the situation is not going according to plan. The Government cannot necessarily be criticised for that because we are dealing with extremely difficult issues. The least surprising announcement ever made is that Mr Brahimi has asked for an extension for ISAF. I do not believe that anyone thought that a cut-off point of the end of June had any credibility whatever. I make a small prediction that Mr Brahimi's extension will, in due course, be subject to a further extension as the problems continue. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that matter. I understand that For very good reasons his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has had to leave, but she presented a cheerful approach to the situation in Afghanistan.

I understand that the situation in Kabul is far from easy at present and is extremely worrying. Clearly if we move to the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, regarded as a logical progression rather than a major move forward, it is contrary to my understanding about military doctrine. One does not muddle up peacekeeping and war fighting. The reality—my noble friend Lord Howell referred to it—is that those to whom we are opposed, those whom we are trying to kill in the mountains by destroying terrorist hideouts, will have friends and allies around the cities. We have heard of terrorist incidents and attempted incidents in those areas. The softest targets will be the same nationalities seen in their peacekeeping role. Steps will have to be taken to ensure greater protection for those involved in the peacekeeping rather than the war fighting role.

Clearly, this is not the Battle of Waterloo in which people form fixed squares and fight to the last man. The classic guerrilla activity is now being adopted. As would be expected. The challenge in dealing with that is very real. Yet it is vital that an impetus is maintained. If it is thought that the coalition is not working, that is the most vivid recruiting signal to many disaffected people who are very sympathetic to Al'Qaeda and likely to flock to join the banner. I do not know whether the Government have any intelligence—I doubt whether we have—as to how many recruits are coming to join in the activities of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. We have reports of some. I have no idea how valid the reports are and how great the numbers.

In the current situation, my first demand on the Government, the coalition and the United States is that there is need now for a most sustained hearts-andminds campaign about our objectives internally in Afghanistan and externally around the world, about why we are there, and the actions that we take. Reference has been made to the Gulf War by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The challenge is to maintain the respectability of our activities, with the risk of the accident of the ill-guided bomb, of civilian casualties, and of outrages which can be exploited by the opposition and could do enormous damage and gain yet more recruits for Al'Qaeda and the Taliban. That is an essential element in the support for our marine commandos and others involved in the military campaign, both war fighting and peacekeeping.

As part of the hearts-and-minds campaign, there is need for the advertisement of the early and continuing evidence of the merits of peace. That needs to be continually repeated and hammered out. The Minister referred to the village fete, with kite flying, markets, souks and the other signs of life returning to normality. All that is good but it needs propagating and continual advertisement to persuade people that this is the better way. Maximum support for the coalition and for the United Nations approach is important. There have been increasing signs of the United States losing patience with some of its allies and some members of the coalition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to the massive scale of the military capability of the United States. I add one statistic. I refer to the total sum of the 15 other countries. I believe that I am right in saying that the increase in the defence budget announced by President Bush as a result of the present situation is larger than the total UK defence budget. I may be corrected, but the figure shows the scale.

On the military challenges, we have moved from phase one—the air campaign with high-level bombing and unmanned vehicles with their amazing technology. In the end there were bound to be troops on the ground. That becomes much more dangerous and more challenging. We know that the Taliban and Al'Qaeda said that they were looking forward to that. If they could survive the onslaught from the sky, they would get people down on what they saw as their level playing field. It is a real challenge. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to high altitude. Some of the territory in which the forces will work may be almost outside the ceiling of some of the helicopters and other support. I am not sure whether that is true. But Bagram at 7,000 feet forms a kind of low base. If the forces are up in some of the high mountains there is the challenge of acclimatisation. I see that two of my former constituents who are marine commandos in 45 Commando are moving from the shore level of Minehead in Somerset. They will find themselves in the high altitude of Afghanistan. That will surely be a challenge in terms of resources, numbers available and the ability to rotate and replace. There will have to be a significant period of acclimatisation at high altitudes before the troops become available for high mountain activity. That is an extra challenge that they face.

I do not know what intelligence we have about whether there are small pockets or many large and well-equipped pockets of forces and the scale of new recruits. In asking our forces to undertake these challenges, it is our duty to provide them with the best possible intelligence. I hope that the Minister will be able to give guidance on these points. Everyone in this House has great pride in our forces. We know that they will not let us down. If they have not been trained at the altitudes they will have to face in Afghanistan, albeit they have mountain training, they will be very challenged. They must not be exploited. I always feel that it is easy for Ministers—I could sometimes be accused—to pray in aid the quality of our forces and their ready availability for any charge that we as Ministers lay upon them. But they are not supermen. They must not be expected to undertake unreasonable and challenging tasks. They must be given every possible support in undertaking this work.

It will not be easy for them. It is an exceptionally difficult deployment. I am not clear whether we shall now work in a coalition with Afghan forces or whether NATO forces will undertake the charges on their own with Afghan forces in some support role. There are obvious benefits if we can work with local Afghan forces. But it is clear that the culture of those Afghan forces is not the same as what one might call the western armies. There has already been reference to the role of the war lords and their sometimes different objectives. That is a particularly challenging problem they have to face.

Military action in Afghanistan may not be the end of the threat of terrorism that the world faces but it is an important first step. Perhaps I may say a word about what the next steps may be. It is clear that what I considered the premature discussion of an involvement with Iraq has faded somewhat into the background as the difficulties that we face in Afghanistan have become more apparent. I am not sure that the Americans at this stage entirely share that view. Some of us had the pleasure of meeting the Vice President, Dick Cheney, on his repeat tour. Noble Lords will recall that before the Gulf War, after the invasion of Kuwait, he made the same tour round the countries of the Gulf. I have no doubt that the welcome he received, although polite and courteous, was not quite as forthcoming as it had been after the invasion of Kuwait 10 or 11 years ago in terms of the readiness of the countries to respond. We therefore need to ensure that if we are to move on, we move from secure achievement, and we need to be sure that in Afghanistan we have an established government in a secure situation, on which we can then build the continuing fight against terrorism.

I welcome today's debate. The Government are entitled to ask for our support. I certainly give mine. I accept, as was said in another place, that in giving our support we take a measure of responsibility for the decisions that the Government have taken. But that means that we are taking the Government's decisions on trust. I believe that in return we are entitled to expect from the Government the fullest possible information on the progress of this campaign, its successes, its setbacks, if any. If we give that support and take that measure of responsibility, we are entitled to feel that we are being properly informed at all times.

My Lords, it is surely right that this House should yet again debate developments in Afghanistan and the fight against global terrorism. Indeed, it is probably too long since we last did so. It is too easy to take one's eye off the ball and allow the rush of events, the fads of the media circus, to prescribe the daily agenda, causing one to overlook all the unfinished business both in Afghanistan and in the wider war against terrorism.

Last week's Statement about the decision to send the Royal Marines to Afghanistan was probably a wake-up call, a reminder that the images of a rapid and relatively casualty-free victory were too good to be true. If we allowed Afghanistan to drift away into the margins of our political consciousness, it could well return and bite us again, as it previously did.

However, resisting complacency does not mean for one moment that we should not dwell on some of the things that have gone right: first, a military campaign that led to the speedy overthrow of the Taliban and the destruction of Al'Qaeda's Afghan network of training camps and safe havens, and that at a relatively low cost in lives; secondly, a massive famine averted.

It is now difficult to remember the estimates of mass starvation with which we were bombarded last autumn. Sometimes we were even told that it was all the fault of those taking the action following 11th September. If that action had not been taken, if the Taliban had continued to rule in Afghanistan, many more people would have died of starvation than actually did. Thirdly, the freeing of a whole people from oppression and from discrimination against women which had characterised the role of the Taliban. It is difficult not to feel joy and some pride in the images o f children—including, for the first time, girls—returning to schools in Kabul, refurbished with British aid and protected by British peacekeepers. Fourthly, the marshalling of a great coalition—not just a military coalition but a coalition of peacekeepers and aid donors, in which we, our European partners and the UN have played a worthy role under US leadership.

The list of unfinished tasks remains much longer than the list of accomplishments, and the precariousness of what has already been achieved is not in doubt. The threat from the Taliban and from the remnants of Al'Qaeda is clearly real and far more difficult to cope with than when they were holding fixed and easily-identifiable positions. Afghanistan remains dominated by warlords whose past record leaves no room for believing that they will now work together for the common good just because we ask them to do so. The economy hardly exists and will not for several years be able, unassisted, to support the structure of a state. There is no tradition of democracy on which to fall back. If it is to exist at all, it will have to be built from the ground up. The bad habit of Afghanistan's neighbours meddling in its affairs may temporarily have been stilled, but it has certainly not been banished.

Therefore, the task for the United Nations and the coalition is massive. If we do not give the United Nations sustained political support or provide the resources needed to do the job, that task cannot in any way be successfully accomplished.

One of the top priorities must surely be to continue the work of political reconstruction that began with the Bonn Conference and the successful constitution of a provisional government. As the Minister reminded us, Loya Jirgah is only a few months away, and it is crucial that it should lead to a more solidly - based, more representative and more legitimate government. Only if the Afghans themselves take on the task of reconstructing their country will it work. Afghanistan is not a country in which outsiders can for long call the tune without taking risks themselves and without undermining the credibility of those they support. That, surely, is one lesson of history that we should not forget.

So far, the involvement of the Pashtun in the work of government has been less wholehearted and less widespread than is necessary, if lasting stability is to be achieved. Afghanistan cannot be successfully ruled by a non-Pashtun government, nor by one that has only a token Pashtun involvement or lacks the support of the Pashtun tribes. The building up of the Pashtun dimension of the government is a major task for the months ahead.

Another, less immediate but no less pressing, task is to lay the foundations for an end to the meddling of Afghanistan's neighbours in its affairs and, reciprocally, for an end to Afghanistan's meddling in their affairs. Such meddling has been endemic for generations—indeed for centuries—and it has brought nothing but strife, instability and suffering to Afghanistan and its neighbours. What is needed is an international convention with the full mandatory backing of the UN Security Council and its permanent members, which would commit Afghanistan's neighbours to the policy and practice of nonintervention and which would similarly commit Afghanistan, thus recognising the Durand Line as its border with Pakistan and forswearing any reversion to the ill-fated Pashtunistan venture of earlier years.

Would it not make sense for Britain to give a lead in championing such a convention? I should like to hear the Minister's reaction to that suggestion.

If one looks more widely at the war on terrorism, it is only honest to admit that some of the sharp focus, the burning sense of urgency and the unity of purpose, which was so evident in the early months after 11th September, have been lost. The first signs of divided counsels have made their appearance. On one side of the Atlantic, rather strident voices are raised, questioning why international co-operation is needed at all, why one should pay attention to the views of others, why anything is needed beyond the strength of America's formidable right arm. In my opinion, those are short-sighted views, which ignore the fact that the war against terrorism is not simply a military operation, in which victory is sure to go to the militarily stronger and better equipped side. It is a war whose civilian dimensions, denying havens to terrorists, denying them access to finance and weapons, pooling police work, intelligence and other matters, require the active and willing co-operation of the widest possible international coalition. That is one view on one side of the Atlantic.

On this side of the Atlantic, partly in response to those same strident voices, doubts have emerged about the next stage of the war against terrorism, about the unilateral trend of US leadership. Yet, if one thinks about it, the challenge that we all faced last December has not gone away; nor has it diminished, except in a very temporary way; nor has it been superseded by some other, greater threat. Now that we know more about the scope of Al'Qaeda's ambitions and its world-wide network and better understand how difficult it is, in an age of globalisation, to counter its activities effectively, we need to be more united and more determined, not less so.

On no issue have divided counsels been more evident than over the handling of Iraq. On none, therefore, is it more necessary to close ranks and to try to find a policy response which maximises the pressure of the international community on a regime with whom no one from one side of the political spectrum to the other, no one from one region of the world to another, has the slightest sympathy.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq has broken a whole range of international obligations in relation to the elimination of its programmes for acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not he was in some way linked to Al"Qaeda or to the events of last September remains obscure; but it is in any case not the whole story about his involvement with terrorism. What has Saddam Hussein been doing since 1991 to fulfil the obligation under the ceasefire resolution that he should avoid support of any kind for terrorism or terrorist acts? What has he done since last September to implement the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1373 which laid the foundations of the campaign against terrorism?

All those are pressing and legitimate matters which need to be put to the Iraqi regime without more delay, and to which its response will be a determining factor in future developments. That is why I urge the Government to work with our partners in the Security Council to bring forward a new resolution which would at the same time require Iraq to re- admit UN weapons inspectors and to fulfil their obligations in the war against terrorism. It would also ensure that the sanctions regime was reshaped so as to bear down more effectively on Iraq's weapons programmes and military ambitions and less harshly on its long-suffering people. One would hope that a resolution of that nature could unite the international community, not divide it, as does the present debate about early military action against Iraq.

I should like to end a little closer to home. It has been suggested that the Prime Minister and the Government should be spending less time and effort on those overseas challenges; that in some way Britain is overreaching and overestimating its role in world affairs; that we should be giving absolute priority to our many pressing domestic challenges. I do not agree. Much of the comment seems to me shot through with traces of isolationism and little Englandism. It overlooks the fact that if middle-ranking powers such as Britain, which have global interests and global responsibilities, opt out, then we really will be in a unipolar world with the United States calling all the shots and the gap between them and their principal European allies, both in capability and in policy, steadily widening.

I believe that that would not be in our interest, nor in that of Europe, nor, for that matter, in that of the United States. So I welcome the lead the Government have given in the war against terrorism both in Afghanistan and more widely, and I would encourage them to continue to do so.

My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Hannay, speaks with great authority based on his long experience. I hope that I may be able to pick up on one or two of his points during my remarks.

It is just over six months since the horrendous events of llth September. I am sure that all noble Lords will recollect the feelings that most people had in the days immediately following that tragic happening. I can remember how fearful we were. Whenever a plane flew overhead people almost instinctively looked up to see what it was. They were anxious about going to the top of tall buildings. There was a general nervousness and unease prevailing throughout, particularly in the City.

All that has gone. We have moved away from those events and even now, perhaps encouraged by the spring sunshine beginning to emerge, people are feeling lighter-hearted and at ease. But they would be wiser to take note of the decisions that have just been taken by the Government committing further troops to Afghanistan, and to ask themselves why this has to be so. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, this is part of a continuing story. What we heard announced in relation to the Commando going to Afghanistan is an instalment. Many further announcements will follow.

However, one thing on which I hope there is unity in this House is that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the United States of America. It is quite remarkable the way in which the people of America, with their leaders, naturally, responded with such resilience, unity, determination and clarity of purpose. Now that we are focusing on the wider picture of international or global terrorism, it may be more difficult to accept some of the decisions which need to be taken. It was easier to accept a response against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban in one country. But our attention—certainly that of the United States of America—is looking further afield to other countries.

Just across the border from Afghanistan is Pakistan. My noble friend Lord King mentioned the nature of the terrain with which we are all only too familiar. Like others I have been there, and I know how the mountainous region and tribal affinities straddle the frontier. There is no clear dividing line. People move from one side to the other and always have done. Pakistan is now the unwilling host to a large number of former Taliban and Al'Qaeda members.

1 ask the Minister—I do not seek an immediate answer—what support we are giving to Pakistan in their effort to control the activities of their own proTaliban elements? Many people in Pakistan, not least those who are being "educated" in the madrasalis, are in fact being fed ruthless propaganda in which the United States of America is featured as the enemy and we are classified with them.

Many of those countries—Pakistan is no exception—have a high proportion of young people. Two-and-a-half weeks ago I was lucky enough to be in the Gulf area and I visited Iran. They are a most delightful people: the nicest people one could wish to meet. One point I wish to make is that when we condemn states for their perceived or known activities inimical to our interests, we should recognise that we are attacking the rulers and not the people. The people of Iran are wholly delightful and want only one thing—to live a more open, freer life. They want to enjoy some of the things that we take for granted in the West. Many of those things are denied to them by the oppressive, almost tyrannical regime of the mullahs and ayatollahs.

Iran is not alone in having a government that is intent on supporting terrorist activities. It is an active financier of Terrorist groups in Palestine, as is Syria, and from time to time, inadvertently, Saudi Arabia. I know that Saudi Arabia sends considerable funds to Palestine. I hope that it will assist Palestine to try to gain control over the terrorist groups inside Palestine. Iran, Syria and others, pursue a programme of building up substantial capability in missile technology and development. I am referring to Scud-type operations and other weapons of that kind. Much of the technology comes from North Korea, which is a troublesome, rogue state. It is the cause of potential problems in Iran, Syria and, indeed, in Libya, where it supplies the equipment, know-how and technology for the forward development of missile technology. What is the purpose?

These countries were identified by President Bush in his State of the Union Address in January. He has been criticised for some of the words that he used—"the axis of evil", for example. That the rulers of those countries are evil there can be little doubt. They would certainly seem to be evil in intent if they are seeking access to weapons of mass destruction, such as Iraq has undoubtedly been doing.

The mistake was to group those countries together. Each country has its own agenda. They are not like-minded people; they have different objectives. Therefore, they need to be tackled independently and individually. The countries of the Gulf and the Arab countries generally are coming together in a conference in Beirut. It was of great value that Crow n Prince Abdullah put forward his proposition on a possible solution to the Arab-Israel dispute. It may not meet all the requirements but it forms a useful basis on which to develop further discussions and negotiations. It is encouraging coming from that source as the country has the influence and the resources to help bring about a settlement—at least to influence its fellow Arab countries.

Another country that needs to be influenced in the same direction is Israel. Its excessive retribution and response policy to suicide bombing is not helping to foster a solution. This has been going on for a long time and has not solved the problem at all. Nor does it solve the problem by continuing to build settlements on Arab-held land. It would be better if those settlements were withdrawn and a more moderate response shown. Israel should remind itself of the second part of the Balfour declaration of 1917 which, while favouring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, went on to say,

"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

I am afraid that a lot has been done to prejudice those rights. I know that Israel is desperate to be assured of security for its own frontiers, and rightly so, but it will not achieve them that way. It will achieve them only by a negotiated settlement. I hope that Israel, too, will offer a positive response to Crown Prince Abdullah's initiative.

We are engaged in a long and sustained campaign against global terrorism. In answer to a question earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that Her Majesty's Government are prioritising measures—whatever that means—to address three types of situation: first, measures to prevent terrorists operating in areas where states lack the resources or skills to confront them; secondly, measures against states that promote and condone terrorism as a tool of foreign policy; and, thirdly, measures against sources of terrorist finance. When he replies, I hope that the Minister can put flesh on those bones and explain what those words mean. How, for example, are we going to act against states which promote and condone terrorism as a tool of foreign policy? That must include Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq, and probably includes North Korea. What is meant by the Government now "prioritising measures" to act in that respect? If the noble Lord can help, then we will know the nature of the next stage of the fight against terrorism.

I end by supporting very strongly what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said earlier on; namely, that here we are committing forces with reduced resources. I would hope that we have a Statement soon indicating that the Government are pledging additional resources to back up our military commitment, both with improved equipment and with improved intelligence.

My Lords, six months ago and in the shadow of 11th September, your Lordships were also discussing events in Afghanistan. Then the mood was very different. The fires in New York and Washington were still blazing. The death toll was uncertain. Stock markets had crashed. The world was in turmoil. There was much talk then that life would never be the same again.

President Bush rose to the occasion and found an eloquence and a sense of purpose that few of us thought he possessed. Our own Prime Minister seized the historic significance of the moment and pledged Britain's total support of the United States. Mr Blair said that we would stand shoulder to shoulder with America; and we have done so.

But there has been a darker side to all of this. First, we saw the famed Islamic street celebrating America's come-uppance. Since then, and to this day, opinion polls in Islamic lands have shown that over 60 per cent of Arabs believe that the atrocities of September llth were perpetrated not by Al'Qaeda but by the Mossad, the Israeli secret service.

Here in Europe, and often sotto voce, there were those who said that America had it coming. Even in our own midst there was the sickening gloating from some that the "Great Satan" had been brought to its knees. Who can forget our own shame when the US ambassador was reduced to tears on BBC television when the anti-American rent-a-mob set upon him in the immediate aftermath of the September tragedy?

I recall the defeatism that was at large among much of the media and certain politicians, even within your Lordships' House. I remember what they said: that there was no proof; that America is trigger-happy and obsessed by bin Laden; that wars cannot be won in Afghanistan; and, worst of all, that we were bound to lose.

We heard similar arguments before we took action in Kosovo and Bosnia. Yet who can deny that those lands are happier now that Milosevic has gone? We heard the same before the Gulf War, but who can deny that Kuwait is a better country with its independence restored? We heard the same during the 40 years of the Cold War, but who can deny that the former communist states are beginning to enjoy freedom and prosperity? Before my lifetime the world heard the same in the late 1930s, but who would dare deny that the world became a better place after the defeat of the Third Reich?

I simply fail to understand those people who cannot see a tyrant when he stares them in the face. They believe that all one has to do is to be nice to the bin Ladens, the Milosovics, the Saddams, the Stalins or the Hitlers of this world and that sweet reason will prevail. Appeasement is a one-way street.

In the Gulf War we set ourselves one target—to free Kuwait. We should have set another—to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Today we are paying the price. If tomorrow morning on the "Today" programme the announcer were to say, "Reports are coming in that Iraq has successfully tested a nuclear weapon", would your Lordships be "very surprised", "slightly surprised" or "not at all surprised"? Speaking for myself, I should be not at all surprised. I fully expect it.

Then what? We can all be certain that our friend in Baghdad has not expended so much effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction simply for passive defence. If one builds a bicycle, one does not use it to weigh butter.

This is the man who gassed 20,000 of his own people. This is the man who declared war on Iran and Kuwait. This is the man of super gun fame. This is the man who even now pays 10,000 dollars as a special bonus to the families of every successful Palestinian suicide bomber on his or her heinous journey to eternity. This man is pure evil and wishes us more than ill; he wishes us dead. On the basis of his past behaviour and what our intelligence service is probably telling us, we must take pre-emptive action. If we do not, then his scientists will continue to build those weapons, which he will undoubtedly use against us.

There remains one further reason why action against Saddam is to be considered. There is a link between Saddam and bin Laden that many seek to deny. There is little doubt that in April 2001 a meeting took place in Prague between Mohamed Atta, the leading Al'Qaeda hijacker, and Ahmed al-Ani, the Israeli consul in Prague who was Saddam's intelligence case officer there. Atta had flown 7,000 miles from Florida to Prague and back again for a one-day meeting, the third time he had visited Prague that year. Not quite a smoking gun, but evidence enough to suggest more than a casual connection.

Finally, let me turn to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Noble Lords may know that I am a supporter of Israel but no friend of its present Prime Minister. In my view, he is a man who employs the subtlety of a bulldozer. The tragedy is that Mr Arafat, too, is devoid of any policy that envisages compromise. He is a man whose whole life has been the promotion of terrorism and who even now, in the twilight of his years, refuses to countenance any outcome other than total victory. Two old men, cursed by their personal history, without an initiative between them.

This coming Wednesday is the Jewish festival of Pesach, the Passover. The celebration of the exodus from Egypt of the children of Israel; the 10 plagues; the crossing of the Red Sea; the giving of the Torah by God to the Jewish people and the founding of the biblical state of Israel.

Moses went to Pharaoh and said, "Thus sayeth the Lord, let My people go so that they may worship Me". It was the original cry for freedom of an enslaved people, a cry that has echoed throughout the ages. No Jew should read this story as we do and not draw the parallel with today's Palestinians and their yearning for a state of their own.

On the very same day of Passover, the Arab League will be holding their summit in Beirut. There, the Saudi, Prince Abdullah, is expected to announce a ground-breaking initiative: that all 22 Arab states, acting in concert, will offer Israel total and secure peace as well as full recognition and a normalisation of relations. I say "normalisation" and not just normal relations. In return. Israel will agree to withdraw to the borders that existed on 6th June 1967. This is not a new offer, but coming from the Saudis at this crucial time it is of major significance. The Israelis will be suspicious, the Palestinians will sense a sell-out, but it is the only game in town and it can be made to work.

Every year for 3,000 years the Jews have recited the Passover service around the family table. The final four words of that service are "Next year in Jerusalem". That has always been the dream of the Jewish people. Today, they are in Jerusalem but they have no peace. That is ironic, when the Hebrew for Jerusalem is "Yerushalayim", literally translated as "The City of Peace". After all this suffering perhaps the time has come for Israelis and Palestinians to share that family table and to turn the city of war into the city of peace for ever.

My Lords, might I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, that I believe he meant to say that the meeting was with the Iraqi attaché in Prague. He said the Israeli. I believe that the noble Lord would wish to have that corrected in Hansard. I thought I would mention it now.

Thank you very much.

My Lords, other noble Lords have spoken far better than I could do about the strictly military problems of overstretch; of the long lines of communication, especially in view of the emerging difficulties over access for our troops through Pakistan; of whether the troops will have the right equipment when they need it and whether the sad lesson of the Gulf War veterans has been learnt so that the right preventive health measures are applied this time.

There is also the vital issue of enough money for training now and not in the distant future. I expect, too, that most of us, while accepting that we have a long history of effective and friendly co-operation with the Americans, are a little uneasy about some issues of command and control, especially in such a high technology-dominated conflict.

On overstretch, I wish to ask one question which is relevant to but not about Afghanistan. That is the prospect of rival claims on our limited military power where the immediate political dividend rather than our direct defence interest is in question. We are, I believe, being pressed by our European allies to support their proposal to launch the new rapid reaction force on its first military adventure at the very time when we are rightly committing a significant military force as a firm and effective ally of the United States in Afghanistan and in the fight against terrorism, which itself a threat to the United Kingdom.

The EU, however, is pushing for a new military force in Macedonia to succeed the NATO presence later this year. Because we are separating two hostile groups, this would be at the higher end of the Petersburg tasks at a time when the force could not possibly be described as ready in terms of capabilities and would require NATO assets. It is reported that NATO is not prepared to provide these, particularly given the continuing problems with both Turkey and Greece.

Whatever the political dividend (and firm support for NATO would also carry that) I hope that we can be assured that, given the glaring capability gap and our other major commitments, Her Majesty's Government will listen to the military argument against British participation should the proposal be pressed further by the European leaders.

I have a different concern: the environment in which our troops will be fighting in Afghanistan and the implications of asymmetric warfare and of w hat are now called information operations. As several noble Lords have said, our troops will not be fighting a clearly defined enemy, a rival national army. It will not be like the Falklands or the Gulf War. It will be much more like fighting the Communists in Malaysia—a long war of attrition that we won only when General Templer devised a way to protect people in the villages.

The international stability force was specifically asked for and is doing a splendid job, as are the troops undertaking mine clearing at Kabul airport. But Operation Veritas is different. In principle, the Afghans recognise the need for stability and, in principle, their powerful neighbours, Pakistan and Iran, shared the view that, as Mr Brahimi has said:

"the international community should help the Afghans to find a political solution on their own, because only such a home-grown solution would be credible, legitimate and sustainable".

At the Bonn conference, all the warring parties agreed on an emergency Loya Jirgah by June this year to set up a transitional authority to rule the country until a constitutional Loya Jirgah can meet 18 months after that, at the end of 2003 or even in 2004. Meanwhile, however, the whole structure, so far as it exists at all, is fragile. Pathans, once supporters of the Taliban, and their rivals, the Northern Alliance of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, all have then local factions, all still armed, and Al'Qaeda sleepers, as well as those who continue to fight, will be among them.

The participants in the Bonn conference, who were not necessarily plenipotentiaries anyway, declared that they were,

"conscious that some time may be required for the new Afghan security and armed forces to be fully constituted and functioning".

It does take time. We must recognise that our troops will be fighting guerrillas and that the people will sometimes be allied with us and sometimes with them.

A member of the former Indian civil service who served on the north-west frontier once said of the Afghans that they did not in the least want us to "civilise" them and so do not expect that that rejection of foreigners has changed. As General Sir Mike Jackson once told the Defence Select Committee, speaking of operations in Kosovo:

"You are actually operating amongst people's perceptions, people's attitudes. That is your operational arena, not a piece of ground with a conventional enemy".

He was speaking of what might be called a psychological battle space in a peacekeeping operation. The trouble is that our troops will be fighting a tough shooting war with a strong element of potential local treachery to complicate it in just such an operational arena, side by side with a massive humanitarian operation. There will be real practical difficulties of communication with the people. With all their gifts, I do not expect that many marines speak Pashtun.

If anyone can do the job, they can, but the stress will be proportionately greater than in a series of short, sharp engagements in battle. Hence it is extremely important that they, their families and the public know, if possible, for how long that commitment is to last, and what is their required target. The timescale set out hopefully in Bonn can mean only that internal war between the factions, especially in the absence of a central government, could continue at least until 2004. That must mean rotation of troops, given the harsh conditions and the demands of asymmetrical guerrilla warfare. It will also demand more, not less, training and plenty of that vital commodity, good intelligence. We may indeed not be able to set a term. We have a moving target, and a most difficult one, but in that case we must sustain the full support that the troops need for as long as it is needed.

The Northern Alliance has its own agenda; so too, no doubt, do the Russians. We and the Americans went there to eliminate Al'Qaeda, or at least to deprive it of its base, and only incidentally to end a harsh regime. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, like the IRA, which was able to continue its guerrilla war from a friendly base in Ireland, those terrorists can either melt into the villages or withdraw covertly to Pakistan, whether Pakistan likes it or not, over a long frontier to regroup and, as one soldier recently said, simply commute to war. Excellent as human intelligence usually is, the conditions make it difficult to obtain in timely fashion so that the troops may be warned of the incursions.

Our troops will be fighting a new kind of war, which could last for years. It is essential that defence should be given the highest budgetary priority. The troops must not be fobbed off with inadequate equipment, and they must be properly rotated. One of the prime causes of the failure to retain good soldiers in recent years is the number of unaccompanied tours that most of the forces now serve, during which troops never see their family. Above all, the troops must know that they are at least as important to the country as good railways and good education.

High morale is one of the best smart weapons that we can offer our troops; exacting a compulsory annual saving of 3 per cent on an already overstretched and inadequate budget, so that even vital training exercises must be cut, is not. We are at war: someone must tell the Chancellor.

My Lords, in the past two decades, Afghanistan has seen human suffering and endurance on a scale that none of us can imagine. Its people, although used to deprivation, have reason to expect the help that has been denied them for so long.

The successful US-led military campaign that drove out the Taliban last year has not brought peace but it has given the country a breathing space. Food security, as has been said, has been greatly improved. Many displaced Afghani families have returned home from Pakistan and Iran, and the aid agencies have been able to resume their development and relief programmes. It is difficult to estimate the number of people who are still in need in the conflict zones. About 700,000 are known to be vulnerable, as they are without shelter or regular access to food and live in areas beyond the reach of the UN agencies.

As my noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick said, famine has been averted, but some people in remote mountain villages have had no supplies for months and are still waiting. Poverty, especially the lack of food and drinking water, has continued to cause malnutrition and ill health. There are not enough blankets or clothes for the displaced. The Afghan Government's capacity even to meet the basic needs of children and the elderly is weak or virtually nonexistent. That means that the country will need international aid for some time to come.

The ISAF has been an outstanding example of international co-operation. It has brought stability and security to the capital city and the roads outside, although not to other parts of the country. That was pointed out in detail a month ago by members of the Select Committee on International Development in another place. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, referred to that.

According to some reports, insecurity outside Kabul is not declining but increasing. There are still restrictions on the travel of agency staff. Although the areas surrounding the major Northern Alliance-controlled towns, such as Mazar-i Sharif and Herat, are relatively safe, travel south of Kandahar and east towards Jalalabad is undertaken only at great risk. As in Bosnia, aid agencies must operate in dangerous conditions. They pass through checkpoints controlled by the different warlords; their vehicles are sometimes the target of bandit attacks or shootings. One aid worker told me this week that the neutrality that should guarantee the safety of NGOs is almost impossible to achieve. He said that effectively they had to be friends with no one.

In those conditions, which are in some respects arguably worse in some areas than under the Taliban, neither the peacekeeping troops nor the coalition forces have played—or perhaps can play—any useful part. The continuing battle with the so-called Al'Qaeda remnants has not brought stability to those areas, rather the contrary. My noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick mentioned the frailty of the interim authority. The hostilities between rival Pashtun factions inevitably divide the population and create local suspicion of all outside forces, whether they are aid staff or military.

The introduction of additional troops from the UK will of course be welcome, not only to the US, who requested them, but to all Afghans who wish to see Al'Qaeda routed and the roads made safe. However, these troops are not there to help local people. Instead of air strikes with defined objectives, there will be a long-term anti-terrorist campaign in the mountains, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and many others have said—with uncertain results. Such a prolongation of the civil war is therefore unlikely to command support from or con tribute to the welfare of the population.

The situation in Kabul is different. ISAF has been very well received by the international community. Some excellent reconstruction work is going on, from police training and the civil service to rehabilitation of roads, buildings and services. The UN agencies, as the noble Baroness described, have made great strides in education and women's participation. Our own DfID has just published figures for mine clearance, showing that over £3 million has gone from us to the United Nations and NGOs like Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group in Afghanistan alone.

The public here can hardly appreciate the dangers constantly facing the staff of these organisations, trying to restore something close to normal life. In addition, the de-miners now have to cope with thousands of unexploded bomblets dropped from US aircraft.

In previous campaigns in Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor there have been examples of successful involvement of the military in humanitarian work; for example, in the building of emergency shelters for refugees in Macedonia. This might suggest a more active role for peacekeepers in the protection of aid convoys and humanitarian projects in Afghanistan. However, as has been said, there are grave risks in associating aid workers and peacekeeping troops too closely in Afghanistan, especially when those troops are from countries still engaged in armed conflict inside the country.

The NGO Forum in Kabul, which is represented here by the British Agencies Afghanistan Group, issued a statement earlier this month that confusion is being created in the minds of civilians by some armed coalition soldiers who apparently have been taking part in civil operations but dressing and behaving like the staff of aid agencies. Ministers will be aware that local and international NGOs feel that their independence and impartiality will he seriously compromised unless a clear distinction is made. This is an issue about which the NGOs feel very strongly and any reassurance the Minister can give tonight will be welcome.

On the issue of civilian casualties during the war against the Taliban/Al'Qaeda, I have still not received a comprehensive reply from the Government after five months. The noble Lord knows from a conversation we have had that I received two belated Written Answers from the MoD on 12th March which express regret for casualties but still do not acknowledge the reports from reliable sources of the significant numbers of civilian casualties.

For example, a report from UNOCHA, which is the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, on 11th March suggested that the numbers killed after 7th October could have been more than 1,000 and as high as 1,500 people. This is a figure which comes close to one-third of the numbers lost on September 11th. While I make absolutely no direct comparison between these figures, which are unrelated, they do nevertheless suggest that the war has not been as tidy an operation as is generally understood in this country. While damage to infrastructure is to some extent compensated by reconstruction, there is no current US plan to reimburse any of the families who are victims—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—families who have suffered losses, or even to acknowledge that such losses have occurred.

If the anti-terrorism campaign involving our troops in one form or another is to be seen not just as a reaction to the events of September 11th but as part of a long-term programme to benefit the people of Afghanistan, it is essential that we demonstrate the actual benefits on the ground. On the one hand, we must provide the unambiguous security which the civilians need to return to normal life, while on the other hand we must not contribute further to the devastation of war through any violent acts against the population. More than that, we have to show that we are on the side of ordinary people in the campaign against terrorism.

There are many issues that concern Afghanis which go beyond the civil war in Afghanistan itself. For example, the ability of the United States to make any real difference to the Middle East peace process is seriously in question, despite the hopes expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, and the noble Lord, Lord Eden, whom I have known for a long time. Our associations with Israel through trade and family ties place us, in Arab eyes, firmly in the US-Israel camp, so that not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also throughout the Middle East, in Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia, people are watching to learn our true motivation in prolonging and extending the fight against Al'Qaeda and the Taliban, and perhaps even against Iraq.

I personally welcome the arrival of the first of the 1,700 Marines in Bagram in preparation for the next phase of the campaign, so long as the fears of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig about expenditure can be allayed. Having years ago driven through Afghanistan and having recently re-read King—of the Khyber Rifles, which I am sure noble Lords will know, I am well aware of the considerable problems of logistics and intelligence soldiers will have to face, even with the most up-to-date equipment. Recent news clips of the US special forces peering anxiously into rock crevices did not give viewers much confidence during Operation Anaconda. The Karzai administration will be relieved that a much more highly experienced force is to strengthen the Americans. It is comforting to learn that they are also to have air support.

However, there is another dimension, as the noble Lord, Lord King, pointed out. We have to remember that the coalition against terrorism must go well beyond the destruction of the remnants of Al'Qaeda into a hearts and minds campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That means clear political and diplomatic objectives to ensure the widest possible coalition, as my noble friend Lord Hannay said so well. We must show the countries attending the Arab summit this week, our friends and allies, that we are not simply picking off terrorists but that we are concerned with sustainable development, justice and human rights in all the countries in which terrorism, for one reason or other, continues to thrive.

My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that I am not a military man and, indeed, that I have no military experience. As such I am very aware that there are many noble and gallant Lords who are much better equipped to speak in this debate than I. However, I have decided to speak today for those very reasons. The ongoing shrinkage of our Armed Forces has meant that fewer and fewer people in the United Kingdom have regular and direct contact with the military. It is worrying how civil society is beginning to view our Armed Forces. This evening I hope to be able to raise some of the concerns currently being felt by them.

As I said in your Lordships' House last week, I support the Government's decision to order the additional deployment of troops in Afghanistan. Such decisions are never easy, but in this case I believe that the Government have done the right thing. As I also said last week, I was fortunate enough recently to spend time with 45 Commando, Royal Marines, while they were on exercise in Oman. I was very impressed with what I saw. I have no doubt that they will succeed in any task laid before them.

I have always been of the view that once our troops have been sent into battle it is morally incumbent upon us all to back them. Things are difficult enough for those brave men and women without them being made to feel that their own nation is not behind their actions. However, we can only believe ourselves to be offering effective support if we also ask probing questions of the Government—questions which, I am sure, will be running through the minds of some of our troops, and their families, as they prepare to make their journey into theatre.

One question that has cropped up time and time again in relation to this deployment is: how long will it last? Also, has a coherent exit strategy been formulated? Yesterday, we were treated to a procession of Cabinet Ministers appearing on our television screens to provide their views on these and other matters related to the deployment. Their words did little to reassure me.

Speaking on one such programme, the Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw, said of the deployment that,

"You cannot say for certain how long it's going to last".

On another programme, the Defence Secretary, Mr Hoon, said that British troops would remain in Afghanistan,

"for as long as their military leaders judge that they can do an effective job".

I regard this as a somewhat bizarre statement, to say the least. Since when did our soldiers ever do anything other than an "effective job"? Indeed, if one was to take Mr Hoon's words at face value, he could be accused of time-limiting the deployment merely to infinity. I do not think that this situation is sustainable. More clarity is essential.

Mr Hoon said something else yesterday which troubled me. When asked about the future he said:

"If it is necessary for us to deploy further forces, if the military advice says that it is something that should happen, then obviously we will do that".

It is the phrase "military advice" that worries me. Military advice from whom? British military advice or American military advice? I sincerely hope that it is British military advice that is dictating the British commitment.

While I have the utmost respect for all those in command of the allied forces in Afghanistan, I am more than a little uncomfortable with the idea of our Government giving another nation a blank cheque to use British forces in any way, and for as long as it wants.

My anxiety increased yesterday when I read a newspaper report that the MoD had warned the Prime Minister to expect 80 casualties as a result of this deployment, including 20 deaths. This information puts the gravity of the situation very sharply into perspective. We have been warned for some time of the likelihood of our forces taking casualties. However, in these days of precision warfare, an understandable level of complacency has crept into too many minds. But casualties are what we must unfortunately prepare for as precision warfare is not what this deployment is all about. It is, in all probability, about hand-to-hand fighting. Such a scenario makes for unfortunate outcomes and, inevitably, casualties. I hope very much that the Government—and, of course, the general public—are ready for this.

Of great relevance to the matter we are debating is the state of our Armed Forces in general, particularly with regard to their overall strength and, of course, their financing. I am sure that I am not alone in being alarmed at some of the information that has leaked out to the media in recent weeks about the shortfalls in our Armed Forces. For example, the Army is supposedly currently estimated to be short of more than 6,000 soldiers. I understand that across all three services the deficit is more than 9,000. These statistics are said to be the result of a lack of suitable recruits and of the difficulty of retaining trained personnel, who opt to leave the services earlier than expected. This trend is deeply worrying.

Of similar concern is the apparent lack of funding being made available by the Treasury to the Ministry of Defence. Reports have estimated the current under-funding of the defence budget to be in the region of some £500 million. It is said that, as a result, the Army is being forced to slice its garrison in Kosovo by some 75 per cent. It is also seeking to withdraw its troops from Bosnia. Furthermore, we have heard reports that the MoD has been forced to borrow hundreds of millions of pounds from next year's budget to stave off more trimming. That is hardly the perfect backdrop against which to send our troops into battle in Afghanistan.

In conclusion, following the events of 11 th September, the Government committed the United Kingdom to playing its full part in the so-called war against global terror. I fully support that decision—as did almost all, if not all, of your Lordships. However, while our troops are now being prepared to play an even greater role in that war, the Government continue to seek to find a way to grant an amnesty for terrorists on the run from the security forces in Northern Ireland. What difference is there between these men and the equally evil men associated with Al'Qaeda and the Taliban? I see no difference. I am sure that your Lordships see no difference. I therefore urge the Government to think again on this most serious of matters, lest they wish to risk incurring your Lordships' wrath.

My Lords, at this stage of the debate—and a very interesting one it has been—one is tempted to follow a number of points that have already been raised. I mention in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to which I listened with great interest. I hope my noble friend will ensure that Her Majesty's Government take note of the suggestions that he made. I was particularly pleased by the reference he made to the need to maintain international interest.

That reminded me of an interview during my trip with the Foreign Secretary to Namibia in the late 1970s. A journalist asked: "Do you think you are wasting your time here?". I said, "No". I was then asked: "Where would you he if you were not here?". I said, "Probably, since it is a Saturday morning, doing my surgery". The next question was: "Do you think your constituents like you being here instead of at the surgery?". I said, "I should hope so. My constituency contains a very important part of the British engineering steel industry. To make steel, we need to add tungsten, vanadium, molybdenum, manganese, and a whole variety of metals because we are a trading nation".

There is another reason why we should be interested. I read in the press yesterday that the United Kingdom received more telephone calls from Mr bin Laden than anyone else. That is not surprising, given the international nature of British life and business. But if we are to be a prosperous state, we have to be internationally minded—and, if we are, we have to accept that the terrorism experience of 1lth September and before then requires the United Kingdom and any other right-thinking state to be fully involved in the effort to counter it; indeed, to make sure that no state is prepared to host it ever again. Some of us have expressed regret over a long time about the capacity of some of our partner states to maintain adequate defence capacity. I hope that they are learning that lesson more clearly today.

Terrorism is a symptom as well as a condition that we find unacceptable. The symptom is serious and has to be rooted out. Any young Muslim who requires motivation about injustice in the world can easily have his attention turned to Israel. I am not anti-Semitic. I recognise that the Israeli state must exist and that it should have adequate international guarantees. However, I find it difficult when land for peace is spurned and when the conditions cause young Palestinian extremists to act in stupid, violent and horrifying ways, commanding a stupid, horrifying response from Mr Sharon. For America and Sharon then to demand that Arafat should control the young Palestinians is asking far too much. I hope that sooner or later the Americans—who perhaps have now begun to regret the support that they gave to terrorism across the Irish Sea—will realise that they have to take a more mature and vigorous approach to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli problem, because if they do not do so, it merely provides fertile sustenance to the cause of terror and more symptoms will raise their heads.

However, our debate is about Afghanistan. I am sure that the quality of our troops to be engaged in the mountains of Afghanistan will be very high. The contribution of the paratroops and other units involved in peacekeeping and society engendering activities in Afghanistan to date has been most commendable. However, they cannot be there for ever. They will have to be replaced. I am sure that the Turkish army, which is a formidable organisation, will provide adequate leadership when it replaces our own. However, we have to try to ensure that the quality of forces that go from other countries is adequate. It has not always been so in former Yugoslavia.

Our troops are of high quality. While I am delighted that there is cross-party and across the board support and high regard for our military forces serving in Afghanistan, I detected the odd note of criticism of the Government's provision and record. I have been interested in defence for a long time. I recall the Falklands War. I was among the Members of Parliament who expressed opposition to the removal of HMS "Endurance", which sent a clear signal to Mr Galtieri. If he had been sensible enough to wait for a few weeks until a few more Royal Navy ships had been decommissioned or sold off, the adventure to the Falklands would have been greatly in peril.

I also recall the Gulf War. I attended a gathering addressed by the American general who commanded the coalition forces in the Gulf. He told us that the one essential contribution that he needed from the United Kingdom was the Tornado bomber, using the JP23 airfield denial weapon. That was regarded as essential, because Iraq had 600-odd combat aircraft. If they had been flown with resolution at the beginning of the Gulf War, a great deal of damage could have been done.

However, the Ministry of Defence then realised that the Tornados had been designed for Germany and not for the Gulf and could not fly without the addition of a capacitator. I have no idea what a capacitator is. I understand that the Ministry of Defence was advised that there would probably be a 15-week delay in delivery and a cost of £15,000 per capacitator. At that time, the Government were eager to privatise. They did not seem keen on the argument that the services should be intelligent customers.

I went to RAF Sealand and met a man called Wilkinson and his five friends. They gave up their free time that weekend and made the capacitators for £108 each. The Tornados were able to fly to the Gulf, and the Iraqi air force got the message and flew off to Iraq.

The government of 1991 may have been sailing closer to the wind than the current Government. When the Government took office, we had to survive several years of attack and derision because of the policy that led to SDR. That policy has been extremely successful, and one hopes that the new chapter also will be relevant and successful. We have heard about inadequacies, but, in 1997, the Government inherited not only a rifle that everyone said was unsatisfactory, but the Bowman military communications system, which would have been a tragedy if it were not a farce. Since 1997, we have seen the Eurofighter going ahead and the lease of the C-17—which is a most impressive aircraft. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, was with us the other day when we visited that cavernous form of transport. Furthermore, the Tornado, the Jaguar and the Harrier have all been upgraded, and a commitment has been made to JSF. There are new weapons for the air force and new ships for the navy.

There is a military recruitment problem, but it has arisen when unemployment levels are low and recruitment is much more difficult. Indeed, employment levels are higher now than they were when there was a similar problem 15, 10 and even five years ago. The problems in infantry recruitment have to be dealt with. We must also ensure that there are enough pilots. However, it is rather a disgrace that some of those proclaiming themselves to be British and running aeroplanes which sometimes have the flag of our nation on them spend their time poaching pilots because they have not taken the trouble to invest in training themselves. The same goes for those who seek to poach professionals in, for example, the Royal Corps of Signals. It might be crude to say so, but I do not think that anyone who poaches like that should ever be on the Honours List or given tickets for the garden party. I think that a little social disapproval should be used to encourage them to mend their ways, rather than for people to heap odium upon the heads of the Government.

There are problems. As noble Lords have said, our troops will be fighting at 20,000 feet. I hope that they will have a very considerable period to ensure that they are acclimatised. I was glad to have the assurance that there will be proper communications and that our troops will work very closely with the Americans. That is not only good but essential. We do not want any more friendly fire casualties. A few weeks ago, I saw the "Panorama" programme about the Parachute Regiment's conditions in Kabul. They were far from being rich in creature comforts. If those conditions continue, perhaps we should spend a little more to improve conditions for the marines when they come back for a break from their mountain fighting.

I am not criticising the meals that they are receiving. The other day, with one or two other noble Lords, I had a field-meal cooked by Gurkhas which was absolutely delicious. Many hotels and restaurants in London would charge a great deal for that type of food and people would be daft enough to pay it. It was a very enjoyable meal. I hope that the marines and the paras and those who will replace them have at least the variety that was enjoyed by the chief of staff when he called there and a mobile kitchen was flown in. I am not sure that the chief of staff himself requested that; I met him and hold him in high regard. However, we have to ensure that the troops are properly prepared and conditioned, and that their conditions on breaks from fighting are reassuring and provide them with the comforts they need.

We are entitled to go, and I think that we are morally obliged to go. It would be foolish for people to argue that a time limit should be imposed. However, they may do so because, as noble Lords may recall, time limits were demanded and imposed on last year's Macedonian venture. People said that it was ridiculous to send our troops to Macedonia, but they went. They are very good people. We were told, although it was derided, that they would do the job in 30 or 31 days and it was done in 30 or 31 days. A civil war, which was a real risk, was prevented at the cost of one life, a former constituent of mine. One life was a difficult price to pay to ensure that peace was given a chance.

Some lives may be lost in Afghanistan, but one hopes not. If lives are lost, Afghanistan may be given a chance. At the same time we have to ensure that there is an understanding that the Afghan problem is part of an international one and that an international effort is required.

My Lords, I suspect we all agree that the United States holds the key to what happens in the coming months and years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, pointed out, the United States has virtually a world monopoly on military power. Of itself, that is not enough. The war against terrorism is not like other wars. Yes, it has a military dimension, but that dimension is merely a part of the struggle. It is important that we should understand, as far as possible, how the Americans are thinking.

Since 9/11, I have had three opportunities to visit the United States. In October I went to New York and Minneapolis; in January I went to San Francisco; and in February I went to southern California. I admit that primarily the people to whom I spoke were from the financial world, which is a limited section of the American community, although an articulate and well-informed one.

My first conclusion was that for all its hideous scale, 9/11 was far more traumatic for the United States than terrorism has become for Europe. In a sense, we have almost become desensitised to it. Terrorism to us is like being mugged or burgled. It has been taking place for 30 years or so. To the Americans it was like the members of their families being individually raped. Yet in Europe terrorism continues, which illustrates how difficult it is to solve the problem once and for all. How many would have believed that the Red Brigade, of which we have heard little for some while—perhaps since it reached its peak in 1978 when they killed the Italian Prime Minister, Moro—would re-emerge, as it did only last week, when it killed an unfortunate professor.

The Americans are totally united and determined to fight terrorism without concession. There is also a new readiness in the United States to accept casualties, whereas previously that was not the case. I heard from a number of people that they are convinced that they will be subjected to another major attack this year, probably a biological attack. I heard a great deal about the means of making such an attack: by smallpox, which is described as the Lion King of infectious diseases; by anthrax, a tablespoonful of which, properly distributed, will kill tens of millions of people; by botulism: and by other products.

The tragic irony is that we all thought that smallpox had been eliminated in 1976. It now turns out that in the dying days of the Soviet Union the smallpox virus was being produced by the tens of metric tonnes—probably unknown to the Gorbachev government. There is some evidence that the first information they received about what was happening was from western intelligence sources. In a terrifying way, it was a state within a state.

To emphasise how seriously the Americans take that threat, I can tell those noble Lords who do not know already—I did not know until recently—that the United States Government have ordered 280 million doses of anti-smallpox vaccine to be delivered by the middle of next year; and they hope that it will arrive in time.

A second point which disturbed me deeply was their complete determination to take out Saddam Hussein by any means. I would have no problem with taking him out. It is not a moral problem for me. But how to do that? As we read widely in the press, they are seriously planning a full frontal attack probably involving at least 200,000 troops. That is not "doable". In that form, it would be deeply counterproductive. At the same time, I found it depressing that they did not appear to be willing to drain the reservoirs of hatred from which terrorism has emerged. The most obvious of those reservoirs is the Israeli-Palestinian area. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, and others that a dramatic and radical solution is needed; that Israel must withdraw to its 1967 frontiers. But as part of that equation, there must be a complete international guarantee of the state of Israel and the state of the new Palestine about which the American Administration is beginning to talk. Equally, I have heard Americans saying that to use their undoubted power to impose a solution on Israel would be a betrayal of Israel. That is a frightening and chilling thought.

Perhaps I may speak about Afghanistan. I was proud but not surprised that our military help has been requested to form the tip of the spear to fight the remaining elements of the terrorist organisations in Afghanistan. But I want to focus on the cost of those military operations and how they should be funded. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the total cost of the Gulf War was something like £2.5 billion. Of that, some £2 billion was collected from the states which benefited from our action. We are not fighting in Afghanistan for our own advantage. It is no part of some imperial legacy, heritage or memory. We are part of a coalition. I was deeply concerned and disturbed to hear the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, describe some of the down-sizing and reduction of capability which at this moment is taking place among our military forces. Fortunately, those matters have a long lead time and plans can be put on hold, which may become necessary. However, we need to take a new approach to the funding of these kinds of operations and at least emphasise that they are not national but international operations being carried out by the world in order to retain civilisation.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was absolutely right when he said that we should focus particularly on the United Nations as the authority that probably has more support and credibility than any other single organisation in the world. Article 51 of the UN, which is quoted endlessly, provides that nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations. We should make the fullest use of the legitimacy given by resolutions of the Security Council. As I have emphasised many times previously, one of the great assets of this country is that it is one of the five veto members of the Security Council. Let us hope that that will continue indefinitely.

Let us remember that there are many examples of the importance of having a reserve capability in order to undertake warfare. An obvious example from my childhood days, which as children we all read about, is Montgomery at Alamein. The new theatre operations were hugely successful, largely because he insisted that first there should be the fullest back-up necessary to sustain the operations.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the sustainability of what we are being asked and have agreed to do in Afghanistan and perhaps will also tell us a little about how and by whom it is to be paid for.

My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap. Having been unable to attend the briefing of my noble friend the Minister last week, I had decided not to speak. However, in church yesterday, Palm Sunday, we prayed for 45 Commando, whose headquarters is at Arbroath and of whose mess my husband is an honorary member. I therefore felt that I had to voice a word of support and encouragement. Unfortunately, my plane from Dundee this morning was 20 minutes late and, alas, the speakers' list had already closed. That is why I now speak briefly and with many apologies.

At present, as far as I know, some of 45 Commando are stuck on HMS "Ocean", the helicopter carrier with six 105 millimetre guns, off the coast of Pakistan. There could he difficulties in landing such a force in Pakistan. However, one Tristar of logistics flew into Kabul yesterday. Only a fortnight ago some members of the defence study group talked to the pilots and engineers of 219 Squadron, who run the Tristars from Brize Norton. It therefore felt somewhat personal.

What worries me is the open-ended nature of the commitment. My noble friend the Minister mentioned a period of three months. Yesterday the right honourable Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said "not very long", and comparisons have been made between Sierra Leone and Vietnam. But how long is "not very long" or a piece of string? The right honourable Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, is less optimistic. There has been talk of Al'Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping and a pitched battle. There has been talk of possible casualties. Of course, any military commitment is dangerous; so is crossing the road between buses; so even is walking down the pavement at speed—I came a cropper last week.

Here I have to declare an interest. As president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, I love all my ladies. But I do not want there to be any more. On the front page of one of the papers this morning was a beautiful picture of a golden dog with a pink nose sitting among daffodils. It reminded me strongly of a picture we had of an old basset hound of ours called Comfort. I gave it to Mother McKee, a nun who taught my daughter, because she said it reminded her of Our Lady's dog. I asked, "Did Our Lady have a dog?" She replied, "Probably not, but if she had it would have been like Comfort".

The dog today is a dog of war called Tiger, and he has been brought safely home from an old wine factory in Kabul. Our thoughts and prayers are with our forces in Afghanistan and I am hoping that soon—and by "soon" I mean a very short piece of string indeed—they too will he coming home.

My Lords, this has been a valuable debate, even if it is ending at a later hour than some of us, and indeed some of those awaiting the next debate, anticipated.

The concept of a "loyal Opposition" becomes very relevant at a moment like this. On the one hand on these Benches we accept the commitment to provide forces to complete the defeat of the Taliban and Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan. We share the Prime Minister's view expressed at the beginning of the campaign that we are not going to walk away from Afghanistan. We also accept the view that 45 Commando Royal Marines are superbly well qualified for that task. They are trained for Arctic and mountain warfare, and those of us who have seen the training of 3 Commando brigade in Norway know how impressive they are.

But as a loyal Opposition, when we are accepting the Government's legitimate decision to put our excellent Armed Forces into harm's way, we have a responsibility to ask questions about the conditions of that deployment, as was said by the noble Lord. Lord Rogan, earlier this evening. I have six questions that I should like to leave with the Minister for his reply.

First, I read with interest the views which the Chief of Defence Staff, Admiral Boyce, made in his lecture just before Christmas. I should like to quote two sentences, but the whole of those remarks bear reading. He said:

"Whatever the choices we make, and for whatever reason, we must ensure that those decisions maintain our freedom of strategic choice; but we will have to decide soon whether we make a commitment to a broader campaign (widening the war), or make a longer term commitment to Afghanistan. Recent military success must be capitalised upon, so it is not a question of whether we will trap our hand in the mangle, but of which mangle we trap it in".

I take any remarks by the Chief of Defence Staff on this sort of matter extremely seriously. But how do Admiral Boyce's very relevant comments fit into the current decisions and indeed the future decisions of which we heard recently and our longer-term strategy?

My second question is: how are these forces going to get into Afghanistan? Questions were asked at the end of last week about access via Pakistan. Of course there was the arrival of flights directly into Kabul yesterday. But can the Minister tell us about the current position and negotiations which the Government are having with the Pakistani Government? Or at least can he assure us that he will inform the House as soon as he has information on that matter?

Thirdly, what is to happen when the troops do get in? I accept the constraints of the Minister who opened this debate about the House not seeking detailed operational information. But can we be given any information about the range of actions in which our forces are likely to take part? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, referred to that in his remarks. How far should we judge from the recent example of the United States' Operation Anaconda? It was not, judging from some of the reports that I have read, a totally unqualified success. There seemed to have been problems with Humint—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—and the assessment of the local political situation.

Those are both areas in which, historically, the United Kingdom has had a comparative advantage, as long as we ensure that our forces have the requisite intelligence support, to which reference has been made. The real problems of asymmetric warfare, to which the noble Baroness referred, are particularly acute in this situation. We want some assurance that they are being taken into account by the Government.

Fourthly, there is the question of the command arrangements, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. We benefit from the fact that we have had a substantial presence in the US central command in Tampa and we are involved in the discussions and thinking about the operation as a whole in Afghanistan. On the ground we are working to an American command structure, based in Bagram under Major General Hagenbeck, as are the Canadians and other substantial suppliers. We will not automatically have the safeguards that would exist under a NATO system. We remember the useful way—of course it was an exceptional situation—in which the so-called red card was used by General Mike Jackson when he was uncertain about the decisions of DSACEUR, General Wes Clark, in Kosovo. Is there a need for some sort of parallel arrangement in Afghanistan? Will Brigadier Lane have a card comparable to the one that General Jackson had'? I do not necessarily expect a public reply from the Minister on this point, but trust that he will note our concern.

More serious, however, and a number of noble Lords have referred to this, are relations with the United States and the other external forces and the relationship with the various local Afghan allies. The noble Lord, Lord King, referred to this issue in his remarks. We have seen the problems that the United States have had with such local allies. It is important to understand how it fits into the command structure to operate in the area where 45 Commando will be. Will 45 Commando have direct relations with such local warlords, or will there only be direct links between the warlords and the American headquarters in Bagram? It is an important and serious matter to which we need answers.

Fifthly, I raise an issue that was raised in another place last week. What will happen if 45 Commando takes prisoners? The Secretary of State in the Commons said that they would be handed over to the United States, but one or two issues need to be clarified. What would be the implications if our forces were to capture UK citizens who happen, quite wrongly, to have been fighting in Afghanistan? Problems could also arise from the differences between ourselves and the United States in the interpretation of both the Geneva conventions and the applicability of the United Nations International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. I realise that these are complex issues to which the Minister may not be able to reply tonight, but we need answers to what could become a complex situation.

Sixthly, I come to an issue that was raised by my noble friend Lady Williams and others on ISAF and the British contribution to that force. To use Admirable Boyce's admirable phrase, are we getting our hands out of that part of the mangle?

What is the latest state of the negotiations with Turkey? The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, made some reference to that issue. When are we likely to get an answer? Should we consider the proposal made by my noble friend Lady Williams that perhaps it would be more important if ISAF were to be taken into some form of NATO structure under a NATO headquarters, which could provide some continuity?

My right honourable friend Menzies Campbell in another place and the noble Lord, Lord King, raised the question of the risk of UK forces undertaking the same time both security assistance tasks in Kabul and neighbourhood and war-fighting tasks in the remaining parts of Afghanistan. There is a real risk of some parts of the Kabul population finding it difficult to appreciate these different functions, or being provoked to do so, even if that was not their original intention.

The United States has deliberately avoided taking part in ISAF. One of the reasons which has been given is to avoid the confusion of these different roles. Will there be some changes in the operational instructions to the British forces in ISAF? Will they be taking appropriate defensive measures if they are going to he in a more risky environment because of our deployment elsewhere in Afghanistan?

What is the overall strategy for the training of the Afghan defence forces? The Minister, in introducing the debate, talked about the useful contribution that we were already making in Kabul. But we have also heard that the United States is using its forces to train parts of the Afghan army. Surely, if we are to have a proper reform of the security sector as a whole we need to have an overall strategy. We need to see how these things are rooted together. Do we yet have clear information on that?

In conclusion, as the Secretary of State for Defence in his speech last week said, this is the largest British deployment of ground forces since the Gulf War. This is therefore an important stage in the development of the process. We share the support for our forces which has been expressed in all parts of this House. We wish them well in the very difficult tasks that lie before them. But we also support increases in the defence budget, both for the coming year and in the Comprehensive Spending Review which we look forward to hearing from the Government later in the year. On that the arguments of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, were most powerful. We hope that they will be listened to seriously by the Government, especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for making time available for this debate. I thank the Minister for bringing this debate to our attention today and for covering so many different aspects.

As I have said before, and wish to repeat again, we on these Benches strongly support the action being taken by the Government and continue to declare that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies. We strongly support the deployment of 45 Commando in Operation Jacana. We support the exemplary contribution that our troops have made in ISAF, even though we have some concerns about that force.

There are three main points of focus that run through this debate. My noble friend Lord Howell has dealt with the theme of the fight against global terrorism. I shall mention that in connection only with one of our military capabilities. The two other themes are the war-fighting role of 45 Commando and the peacekeeping role of the ISAF.

The tragic events in the United States of America on llth September—some six months ago—are beginning to fade in the general public's mind. The public should be reminded of the fact that the United Kingdom is at risk of attack from international terrorists. There may be sleepers within the country waiting to carry out devastating attacks possibly using weapons of mass destruction. The nation must not wait for this to happen with predictable catastrophic results. We must ensure that the enemy is destroyed now before he has the chance to strike us.

Towards the end of last year the Chief of the Defence Staff stated that we would be in for a long haul. Although the operations have been successful so far, there is still the destruction of Al'Qaeda to be completed. Let it not be misunderstood that it is right that we are in Afghanistan, and there have been considerable successes that we should all be proud of. As has already been said, we are right to continue to try to find and capture bin Laden and Mullah Omar. It was right that we broke up the Al'Qaeda and Taliban integrated structure and destroyed their training camps in Afghanistan. It was right that we stopped Afghanistan from harbouring and giving succour to international terrorism; and it is right that we are now committed to the destruction of the Al'Qaeda and the Taliban groups dispersed in remote mountain areas of various provinces of Afghanistan. Not to have done so would have been a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to be weak, but to show our determination and strength in resolving this problem. If Al'Qaeda is not destroyed it might well encourage other extremists and terrorist groups to engage in further acts of international terrorism.

The common factor in these two themes is the need for sufficient resources. Her Majesty's Government have willed the ends and, as I have said, we wholeheartedly support them in this. However, we cannot have a situation where the Treasury uses its powers to withhold the resources required to carry out efficiently measures which are the policy of the Government as a whole. There is a real need for a substantial increase in the defence budget and a greater requirement for intelligence resources. It is our responsibility to ensure that our troops have the best and sufficient equipment regardless of cost. In connection with funding and costs, I agree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I hope that the Minister will take note of what he said. Furthermore, I hope that the Minister will take note of the excellent contribution from my noble friend Lady Park.

We must also ensure that press reporting is accurate and not misleading. I shall enlarge on this subject at the end of these comments. It is also imperative that all our Armed Forces are made aware that we here at home are lock, stock and barrel behind them in all that they doing in Afghanistan and that we shall be watching their endeavours and supporting them throughout the campaign.

I now wish to turn to 45 Commando. The tactical role of 45 Commando will probably be to search, cordon and destroy the enemy. Establishing the cordon will be essential in view of the proximity of the Pakistan border if the enemy are not to slip over it, especially as it is so ill-defined or really not defined at all.

This commando is trained in mountain warfare and to operate in Arctic conditions. It is right that these troops, who are trained for this role, are committed to mountain warfare in Afghanistan. But they will need altitude acclimatisation. This war-fighting role indicates well the fact that we should not become mesmerised by peacekeeping roles and home defence issues only. Three Commando Brigade will come directly under the command of Centcom and under the immediate command of the US 10th Mountain Division. The United Kingdom is, as we have heard, providing some 1,700 troops with 45 Commando for Operation Jacana of which some 800 will be in the front line. Could the Minister say how many troops from the United States of America, Canada, and other countries are fighting in the front line?

I have no concerns about the two chains of command as they are completely separate with areas of operation in completely different places. I do not think that this chain of command will be a top heavy organisation as it will be much easier for 45 Commando to implement their tasks working to their own brigade and brigade commander. It is well understood that the allies have complete air supremacy. But we are also aware that the United States has sufficient tactical air support to give 45 Commando when their forward air controllers call for it. In addition, the Royal Air Force is supplying three Chinook helicopters. But why can it not have its own strike aircraft? From my experience, it really makes a difference to know that one has one's own direct, dedicated air support. The Royal Air Force is providing invaluable assistance in Afghanistan and virtually daily since January has carried out operational support sorties.

On exit strategy, I agree that we should not withdraw from Operation Jacana until the enemy has been defeated and the task completed, but, as many of your Lordships have said, how will we know when we have won? If that takes longer than six months, who else is mountain trained to replace 45 Commando? I believe that 40 and 42 Commando are, or will be, involved in other operations. We cannot put troops who are not trained for mountain warfare into the mountains at about 13,000 feet, which is where they may well have to operate.

Your Lordships may also be aware that a mountain and Arctic training exercise was cancelled about two years ago due to lack of funds. That brings into question whether the two commandos are up to their appropriate training standards in those roles. Perhaps the Minister would reassure the House on that matter. The fact that 45 Commando has no armour was raised. The area in question is not one in which tanks or even light tanks should be used. Mountainous terrain is an area that armour should avoid at all costs.

Will the Minister reassure the House about the chain of command for 3 Commando Brigade? Will he also tell us why the Royal Air Force is not providing support for tactical air strikes? Who will take over from 45 Commando if the operation should last longer than six months? What have been the reasons for the delay in departure of the advance party of 45 Commando, and have the problems with Pakistan now been resolved? Will the Minister also confirm that 45 Commando, the field hospital, and all the other supporting units are up to strength at war establishment and have not been deployed at peace establishment?

I turn to future developments in ISAF. I remind your Lordships that that has so far been a most successful operation. Our troops have excelled in their difficult tasks, even under provocation. A handover to Turkey as the lead nation for ISAF would be most welcome. As our armed forces are over-committedas—as they clearly are—my concern is whether we can really afford to have troops locked up in a peacekeeping role in Afghanistan. Primary warfighting training is being missed out due to peacekeeping. That does not bode well for the future. I am aware that a German multibrigade has taken over from 16 Air Assault Brigade, but will that allow the complete brigade headquarters to withdraw? What other supporting British troops will be left to support the Royal Anglian?

Mr Brahimi has requested that the United Nations mandate be extended for another six months in June—not that there is any surprise in that. However, if that is the case, has another battalion been warned to take over from the Royal Anglian after June, so that it can start its training for the Kabul peacekeeping role now, or is the plan to withdraw from the peacekeeping role after the Royal Anglian completes its operational tour of duty? I agree with my noble friend Lord King that it is unwise to be committed to peacekeeping and war fighting in the same theatre, as the peacekeepers may suffer.

I wonder whether the tasks for ISAF are to be broadened. Is the force to take on tasks outside Kabul? Can the Minister say what any additional tasks would consist of, bearing in mind that we have only one line of communication into the theatre? Our Armed Forces are structured for only two lines of communication; the other one is in the Balkans. It should be noted and understood that taking on a new operation against global terrorism in any other part of the world would necessitate our withdrawal from either the Balkans or Afghanistan.

I am aware that I have asked the Minister several questions. I hope that he will be able to answer them when he winds up the debate, but I am also aware that I am the last speaker on the list and that there is little time for him to obtain the answers, unless they are already in his brief. If that is the case, I should be most grateful if he would write to me, as he has lone on many previous occasions, in his usual courteous manner. I am also grateful to him for the briefing that he arranged for some of us today.

Now that we have troops committed to war fighting in Afghanistan, there is a need for the Government to come back to the House and, through Parliament, to the public with adequate and accurate statements and answers to the many questions that will arise. I am still waiting for a reply to a Written Question dated 29th January. The statements and reports should be regular, direct and accurate, not filtered or distorted by the Pentagon or Centcom. They must not be exaggerated or misleading. I am not suggesting that advance plans or any sensitive information be made public, but Parliament owes that to the nation. If the nation is to be kept onside, the reports that I have suggested are essential. We owe that to our troops and to their families, and Parliament will then put matters into their proper perspective.

Finally, I pay tribute to the brave and courageous men and women who serve their country loyally and with the utmost dedication to duty. In particular, today, I pay tribute to those in the Afghanistan theatre. There are 6,000 personnel deployed there. To date, they have been highly successful in all that they have done and have shown their customary professionalism and their usual efficiency. Those of us on these Benches wish everyone in ISA F, the Royal Anglian, 3 Commando brigade and 45 Commando every success and a safe return.

My Lords, it was last December when we last debated the role of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan. As has been said, much has happened since, as noble Lords will know from the Statement that was made to the House last Monday. That time gap and the great depth of knowledge and experience in the House make it no surprise that this debate has ranged as widely as any other that we have had. I thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for their contributions. I shall try to respond to as many of the points raised by noble Lords as I can and to expand on some of the matters raised when we debated the Statement last week.

I welcome noble Lords' expressions of support for the men and women in our Armed Forces. Last week, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, who, alas, cannot be here tonight, said how important it was for the Armed Forces to feel that the nation was behind them when they were deployed. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that with some force today. I agree with him entirely. However, it is not always enough just to express support in words. The men and women of our Armed Forces matter, and we must give them our full support. That is particularly true when we are sending them, as we are, into battle.

Before I say anything about the decision that was taken a week ago, I must say that I was surprised by the comparison made with the Falklands. The decision last Monday was a serious and sombre decision but it does not compare to decisions taken about the Falklands War. I believe that such comparisons are not helpful. Indeed, they are somewhat surprising coming from where they did in the House this evening.

This is a sombre and serious prospect and we should keep in mind the great dangers that 45 Commando Group may face. The Secretary of State warned last week in the other place that our troops might suffer casualties. That is true. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, will accept from me that the figures that were bandied around in the press this morning, which he quoted, have no substance at all as coming from the Ministry of Defence. They are meaningless figures and they do not help the argument at all.

Nothing has changed from last week. When we ask this of our forces, the support of Parliament such as noble Lords have shown today, and indeed of the whole country, is all the more important. What matters is the knowledge that we are doing the right thing, and we believe that we are. It seems as though the House also believes that we are.

In another place the Secretary of State made a powerful case for our deployments in Afghanistan. It hangs on the three points that my noble friend Lady Symons mentioned in her opening remarks this afternoon. I want to remind the House briefly of what she said about point two, which was that the action that the international community has taken has been remarkably successful. Afghanistan is indeed a different country, and the decision to deploy considerable military force against the terrorists and their supporters has, we believe, been vindicated.

It is quite clear that Osama bin Laden and his Al'Qaeda network have been dealt an extremely heavy blow, and only remnants of the Taliban, whose support was so crucial to Al'Qaeda, are left. We have defeated a ruling party; no longer do they control the government.

In my view it would be a mistake, therefore, not to acknowledge the success that has already met the coalition response. I believe it an unfair criticism that somehow victory over the Taliban and Al'Qaeda was claimed. It was said by Government Ministers many months ago that this was a long haul; that this would take years, not months. For selective quotations to be given seems to me to be beneath the level of discussion that we normally enjoy in this House. We all knew that this would be a long haul. Nothing has changed. No one ever claimed anything different.

I know that the existence side by side of the two roles—the ISAF and the Operation Jacana forces—has been questioned in another place. Indeed it was touched on here last week. The chains of command—and this relates to one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roper—are distinct, reflecting the separate roles of the forces involved. ISAF does not command our combat forces and will not command 45 Commando Group when it deploys. They are wholly separate. Instead, 45 Commando Group will be under the command of the American-led coalition headquarters at Bagram. Headquarters 3 Commando Brigade will be embedded within that headquarters.

It may be asked why we need to deploy a brigade headquarters if 45 Commando Group is under coalition command. We think that the answer is simple. We need the additional command capability it offers, for it is not simply a matter of the commando group. There are the additional combat support and services support elements, namely 7 Battery, 29 Commando Regiment; 59 Independent Command Squadron, Royal Engineers, and elements of the Commando Logistics Regiment; plus the three Chinook helicopters and crew of 27 Squadron RAF.

The brigade's commander, Brigadier Lane, will act as Commander British Forces for all our personnel serving in Afghanistan, other than the ISAF. Those in ISAF will remain under Major General McColl's command. I do not think that that command structure can be accused of being either top heavy or confused.

I want to stress that the two roles are not contradictory. Other members of the ISAF agree. Denmark, France, Germany and Norway all provided ground forces for Operation Anaconda. French strike aircraft also flew close air support missions. The two roles complement each other, for both are consistent with our objectives as we set them out last October. Both aim to remove the threat offered by international terrorists operating from Afghanistan. Both aim to contribute to restoring Afghanistan as a peaceful and stable country. How could that be achieved if we allowed these terrorists and their supporters to regroup? They would always try to overthrow everything the Afghan people and their friends in the wider world have achieved to rebuild that country. If we allow them to regroup, why have we bothered to take any military action at all? What would have been the point?

The ISAF, of course, is a very obvious demonstration of the international community's commitment to Afghanistan. Various noble Lords have pointed that out during our debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich. Noble Lords know that we are committed to act as lead nation until 30th April. We are negotiating the transfer of that role to Turkey now. I can tell the House that those talks are going well. Beyond that, I do not think that it would be appropriate to speak here and now about the ins and outs of what are, after all, important negotiations between governments. I venture to say to some of those who have tempted me down that path that if they were standing where I am now—indeed, they were doing so not that many years ago—they would say precisely the same.

However. I shall say this. Both we and the Turks are committed to getting this right. We both want to make the ISAF as successful for the second phase as it has been in the first. Make no mistake, it has been a success. Turkey wants to know what kind of help and assistance she will receive from her partners, exactly as we did when we were working to set up the force. We have always said that we shall go on contributing forces to the ISAF after 30th April. We never said that we would withdraw all our forces, only that we expect to be able to reduce their numbers, and, indeed, we still do. And with good reason. Today we have around 1,700 troops deployed either with the ISAF or in support of it. Compare that with the 1,800 troops we originally assigned, along with an additional 300—2,100 in all—to repair and operate Kabul international airport. Of course the reduction does not mean that our commitment is any the less; we needed some capabilities to get the force that we do not need now that the force has become established.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked one or two questions in regard to the ISAF. As far as cooperation with the Northern Alliance is concerned, which responds to a particular question put by the noble Baroness in which she named an individual, the advice I have received is that co-operation with the Afghan police and with the interim authority generally is very close indeed. This was boosted by Hamid Karzai's visit to this country at the end of January, as well as visits by our Foreign and Defence Secretaries to Afghanistan. We are working closely with the interim authority on the first stages of security sector reform. I am delighted to be able to tell the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in particular, because he asked about this, that early in April the G8 is to hold a conference on the future of security sector reform. I hope that that deals with the point made by the noble Lord.

If we agree that the ISAF is a success in all its forms, and I hope that the House does so, there are many who wish to extend it, even to expand it outside of Kabul and give it new responsibilities. The House will be realistic about this and understand that there is a good possibility that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 will be renewed to extend the deployment of the ISAF in its current area of responsibility, but I must stress that the security situation outside Kabul is very different from that in the city, as recent events have shown. The ISAF is not configured either for war fighting or peace enforcement. Ultimately, security is the responsibility—it must be—of the Afghans themselves. We shall look to see how we can help them, particularly through the security sector reform that I have mentioned.

A point was raised as to whether bringing 45 Commando into Afghanistan will make it more dangerous for British ISAF troops. We do not believe that it will, but time will tell. British troops have been on the ground in a fighting role for a very long time now—for as long as there have been troops in Afghanistan—and this is a considerable addition to that number. But they have been there and those people in Kabul will know that they have been there, just as they will know that 45 Commando is there. I remind the House that there are tough rules of engagement as far as the ISAF in Kabul is concerned.

My noble friend outlined earlier our campaign objectives. To achieve them requires that we take offensive military action as well as work towards Afghanistan's reconstruction, and we have been involved in that right from the start. Our decision to deploy 45 Commando is simply a part of our wider commitment to defeating international terrorism.

Undeniably, this is a significant part of that commitment. Deploying 1,700 troops and their equipment is no small undertaking. It is another call upon our Armed Forces and our Armed Forces are stretched. We would deny that they are overstretched; we are not even sure what that expression means. We have had this discussion in the House before—no doubt we will have it again—but I must tell your Lordships that more than 400 of the personnel involved were already in theatre and others were held at high readiness in this country against such a need.

Certainly all our Armed Forces are extremely busy, the Royal Marines included. Naturally, we keep all our commitments under review. We know that we have a duty to balance our operational needs with our other tasks, and not least with the needs of our service personnel. Our deployments in Afghanistan are necessary. We believe—as does the House—that this is something we must do. As to overstretch in this particular case, we are confident that this limited deployment can be managed alongside our existing commitments. I have explained how a number of personnel have been kept at high readiness and others in theatre. We believe that this is a realistic, manageable and sustainable development.

I should say to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that I have been tempted by some of his remarks to make one or two points. I understand the depth of feeling that goes into what he says, but to describe what we are doing as a political gesture does not catch the reason for our actions. Of course we responded quickly. That was not a political gesture but a genuine, practical response to give the help and support requested by our closest friend and stoutest ally. It was not gesture politics. We are talking about real people, real troops, real capability and we are offering real help. The phrase "a political gesture" does not reflect what we are doing.

The noble and gallant Lord asked about pursuit over borders and I shall do my best to answer him. Our actions have been, and will continue to be, part of the coalition, of which Pakistan is a valued member. We do not believe that there is in the end any hiding place for those engaged in activities of global terrorism. Of course we know the difficulties along that particular border.

The noble and gallant Lord set out a number of matters that had occurred over the past weeks and months at the Ministry of Defence as some kind of proof that the Ministry of Defence was not able to meet its needs. On the other hand, perhaps I may mention one or two things that he did not point out—that is, the list of new projects and capabilities that we are in the middle of procuring for the Armed Forces of this country. I start with two new carriers; I continue with six Type 45 Destroyers; I go on to mention alternative landing strip logistics; two landing platform docks; Skynet 5; Bowman, which at last we are putting right, after many years; personal role radio, which is already in existence; Nimrod; the Eurofighter; Merlin helicopters, including the EH101, which is a success at home and abroad; Trojan and Titan; and, not least, ground-based air defence. So if we are to have one side of the argument, and there is a case to be made, it is only fair that we should have the other.

My Lords, I quite understand the Minister's wish to put another perspective on the matter. We could get into a long and detailed argument. He mentioned the Nimrod, for example; but there will not be so many Nimrods as originally planned. And so it goes on. Of course, there must be good stories to tell in this area. It would be impossible to believe that there were no good stories. My point was that there are a number of unsatisfactory stories at a time when the Armed Forces are very heavily committed. I was trying to get across the need for more support, and more Treasury support, for the Armed Forces.

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord made his point extremely effectively. But, as he pointed out, there is another view. That is why it is important to place on record exactly what we are doing.

There has been some ill-informed speculation about our involvement in the Balkans. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to it in passing. The developing security situation in the Balkans has resulted in NATO conducting a joint operational area review. The review is considering the structure, number and role of NATO forces in the region. We remain committed to the security of the Balkans region and actively support NATO's review, which will be discussed by NATO Foreign Ministers in May.

In the light of the review, the United Kingdom is considering with NATO allies how it will continue to contribute to regional security. No decisions have been made by either NATO or the UK. Implementation of any changes will be in the context of allowance decisions and the security situation at the time. I want to emphasise that talk of reductions is speculative, and suggestions that reductions will be forced on the United Kingdom for cost reasons are false.

There have been reports in the media that the deployment of 45 Commando Group has run into the sand and that we have been unable to send out our forces. I urge your Lordships not to read too much into these stories. The lead elements of our deployment flew out last week, just as we said they would. Arrangements for the deployment of the whole force are in hand. I cannot say more; we have real concerns about operational security—which is hardly a surprise—if the fine detail of individual unit moves or the comings and goings of our ships and aircraft become widely known. It is, after all, the deployment of a war fighting force into a war zone.

The composition of the deployment is well known. As noble Lords would expect, the shape of our force is driven by its job. Quite simply, 45 Commando Group will participate in operations to defeat bands of Taliban fighters and Al'Qaeda terrorists who have fled into the mountains of Afghanistan. I said earlier that, left alone, they would threaten Afghanistan. They could also threaten us. The training camps would, of course, be rebuilt and new terrorist attacks would be planned. We have to defeat these groups. Doing so will not be easy, and it will take time. We shall keep our forces there until the job is done.

As has been said, as specialists in mountain warfare, the Royal Marines, like their American counterparts in the 10th Mountain Division are ideal for the task. They can deploy quickly, whether from HMS "Ocean" or from their bases in this country. They are trained and equipped to manoeuvre and fight in difficult terrain. They can bring to bear the fire-power of their 105 millimetre light guns, and they have expert forward air controllers, practised in operating with American strike aircraft. That will be of particular importance as the Royal Marines will be operating as coalition forces, and so will be able to call upon air support by coalition aircraft.

As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear, the reason for deploying 45 Commando Group is not that American or other coalition forces have failed. They have not failed. What they have achieved, most recently in Operation Anaconda, is remarkable. There they fought and won a dangerous and difficult battle high in the mountains against an enemy that was well armed and heavily dug in. They did not do so without loss. American and Afghan soldiers died fighting the terrorists. My right honourable friend also rightly said that it was contemptible to think that the Americans will not risk casualties. They have had, have now and will continue to have soldiers fighting on the ground.

I have spoken for longer than I should. This has been an excellent debate, as all debates on this subject have been in the House. There are unanswered questions, which I shall answer in the normal way, by letter. I hope that I have covered some of the main points that have been raised.

I conclude by saying that our Armed Forces face a great challenge in Afghanistan, whatever their role. They need to know that they have the support of their country and their Parliament. They need that support in good times and bad. I repeat that words of support, while very welcome, are not enough. Support is proved by an acceptance that we are all in this as one and also by a self-imposed restraint so that we do not compromise our Armed Forces in any way. They are, after all, risking their lives for us and they deserve nothing less than our full support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how they will respond to the call for 2002 to be declared Autism Awareness Year.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I start from the premise that all hours are good hours to influence governments. Last year, at the request of Ivan and Charika Corea, I was persuaded to place this Question before your Lordships' House. It may easily have been 100 years since then. Never has the word "autism" been more visible in recent years. What difference has all that public talk made to the lives of those who are autistic or to their families? Has it made diagnosis and assessment easily accessible? Has the idea of seamless, joined-up services become a real possibility for many more families?

I am pleased to add my voice to the call for immediate action following the debate in the other place in January. It is estimated that there are 520,000 autistic people in our country. Some organisations put the figure closer to 1 million. Add their carers and we are talking about a huge body of public opinion.

According to the Medical Research Council's report, autism spectrum disorders affect many more people than is recognised, including approximately 60 per cent of children under the age of eight. Numbers are increasing all the time. The MRC noted that,

"the prevalence of autism in the adult population is not known".

This year, the National Autistic Society celebrates 40 years of its survival. The Autism Awareness Year campaign generated by the NAS, alongside 100 partners, has made a mark on the public with an effective advertising campaign. The work of the NAS has been strengthened by the formation of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Autism.

The idea of autism year was launched by Ivan and Charika Corea from Buckhurst Hill and declared by the British Institute for Brain Injured Children and the Disabilities Trust. The Corea family decided to launch the awareness campaign because they were exasperated with their journey of struggle and tribulations to secure services for their son Charin. Their motivation and aim is to facilitate independence and dignity for Charin—something that we take for granted for all our children. Hearing their story made me disheartened that we were still so far from achieving services for children and adults with autism. I salute Ivan and Charika Corea and their MP, Linda Perham, aided by the Disabilities Trust and the BIBIC, for their dedication in the past year.

This is the most difficult few minutes of my life. It is more than 20 years since the word "autism", or the question of it, entered my mind when my son Shamim was just two years old. Fed up with hearing platitudes such as, "He will speak soon", and, "Some children are really slow", I was forced to consult hooks in the library, and I accidentally came across the word autism. I subsequently read a number of books which described the experiences of those who were often from middle England.

As noble Lords may have noticed, I am speaking with my heart in my mouth. Pain sears my soul as I remember my struggle with child health clinics and education departments from 1980 to 1992. Ultimately, they all had the better of me and I simply gave up, retreating home with my son. I realise now that, in articulating my child's needs, I was behaving like one of the writers of the books I had read. For those in the caring professions, it was most unacceptable to accept that I, an Asian Muslim woman, could know anything about my child's needs. The fact that I questioned their judgment became our struggle over and above my son's need.

What was striking was the professionals' hurtful indifference to the idea that I understood my child and wanted the very best for him. I do not know whether it was because of my colour, my culture, or whatever, but I was taunted for my opinions and wishes. My family's experience can be added to that of h undreds of thousands of people who have struggled to access health, education, speech therapy and respite care. As carers' daily struggle to live beyond autism is so all-embracing, equality and human rights issues affecting them are often not addressed.

While seeking education for my son, I had to go through the jungle of assessment, analysis, prejudice and bigotry. Contrary to the Education Acts, my request to have my son placed in an ordinary school was frowned upon and denied. Retrospectively, I cannot explain their reluctance to give us a hearing. We were often made to feel responsible for our child's condition, whatever it was. It was also implied that I was the biggest obstacle to services being provided to my son. I was too often seen as demanding—asking for inclusive education was like asking for the moon—and it was thought that I was not coming to terms with his disability. After many years, I now know that my experience was not unique. I thank God that that form of paternalism can now be legally challenged by parents.

Such experiences are repeated too frequently. Parents describe prolonged struggle with institutions and battles with professionals who refuse to listen to parents, despite the fact that there is a legal framework to support the provision of those services. In practice, however, provision is frightfully inconsistent and uncoordinated. Parents who win the battle for their children are few and possess special attributes. Very often, they are also benefactors of the postcode lottery with which we have become so familiar. I humbly point out that, for parents of my background colour and culture, negotiating access to services is more often a miracle than a routine outcome. That is why, despite being articulate parents, Ivan and Charika must continue their struggle, as I had to do more than 20 years ago. We hope that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 can help in such cases.

There have been successful cases in which parents have received all the care that their children need and deserve and those children have gone on to experience the very best that our system offers. However, there are many more Shamims and Charins, and for them and their parents the postcode lottery of care has become unacceptable. Racism and discrimination are often a double whammy with which parents must deal. Parents with whom I have spoken say that children with the misfortune of having their case argued by an ethnic minority parent are bound to receive a lower standard of care and attention. Surely that has to stop. We cannot allow parents to continue believing that that can happen. Too many parents face an uphill struggle to ensure their child's right to a life of dignity and they should not have to face the added burden of prejudice.

I welcome the possibility of government guidance on the issue. We have the opportunity to set standards within a national framework. Such standards must deal with defining, developing and delivering services from early diagnosis until the appropriate interventions have been made. They must also acknowledge the great unspoken scandal for autistic children and adults: the grossly inadequate availability of speech therapy. The gift of assisting communication is so fundamental and yet so many children are deprived of this provision. Therefore I welcome the fact that the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists is working with the Department of Health on how to meet the new demand. The chief executive, Karnim Gadhok is also keen to gain financial support for the implementation of the clinical guidelines to improve competence and practice in the profession.

We need to enable people with autism to maximise their quality of life and functioning and to reduce social exclusion in the different context in which they live, in relation to family, community, education, peers, employment and independent housing. There are issues regarding resources and funding to facilitate that, dealing with transition phases at different ages. I believe that if some of the resources made available for the subject of the previous debate were made available for autism, many of the problems would be reduced.

In the past few months noble Lords will have noticed that the issues that have been raised in connection with autism have not centred around education and other service provisions. I am concerned that the discussion on MMR has deflected attention away from the reality of people with autism and their carers. The issue of MMR must not be allowed to consume or sideline the debate and let authorities off the hook of ensuring that care needs are given equal status.

I attended a recent gathering to view a video on Autism Awareness Year, launched by the Disabilities Trust. A number of parents' experiences were brought to our attention. In the video Ivan and other parents spoke about autism being not only a lonely business but also an expensive business. Parents talked about re-mortgaging their houses and taking out loans and overdrafts to pay for the needs of autistic children and adults, which can include taking them abroad.

I want to reiterate the parents' call for the Government to consider an increase in the disability living allowance, the carer's allowance and exemptions from the massive increases in council taxes to help ease the financial burdens. Our gratitude goes to the stalwarts in this movement: my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. They have continued the campaign on these issues for people of all disabilities. I am also grateful to our Prime Minister and to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for lending their support.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that the call for this year to be designated Autism Awareness Year has gathered its own momentum, including the debate in the Commons and in the Scottish Parliament. Faith communities have also been involved in mosques, temples, churches, gurdwaras and synagogues praying for the 520,000 autistic community during the month of prayer for autism in January.

On 10th February, 600 people attended a special service to mark Autism Awareness Year at St Paul's Cathedral in London. The British Institute for Brain Injured Children and the Disabilities Trust organised a major strategic conference on autism in 2002 held at the Kings Fund Centre and attended by parliamentarians, health and education professionals and the voluntary sector. I also look forward to the conference on ethnicity and autism to be organised by Autism London.

Urgent implementation of a national strategy on autism is required, covering education, social care, health, and the criminal justice system. Such a strategy must include central and local government, NGOs and parents. It should begin with immediate scoping of current practices. I believe that we must also look at good practices that are available internationally.

I ask the Minister to consider setting up a task force on autism to look at those issues. Not long ago a working party was set up to look at the subject which affected less than 200 men and women and we took a year to examine the issue. I believe that 500,000 autistic people deserve at least that much attention. Such a task force should examine services, existing provisions, workforce issues, research and training.

The issue is a vast ocean and I start at the foot of a stream. I hope that this debate creates the possibility of change. We want action now. Parents are prepared to chain themselves to the parliamentary consciousness to let noble Lords know that the autistic community has been silent too long, but no more.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for securing a debate on the important subject of autism spectrum disorders. I congratulate the noble Baroness most warmly on her recent Gunawardena saward for outstanding service to autism. Her speech today has let us know how passionate she is about the issue.

The debate takes on a special significance in this Autism Awareness Year. The campaign enjoys great support. The National Autistic Society, the Disabilities Trust and the British Institute for Brain Injured C'hildren have combined to promote and support this special year, focusing on all the issues relating to autism spectrum disorders. I shall concentrate predominantly on educational provision for children with special educational needs and in particular those with autistic spectrum disorders.

I do so agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, about the impressive work done by Charika and Ivan Corea. They have worked tirelessly to raise the awareness of autism and related conditions. The dedicated Autism Awareness Year came about because of the energetic and relentless efforts of Charika and Ivan Corea. Their interest began following the diagnosis of their son Charin as autistic with the debilitating experience they had when fighting the system for appropriate support.

I have been privileged to attend a number of special events, including a service in St Paul's Cathedral and a day conference held at the King's Fund Centre by the British Institute for Brain Injured Children where professionals, politicians, volunteers, parents and friends of young people with ASD came together for a day to contribute to and learn from many thoughtful presentations. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there was the launch last week of an excellent promotional video which features autistic children, adults and their families, as well as professional practitioners.

The Parents Autism Campaign for Education (PACE) carried out a survey which makes sobering reading. All too often the energies of parents are sapped by trying to secure appropriate educational provision for their children. The PACE survey reports that a third of under-fives and 20 per cent of over-fives received no special educational needs provision funding. The survey also highlights the lack of consistency of provision across the country. It is often referred to as the postal lottery.

I piloted the Education Act 1993 through this House. A major part of that 1993 Act provided for a special educational needs tribunal to allow parents—I emphasise the words "as a last resort"—to have their grievances heard. The Act also established a code of practice which was designed to bring about a systematic approach to providing appropriate education and hence greater consistency of provision.

What I find so depressing almost a decade later is that parents still find a lack of consistency and poor coordination, especially in the area of funding, and excessive use and even abuse of the Special Needs Tribunal. All too frequently one hears accounts of parents on whom there has been a war of attrition. The problem is particularly acute for parents of autistic children. It is a fact that the incidence of autism is on the increase and, to state the obvious, children with autism who are neglected during the early years will prove to be very costly to the community in their adult years.

I give an example. Mrs Loxley Blount is the mother of David, a bright but dyslexic and autistic young boy with resultant complex learning and attentional difficulties. From the time David was three years old, his mother has been fighting Barnet Council for his special needs to be met. David is now a young teenager and still the fight goes on. Time does not allow me to catalogue the long and tortuous effort made by Mrs Loxley Blount to secure justice for David. However, it is unacceptable that parents of such children who face enormous challenges at home should have to expend such time, energy and in many cases money in order to secure the appropriate support for their children. The emphasis of the 1993 Act and subsequent Acts which update the code of practice and provision for special educational needs is on early intervention. The importance of early intervention cannot be overstated.

I referred earlier to a possible abuse of the tribunal system. It has been the experience of many parents that local authorities that are themselves under financial pressure will often delay responding to the pleas of parents. In desperation, parents in turn eventually resort to the tribunal, and just before the tribunal hears the case—surprise, surprise—the LEA finds a specialist place for the child. That causes much distress and too much unnecessary suffering.

As I have said, the tribunal was always meant to be a last resort. I agree with at least one respondent to the PACE survey, who said,

"The tribunal process was costly, stressful and risk). Parents should be spending time with their children, not involved with legal battles".

Another issue of concern continues to be the lack of detail and quantification of provision in educational statements. For example, if a child requires speech therapy and the frequency of speech therapy sessions is not specified, all too often the child receives perhaps one session per week, which, though wholly inadequate, technically meets the terms of the statement. I know that this matter has been addressed by the Government in recent legislation. However, the most recent information that I have from those concerned with special educational needs is that the latest guidelines are not helpful. Unless the good intentions of the legislation, which was hard fought for by me and other noble Lords in this Chamber, are made a reality for parents, progress will not be made and children will continue to be ill served.

The Royal National Institute for the Blind recent1), wrote a paper which I believe applies to all children with special educational needs. It said that it was deeply concerned that disabled children's educational entitlements are being undermined now through the dissemination of a special educational needs toolkit which undermines the law on quantificatton of support in a statement and contains thoroughly misleading guidance on meeting the needs of visually-impaired children; and I would also include children with autistic spectrum disorders and other disabilities.

Many of us, including parent groups and a host of organisations, fought hard to persuade the Secretary of State to remove the ambiguous wording on specification and quantification from the revised version of the special educational needs code of practice. The Secretary of State responded positively and reinstated guidance on the need for statements of special educational needs to contain specific and quantified requirements relating to provision.

However, Section 7 of the special educational needs toolkit, entitled "Writing a Statement of Special Educational Needs", seems to mark a significant step backwards. For those children with low incidence needs, the toolkit is a potential disaster and likely to lead to a growth in the number of tribunal cases. The guidance to local education authorities contained in Section 7 is confusing, misleading and ill informed.

Section 7, which gives practical guidance on how to write statements, goes far beyond the code and existing case law in suggesting when local education authorities may be justified in refusing to quantify special needs provision. It states:

"LEAs are required to be specific about provision. Provision should normally be quantified, for example in terms of hours and frequency of support, but there are times when some flexibility needs to be retained either to meet the changing needs of the child or to allow for appropriate and alternative responses from within the school to reflect particular class or school arrangements".

John Wright of IPSEA said:

"This is so general as to undermine completely both the requirement in law that provision be specified and the guidance in the code and that normally it be quantified".

Only when the needs of a child are properly assessed and are both specified and quantified in detail will real progress be made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said, early intervention is the key. No parent should be made to wait months, even years, fighting to secure provision for their child. It is also important that there is greater co-operation and co-ordination between health, education, social services and other relevant provision in relation to funding for children with disabilities.

Time, as always, is the enemy and therefore I must close. But in doing so I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for initiating this debate. I also fervently hope that the efforts of Ivan and Charika, and all those who support the autism campaign, are rewarded by practical and positive progress. So much, we all know, can be achieved for and by children and adults with autistic spectrum disorders. I hope that whatever the Minister has to say this evening will make a real practical difference to the parents and children who are special and who deserve to have their needs met as of right.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, on bringing this subject forward. As she spoke it reminded me of an incident just over 15 years ago when I had to make my maiden speech on dyslexia, though in my case it was a personal experience not one related to a near relative.

Also, the longer I look at this subject, the more and more similar it seems to the process through which dyslexia had to travel—the process of asking, "What is this word? What does it mean? Oh, they are all geniuses or loonies". Different tiers; different levels of interaction; different levels of ignorance; different assumptions that it has been dealt with; a lack of comprehension of the ongoing problem outside certain spheres—it is all there. We repeat ourselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is one of around four Ministers who could be responding to this debate. Education has already been dealt with. Works and pensions certainly have a part to play in this topic. We can even go on to the civil rights issues involved. I have a degree of sympathy for the noble Lord and suggest that he merely carries my comments to the appropriate ear at the end of the debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, quite rightly spoke of the problems within the education system and the fact that every time we think we have it right in education, we seem to have to continue looking for more solutions and correcting what goes on. I felt that eventually we would be able to remove the disability portfolio. But people keep running back to the professionals. They keep saying, "We know what we are dealing with", or, "We will assign it to something else". That is why we hear platitudes like, "His speech will get better" or, "He is just a bit slow". That leads to late intervention, help and support which leads to problems later on.

It is often said, "He will get by somehow". Well, to be perfectly honest, people do. The argument about statistics is ongoing. I will bet any amount of money on the fact that we have no idea of the true numbers involved, because those who are on the edges are not discovered. Those who are reasonably intelligent, hard working and lucky, or any combination of those, will "get by" in the system; they will not encounter major problems and will get through.

When it comes to autism—I do not claim any great expertise in this subject—and the difficulties of communication and relating to one's fellow man, we find that most of the jobs and niches in which people could previously hide are disappearing in our society. Greater inter-personal relationships are required in our adult life. That means that the problem is a growing one and one we will start to encounter in the adult sector.

There is always a danger, when we concentrate on what appears to be a child-based problem, of forgetting that children grow up. This is an issue that runs through the argument once again. We forget that an adult will eventually be out there, and unless he has received the appropriate training, he will be difficult to employ and will lack flexibility in employment. His social skills will be low.

My research for the debate highlighted the number of times that doctors and psychiatrists find that problem. They often find themselves treating symptoms of depression because they have not spotted that someone has Asperger syndrome. It is not surprising that someone who finds it difficult to relate to the world is depressed, but he often does not know why he finds it so difficult. Lack of recognition leads to knock-on costs in human and financial terms for as long as the person lives.

The Government must ensure that the medical profession is involved. They should be the first port of call—not teachers. Parents, too, need to be more genned up to catch the child. It is an acknowledged fact throughout the world that deals with disabilities that disabled people should choose their parents well. Generally speaking, a couple of lawyers are the best bet.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, provided the tribunal for special educational needs with a very hefty stick. We may need something equally heavy with which to thump the doctors. Both professions are under considerable pressure with regard to recruitment and retention of staff and it is probably not fair to throw this at them. But this is a case of survival tactics. We should do more to back up the professions here.

The auxiliary services needed to provide the necessary skills for those with autistic spectrum disorder to survive in the outside world cannot be over-emphasised. They need training to relate at the highest level and it must start early. That is why we need to ensure that doctors are better informed about what is going on so that they do not resort to a series of hackneyed expressions. It is often because they simply do not know about certain disabilities. The Government must take on the lead role of ensuring that they do. The diagnosis must be recognised so that those with the disability can be properly trained.

The autism spectrum is incredibly wide. There are no pat answers which means that this process is increasingly difficult, but we must provide a way of ensuring that doctors and those involved in teaching are properly supported. They should at least know enough when a parent comes along with concerns. A busy professional who is hit by something from left field about which they are not aware will not respond correctly. It is that simple. He may say that the child is awkward, thick, difficult or whatever. It is human nature and is almost guaranteed if no support is offered.

Despite the fact that the idea of Autism Awareness Year is good and we need it, it is also an indictment of the fact that we do not move fast enough. We need to he kicked into doing things; we need to he pushed; we need to be dragged. People do not like making changes. If we can get the subject ingrained into people's psyche, even to the extent that dyslexia is, we will still have a long way to go. We will still have to ensure that all factions of the government machine know what they are talking about and can give advice to other people. It is about trying to get knowledge into the system and recognising that it is necessary to take time in trying to understand it. Until we achieve that high degree of awareness, admitting that we do not know the answers but that someone else does—a difficult thing for a professional to admit to—we shall carry on having debates such as this. While we do that, the number of adults who have autistic spectrum disorders who find it incredibly difficult to function in society will grow. The children may catch the headlines but the real problems are with those after the age of 16/18. We should bear that in mind. That is where the real problem is and where the ongoing costs to society will be paid.

My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to focus on this important issue tonight and for her moving exposition of the problems faced by families with an autistic member. I fully support her call for more support and attention for the problems of autism since I welcome anything which enables society to be more understanding about the problems of those who care for anyone with a disability of any kind.

I want to take this opportunity to look more generally at the problems faced by parents of all children with special needs. I ask the Minister for his response to a particular need which in my experience many of those parents have.

The Government are to be congratulated—and we should acknowledge the progress that has been made—on ensuring that the needs of disabled children and their families are moving up the agenda. New government initiatives such as the Quality Protects initiative have given social services departments a specific three-year allocation to develop services for children. The Special Education Needs and Disability Act, which comes into force from September of this year, should further increase the numbers of disabled children educated within mainstream schools And give protection against disability discrimination in the educational system, which we have heard so much about so far this evening.

The Carers and Disabled Children Act, which I had the honour of taking through your Lordships' House, is already making a difference to families' lives. The provision for vouchers for respite care, due to come in later this year, will further increase parental choice.

The Children's National Service Framework has a separate expert working group on disabled children. The Minister for social care has appointed the chief executive of Contact a Family, the leading charity campaigning for the families of disabled children, to chair that organisation. So progress has certainly been made.

However, disabled children and their families are still excluded in many ways. I remind noble Lords of some of the numbers. There are more than 300,000 children with disabilities under the age of 16 in the United Kingdom. That is 3 per cent of the child population. Of these, more than 100,000 are severely disabled. Around 17,000 families have more than one disabled child, so they have double the caring responsibilities. Each day in the United Kingdom more than 75 children are born or diagnosed with a serious disability. The Birth Defects Foundation research released last week estimates that the number of babies born with birth defects of some kind has increased by some 50 per cent in five years.

Although communication is better than it was, anyone who has had anything to do with parent carers will have horror stories to tell about how diagnostic information is given to parents at this very difficult time. We should here commend the work of organisations such as Contact a Family and the many disease-specific organisations, such as the National Autistic Society, for their work at these very difficult times in giving out information, giving the parents comfort and putting them in touch with other parents with the same kind of experience, and so on.

There are interesting statistics about specific impairments. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, for example, estimates that there are 24,000 plus children with significantly impaired vision under the age of 16. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf estimates that there are about 25,000 deaf or hard of hearing children under 15 who are deaf or hard of hearing; there are 50,000 children with epilepsy; 1,000 babies are born every year with Down's Syndrome; and so on.

For families of children with disabilities, as my noble friend has reminded us, finances are almost always a problem. There have been significant improvements in benefits in relation to disabled children. For example, there is the introduction of the enhanced disability premium on income support. giving an extra £11 odd a week for severely disabled children. The above inflation rise in the disabled child premium is also most welcome. The plans to extend the invalid care allowance for eight weeks after the death of' the disabled person—long fought for by the carers' movement—will help bereaved parents. We should never forget the role that grandparents can play in looking after children with disabilities. They may benefit from the extension of the invalid care allowance to the over 65s.

However, half of households with disabled children lack some of life's basic necessities because they simply cannot afford them. Three-quarters of families with a disabled child live in a home which is unsuitable for the needs of that disabled child. Parents of a disabled child often say that they spend twice as much on comparable items as those whose children are not disabled.

In the limited time available I would like to bring to the Minister's attention one specific problem which I believe cuts across the whole spectrum of disability; that is, children in hospital and the parents' ability to visit. Contact a Family is campaigning to persuade the Government to offer financial assistance with the costs of visiting a sick child in hospital. As more and more children are being treated at specialist centres which are many miles from their home, families are often unable to avoid the travelling costs of visiting them.

In his report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary, Professor Kennedy recommended that families are assisted to meet the costs arising from travelling and being away from home so that they may be with their sick child in a tertiary care centre. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept that part of his recommendation.

The difficulty is that help with the costs of travelling to hospital for treatment are met through a statutory scheme for low income families but the costs of travelling to hospital for visiting are not included within that scheme. The only way of having such costs met is through the discretionary Social Fund, which is cash limited, as noble Lords will know, and restricted to families on income support. Low income families who are working or on benefits other than income support can receive no help at all.

There is a statutory scheme to help people visit family members in prison. It does seem perhaps unfair that this is a very different situation to that of a sick child in hospital whose parents may receive no assistance at all with the costs of visiting their child.

There has been clear recognition by the Government over a number of years that children need to have their parents with them when in hospital, and that includes staying overnight. The Department of Health's own guidance paper the Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital is very explicit on this point, stating that family support is essential and not a luxury.

I hope that the Government might wish to introduce statutory help for low income families to cover the cost of hospital visiting, which would target help on those on the lowest incomes and those parents whose children are receiving care in a tertiary centre some way away from their homes so that they can receive help towards visiting costs regardless of their means.

In conclusion, I wish to leave noble Lords with a very important statistic that we should never forget. Nine out of 10 children with severe disabilities, physical, mental and emotional, are cared for at home by their families. They do this willingly and they do it with love. Much progress has been made in helping them, but there is still some way to go.

My Lords. I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, on initiating this debate and for her very moving introduction to it. However, I regret that the debate is taking place at a time of night when it is rather more difficult than usual to fire on all cylinders. I shall keep my remarks fairly short as a result.

I declare an interest as the chairman of trustees of Treehouse, which is a school for profoundly autistic children. Certainly, that has coloured my own experience and given me a much greater insight than I would have had otherwise into some of the issues raised this evening.

I also pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to Ivan and Charika Corea, who have been the inspiration behind Autism Awareness Year. It was very interesting to see how the germ of an idea suddenly blossomed over last year and the very persuasive way in which they summoned people to their cause in creating what I believe is a very important year. It allies with the 40th anniversary of the National Autistic Society. That of itself has very effectively begun to raise awareness of autism.

One important matter has already become apparent in this debate. It is the experience of parents and children with autism and of carers. That is absolutely vital. It is difficult for those of us who do not have direct personal experience of autism in their families to understand some of the barriers to getting assessment, a statement, proper education—whether inclusive or specialist—or other forms of support. A common strand runs through the experience of carers and parents of which we must take note.

The success of this year will be measured by further increases in public awareness and in ministerial success in securing more resources and action for the young people, adults and their carers who are affected. Already, awareness among parliamentarians is increasing. Two years ago, the all-party autism group was set up under the chairmanship of Dr Stephen Ladyman. Although I am a relative newcomer, I had the good fortune to become vice-chairman of the group. It has effectively considered and discussed a whole range of issues affecting people with autistic spectrum disorder and Asberger's, and has engaged in dialogue with Ministers.

Ministers have attended its meetings and some important announcements have been made. One that springs to mind is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Uphol land, who made an important announcement about including autistic spectrum disorder in the school census when children join school. Many of us have been pressing for some years for a proper baseline when children enter school of their disabilities and special educational needs. Although to some extent one relies on assessment and statementing, that will never be as fine a tool as a proper census, as exists in Scotland. Scotland has certainly proven that a proper census on joining school demonstrates the growth in autistic spectrum disorder at a young age.

The costs of autism to society are immense. The Mental Health Foundation calculated two years ago that it cost £1 billion a year and carried an individual lifetime cost of almost £3 million per child. On recent figures, the total figure could be as high as £5 billion. That includes such costs as health costs, education costs, social security costs, social services costs, the loss of the earnings of parents acting as carers and the loss of taxation on earnings.

To date, there has been no official monitoring of autism, despite a 1997 recommendation of the Health Select Committee to that effect. Nor does monitoring take place at local level in England and Wales, although, as I mentioned, the Scots school census has demonstrated dramatic increases, even since 1998. In fact, the National Autistic Society estimates that one in 110 children now suffers from autistic spectrum disorder, which is four times greater than even the highest incidence reported in the previous 30 years. A 1983 study showed an incidence of one in 625.

It is not clear why there has been an increase. The Medical Research Council review of autism, which reported at the end of last year, admitted that autism incidence is 10 times higher than 10 years ago. It acknowledges that the current state of knowledge of the causes and effects of autism is inadequate and that further research is needed.

I do not want to go into great detail about the causes, but, as the MRC said, a great deal more research is needed. I hope that the Minister can assure us that that research will take place. I find it difficult to believe that the huge identified increase both here and in the United States is due purely to better diagnosis, clearer definition and increased awareness. I believe that other environmental factors are involved.

There are major issues about assessment and the availability of proper education for children with autistic spectrum disorder. One could start with the whole process of assessment. It should take place at the earliest possible age, but in practice it does not. As other noble Lords have said, the earlier the intervention, the better the chance of a child being able to overcome the problems posed by ASD. Last year, in its report The Rising Challenge, the all-party group found that assessment in schools was far from adequate or uniform. It demonstrated that 75 per cent of those who had ASD were not statemented. Yet over 10 per cent of children with special educational needs have autistic spectrum disorder. One of the most depressing aspects of that report was the lack of data from local education authorities.

All children should be assessed at the earliest practical age to discover whether they have autistic tendencies. As soon as such tendencies are picked up, resources must be put in to help. It is also vital that assessment procedures are consistent. The all-party group has recently heard from Professor Ann le Couteur and Dr Gillian Baird about an important national initiative. It is a joint initiative by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has produced draft guidelines designed to identify pre-school children with autism and makes recommendations on multi-agency assessment. I could—but will not—go into greater detail about the nature of that multi-agency assessment, which is of enormous importance. It is even more important that the work of NIASA should be able to continue. It needs further resources, and, as Professor le Couteur said to the all-party group, those resources are by no means guaranteed. The Minister should give us an assurance about that.

There is also a dearth of specialist education and support for children. LEAs are only beginning to wake up to the scale of the need to support children with ASD or make specialist provision. A recent PACE survey demonstrates the problems that parents have experienced in obtaining funding for their children. We have heard about that from other noble Lords today. There are also problems associated with going to the tribunals.

Respite is another aspect. The strain and financial consequences of providing care for autistic children can be significant. Support for the families of autistic children is vital, particularly respite care, but few local authorities provide it. As has been demonstrated, there are some extremely good value schemes using networks of volunteers. For instance, £17,000 can support up to 12 families. That is very good value for that kind of support.

Noble Lords mentioned the issue of adults and employment. One of the key areas that we must highlight is the situation of autistic adults in this country, as my noble friend Lord Addington said. Sixty per cent of autistic adults did not find out that they were autistic until they were 16. They find it difficult to find jobs, even those with Asperger syndrome, who sometimes have higher education qualifications. There is an important scheme called Prospects employment service, which gives people with autism support in applying for jobs. It trains employers and provides on-the-job training. Currently, it is based only in London and Glasgow and has some outreach in Sheffield. I hope that the Department of Health and other departments will look favourably on that scheme. It is important that the scheme spreads.

Transition to adulthood is one of the key problems in education. One of the great fears that parents have is about how their children will cope in the outside world. I am lucky to be involved in discussions about how a school that currently only has children under the age of 11 will cope with the kind of education that the children will need when they reach secondary level.

There is a huge amount to be done. If the debate were taking place at any other time, we would have a much larger attendance. It can truly be said of autistic children that an investment now in early assessment, support in education and social services for them and their carers and in employment will pay huge dividends.

I welcome many of the things that Ministers are doing at national level. The agreement that autism will be used as an exemplar, for instance, in the national service framework; the decision to include autism in the school census of SEN conditions for new arrivals at school. But this needs to be translated in a great many ways into local action.

The next step from awareness, as many noble Lords have pointed out, is action and that is what we expect from now on.

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for introducing this debate. It is a tragedy that this important subject is being considered at such a late hour.

Like the noble Baroness, I declare an interest as the parent of a child with autism. This debate has seen some very well-informed speeches that reflect a clear commitment to people with autism. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, focused on the gaps in professional awareness. I can personally relate to much of what she said. My noble friend Lady Blatch spoke with great authority on the problems autistic children and their families experience with education provision. I would like to pay tribute to her for the energy with which she debated the SEN changes last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out the different areas of government that need to be made aware of the wide spectrum of autism. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, pointed out the problems faced by families, including grandparents, of children with special needs and how excluded they are. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the Treehouse Trust. I compliment him on the wonderful work he does as chairman and also on the hard work he puts into the All-Party Group on Autism, and I declare an interest as secretary of the group.

The group has successfully united all parties to improve awareness and services for people with autism and their families. The group now has 150 parliamentary members and, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has increased awareness of autism and Asperger syndrome within government.

The group's success has been made possible by generous funding from the Shirley Foundation, founded by Dame Stephanie Shirley, who has a dynamic vision of making autism resources in the UK the best in the world.

There are dramatic increases in the number of children with ASD coming through the education system, but this has not been mirrored with an increase in resources or training. Current education services are inadequate and in many cases absent. The Government's emphasis on inclusion relies on schools being equipped to accommodate the needs of children with ASD. This is rarely the case in practice and their needs go unaddressed. This is not good enough.

Schools need to be supported by proper planning and backed up with funds. If the Government want these children in mainstream, they must be given an education to which they are entitled. Mainstream failed my daughter miserably.

All the research points to the need for more training in autism, but that is not happening. In the mainstream, 70 per cent of teachers had worked with children with ASD but only 5 per cent had specific training in their basic teacher training and only a further 5 per cent had been on subsequent training days. Many learning assistants have no training and merely act as babysitters in the classroom. There is a national shortage of speech and language therapists and occupational therapists.

Most mainstream schools have what I call "the Rainman syndrome". They have no real idea what autism is about, accept a child without any proper preparation and get a terrible shock. By half-term the school is unable to cope and the placement is failing. This could be very simply remedied by a proper transition plan before the term starts. For instance, a behaviour management policy could be set in place.

The child could be supplied with a workstation to reduce distraction and could be issued with a visual timetable.

How strange that in this era of league tables, of performance indicators and nationally imposed standards in mainstream education LEAs are unable to record data about who is and is not trained, who needs to be and what kind of training is necessary. They are unable to identify what is being spent on autism training or to come up with ways to promote the sharing of knowledge between specialist and mainstream schools and between the maintained and non-maintained sectors.

In the absence of other appropriate education provision, many parents turn in desperation to funding home education programmes themselves. Sometimes they have to sell their homes to pay for them. Surely it is time for the Government to respond to these calls for action and launch a national autism training initiative, backed up with the funds to make it meaningful. They would thereby make a crucial difference to the lifelong prospects of these desperately vulnerable young people.

As my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out, there is great concern with regard to the recently published SEN Toolkit, in particular Section 7. I should like to ask the Minister what plans the Government have to review the SEN Toolkit.

The identification of autism is vital. Diagnosis is a skilled and complex process requiring multidisciplinary assessment. Many families struggle to leap over the first hurdle of getting a diagnosis for their child. There is no simple blood test or brain scan that can detect autism. Frontline professionals such as GPs often do not recognise autism, and parents are frequently told that they are worrying unnecessarily or not disciplining their child properly. Some doctors rigidly follow the rules set out by the International Classification of Diseases, which does not allow for the breadth and diversity of the spectrum of autism. Diagnosis can be made only through careful clinical observation and the taking of a full developmental history.

Having struggled to convince a GP that there is a problem, families often find that they are passed along through a succession of different professionals to secure a diagnosis. There is a very positive model of one-stop diagnosis in the NAS Centre for Social and Communication Disorders. It assembles a multidisciplinary team on a single clay and conducts full-day diagnosis sessions for each individual, thus avoiding a drawn-out process. This was pioneered by Lorna Wing and Judy Gould, who have done more for the early diagnosis of autistic children than almost anyone else in the world.

The National Initiative for Autism, Screening and Assessment is devising clear, recommended time-scales for the diagnostic process, which should be widely adopted. There is a second need for awareness: recognition of the importance of early intervention after diagnosis, whether someone is diagnosed as a child or an adult.

Early intervention can prevent the development and exacerbation of "anti-social" behaviour, such as children withdrawing into themselves and self-injury. Without intervention, the child's difficulties ire more likely to become more entrenched. In Ealing, a multidisciplinary health team has formed a rapid response team to go into nurseries where children are having difficulties. It diagnoses and gives advice to the nursery and, if appropriate, finds funding for a key worker for the child. Since the scheme began, there have been no more exclusions from nurseries in that area.

Autism is a lifelong condition. Although there is a wide variety of abilities within the spectrum, the majority of people with autism will continue to need support throughout their adult lives.

Future provision needs planning. Fifty-nine per cent of adults at the so-called higher functioning end of the spectrum are still living at home with their parents and only 12 per cent are in full-time employment. These people will need support when their parents become elderly and can no longer fulfil the role of carer. What plans do the Government have for the older carers who may not be able to care for their adult child for much longer and who, in turn, cannot rely on their child for assistance when they come to need support?

The Autism Research Centre in Cambridge believes that there is an urgent need for expanding diagnostic services for adults who may have Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. People born before 1980 would not have received a diagnosis in childhood as it only entered the diagnostic manuals in the 1990s. These classification systems are rigidly interpreted by many professionals, which means that some people are not diagnosed and others are mistakenly diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. Most are left without support and understanding of their needs.

Mental health services say that the person does not have a mental health problem and that it is not their concern. Learning disability services say that as a person has an IQ over 70 it is not their concern. So these poor people fall into a dark hole. Even from a hard-headed economic point of view there is a clear argument for early intervention compared with the high cost of a bed in an acute mental health ward.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Uddin for her Unstarred Question and for her remarkable speech. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions to a stimulating debate. The hour is late and there are very few noble Lords in the House, but that does not matter because the importance of the subject is very clear. I can assure the House that the Government will consider very carefully the points that have been made today.

It is not in doubt that autism is a complex and distressing condition for those directly affected by it and for their families. People with autism often lead isolated lives and their social and communication difficulties often place great stress on their families. I wish to begin by acknowledging the tremendous efforts of families and carers.

I was very moved by the contributions made to the debate by noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Uddin spoke of some of the struggles that she had had to get through the system and to be taken seriously. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke about her hopes for the legislation that she piloted in the early 1990s. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about parallels with dyslexia and of the need to focus on adults as much as on children. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley spoke of the need to ensure support for carers. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke of the barriers which exist to parents and carers in trying to find a way through the system and of the importance—with which I agree—of a statistical baseline by which to measure both the need and necessary improvements in the services being offered. The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, spoke of his personal experience in the educational issues that he raised. He, too, raised the issue of the support required for adults, particularly when their parents die or are too old to care for people who suffer from autism. I very much agree with that point.

It is clearly very important to ensure that services are responsive to people's needs. I fully accept that raising awareness is a very important part of that. I acknowledge the roles of the British Institute for Brain Injured Children and the Disabilities Trust in spearheading Autism Awareness Year, as well as the impressive number of other organisations who have lent it their support. I also acknowledge the personal commitment of Ivan and Charika Corea, without whom this would not have happened. The Government warmly welcome initiatives that aim to improve our knowledge and understanding of autism. The initiative was welcomed also by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who expressed his support for Autism Awareness Year.

Autism is commanding an increasing amount of public attention as we, as a society, become ever more aware of it. I congratulate the National Autistic Society and wish it well with its 40th anniversary campaign to change attitudes and raise funds for a new 10-year programme. We should also acknowledge the contribution of many concerned Members of both Houses of Parliament, especially of those who have joined the All Party Parliamentary Group—as my noble friend Lady Uddin suggested. The Government are clearly exercised of the importance of ensuring a cohesive response.

There is a great deal going on. Two reports commissioned by the Department of Health are now available. Dr Tony Holland's report on Asperger's Syndrome and the report by the Medical Research Council on the epidemiology and causes of autism. Then, there is the development of good practice guidance by the Department for Education and Skills, which will be published later in the year. There is also the report of the All Party Parliamentary Group, The Rising Challenge—a survey of local education authorities on educational provision for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders, which was formally launched on 13th December.

For Autism Awareness Week in May 2001, the NAS published its report, Ignored or Ineligible?, which focuses on services for adults. There is, therefore, a wealth of material available from both government and other sources to inform the activities of Autism Awareness Year. I shall refer to some of the reports in more detail later. I suggest that the cumulative impact of all this work is that we have a good platform on which to build. But, of course, there are many challenges ahead.

As we know, autism is a lifelong developmental disability which affects the way in which a person communicates and relates to other people. Those affected have a triad of impairments: in social interaction; in social communication; and in imagination. For those with autism, a first important step is correct diagnosis. I very much share the views of noble Lords who have spoken on this matter.

We are taking a very close interest in the independent initiative on autism being chaired by Professor Ann Le Couteur. This is a very important piece of work. Representatives of both my department and the DfES are acting as observers on the working group. We look forward to seeing the conclusions, in particular on screening, diagnosis and early intervention. My understanding is that the report will be published in the summer. I can assure noble Lords that we shall want to take its recommendations very seriously.

Because of our concern about diagnostic assessment and treatment of children and adults with Asperger's Syndrome, the department commissioned a report from Dr Tony Holland of the University of Cambridge. His recommendations relate to a wide range of issues, such as professional groups developing their awareness of Asperger's Syndrome, which again picks up a number of the points made by noble Lords; secondly, the need for health, social and other services to work together; and, thirdly, the need for population based studies to establish its prevalence. The last point was taken further with the work that we commissioned in March last year from the Medical Research Council. That work asked the MRC to undertake a detailed review of the current state of knowledge of autism and to suggest possible areas for further research.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, in December, the MRC published the report of its review. This provides a clear, authoritative picture of what scientific research has revealed about the epidemiology and causes of autism. It notes that the apparent increase in prevalence of autism is likely to have resulted from better diagnosis and clearer definition as well as increased awareness. It also indicates that many factors may play a part in causing autism.

The strongest evidence to date is for a major genetic component. It is thought that several genes may operate together to create susceptibility to autism. It is entirely plausible that autistic behaviours might be derived from a number of different genetic combinations. Several environmental factors were suggested that might interact with genetic susceptibility to cause autism. These include exposure before or after birth to drugs, infections or heavy metals. The report notes that there is currently insufficient evidence on these and says that many of the theories merit more scientifically rigorous examination.

That is an important conclusion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the importance of further research. On 14th February, my ministerial colleague Jacqui Smith announced an additional £2.5 million allocation to the MRC to help take forward the recommendations in its report. We are engaged in a dialogue with the MRC about future autism research. I shall be happy to report to your Lordships later in the year when the outcome of those discussions is known.

It is also important that we pick up the MRC's interesting recommendation to find ways of networking the messages not only from the MRC review, but also from some of the other recently completed and ongoing autism-related reviews. Some very important messages are emerging from those reviews, which need to come to the attention of policy makers, practitioners, researchers and lay people. Training for all those people is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked particularly about the need for training for doctors. Training needs to be considered in the round, covering a range of professionals.

My colleague Jacqui Smith has asked officials in the Department of Health to consider how we can help to get the messages out, perhaps with conferences or a series of seminars to put across key issues. She has also said that she wants to consider whether it would he appropriate to issue guidance to those in the field; and, if so, what the best format and timing would be. She will want to consider that and take account of the points that have been made tonight.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a particular point of raising issues in relation to the education sector. This is an important year for special educational needs provision. The revised SEN code of practice has been in place since 1st January. It strengthens the guidance on identifying and meeting children's needs and encourages early identification. This year will also see the publication of the Department for Education and Skills autism working group's good practice guide. We have received representations from across government, the NAS, the Parents Autism Campaign for Education, service providers and autism researchers. I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She spoke about a lack of consistency and of her disappointment at still finding problems of inconsistency a decade on from the 1993 Act. I acknowledge her role in the early 1990s and agree that we need to tackle inconsistency with some vigour.

I was also interested in what the noble Baroness said about tribunals and the llth-hour resolution of cases. I have two points to make in relation to that First, it is worth acknowledging that autistic spectrum disorder is a complex condition and there is loom for genuine disagreement between parents and local education authorities. The tribunals are there to provide an even-handed, independent method of deciding on those disagreements. I agree with the noble Baroness that there should not be an abuse of the system.

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 obliges LEAs from 1st January to provide partnership services to parents, to provide independent advice to parents of children with SEN and to offer informal dispute resolution arrangements to parents so that disputes can be resolved in a non-adversarial manner. My understanding is also that, as a result of that Act, from 1st January, there will be no presentational advantage to the LEA in withdrawing at the last minute. From that date, certain types of appeal are to be treated as determined in favour of the parent when the LEA has notified the SEN tribunal that it is conceding. Clearly, however, we shall have to keep a careful eye on future practical experience in that sphere.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that only 25 per cent of children who might qualify have a statement based on national prevalence rates. I suspect that the prevalence rates are those used by the NAS, of 91 per 10,000. That is the highest of the suggested prevalence rates that I have seen, and it might well also include many children with fairly mild presenting difficulties whose needs can be met without a statement. It might be that the 25 per cent represents the right level for statementing. However, I accept the noble Lord's substantive point, which is that unless we have consistent data collection across LEAs it is very difficult to draw hard and fast conclusions from that data. The Autism Working Group's forthcoming guidance will highlight the value of data collection for planning purposes. I believe that the revised SEN code of practice will encourage the early identification of children with SEN including those with autistic spectrum disorder. I think that the code gives adequate guidance on arranging intervention to meet children's needs.

Education is crucially important in this sphere, but so too is the support that is available through the personal social service arrangements. The Government have started to improve services through the Quality Protects programme which is designed to improve children's services. From April 2001, over three years, £60 million from the children's grant has been earmarked for spending on services for disabled children and their families. Last year's QP management action plans show that authorities are beginning to improve the services they provide to disabled children. Many are developing proposals in collaboration with partners from other agencies and sectors, such as the NHS and voluntary sector. More family support services are being provided, particularly home-based respite care and sitting services. Every management action plan includes services which increase the range and scale of provision of leisure, cultural and sport activities.

There are some very good examples of how action has been taken to provide specific, focused services for children with autism, including early diagnosis and medical treatment as necessary and pre-school speech and language therapy services. I very much recognise that more needs to be done to ensure that all autistic children and their families receive high-quality support from social services, education and health services wherever they live. We want to build on this, particularly when we publish the national service framework for children. We have already made it clear that the standards and targets which will be set within the NSF will improve services for children, including those with autism. I cannot stress more the importance of national service frameworks within the NHS in setting high standards and ensuring consistency of approach across the patch, across the country.

Very importantly, the NSF will include care pathway exemplar diagrams illustrating optimum approaches to delivering services in a number of different areas. I see that as a very important way forward in the future. We shall of course need to pick up many of the workforce issues that noble Lords have raised. On the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Uddin on therapist numbers, we have an NHS Plan commitment to address those concerns. We have already seen an increase in the number of speech and language therapists, from 4,870 in 1997, to 5,680 in 2001.

I very much pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley on the cost of supporting families who have an additional burden of visiting children in hospital. I assure her that Ministers will he considering proposals on that matter in the very near future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has asked for a task force. The Government will carefully consider all the suggestions made in this helpful debate. I want to make it clear that autism is a subject that the Government take very seriously. We believe that Autism Awareness Year has an important contribution to make. We shall listen carefully to the messages that emerge from the year.

We have in place a series of actions that will help to bring forward a more effective provision of services. In the coming months the DfES practice guidance on autism will be important. I have said that the Department of Health will also consider issuing complimentary guidance to the NHS and to social service authorities. We shall continue to pursue our constructive dialogue with the MRC on autism research. The further £2.5 million that we have allocated will enhance that. I also emphasise the critical importance of the decision that autism will be used as an exemplar in the forthcoming children's National Health Service framework.

We have some good building blocks, but there are considerable challenges ahead. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington that not least of those is ensuring a co-ordinated response and helping children and families to find their way through the many agencies that have responsibility in this area.

In conclusion, the Government are determined that services for everyone with autism shall continue to improve. We shall continue to work on what more we need to do to improve services for people across the autistic spectrum. That will include listening carefully to the messages that emerge from Autism Awareness Year. I conclude by thanking my noble friend Lady Uddin for bringing these issues to our attention.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before one o'clock.