I remind the Committee that Divisions are possible in the Chamber and that, if a Division is called, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes. Before the Minister moves that the first order be considered, could I remind noble Lords that, in the case of each order, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee “consider” the order in question? The Motion to approve the order will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Totalisator Board) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak also to the Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2007 and the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007.

The context for today’s debate is the coming into force on 1 September this year of the Gambling Act 2005. Your Lordships will recall that this Act establishes the Gambling Commission as a regulator for gambling in Great Britain, thus creating a unified, streamlined licensing regime for gambling operators and premises.

In general terms, the Act requires those offering facilities for gambling to obtain an operating licence issued by the Gambling Commission. Where premises are used to provide gambling facilities, the Act requires a premises licence to be obtained from the local authority. Generally, a person can be granted a premises licence only if they hold an operating licence authorising the activity.

I will begin by summarising the purpose of the three draft instruments. The first two allow two specific bodies—the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Tote—to continue to operate for the time being. The Levy Board would continue until a satisfactory alternative commercial mechanism is identified; and the Tote would be retained in its present form until such time as its sale is completed. The Gambling Act was drafted on the basis that neither body would exist at the time that the Act came into force; hence the need for these orders.

The third instrument ensures the effective continued operation of the Levy Board by permitting information to flow between it and the Gambling Commission for the purpose of carrying out their respective functions. It also adds the British Boxing Board of Control to the list of sports bodies contained in the 2005 Act for the purposes of information sharing, thus helping to ensure openness and integrity in betting on boxing matches.

I turn to the detail of the instruments. The first that we have to consider is the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007. The horserace betting levy was established under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to collect money from bookmakers and the Tote for three statutory purposes: the improvement of breeds of horses; the advancement of veterinary science and education; and the improvement of horseracing. The Horserace Betting Levy Board was set up as a public body to receive the levy and administer payments from it, including race prize money and integrity payments.

In March 2000, the Government announced their intention to abolish the Levy Board and the levy mechanism. This was in response to the racing industry’s view that a more modern, commercially based funding mechanism was available, whereby TV coverage of races and data on runners and riders, fixture lists and so on could be sold to bookmakers at commercial rates. Provision was made for the abolition of the board in the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004. However, a European Court of Justice ruling in November 2004 cast serious doubt over racing’s ability to secure adequate payment for the use of its data, and therefore over the viability of the proposed replacement funding model. As a result of that ruling and the recommendations of the Future Funding of Racing Review Group, my honourable friend in the other place, Richard Caborn, the then Sports Minister, announced in December 2006 that the levy and the Levy Board should be retained until such time as a secure alternative commercial funding arrangement could be identified.

The main purpose of the order is therefore to allow the Levy Board to remain in existence and continue to carry out all its functions after 1 September. In due course, we intend to repeal Part 2 of the 2004 Act, which provided for the abolition of the levy system. That will ensure that Parliament can debate a measure to abolish the levy in the light of circumstances which may prevail at the time.

The order has a secondary purpose. Under the 2005 Act, the Gambling Commission issues operating licences to bookmakers. This replaces the system under the 1963 Act, which required bookmakers to hold bookmakers’ permits. Under the old system, the relevant authority could refuse to renew a permit if the Levy Board provided evidence that a bookmaker had repeatedly failed to pay the levy.

Article 3 of the order allows the Levy Board to continue to take a role in the review and revocation of licences by requiring the commission to carry out a review of an operating licence if notified by the board that the holder of the licence has failed to pay the levy for at least three months, and to revoke the licence if appropriate. It also allows the bookmaker the opportunity to make representations to the commission before any decision to revoke their operating licence for non-payment of the levy is made.

I now turn to the second draft instrument. As the Committee will know, the Horserace Totalisator Board—the Tote—is a statutory corporation established by the Government under the Racecourse Betting Act 1928 to provide pool betting services on horseracing.

In line with the Government’s commitment to disengage from areas of life where it is no longer appropriate for central Government to have a role, legislative provision was made in the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 for the Tote to be removed from the public sector.

Specifically, Part 1 of the 2004 Act enables the Government to dissolve the Tote and create a successor company to receive its assets and liabilities for onward sale to a commercial operator. The Act also enables the Government to direct the Gambling Commission to issue this third party with an exclusive seven-year licence to offer pool betting services.

It is now clear that the dissolution of the Tote and the issuing of the exclusive licence will not have been achieved by 1 September, the date on which the 2005 Act comes into force. That is because our initial intention to sell the Tote at a fair price was challenged by the European Commission. The consortium of racing interests with which the Government were in negotiations then found it difficult to meet the higher, market price.

However, now that the staff and management of the Tote have themselves joined the consortium, negotiations are proceeding and the Government hope to be able to announce how we intend to proceed shortly. The order is designed to enable the Tote to continue to operate on its current basis from 1 September until such time as those negotiations are concluded or the Tote is otherwise disposed of. The order therefore allows the lawful continuation of the 1963 Act arrangements for pool betting on horseraces.

The order also amends Section 33 of the 2005 Act to ensure that the Tote, and others acting under its authority, can exercise its exclusive statutory right to offer pool betting without requiring an operating licence. That mirrors the position under the 1963 Act, under which a bookmaker’s permit is not required to authorise such activity. The order also ensures that a person commits an offence if they infringe the Tote’s exclusive right to provide pool betting. A consequential amendment to Section 163 of the 2005 Act enables the Tote to obtain a betting premises licence without holding a betting operating licence.

Finally, Sections 336 to 338 of the 2005 Act enable the Gambling Commission in certain circumstances to void bets accepted by the holder of a betting operating licence. The order modifies these provisions to ensure that they also apply where bets are entered into with the Tote, or a person acting with the authority of the Tote. It therefore subjects the Tote to the same controls as other betting operators in this regard.

The Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2007 concerns the exchange of information between the Gambling Commission and other authorities. For the Horserace Betting Levy Board to fulfil its statutory functions and to be in a position to object to the issuing of an operating licence or call for the withdrawal of such a licence, it must have access to an up-to-date list of betting operators and to bookmaking information that is not in the public domain. Part 2 of Schedule 6 to the 2005 Act lists enforcement and regulatory officials and bodies to which the Gambling Commission is empowered to supply information and which may themselves supply information to the commission. The order amends Part 2 to include an entry for the Levy Board, thus allowing the board to have access to information on bookmakers held by the commission and to provide information to the commission.

The order also includes a measure designed to extend the Gambling Commission’s information-sharing powers to boxing, which is among the sports other than horseracing on which British betting operators increasingly take bets. The British Boxing Board of Control, the governing body for professional boxing, has asked to be added to the list of bodies in Part 3 of Schedule 6 to the 2005 Act, which lists sports governing bodies to which the Gambling Commission is empowered to supply information. The Gambling Commission supports boxing’s inclusion, and the order amends Part 3 to include an entry for the British Boxing Board of Control.

Information-sharing is part of a suite of measures introduced by the Act that are intended to help to uphold high levels of sports betting integrity. Other measures include voiding of bets and a new offence of cheating. Information-sharing is vital for the effective investigation of alleged breaches of a sport’s governing body rules or the placing of illegal bets.

All three orders before us today are practical measures. The first two are designed to ensure that the modernised, improved betting environment that is created by the Gambling Act and by its precursor, the 2004 Act, comes into force in respect of the Horserace Betting Levy Board and the Tote only when the time is right. Specifically, on the first order, it remains our wish to find a commercial alternative to the levy to finance the expense of the racing industry on horse breeding, veterinary science and the improvement of horseracing. Nevertheless, it is clear for the present that the retention of the levy is the most satisfactory means to fund this legitimate and desirable expenditure. The order allows the levy board to continue to operate while a more satisfactory commercial arrangement is being sought. The second order provides the extra time that we need to ensure that the dissolution of the Tote and the sale and licensing of its assets and functions proceed smoothly and in the interests of punters.

The third order provides for the free flow of information between the Gambling Commission and the Horserace Betting Levy Board, and it extends the list of sports regulatory bodies that enjoy a free flow of information with the commission. The former action will help to ensure that the Levy Board remains properly equipped to carry out its functions; the latter will help to maintain high integrity standards in betting. All three measures are sensible and, I hope, commend themselves to noble Lords. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Totalisator Board) Order 2007. 20th report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

I thank the Minister for reading out his speech on the three orders. The first order is a continuation order, which we have to pass as a consequence of the Government taking a U-turn on their original decision to abolish the Horserace Betting Levy Board. As we have heard, that was as a result of a ruling by the European Court of Justice in November 2004 casting doubt on the viability of the proposed replacement funding model. This is not a very satisfactory state of affairs; in fact it is a mess. When, if ever, do the Government expect that secure funding will be available to carry out their original intentions regarding the Levy Board?

The second order is also a continuation order, which is necessary because of the interminable delays over the sale of the Tote. The Government clearly forgot the European state-aid rules when formulating their original plans. Some six years later, it now seems likely that this will happen at last. However, will the Minister say when and tell us the real market value of the Tote? What has been the cost to the taxpayer of these many negotiations, and are the Government certain that the ownership of the Tote is legally vested in them?

There is nothing in these three orders to which one can take exception. The Minister has explained them very well. If the Committee will indulge me, I shall make a few comments not only on the orders but on the background to them. Horseracing in this country is going through a very fraught time. The constituent parts of what we call British horseracing have all faced difficulties. There have been enormous problems in achieving any kind of consensus on how racing should progress, although the horses still race and go around tracks. The racecourse authorities tell us that their main concern is to demystify racing. I have never understood that. It is a perfectly understandable business; horses either go straight or in a circle, with the objective of reaching the winning post. Those who have backed the horse to win or horses to place will receive money; those who have not will lose their money. I knew that at 10 years old, and I do not see why the people in the corporate boxes, who seem to populate most of the racecourses today, cannot understand it either.

The main problem with racing is the funding of it. That is the headache which the British Horseracing Authority has now taken on under the capable chairmanship of Mr Paul Roy, an experienced businessman and racecourse owner. We have high expectations of him, and I have no reason to think that we may be disappointed. His main task is to draw the strings together so that the constituent fighting parts of racing channel their efforts to ensure that racing remains at the cultural centre of sporting life in this country. At the moment, the problem is that racing is losing a great deal of support among people who follow it. That does not mean that racecourses are not full of people going racing; it means that they are full of people who entertain. It is more of a day out now, unless one goes to odd meetings at Newmarket or to meetings in July at which the people are mostly professionals. People no longer bet on horses to the extent that they did; they bet on other sporting events. The income has come down, and the levy contribution has gone down accordingly.

The Merits Committee made a very interesting observation about something that has puzzled me, although it did not mention virtual reality horseracing, or cartoon horseracing, which concerns me more. Nor did it say whether that attracts levy contributions, which of course it does not. More extraordinary—this overlaps with other orders—is the fact that the income now going to the bottom line of bookmakers from betting shops, which replaces the lost turnover from racing, comes from fixed-odds betting terminals, which is a euphemism for gaming machines. Anyone who cares to put their head inadvisedly into a betting shop of an afternoon will see a pretty sad picture. People who are usually at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale in Britain—unfortunate members of our society—go in, presumably with a fixed amount of cash which they are prepared to lose, and lose it, because if they have a win on the horses, you can be sure as eggs are eggs that they will lose it either on another horserace or on the machines. I have seen that and would advise anyone who is interested in this whole field to spend an afternoon in a leading betting shop.

The orders tidy up the new Act so that we achieve the objective of funding racing, which requires us to continue with the Levy Board. Understandably, the Government want to get rid of the Levy Board because they do not want always to have to arbitrate in rows between bookmakers and those who seek to collect from them what is due for enjoying the product on which they make their profits. I am very glad to see that the orders mention the compulsion that there will be for bookmakers ultimately to pay their dues to the Levy Board. That did not exist in the same form previously. I refer to the profits from machines in betting shops. They are there expressly as part of the horseracing industry and were created for that purpose. Incidentally, it was for that reason that the Irish Government decided not to have machines in betting shops. They thought that it was inconsistent with the aims of betting shops to be part of the racing industry and declared that gaming machines were no part of the racing industry. The Irish, as usual, have proved themselves somewhat cleverer than we are on this subject. That is not unusual these days; the Irish are very clever in many fields.

Of course, we accept the orders, which seem to cover every aspect, including the Tote sale. That sale is not inevitable. I shall believe it when I see it. We have the deadline for the ending of the Tote under the legislation because the competition authorities in this country deemed it right and proper that we should end the Tote monopoly, although every other racing regime in the civilised world has a Tote monopoly. It is a strange anomaly of modern life in Britain that we should have taken that view. It will be very interesting to see how the Tote ends up. That is another wool-over-the-eyes aspect of racing in Britain. I have to explain to people the whole time what a betting exchange is, and I have become very adept at it. I do not know how the parliamentary draftsmen would deal with businesses connected with betting exchanges because even these quite simple things are expressed in language which is not particularly easy to understand. I can explain what a betting exchange and a totalisator pool are, but most people out in the streets do not really know the difference between a fixed-odds pool and a totalisator pool. We talk about selling the Tote but we are in fact selling betting shops—the major component of the value, which is about £400 million. The Tote is, in fact, a bookmaker; it is not a Tote operator except as a marginal exercise. Most of its bottom-line profit comes from its activities as a high street bookmaker. That, again, is part of the obfuscation which surrounds racing in this country, which is unusual. In neighbouring countries such as France policemen deal with the crime that may spring from gambling connected with horseracing and pass over the business of running racing to a highly controlled body.

I am sorry to go on for so long but I wanted to get that off my chest as I do not often have the opportunity to do so.

Before I say anything on the subject I should clarify some declarations of interest. I own horses—or at least one very expensive and rather ailing animal—and some very healthy and enthusiastic dogs. I used to manage casinos. I suspect that I am the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has ever done so. I emphasise that it was probably the only loss-making casino in the history of the world. There are not many that make a loss. I had the disadvantage to find when I took over that all my croupiers had broken fingers. It is very hard to spin a ball with broken fingers. The previous management had taken the precaution of breaking all their fingers to try to stop them stealing the money at the end of each day’s play.

For some years I have also been the executive chairman of the Jockey Club’s own racecourse-owning company, which owns 13 of the 59 courses in the country. Therefore, I have had experience of running the structure of complex racecourses, such as Aintree with the Grand National, Cheltenham and Newmarket, which has given me an insight into how the funding of racing has to apply. The Jockey Club racecourses in the last year that I was there committed to £125 million worth of expenditure on building new stands in the same year that it put up £34 million worth of prize money for the races run on its courses.

Such money does not come easily into the racing community. It can come in one of several ways. It can come from the levy that we have been talking about; it can come from the fees paid by owners to run their horses, which is probably the largest component of prize money—owners race for their own money; and, finally, it comes from the entrance fees paid by the 1.5 million or so people who go to those racecourses in a year, and the corporate entertaining. So it is a very carefully balanced mechanism; and it should be because we are talking about one of the largest single economic units in the country. It has a total employed workforce of over 150,000, which is heavily slanted towards the countryside community, and therefore a rarity in our modern day and age. It presents great opportunities for the employment of young people, particularly young people from migrant communities who provide very fine horse-handling skills. When you include the staff in the 10,000 betting shops in the country and the people connected with the catering and the provision of services and ground maintenance you come to well over 150,000 secure jobs, which, if lost, would make a big hole in the countryside’s employment.

These instruments today are very important to us. I was very largely the cause of the comments made in the Merits Committee, which have already been quoted. I regret that only three of these instruments are being looked at today rather than as an entity with the other three, which will come in a few days’ time. I believe that they are a package and that they should be seen as a package. The instruments bear directly on the fairness and the potential profitability for bookmakers in certain respects of the services provided in betting shops, which in turn, as we have heard, already impact directly on the amount of funds that could be available for the levy.

There are some glaring errors in the instruments which in aggregate are coming before your Lordships’ Committee. There are some really big mistakes in them and some glaring omissions in them which would ensure a level playing field for everybody engaged in gaming in a betting shop. We have heard that there are elements involving FOBTs—the fixed-odds betting terminals—and we have heard about cartoon racing, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be delighted to know, in the context of our previous exchange on the subject, does not include Donald Duck,.

I shall start with what I consider to be an example of a glaring error in one of the instruments. A FOBT will include a roulette machine and a blackjack machine. On the basis that your Lordships have not been into betting shops recently, the principle method is that you place a flat £20 note into a slot and the machine will register 20 £1 units available to bet with. You can keep on putting in as many £20 notes as you have the ability to do or wish to do, and it will continue to clock up 20 £1 units each time. In front of you will be a keypad, and you can then touch the numbers you wish to bet on before you press the start button to commence either cards being dealt for blackjack or the roulette wheel beginning to revolve. The screen shows an extremely realistic replica of an ivory ball spinning for the minimum of four times around the rim of a wooden wheel. According to betting psychologists, the sound of the ball spinning in the wheel is one of the big adrenaline triggers that gets a gambler hooked. The keypad allows you to put £1 on a number each time you want to place a bet, and I do not know of any of the current FOBTs which have a restriction to prevent you betting £1 time and again on the same number. So when we are given an instrument requiring that there should be a limit of £1 per stake to a maximum odds of 35:1, as stipulated in one of the instruments, that is a fiction because it cannot be made to work on the available technology. In answer to a question put by the Merits Committee, the department acknowledged that that is the case.

Given that, I have some difficulty in understanding why we are passing any form of law which the department with the task of policing it acknowledges is unworkable. That particular order should be revisited as a matter of some urgency because there is no reason why you cannot feed £20 into the FOBT and bet the whole lot on number 33 simply by pressing 33 on the touch pad 20 times. Similarly, when playing blackjack, you can split the cards and double the stake. There is no way of limiting the stakes on these machines as they stand to £1. If the department seriously wants to put a limit on the amount that can be bet on a single spin of the wheel or a reveal of hands, they have not got it and they have specifically not provided for it in these instruments. That is my first objection.

I thought that the noble Lord had finished.

I am sorry, I have not. I have a little way to go, but not far.

On cartoon racing, I believe that the bookmakers should be called to account twice over. First, they should be required to recognise that it gives them a profit only because it coincides with the footfall created by racing and the funds should be included in the levy calculation. Secondly, I believe emphatically that the punter in the betting shop deserves that it should be brought within a strict set of controls which the DCMS should apply. I would want to see a complete exposure to an audit of the software system for every one of the cartoon racing devices put in. They do not fulfil the classification of a FOBT as offered with these instruments because there is a separation between the screen that shows the cartoon racing and the screen that offers the odds. This is not an integrated betting concept. It is a separation, which is where the villainy stands in terms of what the bookmakers are offering at this time. I call strongly on the Government to withdraw the instruments to this extent and to review urgently the introduction of new controls on cartoon racing to bring them fairly into the open so that the punters can understand them.

As the noble Viscount said, we should not be disparaging about the people who occupy betting shops of a dark and dingy afternoon. It might not be our choice of an occupation, but perhaps we are rather more fortunate. The people who go to a betting shop of an afternoon many times are unemployed and perhaps, as was described, are not in the top economic quartile. They are there sometimes for comfort or protection against inclement weather, or because they are retired and bored in their domestic circumstances and are looking for relief elsewhere. But they are not, for all of those reasons, to be regarded as the needy and the greedy, or to be disparaged and left outside the care and protection of government. It is not the function of government to enhance the profits of bookmakers at the expense of level playing fields for the average man who walks into a betting shop of an afternoon. Such a man is just as deserving of our protection as anyone else in this community. On the strength of these statutory instruments, I do not think that the Government are getting it, and I call on them to withdraw the orders, which do not reflect the correct approach to cartoon betting in particular, and to introduce forthwith stringent and demanding requirements to comply with a set of standards that reflect the interests of the common man in the betting shop.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord James, for appearing to wish to intervene before he talked himself out. I am glad that he has had the opportunity to do so. I wanted only to make a very simple point. As he will well know, but which the Committee may not, the machines which he is talking about are the subject of the orders that will be debated next week, rather than the orders before us today.

I did say that I understood that. The point is that the machines contribute directly to the levy situation, which is why I could not separate my remarks today.

I understand that too, but it should be pointed out that the fixed-odds betting terminals in betting shops are there not because the Government agreed that they were a legitimate form of additional provision in betting shops but because the Association of British Bookmakers went to court more than three and a half years ago and said, “These are not gaming machines”, and the Government could not be sure of beating the association in court. A deal was done whereby the number of machines in each betting shop was restricted to four, and the speed of play and the stakes and prizes were supposedly limited. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord James, said, and I agree that there is certainly room for debate about whether the limits on stakes and prizes are effective, but it should be recognised when we debate this next week that the Gambling Commission cannot place legal restrictions on these machines without fear of action until 1 December, when the Gambling Act 2005 comes into force. I have no doubt that the commission will do so. I ought to have declared an interest as a member of the Gambling Commission before I started this intervention.

I thank the noble Lord for those remarks. A story is told of the origins of the cartoon horseracing machines, which may help to illuminate the point the middle ground of which I think we are more or less agree on, and a glitch in the programme created by the bookmakers when the machines were first introduced into the shops in the first two weeks. The first horse that was seen to dash to the front immediately fell back into the body of the field, only to break into a run and win at the end. The bookmakers were being taken out by people betting on the first horse to be seen in the race while it ran at the outset. As a result, the programme was frozen after two weeks, and any horse that was first seen to go into the lead was programmed never to be able to win a race again. That is a demonstration of how far this whole system is capable of being corrupted by bookmaker intervention.

I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord James, who has given me a precursor of what he may say on the three orders that we will debate in a week or so, although it may not be necessary for him to say it because he has already expressed his criticism of the orders. The orders have been considered in the Commons, and we will of course consider them in Committee at the appropriate time, but I understand the noble Lord’s reservations about them, as well as his point that they should be taken into account with regard to the levy because they affect the bookmakers’ income.

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

Moved, that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order 2007. 20th report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

Moved, that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007. 20th report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 allows ex-offenders not to disclose old, “spent” convictions in order to improve their employment opportunities. The exceptions order to the Act sets out categories of work where, for reasons of public safety, the Act does not apply; that is, prospective workers in these fields are not entitled to conceal convictions irrespective of whether they are spent. The Criminal Records Bureau, in these cases, is permitted to release information on convictions, again regardless of whether they are spent. Inclusion in the order does not mean that it is mandatory for employing organisations to carry out these checks—simply that they are able to do so.

We have brought forward these latest amendments to keep the order current and to make sure that the needs of ex-offenders, employers and the general public remain balanced appropriately. The order was amended twice in 2006 and twice in the five years before that, but is being amended again to allow for pressing areas of high risk to children to be taken into account and to cover some other categories that have been proposed for inclusion.

We intend to introduce a further order in due course to reflect the original recommendations in the Bichard inquiry and ensure that all posts involving working with children and vulnerable adults are subject to the disclosure regime. This will coincide with the implementation of provisions contained in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act. In the mean time, we do not want to delay vital changes such as the inclusion of ContactPoint. We want to give protection as quickly as possible to children and vulnerable adults in respect of the employment categories set out in this order.

Other amendments, not related to the Bichard reforms, include allowing checks for employees of the Gambling Commission—which will have law-enforcement responsibilities in respect of this industry—and strengthening the position of the Financial Services Authority so that it may consider any criminal offences.

It may help if I go through the amendments that we are proposing as they appear in the draft order. We have updated the order to enable the finance industry and the Financial Services Authority to consider all spent offences that are committed by individuals falling within the order by deleting references to “relevant” offences. This brings them into line with the other provisions in the order by allowing the FSA to take all convictions into account.

The following amendments have been included following the Bichard inquiry’s recommendations. Article 7 of this order makes a number of additions to the list to include: people in the Department for Education and Skills, the Office for Standards in Education, children’s services and skills in the government offices for the English regions working in sensitive posts relating to children or vulnerable adults; operators and users of ContactPoint, which is a database containing basic information about children in England aged up to 18, such as their name, date of birth, address, and contact details of parent or carer, GP practice, educational setting, health visitor, and so on; persons giving advice to children over the telephone or other form of electronic communication including the internet and mobile telephone text messaging; and the chairman, members, and members of staff of the Independent Barring Board. The Independent Barring Board has not yet been established at the date of coming into force of this order, but this exception will apply to prospective appointments to the board.

The first provision, relating to staff in the Department for Education and Skills, was drafted before recent changes in Whitehall. We will take the necessary action to ensure that it applies to the relevant people, although they will in future be working in new departments.

Several other changes are also being made in the order. They will affect: staff working within the Public Guardianship Office with access to data relating to children and vulnerable adults; the Commissioner for Older People in Wales, his deputy, and any person appointed by the commissioner to assist him or authorised to discharge his functions on his behalf. This is a new position which has been created under the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Act 2006; the commissioners for the Gambling Commission and any office or employment in their service. This is in accordance with the power granted to them under the Gambling Act 2005; individuals seeking authorisation from the Secretary of State at the Home Department to become authorised search officers. This was a ministerial commitment given during the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act 2006; and anyone in employment where normal duties involve caring for, training, supervising, or being solely in charge of, persons aged under 18 serving in the Armed Forces and anyone in employment where normal duties include supervising personnel aged under 18. This provision follows the recommendation made by the Deepcut review in March 2006.

We believe that these amendments are necessary in order to maintain a proper balance between the needs of vulnerable groups for protection, the necessity of maintaining the integrity of our regulatory and public bodies and the benefit to society of rehabilitating ex-offenders through employment. I commend the order to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2007. 20th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

We do not want in any way to oppose this order but I wish to put a number of questions to the noble Lord. I thank him for his explanation of what the order sets out to do. As he made clear, we have already had two amending orders in 2006. I think that he mentioned two more in the five years before that, and no doubt a number of orders were made between 1974 and 2001. In an era when the Prime Minister is talking about change, change and change again, it strikes me that an awful lot of changes are happening. It might be useful for the Government to introduce some consolidation of all this so that we know exactly where we are in terms of all the exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. It is a very worthy Act in itself but it is beginning to look as though there might be more exceptions than in the original Act, particularly, as the noble Lord made clear, further amendments will have to be introduced pretty soon. Although the Government tried to make sure that they did not have to amend parts of it too often by including boards that did not yet exist, in the form of the Independent Barring Board, they also included bodies that no longer exist, in the form of the Department for Education and Skills, as the noble Lord mentioned.

He mentioned that there would be further changes following the Bichard report, but I should be grateful if he would consider introducing consolidation to clarify the situation for practitioners and to enable people to know exactly what is and is not excluded.

Because this came within the purview of the Ministry of Justice only in May this year it is necessary to make some points of principle on the order. In relation to offenders the basic policy must be to ensure, and as much as possible to encourage, their rehabilitation and resettlement. The whole purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was to make it clear that after a certain period a person could have closure to offences that had been committed so that he did not have to reveal a previous conviction, or admit its existence, once the conviction was spent. During my time as a criminal lawyer I have seen the benefits of that provision, but as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said a moment ago, we seem to be getting more exceptions to protection than those who are protected by the Act.

I remind the Committee of statistics that were produced by the Office for National Statistics in connection with the report, Breaking the Circle, which pointed out at appendix E that these statistics were available. At the NACRO conference on key issues in prisoners’ resettlement in March 2002, Paul Cavadino, who is well known to Members of the Committee in this field, said that there were,

“disproportionately high rates of unemployment amongst those sent to prison”—

and that—

“more than two thirds of the prison population”,

were unemployed when they committed their offence.

Sixty per cent of ex-offenders are refused jobs because of their criminal record, although ex-prisoners with jobs are one-third to one-half less likely to reoffend.

There are statistics from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research concerning the barriers to employment for offenders and ex-offenders. It found that many people with a criminal record expect employers to react negatively when they learn of their previous convictions and are therefore deterred from even applying for a job. Its conclusion was that any kind of criminal record results in a likely rejection of an application for about one in six vacancies, but with most types of offences, there is a rejection rate of about one-half of vacancies.

I cite those statistics to remind the Committee that disclosure of a criminal record that would otherwise be spent is a very serious inhibitor to an employer to employ anyone. The cycle is maintained: the person without a job goes out to commit more offences and goes back to prison. The purpose of the original Act was to try to break that circle. The Rowntree Foundation report was also cited in the appendix to which I referred. It is very important not to take lightly the addition of exceptions. For example, one wonders why it is necessary to have a particular requirement for the new Commissioner for Older People in Wales as a single, very important job, to disclose previous convictions. It is highly unlikely that a person who had been to prison would apply for a job of that nature.

The temptation to add to the list of exceptions goes on and on. Of course, we on these Benches support the essential necessity of protecting children and vulnerable people, but I want to draw to the Committee's attention how making too many exceptions can lead to a continuation of the problems from which people suffer and can result in further imprisonment. A previous regime, which has fortunately now departed from the Home Office, was anxious always to lock more people up, to the point where the jails are bursting and to do that even when the rate of offending was significantly reducing. That regime has gone and I hope that under the new Ministry of Justice we will see a broader approach to those problems and that the exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 will be much fewer and far between.

I apologise for arriving late for the start of consideration of the order. I had thought that discussion of the gambling order would go on rather longer than it did.

Have organisations working for the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders been consulted about the terms of the order? It is important that they should have been, but I am not certain that they were, whereas the Explanatory Memorandum states that employers’ organisations or groups have been consulted. There seems to be a slight disparity there.

Secondly, I understand that there should be concern about employment categories for people dealing with children and young people. One might expect that previous convictions for offences against children, specifically, would tend to disqualify from employment. But why should all convictions have that effect? In that context, do convictions for violent crime against persons carry special weight?

Finally, does disclosure of previous convictions, particularly if they occurred some years ago and therefore are remote from the present time, still allow the job application to be considered?

I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this order. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked: why not simply overhaul and consolidate the exceptions order? We intend to take that step to coincide with the launch of the new vetting and barring scheme in the autumn of 2008. The exception order will be aligned with the provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made a fascinating contribution to the debate. It is very difficult to disagree with anything he said. He said that we should encourage rehabilitation and resettlement in relation to Breaking the Circle. There is a temptation, he argued, with these orders simply to keep adding. The important point about the order is that it is aimed at protecting children and vulnerable adults. Although we take on board his legitimate concerns, we are very mindful, as I am sure he is, to protect the principle of rehabilitation. However, we have to balance the needs of protection, in particular with children, especially in the light of the Bichard report which followed on the terrible events in Soham. The points made by the noble Lord are very well taken, but we cannot take any risks with our children or vulnerable adults. This presents a problem, which we have to continue discussing, because if you have offended against children, it is very difficult to imagine circumstances in which you should be allowed to work with children again. At the same time, you are then dealing with a group of people who perhaps stand no chance of getting another job, which comes back to a very important point the noble Lord made.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, also asked why it was necessary to put in the order about the Commissioner for Older People in Wales. The role of the commissioner is likely to involve significant unsupervised contact with and indirect access to potentially a large number of older people in the normal course of his or her duties. This is an innovative post which will be the focus of attention and scrutiny at the highest level. It is therefore imperative that risks are not taken, no matter how small.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked what Nacro’s response was to the proposed amendments. We engaged in a very useful dialogue with Nacro. For example, it expressed concerns that the exception order needed to draw a balance between the rights of ex-offenders and the need to protect vulnerable groups; we have already discussed that matter. We feel that this order strikes that balance very well.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked whether disclosure of previous convictions still allows job applications to be considered. It is a matter for the employer as to what they do, if any weight is to be given to such disclosures. Employers are encouraged to have a policy for the employment of ex-offenders. Amendments were made to the exception order as a result of these discussions. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Community Order (Review by Specified Courts) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: The order applies to judges and magistrates sitting at the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre and the Community Justice Courts in the courts named in the order and is subject to affirmative resolution, by virtue of Section 330(5) of the Criminal Justice Act.

Section 178 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides an order-making power for a court to review periodically offenders’ progress on community orders. This power was enacted for the first community justice courts in Liverpool and Salford on a pilot basis and has been in operation in those courts since April 2006. Article 2 of the order empowers the specified courts to provide for a court review either at the time of making a community order and/or when amending a community order to include or remove a provision for review.

A community order providing for review may provide for the community order to be reviewed periodically at specified intervals; require the offender to attend each review hearing; and provide for a report on the offender’s progress in complying with the order to be made available to the court before each review. The community justice initiative involves the courts engaging with the local community and working in partnership with criminal justice agencies, local authorities, support services, community groups and the wider voluntary sector to solve the problems caused by offending in the local area.

The review of community orders supports the delivery of key principles of community justice. Reviewing offenders’ progress enables the court to maintain oversight of an offender and increases the offender’s accountability to the court. It also offers the court and support agencies involved further opportunities to support the offender in complying with their order by addressing problems, such as housing or financial difficulties. The review process does not involve significant resource, particularly given the potential savings associated with decreased breach and reoffending.

As the power has only been in force in Liverpool and Salford since April 2006, and given that reoffending data need to be measured over at least two years, we do not yet have quantitative data available. Our next step will therefore be to carry out a full evaluation with more offenders using a comparison sample of offenders with similar characteristics. Furthermore, this extension of the power to review community orders to the new pilot community justice schemes will provide further data on which to base this.

There is, however, already strong evidence from his honour Judge Fletcher, the magistrates in Salford and from offenders themselves that the review process is a powerful mechanism for increasing compliance and enforcement of community sentences. Some examples of the impact that review has had on offenders include a young offender with a history of anti-social behaviour, unemployment, depression and drug abuse who received a suspended sentence with onerous conditions in March 2006. His progress was reviewed regularly by the judge and he successfully completed all unpaid community hours and probation accredited programmes. Another example is a long-term drug addict who—again after regular review—has not only succeeded in beating his addiction but has been promoted to a position of responsibility in the hostel he is living in and has begun to have contact with his family again.

An offender interviewed about the review process said, “I would have gone off the rails and that was what I needed, that short leash. That is why I got my life back in order”.

In Liverpool, review sessions have been used to engage offenders in discussions about their plans for the future and to refer them to Jobcentre Plus. For many offenders, this is the first time that such a sustained interest has been shown in their lives, activities and overall wellbeing, and it is apparent that offenders with the most complex needs respond especially positively to the review process.

In November 2006, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced that community justice was to be expanded to 11 new areas. The order would extend the power to review community courts to those new projects, which have all enthusiastically asked to be given the opportunity to use the power as part of their projects.

The review of community orders is key to community justice. Extending the power to review community orders to the new projects will enable them to support and monitor offenders during their sentence, to reassess the effectiveness of a community order, and to vary it if required. It will enable them to refer offenders, particularly those with a wide range of needs, to appropriate support services. It also sends a message to the community and the offender that community sentences are not a soft option. It is intended that the review process will promote compliance with community orders and prevent reoffending. The extension of the power will also enable a robust evaluation of the operation of the review process, and its effect on compliance and reoffending rates tied in with an in depth review of the impact on reoffending in Liverpool. The results of this evaluation will inform future decisions about the wider roll-out of the power.

The provisions of the order have no impact on the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Community Order (Review by Specified Courts) Order 2007. 20th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

I sometimes have considerable doubt as to why certain orders are affirmative rather than negative, and this comes into that category. It strikes me as an order which would have been far better if it had been left as a negative instrument rather than an affirmative one. I do not think that I was involved during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As often as not, concessions are made by Ministers—normally allowing an order to become affirmative when previously it was negative. This is probably one of those occasions when, if that were the case, it would have been wiser for the Minister to have resisted calls from the Opposition to make it affirmative.

Having said that, I do not have any particular questions. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s explanation. I note that he, and the Explanatory Memorandum, made clear that the quantitative data so far to support the Liverpool and Salford evaluations are somewhat limited. We look forward to more data coming through and to the data coming through from the other magistrates’ courts that have been added, and in due course we look forward to hearing from the Government about the success of this scheme.

I would have liked to hear a little bit more about the Salford and Liverpool pilot. First, how often did the courts find it useful to review the community order? Was it on a monthly, six-monthly or three-monthly basis, or what? Secondly, are there sufficient resources for, for example, the production of reports by the Probation Service? I know only too well how hard pressed it is, and I can imagine that having to produce a review report more frequently than every six or 12 months would be a considerable burden. Thirdly, one of the ideas behind the whole principle of the order was that it would cut down on breach proceedings. Has that happened in Liverpool and Salford? Have there been fewer breach proceedings than in the past as a percentage of the orders that were made?

The issue is still rather tentative. The pilots have operated for a period in two courts. The whole system then comes to an end and a new pilot for 12 court centres comes forward. It smacks of a lack of any positive conclusions drawn from the original pilots in Salford and in Liverpool. I would like to hear more about the results.

I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I agree with him that perhaps we should debate less than we do. This being a positive order has given us the opportunity to discuss it. The general answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that, as I said in my opening speech, there is a large amount of anecdotal evidence that the system is working well. There will now be a more formal review. We have every hope, as do the local people, that it will show that these are very positive and good initiatives in the local community.

The noble Lord asked specifically how often reviews take place. In Liverpool and in Salford, how regularly cases are reviewed has been at the discretion of the court. Firmer guidance is being prepared with NOMS, which will cover the regularity of reviews. That will be made available for the new courts prior to the introduction of the order. He also asked whether the impact on probation resources has been considered. The proposal to extend the power to review community orders on a pilot basis had the full agreement of NOMS. Negotiations have taken place locally within the projects to ensure that the probation services and the courts can cope with the additional burden of the review hearings in preparation for them. A small amount of funding will be provided by NOMS, by the community justice programme, to cover the additional cost.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether this provision has cut down on breach proceedings. Again, anecdotal evidence from staff is that there has been a reduction in breach proceedings. Only a small number of offenders have so far been subject to reviews, so we cannot at this moment draw robust conclusions. Returning to generality, there is a very strong feeling in Liverpool and Salford that this initiative is a very good thing and has had very positive results; but I absolutely take on board the point the noble Lord made that there must be a robust review that demonstrates that it is indeed working. I commend the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: The order, which was laid before the House on 21 May, seeks to make some minor changes to Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 for the purpose of clarifying the “trigger offences” applicable to the testing of persons for the presence of specified class A drugs, currently heroin and cocaine. The changes arise from omissions in the consequential amendments made to Schedule 6 by the Fraud Act 2006, which came into effect on 15 January this year.

As part of its reform of the law on fraud, the Fraud Act repealed and replaced the existing array of “deception” offences, including the offence of obtaining property by deception under Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968, one of the trigger offences set out in Schedule 6. The reference to the offence of obtaining property by deception was consequently repealed and omitted from paragraph 1 in Schedule 6 as a trigger offence, and the general offence of fraud, under Section 1 of the Fraud Act, was added to the list of trigger offences in its place. Although slightly broader in scope, inclusion of the offence of fraud was necessary to capture the offending previously caught by the repealed offence.

Unfortunately, those consequential amendments failed to take account of previous additions to Schedule 6 relating to attempted offences, and because of that oversight, failed to remove a reference to the attempted offence of obtaining property by deception and to provide for an attempted offence of fraud in its place. The order seeks to correct and clarify those omissions by substituting a new paragraph in Schedule 6 in respect of attempted offences, as set out in Article 2 of the order. While the changes are largely technical, they are nevertheless important and necessary from both a legal and practical perspective.

The trigger offences set out in Schedule 6, especially those relating to acquisitive crime, are the offences which have been shown by research to have the clearest link with the misuse of class A drugs, particularly heroin and cocaine, which are the drugs that cause the most harm to users and the community. These offences trigger the drug testing of persons in police detention under Section 63B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as part of the drug interventions programme. Under the programme, persons arrested for or charged with a trigger offence are tested to help to identify those who misuse specified class A drugs. The individuals who test positive can then go on to be assessed and to access appropriate treatment and other support.

It is estimated that the inclusion of attempted fraud as a trigger offence could result in just under 1,200 tests being conducted in police detention in respect of that offence each year. That takes into account numbers tested for the offence of attempting to obtain property by deception and an estimated 230 extra tests resulting from the slightly broader scope of the offence of attempted fraud.

The trigger offences are also relevant in circumstances where persons who are released on licence or under a notice of supervision following a custodial sentence for a trigger offence may be given a drug testing requirement as part of their licence conditions or notice. The relevant provisions are Section 64 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and Section 65 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Currently, the provisions are targeted at prolific and priority offenders who are known drug users who may revert to drug use on release. Monitoring their behaviour in this way helps to ensure that those who test positive can receive appropriate support and treatment. The number of persons released from custody who may be affected by the addition of attempted fraud as a trigger offence is expected to be very small. Nevertheless, its inclusion as a trigger offence will ensure that, where appropriate, a drug testing requirement can be applied as part of a condition of licence in the case of those released from a sentence of attempted fraud. With regard to any additional costs arising from the inclusion of attempted fraud as a trigger offence, we anticipate that they will be minimal and can be absorbed within existing capacity.

Trigger offences and the drug testing arrangements to which they relate play an important part in helping to identify and direct drug misusing offenders into treatment and other support. That is reflected in the fall in recorded acquisitive crime which, since the onset of the drug interventions programme, has fallen by some 20 per cent. The order clarifies the trigger offences applicable for drug testing. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2007. 19th report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On this occasion, I am grateful that the order is affirmative, because that gives the Minister the opportunity to tell the Committee on behalf of the Home Office that they have got something wrong yet again. As the Explanatory Memorandum puts it and as the Minister explains, the purpose of the order is to correct some omissions in the consequential amendments made by the Fraud Act 2006 and so on. The order seeks—I noticed that the Minister said “seeks”—to correct those omissions. I hope that he has got it right for once. The only point that I want to make is one that I have made before. I believe that we have had some 62 pieces of primary legislation from the Home Office since 1997, compared with something like 50 in the previous century. Presumably we have had far more statutory instruments than that. Will the Minister let me know how many statutory instruments have emanated from the Home Office over the years? As I and others have made clear, it is that enormous number of orders and other pieces of legislation from the Home Office that has led to mistakes and is likely to lead to further mistakes, so perhaps a period of silence from the Home Office would be no bad thing to allow some things to bed down and to prevent it from making yet more mistakes. I therefore hope that the Minister has got it right on this occasion. I also hope that he can confirm the figures that I gave and give some estimate of the number of statutory instruments that have come out of the Home Office.

I do not think that the Home Office knows the meaning of the word “silence”. This is simply another burden on practitioners and judges, who are for ever having to cope with new legislation that demands their attention, and very often with further instruction from the Home Office as to what the various criminal justice Acts and the subordinate legislation which those Acts spawn actually mean.

The purpose of the order is, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said, to put right something that was omitted in the original legislation. The point about a trigger offence is that it enables the police to test someone on arrest, even though no connection with a class A drug is suspected when the offence for which they have been arrested is committed. If a person is subject to a trigger offence, it can be made a condition of his release that he subjects himself to drug testing, again although there was no connection with a drug when the offence was committed. Young offenders who are released from a term of detention are subject to supervision and can be called on to be tested, again without there having been any connection with a drug when the offence was committed. The police do, of course, have considerable powers to do all these things where there is reasonable suspicion of drugs being involved. The difference between trigger offences and ordinary offences is therefore that trigger offences will bring about all this testing without any need to establish drugs as part of the particular offence.

Here we have a provision that will allow the police to test someone when attempted fraud is alleged. Under the new Act, fraud is not merely a slightly broader offence than obtaining property by deception but a hugely broader offence. These greater powers are being given to the police, both on arrest and at later stages, without any consideration that it may be more appropriate to carry out testing only where drugs are thought to be involved. We must protest about this continuous encroaching on the right of privacy and the right to freedom that we all have. We do not oppose the regulation but, as I have said on previous occasions, we want to put down a warning that there must be some limit on the continual widening of the powers against offenders.

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is, I guess, right to tease us for getting something wrong, but it is perhaps only fair to remind the noble Lord that that is a drafting issue, not an issue of principle. The noble Lord may well be right about the number of Home Office pieces of legislation since 1997; I do not have a precise figure in front of me. His other figure for what had happened in the previous century was probably a bit more speculative. No doubt that data can be interrogated somewhere.

I am sure that the noble Lord is also right to say that, as a consequence of having put more Acts on the statute book, there are bound to be more statutory instruments. That is the nature of legislation. We as an Administration, as a Government, believe that crime and criminality are very serious and want to tackle them. We do not claim that there is a magic bullet in every piece of legislation ever brought forward that will finally tackle the problem; we have to be persistent in finding ways to deal with those issues, which are of profound importance to our society. I make no apology for the fact that we find it necessary from time to time to bring forward new legislative initiatives.

I sometimes have some sympathy with the plea that we should have a little less legislation, not just for personal reasons but because it is important that legislation on the statute book is workable and effective. The noble Lord makes a good point when he says that sometimes we should leave things to bed down. I do not disagree with the thinking behind that.

However, this is an important piece of legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, seems to take exception to it on the ground that it is yet another extension of police powers of intervention. I would say that this is a benign power because, if someone tests positive for a class A drug, they are then very likely to receive treatment. The Government have proudly trumpeted our record in expanding the range of treatments available for known drugs offenders and for those who indulge in acquisitive crime—that is what the schedule of crimes relates to—which is very much linked with drug abuse. The rate of positive testing for those who have been tested under similar powers runs at between 16 and 19 per cent. So there is good thinking behind this, because those people may well end up being referred to a drug treatment programme. I cannot believe that that is anything other than beneficial generally.

Those are the reasons why we favour this secondary legislation. The amendments will clarify the position with regard to trigger offences. That will assist practitioners, especially police and probation staff and especially those who have responsibility for conducting drug testing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: This is now the fifth order that we have brought forward adding countries to the list of those countries to which the non-suspensive appeal provisions in Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 apply. This section allows the Secretary of State to add a country to the list if he or she is satisfied that in general there is no serious risk of persecution of persons entitled to reside there and that removal to that country of persons entitled to reside there will not in general breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It also provides that an unsuccessful asylum or human rights claim made by a person entitled to reside in a designated state must be certified as clearly unfounded, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the claim is not clearly unfounded. The effect of such a certificate is that a person must leave the United Kingdom before appealing the decision to refuse their claim, while still having an out-of-country right of appeal.

Since their introduction, powers to add countries to the list have been used on a progressive basis to ensure that the provisions work well and are successful in stopping people making unfounded applications for asylum and unnecessarily prolonging the appeals process. The evidence to date on the 14 countries already on the list demonstrates that this is indeed the case and that the powers have made a significant impact on reducing the number of asylum applicants from those countries. For example, the intake of new applications from the countries that were designated in the 2002 Act—the then 10 EU accession countries—fell by 86 per cent over the first six months in which the provisions were in place and by 93 per cent over the course of the first year. Between the powers being introduced in October 2002 and April 2004, when the countries concerned became members of the EU, and the non-suspensive appeals designation effectively ended, intake fell by 97 per cent, with the overall intake during that period falling by 70 per cent.

There was a similar drop in intake for the countries that were added to the list on 1 April 2003, namely Albania, Jamaica, Macedonia, Moldova, and Serbia and Montenegro. In those countries, intake fell by 86 per cent from March 2003 to March 2007, with overall intake during that period falling by 57 per cent. The figures include Montenegro, which was effectively removed from the list on 3 June 2006 following the dissolution of the old state union between it and Serbia. Noble Lords will be aware that statistics supplied in respect of asylum claims from Montenegro, as an addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft order, combine the number of claims from Montenegro and Serbia together. We have now extrapolated the figures for Montenegro, which we will supply to Members at a later date, if and when required.

For countries that were added to the list on 23 July 2003—namely, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, South Africa and Ukraine—intake fell by 61 per cent from June 2003 to March 2007, with the overall intake during that period falling by 48 per cent. Those figures exclude Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which were also added to the list on 23 July 2003, but were removed on 22 April 2005 and 13 December 2006 respectively. With regard to India, which was added to the list on 15 February 2005, intake fell by 52 per cent from March of that year to March 2007, with the overall intake during that period falling by 13 per cent.

For Mongolia and—for men only—for Nigeria and Ghana, which were added to the list on 2 December 2005, intake fell by 34 per cent from December of that year to March 2007, with overall intake during that period falling by 5 per cent.

The figures speak for themselves. In terms of the decision-making process for considering an asylum or human rights claim from a resident of a designated country, each claim is given full and proper consideration on its individual merits by a fully trained caseworker. Applicants are entitled to legal aid and advice as part of the process, and the right of appeal against any refusal decision, albeit from outside the country. Failsafes, in addition to those already in place for asylum claims from those not entitled to reside in designated countries, are built into the process. They include senior caseworker approval for each and every decision, thus ensuring the integrity of the decision-making process, and judicial review of decisions certified as clearly unfounded where an applicant believes that their case was wrongly certified.

As a result of this process, we have been able to remove from the United Kingdom individuals whose asylum claims were established to be unfounded and who have diverted resources away from processing the claims of those in genuine need of international protection. In view of the successful operation of the provisions thus far, we have decided that the time is now right for us to add a further 10 countries to the list. The draft order would, first, add Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mauritius, Montenegro and Peru to the list, and, secondly, add Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali and Sierra Leone in respect of men only. It would also make a technical amendment regarding the designation of Serbia. The old state union of Serbia and Montenegro was designated in April 2003. Following the dissolution of the old state union, Serbia remained designated, albeit under the words “Serbia and Montenegro” as it was the successor state to the old state union. The amendment to the list would therefore reflect that Serbia and Montenegro are now two separate states and should be listed separately.

The assessment as to whether a particular country meets the test for designation is not simply based on the number of applications received from people entitled to reside in that country or the percentage of those applications which are unsuccessful. Rather, we instead consider the general conditions for the population in the country itself, not the profile of claimants who have made applications to the UK. Broadly speaking, we would look to see what evidence there is of persecution or human rights breaches within a country and how widespread such treatment is. In considering the 10 countries listed in the draft order, we took carefully into account our published country of origin information material which utilises a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosable governmental and non-governmental sources. We also consulted the independent Advisory Panel on Country Information on that material.

I should briefly remind the Committee that the Advisory Panel on Country Information is an independent body created under the 2002 Act to advise the Secretary of State on the accuracy and objectivity of country information produced by the Home Office in the context of asylum applications. During the passage of the 2002 Act, Ministers gave clear assurances that the panel would be consulted on country material being used by the Home Office before making an order to designate a country. The panel’s role in the country designation process is solely to consider the country of origin information material. It has no power to comment on the decision whether or not to designate. The panel considered the country of origin information produced on the 10 countries produced in the draft order at its recent meeting and found it to be generally an accurate, balanced and comprehensive representation of the source material and country conditions. Following the panel’s advice, additional information was added or amendments made as appropriate. The extension to the list to include these countries is not to say that they are totally safe for everyone. What we are saying is that we are satisfied that Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mauritius, Montenegro and Peru meet the test for designation in full, and that Gambia, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali and Sierra Leone meet the test for designation, but for men only at the present time. In the countries where we are proposing partial designation, the evidence suggests that women may in general be at risk for a variety of reasons, which may include a risk of female genital mutilation, trafficking, domestic violence and forced marriage, and that currently the level of protection provided by the authorities is not sufficient to conclude that the test for designation is satisfied in respect of women.

The draft order represents a gradual increase and progressive use of the powers under the 2002 Act and builds on the programme to reform our asylum and immigration system. At the same time, we continue to ensure that we do not deny legitimate claims the right to a proper hearing and that we provide a safe haven for those in genuine need of international protection. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Asylum (Designated States) Order 2007. 19th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton).

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and I think he will be grateful to me if I say that following that explanation, I have no questions to put to him.

The appeal system is designed to be a safeguard against poor initial decision-making which the Government recognise exists in the immigration field. This order adds to the “white list” a host of new countries where individuals with clearly unfounded asylum claims can be returned to their native countries before they are entitled to appeal their asylum decision.

They can of course appeal from their own countries, but at least some of those to be added to the list are still regarded by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and the Refugee Council as countries in which human rights breaches are suspected to be occurring.

I propose to outline some of those concerns. Of Liberia, Human Rights Watch said:

“Despite the deployment of UN peacekeepers and some 1,000 civilian police, violent crime”—

continues to rise—

“including hijacking, armed robbery, and murder”.

The report states that the newly trained Liberian police engage in criminal behaviour by using excessive force and even sexual harassment. The performance of the judiciary remains dysfunctional, with corrupt practices being carried out. Prison centres operate far below international standards, with overcrowded cells and a lack of food and water for detainees; and harmful traditional practices continue to be carried out, which include the killing of alleged witches and the killing of people who refuse to be induced into an alleged secret society. Liberia is not a safe place to which to return people, as the order proposes.

Of Sierra Leone, in respect of men, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Oxfam say that since the end of Sierra Leone’s brutal armed conflict in 2002, few improvements have been made to address the crushing poverty and human rights violations that are occurring. Sierra Leone has been placed on the white list in respect of men only—the problems regarding women and children need to be addressed—but men are still suffering human rights violations with regard to corruption, where they are being arrested, beaten and forced into societies in which they are forced to perform female genital mutilation. There is no record of their arrests. Sierra Leone has been a matter of concern for this country for some time. It has not yet qualified as a safe place in the submission of those organisations, which are in the front line.

As for Peru, armed conflict ended in 2000, but Peru has yet to establish a stable democracy. Cases of torture and police brutality continue to occur and victims and witnesses in torture cases are vulnerable to intimidation and reprisals. Journalists who report on corruption in Peru face harassment and physical attack.

In Serbia, according to Human Rights Watch there is still an unsatisfactory human rights situation in 2007. The Roma continue to face substandard economic and social conditions, as well as frequent verbal and physical abuse. In Kosovo, minorities remain at risk from persecution and attack. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported in 2006 that Serbs, Roma and Albanians from a minority area are still at a high risk of being persecuted. Then there is Bosnia-Herzegovina. Despite the war ending in 1993, 14 years ago, the main human rights threat that remains is the return of refugees and displaced people. Those who return to areas in which they are the minority remain under threat of physical attack and harassment; and human rights groups in Bosnia fear that, if all the refugees return, they may be persecuted and face torture.

Amnesty International also comments on other countries in the list. In the Gambia, 70 civilians and members of the military, including prisoners of conscience were unlawfully detained after an alleged coup attempt in late March 2006. Several journalists and editors were also unlawfully detained for many weeks. At least 12 detainees were reportedly tortured. Trials of suspected coup plotters were continuing in military and civilian courts at the end of the year. Five people who allegedly escaped may have been extra-judicially executed. Even in 2007, there is repression of the right to freedom of expression.

I notice that for six African states listed in the order, the designation applies only to men. I see that women should continue to be protected because of female genital mutilation and possibly honour killings, both of which can give rise to fears of persecution. Have the Government examined the criminal codes to see whether same-sex attractions and sexual acts are crimes in each of the six states? What is the current practice under customary or religious law in these countries? Is there the illegal or de facto persecution of homosexuals? I am prompted to ask these questions by knowledge of a particular asylum case in Britain involving someone from Cameroon. The applicant was a young man who had suffered attacks from his parents and neighbours because of his homosexuality. He was later sent to prison at home because homosexuality was penalised by Cameroon’s criminal code. The situation could well be similar in other African states, including the six named.

Following what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has just said, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may remember that I mentioned the persecution of gays the last time we debated a list of designated states. I pointed out then that the powers in Section 94(4) of the parent Act visualise the Secretary of State designating particular countries with respect to characteristics of asylum seekers from those places that are wider than gender. Did the noble Lord take advice on the question of gays from the African countries in the list, and has he considered whether they should be designated only for people who are heterosexual? I believe that it is time for us to confront these practices and to make sure that people not just from Cameroon are protected, where I agree there is a particular problem. I know this myself and I endorse entirely what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Violent prejudice against homosexuals is endemic in many African countries. Given that the powers exist in Section 94, they should be used to exclude homosexuals from the non-suspensive appeals process which is applied to the rest of the population in those countries.

I hope that the noble Lord has had an adequate opportunity to consider this since I did raise it on the last occasion when we considered an order of this sort. It is a general application not just to the countries on this list, but to many which are already included from past designations. I am thinking particularly of Nigeria, Ghana and Jamaica, which were the three countries I referred to on the previous occasion. In fact, the Minister is quite right that the country of origin material has improved enormously. I have paid tribute to this in the past, and to the work of the independent advisory panel. Generally speaking, one finds that the country reports contain comprehensive lists of the material referred to by my noble friend. All the Amnesty reports and Human Rights Watch material will be included in the country of origin material. Listening to what the Minister told noble Lords, one can only say that it is a wonder that the decision was made to designate those countries in view not just of the wealth of material that comes from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, but also the fact that it is explicitly recognised in the Home Office’s own country of origin information material and in the work of the advisory panel which validates the reports. I wonder at the sort of process which allows one to get from consideration of a particular country by the Home Office to produce the country of origin report and the decision to designate. That is what is lacking in our discussion. We know what criticisms have been made and that the information exists in the Home Office’s internal reports, but we cannot connect the knowledge of that material with the decision to designate. That is something which the Minister has still to explain.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his generous support of the order. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his comments. They reflect fairly that this is a process which has to be looked at in the round. It is one where we take a view and have to make a judgment call. As I said in my comments at the outset, we do not say that these countries are 100 per cent safe—indeed, that cannot be said of any country. The noble Lord cited various categories of serious criminality, but those things also happen in what we consider to be civilised western democracies. Obviously we do not want them to happen, so we take the steps and measures we should as a society to tackle them through legal process, and that is right. We also attempt to encourage such action abroad and to use our influence in that regard. We are saying that in general there is no serious risk of persecution and that removal would not breach our obligations under the ECHR. Further, it is the case that the protection needs of individual claimants continue to be assessed quite properly on a case by case basis regardless of the designation.

I turn to the more general issue of human rights problems. There has to be a test and we think that these countries meet that test in respect of the designation we have made for each of them. Again, there is an exclusion for certain of the African states where only males are only properly considered. That is right and reflects the content of the country reports we have compiled. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is also right to draw attention to the high quality of those reports. It might be argued that they do not necessarily help the Government’s case, but they reflect our honest approach and clear appraisal which we think is the right way to proceed. We as Ministers made a commitment to Parliament that the independent Advisory Panel on Country Information would be consulted on the country information being used by the Government before we make an order. That consideration has been made and the general view is that it is balanced, accurate and comprehensive. The Advisory Panel on Country Information highlighted other materials, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

Further on human rights problems, all I can say is that the general test is applied when considering whether a country meets the legal test of designation. Designation of a particular country does not mean that all claims from that country will be refused or certified as clearly unfounded. Claims will continue to be considered individually and there may well be cases where there is a grant of asylum or where humanitarian protection or discretionary leave to remain is appropriate. There may also be cases where asylum is refused, but certification as clearly unfounded is not appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to same-sex relationships. These issues are considered for all potential at-risk groups in assessing whether such a significant proportion of the population is at risk that the designation test is not met. That is the judgment which has to be made in those cases. Looking through the country information assessment, one can see where it is clearly the case. For some of the countries on the list, the comments make it clear that there is legislation one way or the other. A judgment then has to be made on whether there is persecution based on the existence of same-sex relationships. We believe that our list is sound and safe to operate in the way I have described. For those reasons, that is why this order has been put before the Committee for its consideration.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations replace the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000, as amended, and they will be made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which went through your Lordships’ House earlier this year.

The Act represents the most important achievement in animal welfare legislation for more than a century. It brings together and modernises the range of existing animal welfare legislation relating to farmed and non-farmed animals. It came into force in April. As part of the rationalisation, Part 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, under which existing farm animal welfare legislation has been made, will be repealed, as relevant provisions have been incorporated into the Animal Welfare Act. To preserve the requirements of existing secondary farm-animal welfare legislation, we have had to bring forward these replacement regulations under the new Act.

For many years, farmed animals have been protected by the duty of care. The Animal Welfare Act introduces a duty of care for owners of all vertebrate animals, including, for the first time, pet animals. Previously, people had a duty to ensure that their animals did not suffer. Now, in addition, owners of animals must do all that is reasonable to ensure the welfare of their animals, with respect to, for example, diet, housing and the ability to express normal behaviour. In addition, the Animal Welfare Act gives enforcement bodies the ability to issue improvement notices to the owners of pet animals, which is a tool that has been used for many years to help improve the welfare of farmed animals. Improvement notices will help to explain clearly the steps needed to rectify welfare problems and a definite time limit to achieve that improvement.

The Animal Welfare Act has an important role in allowing secondary legislation to be made under it; specific laws which will help protect animals in addition to the protective framework of the Act. One such piece of legislation is the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007. The mutilation of animals is banned under the Act, and the regulations set out the limited circumstances in which mutilations are permitted and under what conditions. We debated those regulations earlier this year. The replacement on-farm welfare regulations before us today are also secondary legislation to be made under the Animal Welfare Act. The vast majority of the new regulations replicate the 2000 regulations. They continue to implement EU directives on the welfare of calves, pigs, laying hens and a general framework directive—98/58/EC—which sets down minimum standards for the protection of all farmed livestock.

One change from the 2000 regulations, arising from the fact that the Animal Welfare Act covers all animals under the control of man, is that the new regulations will apply for the first time to livestock kept on common land. The new regulations remove any duplication that previously existed between the Animal Welfare Act and the existing regulations. For example, the duty of care provision and the powers of entry are not included in the new regulations, as they are now provided for in the Act. Likewise, the ability to issue improvement notices, which I referred to earlier, is now in the Act, and therefore a similar provision is no longer required in the new regulations. Thus, good practice that has been in farm animal welfare legislation for years now applies to all animals kept by man. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is a significant step forward in the Government’s and in Parliament’s commitment to animal welfare.

The new regulations will continue the important role of raising standards of animal welfare on farms. The Government have taken a lead in implementing improvements at home and have been at the forefront of pushing for progress at EU and international level. We took the lead on encouraging Europe to follow the UK in implementing a ban on the use of veal crates, which have been banned in the UK since 1990. A ban on the use of veal crates across the EU came into force at the end of 2006. The UK banned close-confinement sow stalls in 1999. The EU pig directive adopted in 2001 contained several key provisions to improve the welfare of pigs, such as minimum space allowances for sows and gilts, access to environmental enrichment for all pigs and a ban on the use of sow stalls across the EU by 2013.

In 1999, a directive was adopted to protect the welfare of laying hens. The directive bans the barren battery cage from 2012 and introduces minimum standards for non-caged systems, such as barn and free range, as well as for enriched cage systems. In May this year, the UK was at the forefront of agreeing new rules to improve the welfare of meat chickens across Europe.

I make no apology that the UK has a higher standard of animal welfare today than at any time during its history. We have among the highest standards anywhere in the world. It is about time that the British public recognised that when buying their meat and stopped buying cheap imports where the animals have not been looked after as well as they are in this country. You cannot have it both ways. That message has to go out loud and clear. We cannot run “Buy British” campaigns. It is not legal. The fact of the matter is that the British public need to have it rammed down their throats—if I can put it that way—that our animals are better looked after on the farm than virtually anywhere else in the world, and that they owe it to the industry to make sure they support the industry.

By definition, the costs of production are in some cases increased. That puts our producers at a disadvantage in some ways to our competitors. As I say, we make no apology for having among the highest standards in the world; we just need to drag everybody up to our level. In the mean time, it would be helpful if the public gave more support in their buying habits.

The regulations are an important part of maintaining standards. With that in mind, I commend the regulations.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 [19th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

I am grateful to the Minister for the full background that he has given to the regulations. I start by saying that I welcome the regulations, as they are intended to place in a single document the main strands of animal welfare legislation and EU directives in a single set of regulations for farm animals. I am sure that it will be in the main welcomed—if “welcome” is the right word with which statutory instruments are greeted—by the livestock farming community, the overwhelming majority of whom are maintaining the highest animal welfare practices, as the Minister said. That is evidenced by the relatively few incidents of mistreatment of animals occurring each year. We know that successful livestock businesses depend on proper care of stock.

We also welcome the practical way in which the order attempts to deal with animals on common land, something which has not previously been subject to specific animal welfare protection.

I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing meeting yesterday at short notice. It was most helpful in explaining the Government's approach to this legislation, its provenance and interpretation. As many noble Lords will know, my noble friend Lady Byford is retiring from her responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench after 10 years as Defra spokesman. I am sure the whole Committee would want to place on record the diligence and commitment with which she has undertaken her responsibilities and the skilful way in which she has handled her brief.

It was, therefore, particularly helpful for me to have the opportunity to meet the Minister in the company of my noble friend to consider some anxieties we had about the detail of this legislation. If I repeat matters which the Minister was able to resolve for us, I do so only because it will give him the opportunity to place these matters on record. I know that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has further points that he wishes to raise.

I turn to the regulations. In the main, the legislation is a translation of four EU directives plus a carry-over from the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1998, as has been said. En route it sweeps up the welfare of farmed animals regulations of 2000, 2002 and 2003. The overall effect can lead to confusing use of language. I quote:

“These Regulations apply to farmed animals only”.

In fact, they apply to all farmed animals, Although I might say that there is no separate schedule for the proverbial sheep or goats or, for that matter, farmed exotics.

Similarly, the phrase in Schedule 1, Regulation (2)(2),

“animals … must be inspected at intervals sufficient to avoid any suffering”

is, in practice, plainly impossible. The word “unnecessary” might help. We are assured that the Act will be interpreted in the light of what is reasonable, but I still have concerns. The first stems from the fact that enforcement duties will be in the hands of the local authorities unless the Secretary of State directs that he will prosecute either a particular case or cases related to a particular offence. Will the Minister tell us which local authority will have the duty of enforcement? If, for example, the RSPCA gets a complaint, will it contact the legal department at county level, environmental health at borough or district level, or will it go, in the first instance, to the government animal health department? In the event of an infringement of the regulations, will the Minister confirm that a notice will be issued as a first remedy other than in the most serious cases of neglect? Will the Minister also tell us how much funding the Government will provide for the enforcement activity? I presume that fines will go directly to the Treasury.

My second concern is that in places the regulations read as though the rule is cut and dried where, in practice, it cannot be. Thus, a person must not attend to an animal,

“unless he is acquainted with any relevant code of practice and has access to the code while attending to the animal”.

If the code is in a binder in the farm office and the animal is in the barn across the yard he may comply, but if the barn is in a second yard across a busy main road will he still have access? I recommend that the offending phrase be removed.

Similarly, in Schedule 1, Regulation 13:

“Air circulation, dust levels … relative … humidity and gas concentrations must be kept within limits which are not harmful to the animals”.

The government vet acknowledged that there are neither measurements nor standards for those and that common sense has to be applied. It would be best to remove the reference to “limits”.

I was pleased to be reassured that the back-up system referred to in Regulation 20 need not be a duplicate of an automated ventilation system, for example.

The penalties for contravening the regulations are to be increased. The prison tariff will be doubled. Is there any evidence that that is necessary or that it will be applied or that it results from even one incident where the currently permitted sanction was deemed insufficient? Will the Minister give us his assurance that Regulation 29 of Schedule 1 concerning genotypes and phenotypes will not be used to apply the conclusions of new science without full and proper debate?

During the Minister’s briefing meeting, we all agreed that the generality of the regulations should apply to the husbandry of all animals. I am, however, acutely aware that they will be enforced by individuals for whom the words used may mean more than simple common sense. We know that the cost of farming has already reached the stage where farmers are retiring and, in some cases, going out of business with no one to follow them, and we should not make the situation worse.

Schedule 1, Regulation 17, for example, contains the statement that animals not kept in buildings,

“must, at all times, have access to a well-drained lying area”.

In some parts of the country at the moment that will not be possible. When one adds it to the restrictions on animal movements before testing, after sale and so on, one feels that it may be totally unreasonable if strictly interpreted. I am sure that the courts would get the emphasis right, but I am reluctant to support wording which could lead to a farmer enduring hassle and expense unnecessarily. The replacement of “at all times” with “normally” would make the rule clearer and more enforceable. What is certain is that the phrase used earlier in Regulation 17, “where necessary and possible”, could be equally applicable to the “well-drained lying area” element.

I make no apology for drilling down to the detail of the regulations. We can approve them and move on. However, in implementing these regulations, we demand that others keep them central to their business and working lives. We owe it to our livestock farmers, stockmen, stockwomen and farm workers to make sure that what we ask them to do is reasonable as well as desirable.

I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to his Front-Bench position. I look forward to debating many issues with him both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I also welcome the fact that we will benefit from the experience of the brief which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has and that he has not been reshuffled somewhere else. We certainly all appreciate the fact that he will continue to give us the benefit of his knowledge. Having said that, most of my questions will refer to issues raised in our debates on the Animal Welfare Bill.

I agree with the noble Lord’s comments that much animal welfare is in the hands of consumers and their buying choices, but a lot also rests in the hands of the Government in how they choose to empower retailers through labelling schemes and, for example, whether they will make the Food Industry Sustainability Strategy voluntary or statutory. There was a fair amount of comment from the industry when it was made voluntary that it was fine for those who are happy to promote their goods on the basis of meeting very high standards and probably fine for those at the bottom of the pile who just sell on low price—even if it is not so fine for animals—but that it did nothing for all those in the middle. Although a lot of power is in the hands of consumers, the Government should not be sloping their shoulders in this regard.

I have a few questions for the Minister on the detail of the regulations. The first concerns Regulation 6, setting out the “familiarity provision” for codes of practice. It states that the person responsible must be familiar with how to look after an animal. The RIA suggests that this provision will cost the livestock industry £7.9 million each year. Can the Minister explain how that figure was reached and what systems the Government have introduced to ensure that this familiarity, or those he understands the industry will introduce?

My second question concerns livestock kept on common land, and I welcome the fact that the regulations will cover that. The NFU states that it would be useful to review in due course how this works in practice. Does the Minister have a timetable in mind for conducting such a review? Some common land is very low-lying and the recent flooding incidents highlighted the plight of trapped animals. I guess that that will be covered by the regulations through inspections and so on, but it shows that climate events have an effect. The regulations refer to exceptionally hot weather. Climate events will impinge more and more on welfare issues.

When we were debating the Animal Welfare Bill, I introduced an amendment on Report suggesting that in exercising the duty of care, a person responsible for an animal should have regard to its degree of domestication. The Minister rejected the suggestion as inappropriate, but Regulation 4 makes it clear that a person responsible for a farmed animal is obliged to have regard to its adaptation and domestication. Why does the Minister think it appropriate that domestication should be a consideration for farmed animals, which tend to include fewer exotic species, but not for companion animals? The Minister will remember that the debate was about companion animals as they were covered by the Bill; not particularly dogs and cats which everyone regards as domesticated, but rather those other species that are not.

My fourth point includes the question about standards for cages. Again, during debates on the Act, I raised the issue that there were no comparable standards for cages for game birds. I welcome the standards here, but the Minister told us on 23 October:

“We intend to set up a working group before the end of the year, with the objective of producing the code in 2008”.—[Official Report, 23/10/06; col. 1007.]

I wonder whether he has a progress report for the Committee on that code.

My fifth point is that one of the economic savings listed in the RIA is that now farmers will not have to comply with improvement notices. Can the Minister confirm that inspectors will be able to issue improvement notices under Section 10 of the Animal Welfare Act and that if a person responsible for a farmed animal does not comply with the notice within the stated period the inspector may begin proceedings for an offence under Section 9(1)?

My last point is about bees; not de minimis small-scale beekeeping but bee farming. Bee health is becoming more and more pressing. The regular inspections envisaged for other farm animals under the regulations might well have very much benefited the bee population. Very regular inspection is one of the ways of making sure that a virus does not spread and that the things likely to be causing colony collapse are kept under strict control. Will the Minister comment on that? That said, I welcome the regulations.

Many in the Committee will know that I rear sheep and cattle, and I have the occasional horse and some chickens, but they are all situated in Scotland and are not exactly subject to the regulations. I have an interest in how this is seen. I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he laid out the relevance of the Animal Welfare Act to the whole question of animals and then how the regulations will fit in underneath that. There are certain slightly grey areas about the animals to which the regulations will apply. I am sure that the Minister can confirm that they will apply to hobby farms—which are becoming more prevalent across the country—and possibly to the house cow, which is becoming less prevalent but still raises some issues, which I will come to later. They probably do not apply to the Vietnamese pot-bellied pig or the pet rabbit, both of which may end up in the pot at the end of the day, but probably could be said are not being produced for food as such.

The Minister is generally very good at clarifying that enforcement will show some reasonableness, but unfortunately we are not in our convention able to require the Government to amend any of the regulations. There are three areas on which I express some unease and possibly a feeling that things could have been worded a little differently. First, Schedule 1(5) to the regulations says:

“Any animals … ill or injured must be cared for … without delay”.

Obviously, if you are going around your animals and you see one that is being strangled or is about to expire for some reason, you do act without delay. If, on the other hand, you are going around feeding your animals and you see one that is lame, you are probably better to finish feeding all the other animals, who will be charging around waiting for their food.

There are reasons for not doing it instantaneously. In some ways, it would have been handy if it could have said that it was “without unnecessary delay”.

Similarly, on Regulation 6, which states,

“Where necessary, sick or injured animals must be isolated”,

there is a problem with recumbent animals. Perhaps the vet should have power to give a derogation if the recumbent animal is in a place that makes it very difficult or impossible to isolate it. The standard really bad situation is when a cow goes down in a cubicle. Obviously, you could shut off the whole cubicle shed, but it might be difficult for access to animals. There may be ways in which you might be prevented from isolating the animal, although you could protect it in some way.

Regulation 9 states that animals,

“must not be restricted in such a way as to cause them unnecessary suffering or injury”,

and Regulation 29 states that they,

“can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health and welfare”.

The Minister may have covered this in what he said about the regulation on mutilations, but it strikes me that someone being particularly pedantic might object to the fact that you were clipping the wings of turkeys or other poultry which are kept in open areas. Again, that comes back to game birds, which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. In the younger stages, they have to have their wings clipped. Whether it injures or harms the animals is no doubt a question that lawyers would like to get into.

Regulation 1 of Schedule 6 states:

“No calf may be confined in an individual stall … after the age of eight weeks”.

Within the definition, that means a calf between the age of eight weeks and six months. This is where I come back to the house cow. There might be hill farmers or other small farmers again who have just one cow with one calf. If the farmer were strictly to obey the meaning of the wording of the regulation, when the calf reaches eight weeks old, he would either have to go out and buy another one or sell the one that he had; otherwise, it would be kept in isolation.

On health issues, treatments are offered by farmers which are not directly instructed or certified by vets. It is just possible that a farmer might want to isolate the animal without having to call in a vet in order to do so.

My final point probably can be covered by a bit of clarification. Regulation 1 of Schedule 7 states that all cattle must have,

“a well-drained and bedded lying area”.

That needs careful interpretation for dairy cows. Straw-bedded cubicles have been found to increase the level of mastitis and they are probably better off without bedding. The cubicle certainly would be a dry area, but it might not necessarily need bedding. Under the strict interpretation of this order, it looks like something would have to be provided. I would be grateful to hear what the Minister can tell us on those points.

I am most grateful for the welcome for the regulations. I should like to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said about the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who brought an elegance and charm to the Committees and to deliberations in the Chamber, as well as her expertise. I shall miss her greatly. I know that she has undertaken her role for a long time. When I joined MAFF in 1997, my noble friend Lord Donoughue was the farming Minister. He explained to me about the House of Lords—to which I paid not the slightest interest—the pressure he was under and the walloping he was getting from this noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on various issues. I fully understand why she has stepped down, because she kindly let me know some time ago.

I will try to answer most of the detailed points; in fact I will try to answer them all. The answer to most of the issues raised by the noble Duke is that these are the existing regulations. If there is an exception to that, I will delineate it. In other words, there is no invention of the wheel. Therefore, I can say with some comfort that the regulations are operating in a proportionate and common sense way. In looking at the words one sees that he has raised legitimate issues. They could be words transposed from regulations. If there is an exception to that I shall naturally come back to it.

Perhaps I can intervene briefly on that question. I appreciate that the words are a transposition of the existing regulations. This is an opportunity, when we are looking at drawing them up again, to consider the wording.

Yes, it is. On the other hand, there is a good argument for keeping things as they are if there is not a problem. People understand these words when working with these regulations in other areas. I fully accept that if we can simplify and clarify things we should. In this case the one big change is about common land, which I will come to. Of course we are bound by EU directives and some of the wording is from the directives.

The noble Baroness raised the subject of bees. She accepted that they are not vertebrates and they are not covered. It does not mean that there is not a problem. If memory serves me right, one day before the Recess I am down to answer a Question. I am not sure whether it is the noble Baroness’s Question. I know that there is a bee-health Question. She is right—and I do not know much about bees—the issue of opening up after the winter and finding that they are not there makes you ask whether perhaps you should have checked a bit earlier. There are some legitimate issues to be raised. I hope that I will be suitably briefed on the day of the Question.

The rearing of game birds was raised. We have commissioned a study into the welfare implications of using bits and spectacles in preparation for the introduction of the code. That is currently under way and is expected to be completed by November this year. The results of the research would then be subject to peer review and will inform the members of the working group tasked with writing the code. We expect to get that ready by the summer of 2008. I fully understand that there are concerns about the use of cages. It has been raised with me a few times, even before the recent reshuffle.

We have asked the Farm Animal Welfare Council to assess the system of management and report back on its findings. We think that that report will be ready by 2008. That will inform the working group. We hope to get any problems identified dealt with in the code of practice, which I hope will be satisfactory.

I was asked where the figure of £7.9 million came from for farmers having to access and be familiar with welfare codes. The estimate was produced by an external consultancy during a cross-government exercise last year to identify the baseline for administrative burdens throughout Whitehall. The consultancy gathered average data from a number of farmers on the time taken, cost per hour and the numbers of people affected by the requirement. It calculated that it cost stock-keepers a total of £6.7 million a year to ensure that they have access to and are familiar with the codes, and £1.2 million a year for owners and managers to ensure that stock-keepers have had the instruction and guidance of the codes.

While the provision is being maintained, the additional burdens in the codes will be examined as part of our simplification plan. That is the plan for reducing administrative burdens, which I raved about at Question Time the other day and which we published in December last year. So we are seeking to reduce the administrative burdens. Part of the reason for getting these figures across government and Whitehall is so that we could actually make a measure and then do something about reducing them.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked me about enforcement. Although I came to Defra when the Bill had almost finished its parliamentary process, so I only picked up the end bit from the Lords’ point of view, I understand that the issues raised by enforcement were quite well debated. But the enforcement by local authorities will be as directed by the Secretary of State set out in Regulation 8 of the regulations.

If the first complaint goes to the RSPCA, I am not sure whether it has a duty on this or whether it can make an investigation. So far as the Animal Welfare Act is concerned, if not these regulations, the RSPCA is both an investigating and a prosecuting authority. But enforcement by local authorities will be as directed by the Secretary of State in Regulation 8.

In answer to the question relating to Schedule 1(29) in respect of the phenotype or genotype, the inspection bodies will record and report any evidence of detrimental effects. There will be a full debate on this, but the inspection bodies will make a report of evidence where there are detrimental effects. This answer may not be satisfactory because I do not fully understand it myself, but it is the best I have got and no doubt if more is needed, I can come back on it.

On suffering and the issue of well drained low-lying areas raised yesterday at the briefing, the offence in the regulations is to not take all reasonable steps to ensure that the conditions in which animals are kept comply with Schedule 1. Reasonable steps must be taken and common sense will have to prevail. We are not being overly prescriptive on these practical issues. It is true that the regulations are open to interpretation, but specific limits and times have not been laid down because normal, common-sense farming practice will ensure those. If the courts have to make an interpretation, they will look to custom and practice and will consider what was reasonable under the prevailing circumstances at the time of the alleged offence. That is an important aspect of the issue. As long as the farmer or keeper of the animals can show they took all reasonable steps, quite frankly, no offence will have been committed. A case will be considered in the totality of the circumstances.

I want to make it absolutely clear that enforcement has got to be both reasonable and proportionate. I have not yet had an opportunity to have a chat with Ben Bradshaw, who was doing this as his day job, as it were, before the reshuffle. But I did not get the impression from the papers I saw that a massive number of cases have arisen from the operation of the existing regulations. While there do not seem to have been any disproportionate effects, it is nevertheless something I want to look at.

The noble Baroness supported what I said about consumers, but took the opportunity to take a sideswipe at the Government for not doing enough on labelling and the issue of sustainability. She is quite right in a way. We are limited in what we can do on labelling, as I will make clear when responding to the Question we will have before the recess. Food labelling is a hot issue both in the department and across the food industry. I fully accept that and I think that people should be given as much information as possible, but without having a booklet to go with each product. If that happens, people will not read them. I think she agreed with the point I made, as indeed did the noble Lord.

On the issue of common land, I am happy to repeat the commitment I made yesterday in private. Clearly this is new, and I fully accept that things are going to change slightly because of the Commons Act 2006, and I fully accept that this year some of the single farm payments were delayed because of issues relating to common land. We were working from handwritten registers dating back to 1965, which I saw myself, all handled by the Exeter office of the Rural Payments Agency. I know the difficulties it was dealing with. We solved most of the problems and got the payments out, so it is not a long-term problem, but I understand that farmers with commons rights might feel as though we are coming down on them; we are not. I am happy to give a commitment on behalf of the Government—not for myself because I suspect that Ministers come and go—that we will review the operation of these regulations on common land after a couple of seasons. I think that that is reasonable in the circumstances.

I have answered on bees. I wonder whether I have missed something. Yes, bedding for dairy cows. Apparently, it can be interpreted widely that straw, shavings, sand, rubber mats and mattresses are all used as bedding. When I was at the Great North Meet early this year or late last year, I saw examples of rubber bedding that I had not seen before. It was far superior to other forms of bedding that the manufacturers and suppliers were making, and it was made from what was previously called waste, if I remember rightly. That is a big advantage. It was a win-win situation. The interpretation of “bedding” goes much beyond the traditional sense of either straw or sand, to rubber mats. I hope that that definition would not be a problem in the circumstances that the noble Duke raised. It depends what the circumstances are for those dairy cows.

If I have missed anything out, I will be happy to come back on it, but as far as I can see from my notes, there is nothing else.

I think that the Minister has gone through pretty well everything. Some of my questions were principally about wording and the way in which wording might be interpreted by a particularly officious person if they chose to do so. The Committee has been reassured by the commitment that the Minister has given and by his determination to seek to take the industry with him in seeing the regulations work for the benefit and the reputation of the industry with the consumer and the marketplace.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned.

The Committee adjourned at 6.27 pm.