Before the Minister moves that the first statutory instrument be considered, I remind your Lordships that in the case of each statutory instrument the Motion before the Committee will be that it do consider the statutory instrument in question. I should make it clear that the Motion to approve the statutory instrument 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 Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board (Prescribed Day) Order 2008.

The noble Baroness said: I am pleased to introduce this order, and I hope that I may do so briefly, as I do not want to repeat information in the Explanatory Memorandum. I hope, however, that I can provide some further detail on its consequences.

The order is about a small tidying up in the business of government. The Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board—CAHRB—is a statutory corporation which was created in 1979 to deal with a specific task. Its task has now been largely completed, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, with the agreement of the board, has concluded that there is no further need to maintain a separate statutory body in existence. The very limited remaining tasks will be done in the name of the Department for International Development.

In its 10th report, the Statutory Instruments Committee summarised the order’s effect as being to wind up the board. Although correct in substance, that is not quite formally accurate. The effect of the order will be to vest the remaining assets of CAHRB in DfID with effect from 1 April 2008. The board will then formally continue in existence for the purpose of preparing its final accounts. Once these have been audited and presented to the House, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will make a separate order, which will formally dissolve the board.

It may be useful if I say a few words about the origin of CAHRB. It came into existence as one of two separate and distinct public bodies established by the Crown Agents Act 1979. The main purpose of the Act was to put the Crown Agents on a firm legal and financial basis following the losses which the so-called unincorporated Crown Agents incurred in ill advised banking and property investments on their own account in the early 1970s.

The 1979 Act ensured that the business of the Crown Agents as agents and advisers to overseas government would be carried on by a statutory corporation which was responsible to Ministers with the appropriate accountability and control. That organisational structure has allowed the Crown Agents’ business to thrive. Under the ownership of a not-for-profit foundation in the private sector since 1997, the Crown Agents have continued to provide valuable services to DfID and to many other Governments and organisations.

The 1979 Act also set up CAHRB as a separate body to deal with the assets and claims left over from the unincorporated Crown Agents’ ventures in property and banking which it was thought might have some value and which had, in the mean time, been ring-fenced in a realisation account. That was to manage them for value, to get back what it could over time, and to pay the proceeds to the Exchequer in partial compensation of the grants that the Government had had to provide to the Crown Agents in the secondary banking crisis back in the early 1970s.

Most of the significant recoveries made by CAHRB were completed within a few years. Since then, however, there has been quite a long tail of claims related to companies which were in administration or subject to bankruptcy proceedings. Some final payments from liquidators were received as recently as last year. However, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in a Written Statement on 7 January, repeated in this House, the Government—and the board itself—judge that the appropriate end-point for CAHRB's work has now been reached. The order is made under the provisions in the 1979 Act for the time when the work of the board had been substantially completed.

The latest published accounts for CAHRB are those for 2006. The 2007 accounts are being prepared by CAHRB and will be audited by the National Audit Office. There will be a supplementary account for 1 January to 31 March. We do not expect the final balances transferring to DfID to be significantly different from those reported in 2006, except that £1.6 million of the cash balances of that date has now been repaid to the Consolidated Fund. The holding value of the board's subsidiary company may also be reviewed.

The board has reported to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that it is not aware of any actual or contingent liabilities that will be transferred to DfID. There are no more proceeds of claims in bankruptcy to come in. In fact, the only asset which will transfer to DfID under the order will be the board's shareholding in a subsidiary company called Four Millbank Investments. The only asset of that company is title as holders of the mortgage in some parcels of land in the Bahamas; those are mostly on the small island of Great Harbour Cay and relate to historic and as yet unfulfilled plans for resort development. The board, through its subsidiary company, has had offers for some of those parcels of land adding up to about $420,000. DfID, through the company, will take appropriate professional advice on what the remaining holdings might fetch and ensure that the assets remaining in the subsidiary company are realised for the best available value.

The wind-up of the board will have minimal staffing and running-cost consequences. Its day-to-day work has recently been limited and carried out under contract by staff of the Crown Agents. DfID will consider contracting out any remaining work to dispose of residual assets, and that will not therefore add significantly to DfID's workload. Proceeds received will offset costs.

The board itself has latterly comprised only a chairman and deputy chairman, respectively David Probert CBE and Peter Berry CMG. They have done that work on an expenses-only basis. The Government are very grateful for their public service in that capacity and I pay tribute to them for it. With those thanks, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board (Prescribed Day) Order 2008. 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Crawley.)

I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order and explaining the background of the Crown Agents so clearly. I am also very grateful to my honourable friend in another place who has already raised many of the questions that spring to mind. I see no reason to waste noble Lords’ time by repeating questions to which we already have answers.

However, several questions were left unanswered. I shall probe a little further on what will happen after the Secretary of State has transferred all the remaining assets from the board to DfID. There is still uncertainty about whether they will be administered by DfID civil servants or contracted out, as is now the case. Can the Minister explain why this decision has not yet been made, as arrangements will surely need to be made soon if DfID is to take over the administration on 1 April? I imagine the decision will rest largely on how long the Government expect the remaining assets will take to be wound up. I understand that the share in Four Millbank Investments must be sold to taxpayers’ best advantage. What competition has been injected into the contracts? Is there any reason for delaying the sale of the rest of the asset book? How long does the Minister expect it to take for DfID to be finished with this business once and for all?

The administration will cost the department something. I note from the debate in another place that the administration costs were £27,000 in the last set of accounts. Does the Minister expect them to be reduced as the asset book is wound up? At a later date, can we have a list of the assets? Can she also shed light on who will pay the costs? Are they to be met by the realised revenue or will DfID pay? Finally, can the Minister confirm that the money realised from the eventual sale of Four Millbank Investments and the other remaining assets will be paid into the Consolidated Fund? Those assets should be set against the original £175 million and not just be quietly absorbed into DfID’s funding.

I appreciate the work done by the board over the years. Now that its tasks have been fulfilled, the sensible thing is for it to be wound up. It no longer has any meaningful tasks that cannot be undertaken by the Department for International Development. We wish DfID well in the massive work it has to do. On these Benches, we welcome the order.

For my own satisfaction, I shall ask the Minister two questions which I am sure she has already answered. Can she confirm that no job losses will be involved in this dissolution? Can she confirm that there is no property to be disposed of? I would think that any property that there is should go to the international development fund.

I shall start by answering the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, about job losses. I thank him for his remarks wishing the order well. As far as I am aware, there will be no job losses. I shall come to his second point when I address the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.

I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks and for wishing the order well. She asked why no decision had been made on contracting out. No formal decision has been taken, but it is very likely that the work will be contracted out to Crown Agents. We wanted to ensure that Parliament had a good opportunity to look at this order before coming to a final decision. As I said in my opening statement, the Crown Agents’ staff have been working for the board for some time.

The noble Baroness also asked who would pay the costs. As I understand it, they will be met from revenue. I was also asked whether DfID would profit from transferred assets. Within the provisions of the Treasury’s consolidated budgeting guidance, DfID will retain cash realised within the capital departmental expenditure limits agreed in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

I am looking to see if I have answers to any other questions that were asked. The 1979 Act, as I recall, in effect—I choose my words carefully—wrote off the £175 million. In that sense, that is no longer a book liability. I am looking to the officials for confirmation of that. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions it; the Act, as it were, wrote off that sum. The sum might be a book sum, but it does not exist in practical terms.

Will the proceeds go to the Consolidated Fund? Yes, they will. I think that I have covered most of the questions. If there are any more, will Members of the Committee please come back to me?

There was just one question. We take it that there is no property or office accommodation to be disposed of.

No, as I understand it, there is no office accommodation to be disposed of.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008.

The noble Lord said: The order was laid before the House on 19 February, as were Explanatory Memoranda and a draft code of practice. These provide the background and the need for both the order and the code, and I hope that noble Lords will have had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with both.

The Proceeds of Crime Act, which came into force in 2003, contains investigation powers specifically designed to investigate financial affairs rather than specific offences. These provisions are set out in Part 8 of the Act. As a safeguard to the operation of these powers and an assurance that they are used in a consistent fashion, the Secretary of State issues a code of practice similar to those issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This code is for use by certain investigators exercising the powers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Attorney-General will issue a separate code to provide guidance for prosecutors, and Scottish Ministers issue a code for that jurisdiction.

The existing code came into force in 2003. That code has guided investigators in the operation of the powers and, to my knowledge, it has not been challenged. The new, amended code is necessary purely because of amendments to the investigation provisions within the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 made by the Serious Crime Act 2007. It is a necessary, consequential matter.

Significantly, the Serious Crime Act will merge the Assets Recovery Agency into the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 1 April. The Serious Organised Crime Agency will inherit the Assets Recovery Agency’s existing confiscation and civil recovery investigation powers.

Another relevant amendment is that production orders and search-and-seizure warrants will also now be available to investigate the provenance or intended use of cash seized and detained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This will enable law enforcement bodies to construct forfeiture cases to be heard before the magistrates’ courts.

There have also been developments in other codes of practice, notably those under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. These include the requirement to consult with community liaison officers if there is a reason to believe that proposed action may have an adverse effect on relations between law enforcement and the community.

I have tried to be brief as the code is substantially consequential to take account of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act coming into force on 1 April. I suggest that the matter is, by and large, not controversial. I shall be happy to go into further details if required and to take questions from noble Lords. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Code of Practice) Order 2008. 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

I thank the Minister for introducing the three orders. The first two seem to amend the codes of practice of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Several questions arise from this which I will address in a minute. The third statutory instrument is not particularly controversial. It clarifies the reference to “members of staff” noted in Section 280(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2000 as a consequence of amendments made to it under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

I should like to put to the Minister one question regarding this matter. The amended code includes “contractors” within the definition of members of staff who take on the role of trustees of recovered assets. The amendment will extend the ability for fees to be paid from the recovered assets to these contractors. Who is it expected the contractors will be? That is my only question on the third statutory instrument.

Returning to the first two statutory instruments—

I was going to deal with them in turn. I have not presented the other two yet.

I have got them all down together.

The Order Paper does say that, I agree. I have not spoken to the others but I will be happy to do so if the noble Baroness wishes.

Would it be possible for the Minister to go through all three and then we can deal with them all together?

I think that would probably be better.

Yes, under the circumstances. I thought the Minister had been very brief.

I thought it might help concentration, but I quite understand.

We have laid an Explanatory Memorandum and a code of practice for the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2008, which provide the background to and the reasons for the need for both the order and the code. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, police and Customs officers were given powers to search, seize, detain and seek the forfeiture of cash which had been obtained through unlawful conduct or intended for use in such conduct. Forfeiture is a civil matter before the magistrates’ courts.

These powers have been a triumph. Approximately £1 million is being seized every week, and the amounts forfeited last year accounted for 25 per cent of the £125 million total of all criminal proceeds recovered. The powers, which are set out in chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, were extended by the Serious Crime Act 2007. Section 79 of, and Schedule 11 to, the Serious Crime Act will broaden the availability of the powers to accredited financial investigators. An accredited financial investigator is an investigator who is not a constable or officer of her Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, and who has been trained and accredited by the National Policing Improvement Agency under Section 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act. They are accredited to allow them access to various powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act. Up until now, accreditation and training have been provided by the Assets Recovery Agency, which has accredited members of staff of, for example, the Financial Services Authority and the Department for Work and Pensions. At the moment, those investigators can apply for investigation orders, search warrants and restraint orders. Any execution of warrants or searches has remained the preserve of the police and Customs.

As experience in use of the Proceeds of Crime Act has developed, many agencies now operate their financial investigation cases wholly independently of the police, so it makes sense that they have the full range of powers in the Act. The Serious Crime Act makes the necessary amendments come into force on 6 April. As of that date, accredited financial investigators will be able to search for and seize cash.

The Proceeds of Crime Act has a number of safeguards attached to the search power, one of which is the code of practice which provides guidelines as to how the search powers are to be exercised. There is an existing code, but it covers only constables and officers of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. It has been successfully in operation for some five years, but it requires updating to cover the extension of the search powers to accredited financial investigators. The code of practice is before us today, as is the draft order which is required to bring the code into operation on 6 April.

The matter is not controversial, because the code is required only as a consequence of amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act. The code has taken account of developments in wider law enforcement trends; for example, I draw attention to paragraph 8, which introduces a requirement to consider whether a search may have an adverse effect on relations between law enforcement and the community, and to consult the community liaison officer if necessary. It should also be noted that the code has been subject to a public consultation exercise. It has been revised in the light of comments received. A summary of those responses will be issued in due course.

I turn to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (Amendment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) Order, which makes a minor amendment to Section 280 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It is straightforward and, we think, uncontroversial. In civil recovery cases under the 2002 Act, the organisation responsible for taking proceedings for a civil recovery order is known as the enforcement authority. Under amendments made by the Serious Crime Act 2007, the enforcement authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland can be one of a number of authorities; for example, the Serious Organised Crime Agency or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Where a court makes a recovery order, it must appoint a trustee for civil recovery. The enforcement authority must nominate someone suitably qualified to act as a trustee, who might be someone from its own staff. The trustee acts on behalf of the enforcement authority. The trustee must secure the property that will be vested in him or her and liquidate non-cash assets for the benefit of the enforcement authority. The trustee must also get the best price for the property vested in him to maximise the amount payable to the enforcement authority.

Section 280 of the 2002 Act sets out what has to be done with the money that the trustee has collected under the recovery order. Once certain payments have been made from the moneys recovered, any remaining sum has to be paid by the trustee to the enforcement body. The enforcement authority can use the money it receives to pay the remuneration and expenses of the trustee. However, the enforcement authority is not allowed to deduct salary costs when a member of its own staff has been appointed as a trustee. On the other hand, the enforcement authority should be able to recover these costs where the trustee is an outside contractor engaged by that authority. The effect of the amendments made to the 2002 Act by the 2007 Act has been to make it unclear what the proper position of the contractors is as regard the netting off of remuneration from recovered moneys. The amendment in this order simply puts the position beyond doubt to ensure that the contractor’s salary costs can be deducted. I hope that point is clear. I beg to move.

I am sorry we got into a bit of confusion with that. It was somewhat caused by the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Proceeds of Crime Act deals with both the orders and I jumped the gun on the proceeds of crime. I shall reiterate the question that I asked because it is still relevant, despite what the Minister said. The amended code includes contractors within the definition of members of staff who take on the role of trustee, but who are contractors likely to be? It is clear that they are not members of staff of the organisations because they are outside them.

I now return to the two Proceeds of Crime Act orders. The first brings into operation a revised code for the Proceeds of Crime Act. As the Minister said, the 2002 Act was amended by the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take into account the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency and its director, the creation of a new type of investigation to investigate the provenance or intended use of assets seized under the 2002 Act and the extension of powers under that Act to certain civilian financial investigators. We accept that there are currently no powers to investigate the provenance or intended use of cash that has been seized and detained and that the creation of this form of investigation will mean that production orders, which allow financial investigators to obtain information about an alleged defendant's financial affairs, can be served on seized cash. However, can the Minister tell us who those financial investigators will be if they are not members of the police force or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs? That is particularly important, given the extent of the investigations they will be able to undertake and the powers they are being given. They will, I presume, also have the right to seek a warrant from magistrates, as necessary, and to give evidence at subsequent hearings to retain the detained money—I am not sure it is necessary, but I declare an interest as a magistrate.

Can the Minister tell us how effective financial reporting orders are? They are the financial investigation tool that allows courts to order a criminal to report on his financial affairs, enabling the authorities to check he has no illicit sources of income. I understand that the Ministry of Justice has stated that there have been no financial reporting orders given as a primary disposal since they were introduced in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. However, contrary to the Ministry of Justice, the Serious Organised Crime Agency has said in its annual report for 2006-07 that 12 financial reporting orders had been issued. Whether it is nought or 12, this power does not seem to have been used very much. Will the Minister say whether he sees any danger that these new powers will suffer the same fate? The Serious Crime Act 2007 sounded the final death knell for the Assets Recovery Agency. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on 7 March 2007 highlighted the weaknesses of the agency when he said:

“To sum up, you have spent £65 million and you have recovered £23 million. You have no complete record of the cases referred to you. You have worked on over 700 cases and managed to recover assets in a mere 52”.

We accept that the role of that agency might have been defunct. It is clear that it did not live up to its expectations. That is why it has been put out of business. Can the Minister say what lessons have been learnt from the fiasco of that agency and how its successor bodies will be monitored and do a better job?

I return to the extension of powers to accredited financial investigators. For the first time, the power to execute search-and-seizure warrants in confiscation and money-laundering investigations is going to be extended from police and Customs officers to AFIs. Since 30 December 2002, a Customs officer or a constable may seize cash at the borders or inland if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cash is recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct, and if the sum seized exceeds a minimum amount. I am cautious whenever I see a proposal that powers of seizure should be entrusted to someone other than a police officer or Revenue official. Unfortunately, the draft codes of practice do not provide clarification on what is happening and what safeguards will exist.

What troubles me are two questions, neither of which are addressed by the codes of practice. First, who will be the accredited financial investigators? To whom are these powers going to be given? As far as I am aware, there is no definitive list of who may become one. Could the Minister ensure that if a list is not available, one is produced and put in the Library? It seems inappropriate that we are discussing altering codes of practice without actually knowing who is going to be using them.

The National Audit Office report into the Assets Recovery Agency, published in February last year, said that the data on the details of financial investigators held on the support system were unreliable. The NAO found that more than a quarter of the registered users were unknown to the Assets Recovery Agency, 2 per cent had retired and 31 per cent had left their organisations and were no longer involved in financial investigations. Could the Minister confirm that any list that is produced is accurate and kept up to date? If the Government allow this situation to continue, we will be in the chaotic position of having granted serious and intrusive powers to execute search-and-seizure orders without actually having knowledge of who is authorised to do so.

Then there is a second question: what is the precise role that these accredited financial investigators are now expected to fulfil? The codes of practice say:

“The search (and seizure) warrant must be executed by an appropriate person. As detailed in the introduction, section 352(5) of the Act provides that an appropriate person is a constable, officer of HMRC or a suitably accredited financial investigator for search and seizure warrants”.

Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate that search-and-seizure warrants should be executed by those simply with an appropriate accreditation? We are extending the powers to detain someone, to conduct a search and to allow them to search a house. It is a significant step to go from allowing sworn officers to exercise these powers to allowing civilians who are simply accredited to do so. Apart from asking the Minister to be kind enough to address those questions, we do not oppose the instruments.

From these Benches we sometimes accuse the Home Office of bringing forward too much legislation, but we supported the Proceeds of Crime Act in principle as it went through. We welcome orders which update such Acts and their codes of practice. Sometimes these are not updated often enough and inappropriate procedures can develop as a result.

However, having given a broad welcome to the principles, I echo the misgivings expressed from the Conservative Front Bench by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. We are being asked to approve these orders without having an exact list of people and I would like more detail about what training such people will receive. Obviously, the police receive one level of training and absorb exactly the procedures they should follow, whereas someone working perhaps for the Department for Work and Pensions will receive a quite different level of training. That is a worry. I shall not rehearse the comments about the Assets Recovery Agency. The noble Baroness, quite rightly, has quoted the figures and it is right to move on.

On the final order of the three, I have two questions about the contractor list mentioned by the Minister. First, what would cause a contractor's removal from the list? I presume there is a select list of contractors who are able to tender for this work, but what kind of misdemeanour or inappropriate behaviour would result in a contractor being removed?

Can the Minister clarify the position of trustees in this respect? The Minister referred to codes of conduct in relation to the previous order; presumably there is a similar code of conduct that trustees should follow. I would be grateful for answers to these questions.

I apologise to the noble Lord but my curiosity has been aroused this afternoon. I am very grateful to my noble friend who has just spoken. Introductory paragraph (2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2008, in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State, refers to,

“the draft by the Scottish Ministers”,

and so on. Introductory paragraph (1) deals with the exercise of the code of practice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by constables and accredited financial investigators. My question is similar to that put forward by my noble friend Lady Hanham: can the Minister inform me, or write to me, about the draft revised code of practice by Scottish Ministers or other persons? I am interested in whether accredited financial investigators on both sides of the border will have similar powers.

The second part of the order deals with cash searches. Is the object of the search cash or records? I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the records may be outwith Scotland or even the United Kingdom.

Introductory paragraph (1) refers to constables, and that is fine. I had an experience in my office out in the boondocks in Scotland when two gentlemen in plain clothes turned up and said that they had powers to do this and that. They were not accompanied by the police but they produced warrants or cards that I had never seen before. They had, in fact, come from the local authority. I do not know whether I was supposed to recognise these gentlemen’s authority but, had I objected, I wonder what would have happened. That is why I hope the Minister will reassure me that when the searches take place for cash or records of cash, their subject will at least have some idea of why they are taking place.

I am sure that the Minister will explain that crime has tentacles and that huge sums of money may be involved, spread perhaps outwith Scotland—or firth, as we say in Scotland. I would be grateful if the Minister will inform me about the draft of the revised code in Scotland. These searches can certainly cause great worry to small concerns, as I have explained.

Will the Minister enlighten me as to the powers of the investigators when a visit is paid under introductory paragraphs (1) or (2) of the order? Does the person the subject of the searches have any rights? I seem to recall that in the period of the previous Government there were some particularly difficult situations concerning orders which had to be signed by Ministers. At least two Ministers were unable to make any contact and were virtually kept in purdah. I am curious to know what rights an individual has when someone turns up and says, “We believe there has been a crime; we believe there is cash; we believe there are records available here”. There may be good reasons for the search but what happens if someone turns up in plain clothes saying, “We have this particular reference, this particular authority”, and there is no reason why you should recognise it? If it was a constable, the mind of the retail subject of the investigation would be put at rest.

I am afraid my cynical mind goes abroad. Thirty years ago we spent three weeks in an Italian resort where we found a bunch of armed gentlemen—the tax police. They apparently had powers to go armed into one’s office and demand to see one’s records. I do not believe that that will be the case, certainly not in Scotland and certainly not in my case. Perhaps the powers might be needed but I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me, particularly about introductory paragraph (2), because Scotland is where I live and it might affect me.

I have no hesitation in saying that I am member of the Chartered Accountants of Scotland. That is worth more even than the reputation of your Lordships’ House. I would certainly wish to be onside, but who is the referee? We do not want gentlemen turning up and saying, “Cough up those papers. I have a bit of paper here; I have a reference”. The House of Lords identity pass that I have in my pocket has caused considerable panic in some areas. But if the Minister could reassure me about introductory paragraph (2), I would be very grateful. I apologise to my noble friend.

The noble Lord should not feel that he has to apologise. It is quite proper to use these proceedings to raise issues of concern. Noble Lords have done exactly that today, and quite rightly so.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the issue of who might be a “contractor”. A contractor might be an insolvency practitioner or another kind of expert. These cases are quite complex and different forms of expertise need to be brought to bear. Given the strange nature of some of these cases, it might have to be someone who has a knowledge or an expertise in the selling or disposal of assets such as horses or stables or something like that. The contractors will vary.

The noble Baroness made points about financial reporting orders. There has been some misunderstanding in relation to this issue and the allegation has been that they have been ineffective. We do not agree with that. However, I understand that David Davis asked a PQ of the Ministry of Justice about how many financial reporting orders had been issued by courts. The Parliamentary Written Answer from my right honourable friend Jack Straw, the Secretary of State, simply said that no financial reporting orders had been recorded as a primary disposal by the courts, and that that indeed was the case. But financial reporting orders are secondary or ancillary orders made by the courts at the point of sentence following the principal disposal, which could be a period of imprisonment. More than 40 financial reporting orders have been made since they were introduced in 2006 as secondary and ancillary orders. The Ministry of Justice had not originally included this in its Answer. It has now clarified the situation and I understand that the Secretary of State is contacting David Davis MP directly on that point. SOCA and law enforcement agencies are already making good and effective use of these new powers to keep track of the financial affairs of serious criminals.

Concern was raised about the powers of search and seizure and it is important that we keep a careful check on these issues. It is understandable that noble Lords are concerned about them. But, so far as training and preparation for this role is concerned, the National Policing Improvement Agency will train, accredit and, importantly, monitor the exercise of search-and-seizure powers, and it will have the power to withdraw accreditation from an investigator. An accredited financial investigator will have to be a member of staff of a public body listed in a statutory instrument which is to be laid before the House in due course.

The question was raised about who accredited financial investigators might be and what they will be able to do. They will have the ability to recover cash—that will be their principal power—and they will be listed in the order which is to be laid. So far, those to be considered have all been from public bodies. Accredited investigators are all members currently of the Serious Fraud Office, the Department for Work and Pensions the Immigration Service and the fraud unit of the National Health Service; sadly, we need such an organisation. It is likely that they will come from similar bodies. But, as I said earlier, noble Lords will have the opportunity to object to any of those listed bodies when the order is brought before the House.

The noble Baroness made a point about the work of the Assets Recovery Agency. I do not accept that the agency has been a failure. It has achieved a great deal and has recovered its base budget for the financial year 2006-07. With the merger of the Assets Recovery Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the skills and the expertise of both agencies will be brought together and we believe that that will enable them to maximise their efficiency and effectiveness. I have not heard it argued that this is not an important initiative in attacking those who seek to profit massively from crime, because this is where our policy is directed. SOCA will report on asset-recovery performance annually, as did the Assets Recovery Agency.

Much cash has been seized in the past few years. I was asked how many searches have been conducted under the powers that have been used in the past. The answer is that there have been 23 in the past year and, in the five years of its operation, some 973. It is worth noting that in the past financial year some £53 million and in the five years of ARA’s operation some £211 million have been seized. In the past year, £31.5 million and in the five years of the ARA’s operation £103 million cash has been forfeited. There are necessarily continuing cases where cash has been detained but is yet to be forfeited, so one will see those numbers go up over time. Therefore, I think that it has been a very successful exercise. Big criminals know that they cannot expect to get away indefinitely with profiting from some of the appalling crimes that they commit.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, expressed general support for the measures but asked about the removal of contractors. We have not yet had a situation where contractors have had to be removed from an operation but if, for example, there was unsatisfactory performance or a failure to get value for money in liquidating assets, we would expect contractors to be stood down. Obviously, we want them to perform well but, if they are not doing so, clearly it is not appropriate for them to continue in that role

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked a number of questions relating to his unease about the extent of the search powers. In general terms, the amended code before us follows the precedence of the previous code and the updated Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes—in particular, code A, which relates to stop and search, and code B, which relates to the searching of premises and the seizure of property. These codes are tried and tested. They have well over 20 years of history to them and generally one can reasonably argue that they have operated very well. Therefore, this code very much mirrors the others.

The search powers operate in a precise way. The power to search premises is exercisable only on premises where the relevant officer is lawfully present under other powers or where he is there at the invitation of the owner. The power does not confer any right to force entry. The search powers also include powers to search a person and any article with a person. However, they do not extend to requiring a person to undergo an intimate or strip-search.

There are safeguards. Search powers may be exercised only where prior judicial authority has been obtained or, if that is not practicable, with the approval of a senior officer. The Act also recognises that there may be circumstances where it is not practical to obtain the approval of a senior officer but, if judicial approval is not obtained prior to a search and cash is either not seized or is released before 48 hours, the officer concerned must prepare a written report and submit it to the independent person who, in relation to searches in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has been properly appointed by the Secretary of State. That report will detail why the officer considered that he had the power to carry out the search and why it was not practicable to obtain judicial approval prior to it.

I can provide some more examples of safeguards within the code, particularly at paragraph 62, which allows a person to call their own witness to a search, and paragraphs 53 and 64, which require that all searches be fully recorded and kept on a search register. Many other safeguards will ensure the proportionate use of the power.

We are not aware that the powers have caused great difficulty in the past, and their use has been proportionate. We feel that they are of great benefit because those subject to them know that they are properly carried out and that they have a real effect in terms of recovering assets. To our knowledge, we have had no complaints in the past five years on the use of the search powers as currently exercised.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was asking about accredited financial investigators in Scotland. Accredited financial investigators do not operate in Scotland. In general terms, that is a matter for the devolved Administration. As I understand it, only the police and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs officers in Scotland operate in that regard. As the noble Lord rightly spotted, it is a different system in Scotland, and the powers are not exercised in the same way north of the border.

I think that I have covered most of the points raised. If I have not, I am sure that Members of the Committee will remind me and I shall return to their points.

I thank the noble Lord. I am fascinated by his mention of strip-searches—

Only in giving reassurance that officers do not have the power to exercise them.

I am sure that when people arrive at our estate office it will have ladies—can I say that?—duly authorised, I hope, to carry out the searches, since I can foresee interesting reports in the Dundee Courier and Advertiser of raids on particular areas. I take the Minister’s point—it is pretty serious—but I would be grateful if he could tighten it up, because he said that he was not too sure about accredited financial investigators north of the border. Could he write to me? Otherwise, I am more than grateful to him and to the rest of the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2008. 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move the Motion standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Serious Crime Act 2007 (Amendment of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) Order 2008. 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008.

The noble Lord said: I do not know whether I gained this SI because I was president of the Royal Naval Amateur Fencing Association or because I tend to wear a sword with my No. 1 uniform.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced an order-making power to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of specified offensive weapons. Currently the offensive weapons order prohibits 17 weapons, including sword sticks, knuckle-dusters, disguised knives and batons. Today, in an effort to further improve public safety, we are seeking to add swords with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over to the schedule of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order. This will make it an offence to sell, manufacture, hire or import any sword which fits that definition, subject to defences which seek to allow legitimate use of such items. A person would be liable on summary conviction to a maximum term of six months imprisonment and/or a fine.

Violent crime committed with bladed weapons is an ugly and destructive aspect of our society and totally unacceptable. The statistics reflect a far too common view among some that carrying and using bladed weapons is a way of displaying strength and earning respect. Our primary concern is public safety, and restricting the supply of weapons which are being used in violent crime is an important contributor to that.

The Government have been concerned for some time about reports of weapons described as samurai swords being used in violent crime, including murders. Police advice is that the availability of samurai swords makes them the weapon of choice for growing numbers of young men with criminal intentions, and the Association of Chief Police Officers fully supports this ban. We therefore published a consultation document in March 2007 on whether to ban the sale, hire and import of samurai swords and other weapons, and announced our intention to proceed with a ban on samurai swords in December 2007.

We have discussed with collectors, martial arts groups, lawyers and law enforcement agencies definitions to capture adequately samurai swords and defences to allow for legitimate uses of such swords. The definition and defences that we have arrived at capture the cheap imitation swords that the Government are most concerned about being used in violent crime while allowing the legitimate use of samurai swords by martial arts groups and collectors. We have also looked to frame the definitions and defences in such a way as to ensure that the ban is enforceable, minimising the need for subjective assessments by law enforcement bodies on what is and is not banned under the order and closing off loopholes which more unscrupulous retailers might use to circumvent the ban.

The definition we have arrived at is,

“a sword with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over in length”.

While such a definition potentially captures swords other than samurai swords, the Government think this is proportionate to ensure that we have a ban which is meaningful and which will have a real impact in reducing the availability of items that have been and can be used in violent crime.

Three gang members involved in violence and drug dealing who murdered a man in Newport with a samurai sword after he stood up to them were given a total of 60 years in jail in 2006. Noble Lords may recall the terrible incident in 2000 in which Nigel Jones—now the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham— the then MP for Cheltenham, was injured and his assistant murdered by a man armed with a samurai sword. Only last month, a young man was jailed for life for murdering his brother with a samurai sword in Lincoln.

Responses to the consultation made a good case for not discriminating against law-abiding citizens who use samurai swords for legitimate purposes. The defences in Article 3 of the order account for collectors of genuine high-value samurai swords of historical and cultural significance.

The defences set out in Articles 4 and 5 of the order provide defences for those people who use samurai swords to partake in historical re-enactments and those engaged with reputable martial arts associations. These defences are in addition to those that apply to Crown functions and those that exist for museums and galleries for all items over 100 years old and for defences in the Violent Crime Reduction Act relating to television, theatre and film productions.

At present, we do not propose to add items other than samurai swords to the offensive weapons order. Arriving at a definition that captures items such as fantasy knives and hunting knives but not knives that have a legitimate use—for example, penknives and domestic knives—has not proved possible in the time available. The Government will however continue to work with law enforcement and local communities to keep offensive weapons policy under review.

The Government are determined to do everything they can to tackle the menace of violent crime and we have a strategy, overseen by the Prime Minister, to achieve that. We are taking action on a number of fronts: new legislation, increased penalties, holding a national knife amnesty in 2006, tough enforcement operations by police to detect those carrying knives, and support for community organisations working with young people. Banning samurai swords is not, in itself, the answer to tackling violent crime, as a number of people opposing the ban in our consultation correctly pointed out. However, it is a small but important part of our strategy.

Although legislation is already in place making it illegal to carry offensive weapons and most knives in public, there is nothing to stop any individual of 18 or over walking into a shop and getting hold of these dangerous weapons, which have been used in a number of murders and violent attacks in recent years. That is unacceptable. We need to cut off the supply of samurai swords and prevent them getting into the wrong hands, but we should allow for their legitimate use without compromising the effectiveness of any ban. That is what the order seeks to achieve and I urge noble Lords to support it. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) Order 2008. 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord West of Spithead.)

Up until the day before yesterday I would have thanked the noble Lord and said that I had no questions to ask. However, on that day I received a briefing from an organisation called the Early Medieval Alliance. It raised a number of apposite questions which I should like to put to the Minister. I make it quite clear that we fully understand the rationale behind the order and are basically supportive of it, but these areas would benefit from being clarified.

The Early Medieval Alliance has put to us that the order will not ban all samurai swords, as Japanese-style, straight-bladed swords will still be legal; that it will not ban Japanese-style swords under 50 centimetres, which I believe are sometimes called ninja swords; and that it will not deal—the Minister touched on this—with cheap, fantasy-type swords. Therefore, it looks as though three fairly large areas will not be covered.

The definition of “third party insurance” in this order is not as comprehensive or as correct as the definition in the measures in the imitation firearm section of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. That Act also refers to liability insurance but the definition there is considered better and more appropriate than the one in the order.

Were sword manufacturers consulted during the consultation process? Can the Minister say with confidence that the order will do what is intended and that the definition of “samurai swords” is sufficient to ensure that all similar weapons will be banned? If it is found that it does not cover the full gambit of such weapons, will the order be revisited? Does the Minister agree that it will still be worth while for the Home Office to have discussions with those involved in the manufacture and use of these swords for historical re-enactment and historical martial arts to ensure that the effects are as anticipated and that they do not go counter to what is intended and hold up any historical re-enactments that might be envisaged?

On these Benches the order is particularly poignant. I am grateful to the Minister for mentioning the attack on my noble friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham, who, at the time, was an MP. Of course, our party lost a particularly hardworking researcher, with all the trauma that that brought for the family and friends involved. We are happy to see this order brought forward on to the statute book and support it.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he mentioned the valid defences of theatrical events and filming. I did not see that in print in the order; perhaps I have missed something.

Secondly, besides samurai swords, which are a distinct category—the Minister explained how it is defined—there are other weapons from other places. For example, Indonesia has a very similar weapon known as a kris, which is very long, has wavy edges and is lethal. Why have the Government chosen to be so specific about this? I presume it is just because samurai swords have become the weapon of choice for a particularly violent and unpleasant cult style of killing.

We support the order. I do not want to go into wider issues now, but knife crime concerns Members from all Benches. At some point, it would be interesting to have a debate in which the Minister can update us on the success that the police are having in tackling knife crime and on some of the initiatives, such as mobile arches to search individuals in areas with particularly high levels of knife crime. This is an area fraught with difficulty. In the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, the Government brought forward provisions on the possession of extreme, violent pornography. Extreme violence on its own, without the pornographic element, should also concern us.

I agree with everything that has been said by noble Lords, but I am curious about the curved blade. I am slightly anxious that it would be possible to import a batch of swords with straight blades, which would fall outside the provisions, and then, by a simple and well understood engineering process—putting them through a roller—cause the blades to bend. I do not understand why all long blades are not banned. I can foresee people importing straight blades and making them curved.

I thank noble Lords for those valid points. I hope I will be able to answer them all, and I appreciate the views. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, mentioned, correctly, that the definition does not pick up cheap ninja swords, which are straight, and that it touches slightly on krises. I remember reading about krises in the Wizard years ago in a story about a chap in Borneo. They are unpleasant, sharp, double-sided knives. In my initial speech, I tried to put across that the intention is to try to pick on ninja swords, which are very attractive to some young people. They watch films such as “Kill Bill” and think it is frightfully clever to have them to show off with. That touches on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the pornography of violence. There are violent films with such swords, and some young people think it is very clever to have them. My initial position is that people kill people, not the things they have, but there are people for whom such swords make a difference to their ability to kill, so it is right that we try to constrain them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was right about straight swords, but we felt it was too difficult to get a definition that would not mean that we would have a problem with buying a set of Sabatier knives. It is difficult to differentiate between them when laying down rules. We are still looking at this and, if we can come up with a definition that is properly enforceable, we intend to outlaw straight swords as well, but it is proving extremely difficult to do so. We keep offensive weapons policy under review all the time. I mentioned the large number of identified weapons in the order, but noble Lords identified a number of weapons that are just as unpleasant on which we cannot produce an enforceable definition at the moment as it is too tricky.

The noble Earl made a point about bending sword blades, and he is right that that can be done. We shall have to keep looking at this, and perhaps at some time in the future we shall say that any blade over 50 centimetres—which is long—should be banned. At the moment, it is difficult to do that.

[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.49 to 4.59 pm.]

I shall say a little more about bending a straight-bladed sword. That would fall under this legislation because it is manufacture. Once the person concerned curves the sword, it would constitute manufacture of a weapon of more than 50 centimetres in length. However, we need to think about the noble Lord’s broader point about straight swords of more than 50 centimetres. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised it as well. These matters are under constant review.

We will consult on historical re-enactment; it is currently a defence to use such weapons for historical re-enactments. I have not come across historical re-enactments with samurai swords, but one obviously does with others. It is clear that any of the curved-type cavalry swords would fall into that category, for example. We will review that.

I think that I have covered all the key points. The main aim of the order is to make communities safer. I reiterate the sad fact that it is people who kill people, but I am afraid that they get egged on by their weapons, which are meant to be very exciting for them—partly because of the opportunities they have in their lives—but are extremely dangerous to others. It therefore makes great sense to withdraw and keep out of their clutches weapons that make it easy to kill someone. Samurai swords fall within that category. The order is about making communities safer—I know that all of us agree with that—but, equally, it is about letting law-abiding people in this country do things which they have done over generations, such as collecting and re-enactments. The order will allow that to happen, and I commend it to the Committee.

The Minister spoke about legitimate actions. I touched briefly on third-party insurance. I confess that I have not looked at how the previous Act differs from this one, but since it has been touched upon by people who undertake medieval alliance-type activities, it might be worth somebody checking the difference and what the implications might be. If necessary, I can put them in touch with the person who got in touch with me.

The noble Baroness is right: I failed to answer that question. The definition of “third parties” is the same as that used in the context of realistic imitation firearms. We are therefore following the precedent of what is a working defence. I do not know whether that answer is enough or the noble Baroness feels that we need to get in touch with the people to whom she referred.

It might be helpful.

In that case, we will make sure that that is done.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (B2007 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2008.

The noble Lord said: The provision of an accessible public transport system in which disabled people can have the same opportunities to travel as other members of society is a key factor in improving the life chances of disabled people and promoting social inclusion. Without accessible transport, those who are disabled are limited in their ability to access work, visit friends and family, participate in leisure, or access healthcare and education facilities. That is why we have taken strong action to ensure that public transport services are increasingly accessible to the estimated 11 million disabled people in the United Kingdom.

Regulations requiring all new rail vehicles, buses and coaches to be accessible have already been introduced. There are already around 4,700 accessible rail vehicles in service which are covered by the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, widely referred to as the RVAR. We should remember that many thousands of older vehicles have been made more accessible during refurbishment.

We have strengthened these measures further by setting in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 a date of 1 January 2020 by which all rail vehicles must be accessible. Another consequence of the Act, introduced at the express wish of your Lordships, is our securing greater scrutiny of applications for exemptions from parts of the RVAR, which is why we are here this afternoon. This is the first request for an exemption for two years.

In the case that we are considering today, the Docklands Light Railway wishes to introduce 55 new vehicles to allow longer trains, extensions to the network and increased frequencies, which will benefit all passengers. The DLR is already one of the most accessible transport networks in the country. Every station has lifts or ramps that allow step-free access to the platform, and there is level access between the platform and the train. However, because the DLR was opened before we introduced rail accessibility legislation, it has some constraints which prevent the new vehicles complying fully with the regulations. These relate to the train control and signalling system and the gap between platforms and trains at some, although not all, stations.

These new vehicles also include some features that are not currently permitted under the regulations. These features are based on the experience of operators and passengers since the regulations were introduced in 1998, and I give notice that we intend to bring forward a revised version of the RVAR later this year that would incorporate these improvements.

The order will result in significant improvements for all passengers. It enjoys the full support of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—the Government’s statutory advisory body on the transport needs of disabled people—Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate and Members in the other place. For those reasons, I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (B2007 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2008. 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

I am grateful for the Minister’s careful explanation of this order. I have no difficulty with it but it is right that we have a relatively high hurdle to clear, to ensure that the industry and officials do not quickly reach for an exemption order without having exhausted all possible alternatives.

I, too, am pleased to support this exemption order. I have used the Docklands Light Railway and believe that it is almost a platinum model which many other railways would be wise to follow. When we consider disabled access and possibly a revision of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, to which the Minister referred, we always have to have regard not only to the cost of doing the work but to whether, with limited money available, that money would best be spent here or in many other places where accessibility is a good deal worse. As I said, I think that the Docklands Light Railway is almost an exemplar and there would be no great difficulty in disabled people using the trains. Therefore, I am pleased to support what the Minister has said.

I am grateful to both noble Lords. I do not really have a question or a point to which to respond. I am grateful for the keen interest that noble Lords take in these matters. The DLR is one of the most accessible rail networks in this country and it is generally to be congratulated on the high threshold that it establishes in terms of accessibility. It was developed some 20 years ago and obviously things have moved on, but this exemption order is important and we plan to match as closely as possible the very high thresholds and standards that have been established for the DLR.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Local Involvement Networks (Duty of Services-Providers to Allow Entry) Regulations 2008.

The noble Baroness said: It is my pleasure to introduce the regulations to be debated today which set out the duty on health and social care services providers to allow authorised representatives of local involvement networks—LINks—to enter and view their premises to assess whether appropriate health and social care services are being provided.

I begin by informing the Committee that a policy statement relating to LINks was passed to the Bill Committee and to the Health Select Committee back in March of last year. Further, these regulations were subject to a full public consultation process, which began before Report and Third Reading in the House of Lords of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill, which received Royal Assent in October last year. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, both of whom contributed greatly to the Bill in the debates relating to LINks.

We believe it is of great importance for authorised representatives to be able to enter and assess certain health and social care services. Without this ability, there is a significant gap in their role of seeking the views of people using health and social care services. It would mean that they would only be able to do this before or after they use the services rather than at the time they are most concerned and engaged; in other words, when they are actually using the services.

Currently, a patient forum is established for every NHS trust, foundation trust and PCT in England. Each patient forum has on average eight members, meaning that there is a total of 4,000 forum members. It is necessary to change the patient and public involvement system because of the significant changes that are taking place in the nature of the health and social care system; for example, the changes to the configuration of primary care trusts, moving towards greater co-terminosity—a terrible word—with local authorities; PCTs’ changing role to focus on the commissioning of services; the move towards greater choice of service delivery; and increased joint commissioning across health and social care.

For those reasons, it is no longer appropriate to have a patient and public involvement system which is based on scrutiny of individual services. Therefore, we decided to undertake a strategic review of patient, user and public involvement in October 2005 to ensure that the arrangements for future involvement and engagement were as suitable as possible. We wish this new system to be able to consider both health and social care, so that PPI can be joined up across the entire user journey, and encourage the involvement of a far greater number of people in the health and social care systems.

Entering premises to observe the provision of health and social care services is just one of the activities a LINk can do to help it form an opinion about local care services and involve local people in the scrutiny and monitoring of those services. A LINk may well use a range of other mechanisms to involve people in a variety of aspects of commissioning and the provision of services. To enable LINks to gather the information they need about the services, there will be times when it is right for them to see and hear for themselves how those services are being provided. The draft regulations therefore impose a duty on health and social care services providers to allow authorised representatives of LINks to enter premises that they own or control to observe the services that are being provided.

However, we believe that some exemptions to this duty are essential to protect patient safety and dignity. Therefore, under the draft regulations, a services provider does not have to allow a LINk representative entry if that would compromise either the effective provision of a service or the privacy or dignity of a person. The draft regulations further stipulate that while an authorised LINk representative is on premises owned or controlled by a service provider, they must not compromise the provision of care services of any person, and if provision is compromised, the duty on the services provider then ceases. There are also some types of premises that it would be inappropriate for a LINk to have the right to enter and, therefore, the duty to allow entry does not apply. This is particularly important when it concerns the provision of care in non-communal areas of a care home; for example, people’s private bedrooms.

This does not mean that LINks cannot enter when invited by residents; it just means that services providers are not under a duty to allow them entry. The duty would also not apply in respect of premises used as accommodation for employees of services providers. LINks will not have the right to enter premises or parts of premises at any time when health and social care services are not being provided. LINks will also not have the right to enter premises if, in the opinion of the services provider, the authorised representative, in seeking to enter and view premises, is not acting reasonably and proportionately. This safeguard has been put in place to ensure that the LINk’s ability to enter and view premises is in line with the principles of good regulation and the general intention that LINks should use their rights with discretion and judgment.

The duty does not apply to the observing of any activities which relate to the provision of social care services to children. There are already robust arrangements in place for the local delivery of children’s services. I must make clear that LINks will have an important role in listening to children and young people, taking account of their views, giving them a chance to influence the planning and running of health services, and giving services feedback on what children and young people think. This role applies to health services for children and young people and not to social care services. That is because there is a statutory duty on local authorities, through children’s trust arrangements, to take full account of the needs and views of children and young people.

We do not believe that all those involved in LINks should undertake the role of viewing services. That is why we will encourage LINks to make sure that those able to exercise the power to enter services should, first, have the right skills; secondly, have received the right training; thirdly, have had criminal records checks carried out and be cleared against the LINk’s own policy administered by the host organisation; and, fourthly, be able to demonstrate an understanding of patient confidentiality and the right level of sensitivity towards the role. Members of the LINk will determine who their authorised representatives will be to perform this role.

The draft regulations set out the additional persons who are to be services providers and who will, therefore, have to comply with the duty to allow authorised representatives of a LINk to enter and view the health and social care services delivered on the premises that they own or control, and to view activities carried out on those premises. These additional persons are: all those providing primary medical services, including GPs; all those providing primary dental services, including dentists; all those providing primary ophthalmic services, including opticians; all those providing primary pharmaceutical services, including pharmacists; and people who own or control premises where primary ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services are provided.

In conclusion, I remind the Grand Committee that LINks will enable genuine involvement of a far greater number of people than is currently available. This will ensure that local communities have a stronger voice in the process of commissioning health and social care and enabling them to influence key decisions about the services that they use and pay for. The responses that we received from the public consultation on these regulations showed broad support for our proposals, which represent just one part of a wider set of arrangements that are designed to create a stronger voice for service users and members of the public at every level of the health and social care system. This involves developing systems that are led by what people want and that learn from experience, resulting in real improvements to people’s perceptions of services and their experience of care. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Local Involvement Networks (Duty of Services-Providers to Allow Entry) Regulations 2008. 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Thornton.)

I apologise to the Minister that I was not here when she rose to her feet, but I thank her for introducing and explaining these regulations, which in large measure seem to be as expected and, therefore, not unduly controversial. At the same time I have a number of concerns.

My first concern relates to the types of premises which the regulations cover. We see from Regulation 3(1) that the premises which a services provider must allow an authorised representative to enter are those which it owns or controls.

That rules out an obvious category of premises; namely, those which are owned by private providers. It is essential that there is no watering-down of accountability on the part of the private sector. During the passage of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, we were told that these premises would be the subject of directions which obliged commissioners of care to build into their contracts with private providers an obligation to allow representatives of LINks to enter and view services. The problem with this is twofold: first, without sight of those directions, it is difficult to know whether they are adequate. Secondly, it is not clear whether the directions will apply also to local authorities. Unless they do, we have to ask how care homes provided under contract to local authorities will be required to permit entry. I should be grateful if the Minister provided some clarity on those issues.

Under Regulation 3(2), the duty to allow entry does not apply if the presence of a LINks representative would compromise the effective provision of care services or the privacy or dignity of any person. These are the most worrying provisions in the SI. Who will judge whether the effective provision of care or someone’s privacy or dignity are being compromised? It is clear that it will be the services provider. The way is left wide open for the provider to take a completely one-sided and unjustified decision to exclude a LINks representative from a set of premises, without any immediate right of comeback. What might constitute a breach of dignity? One could argue that entering and viewing an establishment where patients are lying in bed dressed in hospital gowns is a breach of privacy and dignity. What is to stop a provider from arguing this? How would a LINks representative be able to rebut such an argument?

Equally, it would be possible, let us say, for an A&E department to argue that the presence of a LINks representative compromised the effective provision of emergency care, for no reason other than that the department was busy. This provision, too, is surely wide open to abuse. The main reason why community health councils were so effective in monitoring A&E departments was that they had an unfettered right of access. That right was not abused. If a CHC member really got in the way of activities on the unit, they would withdraw voluntarily under their code of conduct. If CHCs had had to operate within the terms of these regulations, it is highly doubtful whether Casualty Watch would ever have been the force for good that it unquestionably was in exposing poor practice in A&E departments. It would be better to include the prohibition in paragraph (2)(a) not in regulations but in a code of conduct. We understand that such a code is in the course of being produced. It is a great pity that Ministers were not prepared to place a little more faith in people’s integrity and good will to do the right thing in the appropriate circumstances rather than rely on the law to erect a set of statutory barriers.

Exactly the same point could be made about Regulation 3(2)(g), which provides that an authorised representative may be denied entry if, in the opinion of the services provider, they are not acting reasonably or proportionately. There is surely far too much scope there for spurious and subjective decision-making of a kind that would run counter to the entire rationale of the legislation; namely, that providers of services should be open to public inspection and not artificially shielded from adverse criticism. I regret the way that these parts of the regulations have been framed, especially given that there is no statutory right of appeal for the LINk representative if they are unfairly excluded.

Category (c) of the definition of “excluded premises” refers to,

“premises which are occupied by one or more persons as their home”—

which is not problematic—

“and which at least one of those persons occupies under a tenancy or a licence”.

At present, I am unclear what the significance of a tenancy or a licence is in this context, and it would be helpful if the Minister could explain. Equally, I am not wholly clear what count as non-communal areas of care homes for the purposes of Regulation 2. A kitchen in a care home is not a communal area, but it is clearly not part of someone’s private quarters. The same applies to offices. A ladies’ toilet is not communal, because it is not open to men, but there seems no reason why a LINks representative should not be allowed access to it. It struck me that “communal” is perhaps not as clear as it might be. Can the Minister explain why the regulations have been framed in this way and whether there is an intention to exclude parts of premises that are neither private nor shared by all residents?

I do not understand the reason for Regulation 3(2)(f). Why should an authorised representative have no right of entry to a part of a hospital or care home which happens to be empty of patients or residents? It might be that a certain part of a set of premises was used on a regular basis by patients or residents, but at the particular time when the LINk was visiting that part of the building was empty of people. Why should the LINk be denied access to it? In some circumstances, premises are best viewed when not in use, particularly if one wants to avoid falling foul of health and safety issues.

To sum up, I am sorry to say that much too much in these regulations, unwittingly or not, serves to protect unsafe institutions and to muzzle the whistleblower. I find that deeply regrettable. The LINks member, provided that he or she is properly authorised and trained, should have an automatic statutory right to enter, view, observe and monitor activities, as the PPI forums do at present. On that score, can the Minister bring us up to date? The activities of PPI forums are going to be switched off at the end of this month. I would doubt that many members of the public are aware that the system for protecting the interests of patients in the NHS is to be dismantled and replaced by a procurement process, which could in some cases be drawn out. The Minister will remember the amendment to the local government Bill designed to bring about a smooth transition between the abolition of PPI forums and the setting up of LINks. Can she say what arrangements are in place to keep patient and public involvement going prior to the formation of LINks and how many patient forum members have been invited to participate by local authorities during the transition?

I thank the Minister for setting out clearly the provisions of this statutory instrument and for the compliment that she paid to the noble Earl and me for our involvement at an earlier stage—a much earlier stage—of all this. Broadly speaking, like him, I suppose that I am satisfied with much of the statutory instrument, but I have much the same concerns as he has, although we have not collaborated or talked to each other about this. I would like briefly to consider those concerns.

First, I am delighted that a change was made during the course of this legislation on the Floor of the House to allow LINks members to go in and view the premises in question. We achieved all-party agreement on that. All sides of the House agreed that this was a good thing. Rather like the noble Earl, I am concerned at the elements of restriction that seem to have crept into the statutory instrument. I would be grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on that.

I, too, was worried about the definition of communal areas. One example is bathrooms. The noble Earl referred to ladies’ loos, but other areas are not used communally, but are communal areas. On the whole, people do not use bathrooms at the same time as other people, but bathrooms are communal areas because of their shared use. Are we saying that members of LINks can inspect bathrooms? The state of the equipment in bathrooms in care homes is very often a cause of complaint and concern. I would have thought that those are precisely the areas that LINks members would be able to look at in the same way that we expect CSCI inspectors to see them at the moment. I would like some clarity about communal and non-communal areas. We are not clear here.

Like the noble Earl, I am particularly concerned about Regulation 3(2)(a). The statutory instrument states,

“if the presence of an authorised representative on those premises … would compromise ... the effective provision of care services or … the privacy or dignity of any person”.

There is no clue about who decides that, and that is a real question. It is quite possible that a care home or a ward could be doing all sorts of things that members of a LINk who are authorised representatives would find reprehensible, but if they were told, “Sorry, you can’t come in here”, and that they could not go in to see that people were walking around naked because it would compromise their dignity, where is the capacity for authorised representatives to challenge the view given by the person running the care home? We have to raise that point. As it stands, it is an unsatisfactory situation.

My second point, relating to private provision, has been made well by the noble Earl. After all, something like 90 per cent of care homes are now private. If these regulations do not apply to those who own or run care homes, we need to know that. It is seriously worrying, and I thought that we had agreed that earlier.

The noble Earl raised most of the issues that I wanted to raise, but I wish to raise the matter of what authorised representatives will be able to do when they enter and view premises. Earlier on in this process, we were told that they cannot inspect. Are they able to ask members of staff about what is going on? Are they able to ask patients, users of services and residents about what is going on and how they feel? Without that, we are unclear about whether authorised representatives have enough capacity to find out the truth about what is going on. We need reassurance on that.

My final point is that, like the noble Earl, I would like to know what has happened about the transition between the patient forums and the new LINks system. We have heard remarkably little about it. This is an important part of it and we need greater clarity about how far we have got.

I am grateful for the comments of the noble Earl and the noble Baroness who have been very helpful in driving this forward. I am delighted to be able to respond. I feel some responsibility for his not getting here on time because I promised that I would let him know when this business was to start, but my noble friend took only five minutes when he spoke before me.

I shall address the specific questions that were raised. The noble Earl asked about private care and what was the duty on independent providers to allow entry to authorised representatives. Local authorities, NHS trusts, SHAs and PCTs must ensure that their contracts with independent providers allow for LINks’ authorised representatives to enter and view and to observe the carrying on of activities on premises that are owned and controlled by the independent provider. The activities must be in line with arrangements under Section 221(2) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act.

There was a question about how the power to enter and view would work. It will partly be about the way in which the LINks are trained so that they are aware of their powers. The behaviour required during a visit, which will be about treating the staff and patients with courtesy, ensuring that dignity and privacy are maintained at all times and being unobtrusive when it is appropriate—for instance, being prepared to wait when a procedure is being carried out or moving elsewhere to enable such a procedure—will be included in the code of ethics.

On the question of what access LINks will have—for example, to a kitchen—yes, there will be such access. In some cases, authorised representatives can visit premises where hospital accommodation is provided and so would be able to visit kitchens and toilets where they are part of the hospital accommodation. We believe it is very important that LINks representatives have access to everywhere that patients and the users of a service can go so that they can assess the experience. I hope that satisfies the Committee on that point.

On why LINks representatives should not enter premises when services are not being carried out, that is related to the fact that there are no activities. Their job is to observe the process and procedures and the experience of the patients. If somewhere is empty, they will not be able to observe the patient’s experience.

Patient forums will cease to exist on 31 March, but many members, as the Committee might anticipate, are involved in the planning of the new system, as are many other individuals and community groups. We believe that the transitional period might last six months, which is about right. That was a matter of some discussion. After careful consideration and discussion, we felt that it was more appropriate to specify this in regulations rather than in the Act itself. All the parties concerned have advised on the period, and six months will provide the right amount of time for the vast majority of local authorities, if not all of them, to have their LINk arrangements in place.

It is important that that extra time enables local people, particularly the voluntary and community sector which will be active in this, to become aware of the opportunities afforded by LINks and to get involved with them. However, we think a safety net is also necessary in case there is any untoward delay. With that in mind, we have made regulations that specify the duration of the transitional arrangements, thus allowing us to extend the period in the unlikely event that that is needed. Nothing about that change penalises local authorities that have made excellent progress toward setting up their own LINks. The LINks will allow people operating the transitional arrangements to have the same powers as under the permanent arrangements.

Questions were asked about how the LINks are to be set up. They are to be networks of interested individuals as well as local user groups and voluntary and community sector organisations. So far it looks as though there is a great deal of interest. They will be based around the area of each local authority with social services responsibility. Every LINk will need to reflect the area for which it is responsible and, as such, its membership and structure will need to be appropriately determined for that area. They will be able to include organisations that have county-wide remits as well as small GP practice-based user participation groups that wish to promote and feed their interest and views into a more strategic commissioning level.

I have already dealt with the power to enter. What LINks can do and not do is a balance; for example, it would not be appropriate for LINks members to enter an operating theatre during surgery or to enter services outside opening hours. Those limitations are to cover that area. I shall close by saying that the duties on service providers to allow authorised representatives of LINks to enter and view premises where health and social care services are being provided is an integral activity which will enable the LINk to carry forward its policies and to make a real difference to the lives of citizens who use or know someone who uses those services. As I said earlier, that duty will ensure that LINks empower local communities to have a stronger voice in the process of commissioning health and social care and will enable them to truly influence important decisions about those services that we all use and pay for.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Order 2008.

The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to the Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) (Taxes and National Insurance) Order 2008. The orders are being made under Sections 1292, 1294 and 1296 of the Companies Act 2006. They make amendments to other legislation consequential upon provisions of the Companies Act 2006. The Act is being implemented in phases, and the draft orders relate to provisions being commenced on 6 April 2008 or 1 October 2008. There is also a small number of amendments relating to provisions which were commenced earlier.

The Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Order 2008 makes consequential changes to many different pieces of legislation and can be categorised in four broad areas: first, consequential amendments to existing company law; for example, the remaining parts of the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies (Audit, Investigation and Community Enterprise) Act 2004. Secondly, amendments to insolvency legislation are required because the 2006 Act removes the link between the Companies Act 1985 and the Insolvency Act 1986. We have inserted provisions which were previously in companies legislation into insolvency legislation. Additional changes have been made to ensure that the two areas of legislation work effectively together. The third main area is statutory audit. Around 50 Acts provide for audits of certain non-company accounts by auditors who must be eligible for appointment under Part II of the Companies Act 1989. The order amends these requirements so that they refer to Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006. Some of the requirements are in Acts of Parliament affecting entities such as building societies and other mutuals, which must now be audited in accordance with the new EU audit directive. Finally, the order makes consequential amendments to around 100 other pieces of primary legislation—for example, the Harbours Act 1964—which refer to or include concepts from the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies Act 1989.

The second order amends legislation for which HMRC is responsible and which uses Companies Act references, definitions and concepts. It makes sense to debate the orders together as both make amendments consequential upon the implementation of the Companies Act 2006. The orders make two types of consequential amendment. The first relates to references and definitions in other Acts which are changed by the 2006 Act. They are purely mechanical amendments; for example, a reference to the “Companies Act 1985” is simply changed to the “Companies Act 2006”. The second type of amendment relates to a change in substance of company law; for example, there is no longer a requirement for private companies to hold an annual general meeting or to appoint a company secretary. Where Acts refer to a company secretary or annual general meeting, it is necessary to remove or amend those references.

The fifth commencement order for the Companies Act 2006 was a negative instrument and therefore not debated. Two of the previous four commencement orders under the Act have been affirmative and therefore had their own debates. To allow debate on the fifth commencement order, the then Minister for Competitiveness, Stephen Timms, offered to the shadow Solicitor-General that today’s debate could be used also to pick up points relating to the fifth commencement order. I commend the orders to the Committee. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments etc.) Order 2008. 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Vadera.)

We are grateful to the Minister for her explanation of these detailed, technical statutory instruments. Before I raise a question or two, I need to declare an interest as a director of various companies, public and private, all of which are shown in the Register of Members’ Interests.

When we finally finished the Companies Act, the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, kindly threw us a party, which we had in the offices of what was then the DTI and is now DBERR in Victoria Street. It was a jolly affair. There was one man there who I thought looked rather down at the mouth about life. I went to talk to him because I thought that this was an occasion for an hour’s release from prison. It turned out that he was the parliamentary draftsman. I thought he was down at the mouth because we had extended the Bill from 600 to 1,200 clauses or, alternatively, because parliamentary draftsmen are by their very nature gloomy souls. It was not that. He said that it was all very well for us because we had finished with the Bill but he had to pick up the consequential amendments. I asked how many there were and he said that there were between 2,000 and 3,000. I had some sympathy with him, and this afternoon, faced with 73 pages of closely packed type, I have even more sympathy with his predicament that October evening.

I am also aware that I am, in part, hoist by my own petard because we on these Benches pressed the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the Government very hard to consolidate as much of the Companies Act legislation as possible. There were too many layers of it, and it was almost incomprehensible to the non-expert. We argued that the Bill provided a great opportunity to make everything clear and understandable. We were very grateful to the Government for heeding those arguments and to the Bill team for the extra work they put in to make sure it happened. This is, in part, the result. When we get to an instrument where a clause has sub-paragraphs (a) to (z) and (aa) to (vv), we know that something pretty detailed has happened. If along the way we pass through the Gaelic Media Service and the accounts of the Governor and Freemen of the Corporation of Horse Breeders, in the County of Down and of the Downpatrick Race Club, we are clearly crawling across the frontiers of human knowledge with a hand lens.

In looking at this, my first question to myself is: what am I missing? I see the trees, but is there any wood here that I should be probing the Government on? I have a couple of questions. First, I have explained my interest in and support for consolidation and for doing away with the old legislation, particularly the Companies Act 1985. I know it cannot completely be wound up yet—the Minister dealt with some of this in her opening remarks. The company investigations, the audit and community interest companies remain, and if the Minister happens to have a note from her officials about when we might be able to get to them and finally close out the 1985 Act, it would be extraordinarily helpful because they are appendages left behind.

Leaving that aside, it is obviously satisfactory as we go through this instrument to read in many places, “In place of Section X of the Companies Act 1985 substitute Section Y of the Companies Act 2006”. That is exactly what we want to see. However, the Companies Act 1985 makes a couple of rather unwelcome reappearances. I apologise to the Minister because, when we met yesterday to talk about regulatory enforcement, I referred her to Clause 18 when I meant page 18. I did not have the order with me at the time and I am sorry about that. At the top of page 18, we have some provisions. The first two concern financial assistance for the purchase of shares and the registration of charges. In both cases, they refer to the Companies Act 1985: chapter VI of Part V in respect of financial assistance, and chapter I of Part XII in respect of the registration of charges. That seems strange because we dealt with financial assistance and the registration of charges at some length in the debates, and I am not sure why, when everything else in that paragraph refers to 2006, those first two references to 1985 still remain.

Further down that page, in Section 54, we again refer to Section 10(2) of the Companies Act 1985 and propose a substitution. I have a copy of the brute here. Section 10(2) reads:

“With the memorandum there shall be delivered a statement in the prescribed form containing the names and requisite particulars of … the person who is, or the persons who are, to be the first director or directors of the company; and … the person who is, or the persons who are, to be the first secretary or joint secretaries of the company”.

I am slightly surprised that that should continue because we did away with the memorandum. It will no longer exist in the 2006 Act, yet here we are amending the 1985 Act and preserving the memorandum in a way that I do not understand. I have no doubt that the Bill team has precise answers as to why we have to preserve the memorandum here and why this part of the 1985 Act is not being done away with. However, we should bear in mind that we went through at great length the new, much simpler way of forming a company with much simpler formation documents, which do away with the old distinction between the memorandum and the articles.

Again, perhaps I may briefly draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph (8) two-thirds of the way down page 26. It refers to:

“The extent of the director’s responsibility for any failure … to comply with any of the following provisions of the Companies Act 1985”.

It talks about registers, annual returns and the registration of charges. All those seem to be fundamental issues, and it is not clear to me why the 1985 Act has a continuing locus there. That compels me to admit that I have not been through every line of this long and detailed instrument. However, there may be other places where this occurs and it would be good if the Minister could update us.

My final, slightly anoraky, point concerns the Explanatory Note. This instrument is, by any stretch of the imagination, extraordinarily detailed, yet, at the end, the Explanatory Note says:

“This Order makes consequential amendments, repeals and revocations”.

It then says:

“This Order also contains some further savings”.

What have I missed there? What does that mean? Is it just a boiler plate? Is it a safety net or a catch-all? The fact that the order is very detailed with a wide statement at the end in the Explanatory Note triggers me to ask the Minister to set my mind at rest by confirming that I have not missed anything here and that this statement is trees and not wood. Having said that, we support the purposes behind the instrument, and we support the idea that there should be greater consolidation of the Companies Act legislation, which is important to the prosperity of UK plc. We are happy to give our support to this but clarification on those few points would be very helpful.

I, too, declare an interest as a director and chairman of a number of companies, all of which are set out in the register of interests of your Lordships’ House.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I support the consolidation that we have managed to achieve. I shall go back to my day job and look at the implications of putting this legislation into place, but I am sure that the annual general meetings of plcs will be quite interesting this year as we seek to get authority to do all sorts of things that we have never had to do before. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson said, the volume and detail of the regulations in these orders have come about largely as a result of the consolidation which we had sought so eagerly and, from that point of view, I support them.

I have no points of detail to raise with the Minister, because the noble Lord has done that admirably, but I, too, should like to hear when it is thought we will finally bury the 1985 Act. I support both orders.

I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft instruments, detailed and technical as they are. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his enormous contribution to this epic Companies Act.

There are still references in the order to the 1985 Act partly because the implementation timetable is phased and those references are a function of that phasing. The implementation timetable was decided after detailed discussions with business. Companies and their advisers made it clear that they needed time to prepare for the full implementation, but they also wanted to see the main deregulatory benefits—for example, in electronic communications—as soon as possible. The phased implementation of the Act reflects some complexity—greater complexity than perhaps a big bang implementation.

However, we believe that it is the right approach and it has enabled us to bring in the major deregulatory benefits more quickly. For example, with the financial assistance that can be provided, it has been possible to repeal the current restrictions on private companies now without commencing the 2006 Act provisions prohibiting financial assistance which apply only to public companies. Instead, these provisions will be commenced in October 2009, along with most of the other parts of the Act dealing with share capital. We believe that that approach will be simpler and more straightforward.

The noble Lord has asked a number of detailed questions about various other references to the 1985 Act which, if he will permit me, I shall explain in a note. With reference to the continued existence of the 1985 Act, there are no plans yet to repeal certain provisions in that Act—namely, those concerned with company investigations, orders imposing restrictions on shares following an investigation and provisions about Scottish floating charges and receivers—but the remainder of the Companies Act 2006 will be brought into force over a period of time in a phased implementation, as my predecessor, the Minister for competitiveness, Stephen Timms, put in a Written Answer earlier in November. I hope that satisfies the Committee.

I quite understand that the Minister would wish to write to the noble Lord and myself about these detailed questions. However, if this is all about phasing, could she explain when she replies whether we will get another order like this as more of the previous Act drops away? We could have a rerun.

I fear so.

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 Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) (Taxes and National Insurance) Order 2008. 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Baroness Vadera.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

The Committee adjourned at 5.57 pm.