Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2001.

Standing Committee F

Clause 45 - Extension of existing disclosure Powers

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 204, in page 35, line 28, at end add—

`(7) Nothing in this section shall permit disclosure of information under this Act in relation to the provisions listed in Schedule (Provisions excluded from Section 45).

(8) Disclosure of information under this section for overseas criminal proceedings or investigations shall only be permitted where the conduct in question to which the proposed disclosure of the information relates amounts to a criminal offence in both the United Kingdom and in the country or countries to which the information is to be disclosed.

(9) Disclosure of information shall not be permitted where the information in question relates to an agreement or decision by an association of undertakings or concerted practice which may affect trade between Member States of the EU.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this we may take the following: Amendment No. 140, in schedule 1, page 101, leave out lines 22 and 23.

Amendment No. 141, in page 102, leave out lines 9 and 10.

Amendment No. 142, in page 102, leave out lines 24 and 25.

Amendment No. 143, in page 102, leave out lines 26 and 27.

Amendment No. 144, in page 103, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Amendment No. 145, in page 103, leave out lines 3 and 4.

Amendment No. 146, in page 103, leave out lines 5 and 6.

Amendment No. 147, in page 103, leave out lines 7 and 8.

Amendment No. 148, in page 103, leave out lines 9 and 10.

Amendment No. 149, in page 103, leave out lines 11 and 12.

Amendment No. 150, in page 103, leave out lines 15 and 16.

Amendment No. 151, in page 103, leave out lines 17 and 18.

Amendment No. 152, in page 103, leave out lines 21and 22.

Amendment No. 153, in page 103, leave out lines 23 and 24.

Amendment No. 154, in page 103, leave out lines 25 and 26.

Amendment No. 155, in page 103, leave out lines 27 to 29.

Amendment No. 156, in page 104, leave out line 15.

Amendment No. 157, in page 105, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Amendment No. 158, in page 105, leave out lines 3 and 4.

New schedule 1 —`Provisions Excluded from Section 45—

1. Fair Trading Act 1973, s.133(3).

2. Competition Act 1980, s.19(2).

3. Telecommunications Act 1984, s.101(2).

4. Companies Act 1985, s.449(1).

5. Financial Services Act 1986, s.180(1).

6. Banking Act 1987, s.85(1).

7. Water Industry Act 1991, s.206(3).

8. Railways Act 1993, s.145(2).

9. Coal Industry Act 1994, s.59(2).

10. Competition Act 1998, s.55(3).

11. Electronic Communications Act 2000, s.4(2).

12. Postal Services Act 2000, paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 7.

13. Utilities Act 2000, s.105(4).'.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams. I am sure that you will look after us well, and be firm but courteous and kindly, as ever.

Amendment No. 204 would mean that disclosure of information provided to the authorities under the Acts set out in new schedule 1 was not permitted. It would permit disclosure only when the subject matter of a foreign investigation amounted to a crime in this country, and when it would exclude information that was subject to a European Union agreement.

The background to the amendments is the concern of business that the Government are changing policy in a way that may damage United Kingdom business. It is thought that the purpose of the clause is to allow important, confidential commercial information to be given to the United States anti-trust authorities in order to put UK businesses at peril of criminal action being taken against them for actions that are considered legal and proper in the UK and the EU.

It will also expose businesses that might, under United Kingdom law, have a civil liability for their actions to United States criminal laws. That is a huge departure from the previous consensus that we should protect British business, especially when its actions are entirely proper and legal under United Kingdom law, but also against a criminal liability when only a civil one exists in this country.

The change of policy has not been announced to Parliament; the provision is tacked on to a Bill that is about other matters, without proper consultation with the Confederation of British Industry, and at a damaging time in respect of EU efforts to tackle anti-competitive behaviour in Europe.

The United States approach to anti-trust is thought by many, including the CBI, to be determined by grounds that are beyond competition issues and subject to political pressures. The Assistant Attorney-General Ann Bingaman in the United States, who freely admitted that the US Government use their anti-trust law to benefit American companies by breaking open trade barriers extra-territorially, said:

``The primary goal of the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice has been to open markets and ensure that they are competitive, for the benefit of American businesses and consumers . . . the Division cannot limit its enforcement efforts to American firms or to conduct within the United States. Restraints imposed by foreign firms can harm American consumers and the American economy just as surely as those imposed by domestic firms. Our antitrust laws serve to protect American exporters from anti-competitive restraints imposed by foreign firms in foreign markets''.

The concern can be expressed a little more fully. The UK has severe penalties—up to three times 10 per cent. of UK turnover—for the breach of its anti-trust laws, but those are civil, not criminal, laws. That is different from the situation in countries such as the USA. As a result, although information could be disclosed to the US authorities for criminal anti-trust investigations or proceedings in the USA, the UK would not on the face of it be able to benefit to the same extent from any reciprocal arrangement here, as our law is not criminal.

The UK has a very different competition regime from that of the USA, so activities that are permitted by UK competition law could, in the USA, amount to a criminal act leading to fines and even imprisonment. UK anti-trust law largely mirrors its EU equivalent. Although both the UK and the USA outlaw similar types of market behaviour, UK and EU law allow some scope to exempt from being prohibited agreements or conduct that, on an initial view, restrict competition but have beneficial effects, based on the application of policy considerations beyond mere competition issues. It is not clear what legitimate interest the UK can have in helping to enforce US anti-trust rules that relate only to actions affecting the US market.

The European Commission plans to decentralise enforcement of EU anti-trust law to the national courts and competition authorities. In an attempt to ensure consistent application of the law in the reformed system, the Commission proposes to set up a network between it and the national competition authorities for the passing of information received in relation to complaints or investigations. Any information that is received in the network will have to be kept confidential. If not, injured parties would have rights of action. As a result, to disclose confidential information to the USA could be lawful as a matter of British constitutional law only if the activities on which the information was to be exchanged between the UK and USA related solely to activities confined to the UK, with no EU cross-border effect. Therefore, exchanging confidential information with the USA could put the UK in breach of its EU treaty obligations.

Inherent in extending the passing of information is the increased risk of disclosure of that information, inadvertently or otherwise. The tendency towards wide disclosure of information that exists in the USA exacerbates that risk, as does the litigious nature of US society generally. In US law, in a criminal anti-trust action, the Department of Justice is obliged to produce to the defendant any and all exonerating information. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to receive all exculpatory and impeachment evidence in the prosecution's possession. In other words, if information falls into the hands of the Department of Justice, it is under a constitutional obligation to disclose it. British companies that give information as they should in respect of mergers and a range of other activities set out in new schedule 1 run the risk that, if a court action is pursued in the USA, the defendant will be able to see a range of confidential information that may be damaging to British business and give an advantage to a competitor.

At present, the UK operates a notification system for competition law, whereby companies that are not sure whether their agreements fall within the prohibitions in the Competition Act 1998 can approach the Office of Fair Trading for a decision or informal advice. The United States does not have such a system, because of its freedom of information laws and because it is a criminal process. Our view is that it is in the public interest for companies to be able to have the benefit of such advice from the OFT. It would be a great pity if the provisions meant that that no longer happened.

There is also a question about the way in which the Government are going about this. I have set out the CBI's concerns clearly and it is particularly upset that there has not been any real consultation with business. The fact is that the provisions have been tacked on to a Bill that deals with other matters, no doubt to curry favour with the Americans.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Ha.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am generally in favour of currying favour with the Americans, which is obviously the reason for tacking on the measures, but it is important that the Labour Government recognise that they do not know business as well as they should. They should consult. I could go into a whole range of political issues where the Government have shown themselves to be inept as regards business, but this is not the place.

If the Government want to introduce something that will break with the long-standing tradition of protecting British business, and ensure that they do not make criminal that which is civil or open British companies to liability where it is unnecessary to do so, they should consult. It is poor practice not to find out what business thinks.

These are probing amendments, but we want the Government to take the issues on board and consult properly with business. Would it not be better to exclude the provisions from the Bill, hold consultations, and if necessary, introduce legislation that has more concern for British business? If the Minister is not prepared to consider that, he should at least fully explain why this is happening and acknowledge that the measures provide for a major change in policy that has not been announced to the House. Indeed, perhaps he could explain why the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not come to the House to explain why something so important is being changed.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mrs. Adams. Unless something has happened since we last spoke, I am your Member of Parliament for part of your life, so I will try to represent your interests as well as I can.

Like the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the Liberal Democrats believe that this is an important part of the Bill, and a wide-ranging clause, which deserves consideration. We support the amendments, which would ensure that we limit the number of investigations in which the powers that are proposed in this and other clauses can be used. I share his view that we have not yet debated what information given to one Department, Government agency or public sector organisation should be available to another.

The Government seem to presume that it should be possible for all the information that comes into the hands of public authorities to be moved around. The Minister might deny that, but it looks like that and feels increasingly like that. It is a sign of a big brother approach. There are 71 Acts listed in schedule 1 that will be subject to the powers in the Bill by way of clause 45. There are Conservative amendments that aim to delete some of those Acts, and it is desirable to try to reduce the number of Acts to which the Bill will apply without consent.

I will reserve some comments for the clause stand part debate, but the burden of proof is on the Government—on those who argue that we need to change the position. I have long argued that we should have an integrated tax and benefit system. To take one practical example, there is an anomaly whereby defendants in court can use their financial position in mitigation, if, for example, they are drawing benefits, despite the fact that nobody can check that out. That is a controversial matter for debate, and I understand the technical complexities of integrating tax and benefits.

The proposal would allow all sorts of information transfers in the context of criminal proceedings. We must proceed cautiously. The two significant amendments in the group would limit the criminal investigations to serious arrestable offences and limit them to the United Kingdom. That is a better starting point; that is how we should seek to legislate. We all recognise that there is an increasing amount of international crime. I understand the need for provisions that cover areas wider than England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but such provisions should be made with the consent of industry, agencies and the private sector. The legislation should be consistent across the EU and should have general public approval. I share the scepticism about whether we have got it right yet in respect of the debate about what disclosed information should be passed around. I do not think that people have yet assented to the proposition that when information is held by one agency, it should be commonly available.

The legislation absolutely should not be retrospective. There is a worrying tendency to legislate retrospectively. Someone might give information to an accountant, who then discloses it to the Financial Services Authority. Three years later, that information could be dug into, taken out and handed to someone else. That is completely contrary to the basis on which many agencies and public organisations work.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the measure is specifically aimed at companies and the US anti-trust authorities? Other provisions allow the Government to disclose information for the purposes of investigations into serious offences overseas. For example, narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are dealt with under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. A mutual assistance convention deals with criminal matters. The measure is not about drug trafficking, money laundering and such issues. It is about making it difficult for British companies that perhaps have a civil liability in respect of anti-trust legislation, making them criminals.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is my fear; it is a likely danger.

In my earlier life, I worked for the European Commission. I dealt with matters under articles 85 and 86, concerning monopolies and controls. There is a European Union regime for dealing with such matters. There is also a set of protocols, agreements and conventions that would benefit from being codified. The matter is becoming very difficult. In the case of employment, if members of the Committee chose to employ someone, and pay them a decent amount, the accountant would be expected to know which conventions, bilateral agreements or reciprocal tax arrangements apply. Agreements might be EU-wide, initiated by the Council of Europe, bilateral or, like the International Labour Organisation arrangements, brokered under an agency such as the United Nations. A variety of measures govern the dealings of the private sector.

We are debating a Bill about the citizen's rights vis-a-vis the state, but we have included other issues that would be far more at home in a debate about the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which was published in draft form yesterday. I would be happy to debate it. I have had discussions about it with people in other parties and my colleagues in Scotland. That would be a perfectly proper debate, and that is where this discussion should take place.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is somewhat incongruous that a Bill that deals with giving on-the-spot fines to those who are drunk and incapable in the street should have tacked on to it a rather complex piece of legislation dealing with anti-trust laws?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It is incongruous but, sadly, that is how the Government work. I have described previously what happens every year, particularly if the Prime Minister asks for eye-catching initiatives. Ministers scurry around to the civil servants in each Department and ask, ``What do you have at the top of the pile?'' They collect a list of topics. The history of Home Office litigation is a series of such portmanteau Bills, with a bit of this, a bit of that and a bit of the other all cobbled together and put under one title. That has happened almost every year since I have been in the House, so it does not surprise me—but it is not good legislation.

The Minister has often agreed that we must attempt to approach legislation logically, so that a Criminal Justice and Police Bill concentrates on a few issues to do with the criminal justice system, as that is normally defined, and the police system, and does not contain lots of additional items taken from the Christmas tree, as it were, which have been waiting in various queues in the Home Office for someone to act on—even though there is an argument for that. We are terribly bad at legislating coherently in this country. Our legislation is driven by a combination of inertia in the face of recommendations from the Law Commission and so on, and whatever the opposite is—I do not know whether ``ertia'' is a word—when an election is looming and the Government suddenly think that they should be seen to be doing something.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I was interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the work on article 85 that he used to do. I also worked on that, but from the industry's point of view, when I was with a multinational company. He said that it was a portmanteau Bill. Does he agree that it is more a kind of Christmas tree Bill on which the Government want to hang the trendy, eye-catching idea or initiative of the moment? I entirely support what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and he said about the fact that the Government are proposing such legislation only because an election is pending.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We are getting into rather odd mixed metaphors about hanging eye-catching initiatives on Christmas trees; I thought that eye-catching initiatives were put in windows rather than on Christmas trees. However, the problem certainly exists.

I am not naive enough—probably no one else in the Room is either—to deny that when elections are looming, Governments rush around and try to look busier than they are. I guess that when the Conservative party was in office and, just a few years before that, when the Liberal party was in office—[Laughter.] My recollection of the Liberal party rushing around is not quite as clear as my recollection of the Conservative party rushing around, but they both did it. The nature of politics is that one seeks to respond.

It would be good to amend the Bill along the lines of the amendment but even better to remove the clause altogether. Unless we are persuaded otherwise, my hon. Friends and I will vote against the clause. It should be put in the right place at the right time, after considered debate.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I again welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Adams. You have had an entertaining taste of the friendly and cordial way in which we conduct our affairs.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

That is a bit rich coming from you.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I thought that we had a cordial set of exchanges. I am sorry if I have caused offence. My main aim in life is never to do so.

Many points have been raised that require a response. On the origins of and consultation on the clauses, the key information disclosure provisions of the legislation implement a key recommendation of the performance and innovation unit report ``Recovering the Proceeds of Crime'', published in June 2000. Although that report was published as a statement of Government policy, its findings were open to consultation over the summer and no adverse comments were made over that time. Far from being a Christmas tree decoration hanging around in someone's drawer, the provision followed logically from the report published last summer.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In a moment.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's points about the CBI, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has met Digby Jones in a meeting at which that organisation's concerns were raised. In addition, Department of Trade and Industry officials specifically raised the issue with the CBI before Christmas to make sure that it was fully aware of how the Government were implementing the recommendation. A further meeting between the CBI and Government officials was also held recently.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The provision was not in the report of the performance and innovation unit to which the Minister referred.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The information disclosure provisions of the legislation implement a key recommendation of that PIU report. The matter has certainly been discussed directly with the CBI. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) has just told me that last Friday, eight Labour Members, but no Conservative Members, attended a CBI lunch in Yorkshire to discuss those issues.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

That is in stark contrast to such a meeting in Wiltshire, to which two Conservative Members but no Labour Members turned up.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That may reflect the character of the areas concerned.

The recommendation being implemented was recommendation 53 of the performance and innovation unit report. The clause has a limited purpose: to resolve uncertainty about the purposes for which disclosure may be made under the 70-odd provisions listed in schedule 1. That is achieved by harmonising the provisions in a way that generally enables information to be disclosed for any criminal investigation or proceeding, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas. The clause is not intended to affect the type of information that can be disclosed pursuant to the schedule 1 provisions, nor any procedures that may be in place to assess whether disclosure should be made in individual cases. The clause does not authorise the making of any disclosure prohibited by any provision of the Data Protection Act 1998, as subsection (5) makes clear. Moreover, in light of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I must make it clear that the provisions do not operate retrospectively. I accept the points that he made in that regard, and take this opportunity to place that on the record.

There is a consistent and important case for the clause: it will strengthen the Government's policy to improve co-operation with others to fight all forms of international crime, including cartels and anti-competitive behaviour. We are worried that the amendments may weaken efforts to build such co-operation.

The clause will improve the ability of Departments and other bodies to share confidential information for use in the fight against crime. As I said, it will harmonise the 70-odd existing disclosure provisions to ensure that under all of them, information may generally be disclosed for criminal investigations and proceedings anywhere in the world, and it will remove doubt about the circumstances in which government bodies are permitted to disclose information. That is a step towards the codification that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and I agree ought to be an ambition of law making in such areas.

The Government believe that it should be possible to disclose information for the purpose of assisting overseas criminal investigations and proceedings. Increasingly, criminals do not respect national borders. If we compare the days of Liberal Governments and even Conservative Governments with those of the present Labour Government, decade by decade the level of international criminal co-operation and organisation has increased exponentially.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I have been trying to reflect on what the Minister said earlier about cartels and anti-competitive behaviour being an example of international crime. Part of the CBI's problem with the provision is that in this country, anti-competitive behaviour is a civil offence, while in the United States it is a criminal offence and directors may face criminal prosecution and imprisonment for offences of anti-competitiveness, which they cannot here. Is the Minister saying that anti-competitive behaviour is an example of international crime?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am coming to that point, which is addressed by amendment No. 201, and I will be happy to take interventions as I speak to it.

As I said, legislation is needed to assist in the fight against crime wherever it occurs, because crimes committed overseas can clearly impact on the United Kingdom. Examples of such crimes include trafficking in drugs or people, terrorism and illegal business cartels—on which I shall elaborate in a moment. Being better able to assist other countries in their investigation of crime will be in our national interest.

Nevertheless, the Government recognise the need for appropriate safeguards on disclosure. The clause is not a big brother clause, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggested. We acknowledge that data protection issues are extremely serious; that is why the clause already includes a range of safeguards, which I shall set out. First, any safeguards in existing statutes on the disclosure of information will remain. Secondly, we provide additional safeguards in the clause, such as the important limitations provided by the Data Protection Act 1998 referred to in subsection (5).

Secondly, we provide additional safeguards in the clause, such as the important limitations provided by the Data Protection Act 1998 in subsection (5). In the context of disclosure overseas, the Secretary of State has the power, under clause 47, to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purposes of overseas criminal investigations or criminal proceedings that would otherwise be permitted by the provisions modified by clause 45. That power may be exercised when it appears to the Secretary of State that the overseas investigation or proceeding relates to a matter where it would be more appropriate for any jurisdiction or investigation to be exercised or carried out by the authorities of the United Kingdom or a third country.

On the question of anti-trust law raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the Government's view is that we should not be protecting companies from the consequence of activities that are illegal in other countries. The Government believe that we should improve co-operation with other countries over the enforcement of their own anti-trust laws in respect of offences that take place in their jurisdiction. It is not right to hinder anybody's fight against anti-competitive practices.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The CBI has raised concerns with me over cases such as that of Pilkington. That British firm entered into a series of patent and know-how licensing agreements to manufacture flat glass. That was found to be permissible under UK and EU law. However, the US Department of Justice alleged that territorial and use limitations in the agreements precluded the licensees from competing for business to design, build and operate flat glass plants in other countries, and that Pilkington was, in effect, in breach of anti-trust legislation. In such circumstances, it is important that we protect British companies and uphold our own law. The Minister's proposals provide for greater disclosure than do the EU-US agreements or the present legislation. The measure is not just a consolidation—it goes further.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not accept that. I will not comment on the detail of the Pilkington case—the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to do so. On his general point, the powers to prohibit the disclosure of information for the purposes of overseas investigations that would otherwise be permitted may be exercised by the Secretary of State on the grounds that it appears to him that the investigation or proceeding relates to a matter in respect of which it would be more appropriate for any jurisdiction or investigation to be exercised or carried out by the authorities of the UK or a third country. That offers a reassurance in respect of the kind of case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment No. 204 has three parts. First, it would prevent the disclosure in relation to the 13 provisions in the new schedule. Secondly, it would require that information be disclosed for an overseas investigation only if that investigation related to conduct that is a crime in the UK as well as in the country to which the information was to be disclosed. Thirdly, it would prevent the disclosure of information that related to an agreement, decision or practice that may affect trade between the member states of the EU. I would like to deal with each of those parts in turn.

The first part of the amendment provides that nothing in clause 45 would permit disclosure in relation to the 13 provisions listed in the new schedule. Those provisions relate to competition law, utilities regulation, company law and financial regulation. Much of the information held pursuant to the statutes that contain those disclosure provisions will be confidential financial information, including information useful for competition inquiries. Nevertheless, it is also possible that information useful for any number of other criminal inquiries into offences such as fraud, tax evasion and money laundering may be held. We believe that the information holder should be free to disclose that information for criminal investigations or proceedings, whether in the UK or overseas.

Competition should not be seen as a special case. We believe that the Bill will permit UK authorities to assist countries that have criminal penalties in their anti-trust laws to prosecute criminal activities in breach of those laws that take place in their jurisdiction. Illegal cartels are bad for consumers, and it is in our interests to work against them. Globally, they affect billions of pounds worth of trade, and they must be dealt with.

The second part of the amendment would require that disclosure overseas be permitted only where it relates to conduct that amounts to a criminal offence in both countries. There will be safeguards on overseas disclosure in the provisions, but we do not believe in putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of effective co-operation in the fight against crime, wherever it occurs. The criminal law of many countries does not exactly mirror that of the United Kingdom, and never will do. For example, the Filipino originator of last year's so-called ``Lovebug'' computer virus was not apparently committing an offence in the country of the virus's origin.

We believe in furthering competition with other countries, irrespective of whether their domestic law contains criminal penalties. The cases for which information is likely to be sought by overseas authorities should relate to hardcore cartel activity, which the UK regards as a serious offence, even if UK competition law does not contain criminal penalties.

On the third part of the amendment No. 204, the Opposition proposal to limit disclosure in cases where it relates to an agreement, decision or concerted practice may affect trade between EU member states. The Government believe that it is important to improve co-operation with other countries in the enforcement of competition laws in respect of offences that take place within their jurisdiction. We do not want to hinder anyone's fight against anti-competitive practices. The safeguards in the clause will ensure that any information that infringes the jurisdiction of the UK or a third country will not be disclosed for the purposes of any criminal investigations or proceedings.

The suggested broad prohibition would prevent disclosure in anti-competitive and other types of agreement. For example, disclosure might be impossible in respect of fraud, theft or smuggling investigations. The proposed prohibition would be capable of preventing disclosures both overseas and in the UK, which would mean a substantial limitation of the extent to which disclosure is possible under schedule 1.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We are obviously at an early stage in the Bill, although it is being pushed through at breakneck pace. Will the Minister find time to discuss the matter personally with the CBI?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am happy to give that commitment. I intended to do so in any case, following the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks. It is a reasonable request. I shall elaborate further in a moment.

Amendments Nos. 140 to 158 would reduce the benefits of the clause by removing the reference to a disclosure provision from the list of provisions to be amended. The amendments would impose barriers to sharing information for any and all forms of crime and would leave in place an array of similar but differently worded information disclosure provisions, which would allow anomalies to continue. New schedule 1 would also reduce the benefits of the clause by preventing its operation in relation to the 13 listed provisions, so it is not the best way to operate.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I will give way before I finish, but I want to make some progress first.

I have already given a commitment to consult the CBI personally, hopefully before Report, though the time scales will be tight. We are always happy to discuss specific matters that cause difficulty to British industry. There has been consultation, including meetings with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If that is viewed as inadequate or it is felt that the Government have not understood the various concerns, I would be pleased to discuss them further.

Before giving way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I remind him of ``Microcosmographica Academica'' produced in Cambridge by Professor James Cornford in 1899. It invented the principle of unright time, according to which there was never a right time for doing anything, so nothing was ever done. I understand the point about Christmas trees, but the idea has not been plucked out for some eye-catching reason: it flows out of last year's PIU report. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to cut off his legislative nose to spite his face if he feels that the provisions are not necessary to strengthen the fight against organised crime. I also urge him not to vote against them on the basis of the principle of unright time: he should evaluate the clause on its merits.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

On the last point, we are concerned about the breadth and the timeliness of the clause, to which I shall return later. Yesterday, the Government published the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill and a proper debate on international aspects of crime and its information flow is taking place. Might it not have been better to introduce legislation to deal with such matters together with the current provisions? Both considerations were in the pipeline, one just behind the other, and it would have been more logical to deal with them in a single piece of legislation. They should be considered together in the next legislative Session—whoever wins the next

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand that reasonable point, but the clause has a limited purpose: to resolve a series of uncertainties about the application of current law. It stands on its own. I accept that it could have been done in a more holistic way, but we must continue to improve the law from whatever stage we have reached. In dealing with some internationally organised criminal efforts—especially drug and people trafficking, money laundering and paedophilia—it is important to make progress in exchanging data as rapidly as possible. I urge the hon. Gentleman to examine the merits of the clause from that perspective, and I hope that Opposition Members will, on the basis of my assurances, reconsider and not press the amendments to a vote.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Having heard the Minister's list of serious offences for which it is important to exchange information to bring international criminals to justice, his case might seem to be unanswerable. However, amendment No. 204 is not about that. When Parliament has decided what counts as a criminal offence here, the opportunity arises to disclose information from the United Kingdom to other overseas agencies that are conducting criminal investigations within their jurisdiction. The double test is entirely proper in those circumstances.

Information held by agencies of the UK will be given to other Governments who are pursuing criminal inquiries. If the offences are not crimes in the UK—because Parliament has not seen fit to make them so—why allow our information to pass to other countries in pursuit of overseas criminal investigations? I ask the Government to think again about the amendments. The double test is necessary to protect liberty, and the Minister's reassurances—that the provisions will apply only to serious inquiries about serious crimes in other territories—are inadequate. We do not know in advance what the inquiries will be, or whether other jurisdictions will use the powers of the state to pursue vindictive and determined prosecutions against individuals.

If we allow the Bill to impose a duty to disclose information about individuals in respect of matters that are not criminal offences in the UK, we are laying our citizens open to something that we should not permit. Unless cases involve actions that are criminal offences under our law—and are so regarded by Parliament—we should not allow disclosure of information willy-nilly to other international jurisdictions. Activities should be crimes both in our and in foreign jurisdictions before information is disclosed. That is surely not too high a threshold to meet.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he not accept that under clause 46 the Secretary of State has a string of powers to decide when information should not be disclosed, which provides a significant safeguard against abuse?

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Those powers provide a significant safeguard so long as the Secretary of State is well intentioned and on top of his job. However, it would be much better if Parliament made the decisions. Parliament has decided whether particular activities are criminal and Parliament should ensure that information be disclosed in pursuit of a criminal investigation in the overseas territory only if it also amounts to a crime in the UK. That is all that the amendment is designed to do, so I hope that the Government will think again.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We are concerned about the issue for several reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate made a good point. With almost every law, we could say that the Home Secretary could decide what information to give to foreign authorities and what was a crime. He could tell the police what to do and run the police force, and we could make this an authoritarian country like those in eastern Europe not so long ago.

Traditionally, however, we have liked Parliament to say what the laws are and to give people protections, and we have not liked the Executive to have too much discretion. I am not suggesting that the Home Secretary would act in an utterly illiberal way—although others might suggest that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has made remarks on the subject, but it is a fundamental principle that protections should be in law and that we should pass laws that give Ministers restricted powers.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend will recall that we both served on various Committees that considered criminal justice legislation in the previous Parliament. Was it not the case that Labour Back and, indeed, Front Benchers criticised the previous Conservative Home Secretary time after time, suggesting that he would be authoritarian and would be given too much power? Now that the Labour party is in government, there is a deafening silence from those on the Labour Benches when the present Home Secretary proposes far wider powers. In place of all the usual speeches in defence of organisations such as Liberty, there is silence.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That is true. The other point is that Labour Members used to make those speeches at far greater length than we are being allowed to do. As I have said before, there were 240 hours of debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Even at an earlier stage of this Parliament, the Government were somewhat more liberal with time. In Committee on the Crime and Disorder Bill, there were 22 sittings for a Bill of 130 clauses. At the end, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that it had been a marvellous example. He said:

``I . . . thank those who have been involved in the work of the usual channels to enable the Committee to deal with the Bill expeditiously without having to sit through the long hours of the night. That was a great disappointment to some hon. Members''.

He also said:

``It takes both sides of the Committee to achieve that standard of debate—

a very high standard—

and Opposition Members have on several occasions proved passionate and persuasive advocates of causes that we might not have assumed that they would support.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 June 1998; c. 869-70.]

This Bill, however, is being guillotined, and we are being treated in an insulting way.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Has my hon. Friend noticed that, according to the amendment paper, we shall today give detailed scrutiny to 24 clauses, 41 Opposition amendments, 27 Government amendments, 13 new clauses and 9 Government new clauses, which cover 13 pages of detailed print? Does he agree that that is a disgrace and a travesty of proper parliamentary debate?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

If we manage to do that, someone should give us a ``Jim'll Fix It'' badge, but that is nothing compared with the 50 clauses that we must get through on Thursday.

According to the CBI, clause 45 will permit the disclosure of enormous amounts of information to overseas authorities for criminal proceedings that relate to economic activity in the UK that is not criminal here. I will not go through the various Acts, because we do not have time, but the information that is given to the authorities under the Fair Trading Act 1973 is given on the strict terms that it can be disclosed only for certain purposes. The same is true under the Competition Act 1998. The point is that, under all those Acts, disclosure is limited to serious criminal investigations, perhaps into drug trafficking or money laundering. That is very different from anti-trust cases.

The American Webb-Pomerene Act on cartels provides a limited anti-trust exemption for the formation and operation of associations of otherwise competing businesses to engage in collective export sales. The exemption applies only to the export of goods, wares or merchandise, and does not apply to conduct that has an anti-competitive effect in the United States.

Cartels are treated with great reserve in Europe, especially the United Kingdom, and are specifically excluded from the 1998 US-EU agreement. The Bill as drafted would enable the Home Secretary to give information about Webb-Pomerene cartels to the United States authorities, despite the fact that everyone in Europe disagrees with the Americans on the issue.

I have already referred to the Pilkington case, in which a British company used its patents and know-how licensing agreements for the manufacture of flat glass using a proprietary process with several of its US licensees. That is perfectly permissible in UK and EU law—indeed, it is strongly approved of—yet the Department of Justice in the United States brought charges alleging anti-trust. There are many such examples, and there is anxiety that there is a political element to many of the decisions taken.

I quoted assistant Attorney-General Ann Bingaman, who made it clear that the primary goal in the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice is to open markets and to ensure that they are competitive for the benefit of American businesses and consumers.

We do not want to pander to the Americans and damage British businesses in the process, so I ask the Minister to think again. I am glad that he intends to meet the CBI. We will press the amendment to a Division, because we want to make the point forcefully.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 205, in page 35, line 28, at end add—

``(7) Information to which this section applies which is information about a living and identifiable individual shall not be disclosed by virtue of this section except by or with the authority of a circuit judge.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), a judge shall only authorise such a disclosure if he is satisfied that there is reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed and that the disclosure is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of an offence.''.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 206, in clause 47, page 37, line 19, leave out from second ``of'' to end of line 20 and insert ``a circuit judge''.

No. 228, in page 37, line 20, at end insert—

``(3B) Information to which this section applies shall not be disclosed by virtue of this section unless the Commissioners by whom or with whose authority it is disclosed are satisfied—

(a) that it will be used solely for the purpose of the criminal investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of which it is disclosed; and

(b) that it will be destroyed, or returned to the Commissioners, once the criminal investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of which it is disclosed are complete.''.

No. 229, in page 37, line 20, at end insert—

``(3A) The authority of the Commissioners referred to in subsection (3) shall only be given in relation to information held by them which is identified specifically when the authority is given, and may not be given generally, or on a permanent basis, in respect of information held by them which relates to any particular person or persons.''.

No. 207, in page 37, line 40, at end insert—

``(9) For the purposes of subsection (3) a judge shall only authorise such a disclosure if he is satisfied that there is reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed and that the disclosure is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation of an offence.''.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The amendment is consistent with many themes that we have pursued in this and other Bills and would require that if information covered by the clause relates to a living, identifiable individual, a judge rather than an official must authorise the disclosure. It is an attempt to give the process a judicial oversight—whatever we think of the process—rather than putting that in the hands of someone less independent, for example a member of the Executive.

Amendment No. 206 relates to clause 47 and would ensure that information held by the relevant tax authorities—commissioners of the Inland Revenue and of Customs and Excise—is governed by an independent judicial review rather than by appointed commissioners who, although they have judicial authority, are regarded as particularly close to the two agencies in question because they work with them all the time. We propose that a circuit judge should be the relevant authority.

Amendment No. 207 would provide another test by which a judge would authorise disclosure. It would raise the threshold by requiring that the judge is satisfied that there is a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed and, more importantly, that the disclosure is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation of an offence. It is an attempt to ensure that we do not end up granting power to disclose where that would make relatively little difference. A serious benefit to the process has to be involved, to prevent people from being harassed by authorities, with the double checks of a reasonably high threshold and an independent judicial review.

I hope that I have been brief. Our view throughout much of the Home Office legislation—we have also had the debate in the context of the Terrorism Bill and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill—has been that it is important for public confidence that those who take decisions about disclosure or the exercise of power by authorities are part not of the Executive but of the judiciary. That is an important principle and we must not be seen to cross that line. The decision makers should not be part of the process of judicial oversight normally attached to the area but stand entirely free from it.

I hope that the amendments find favour with the Committee. I am happy to discuss a form of redrafting with the Government if they are minded to accept our proposals in broad terms.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand that we are not taking amendments Nos. 228 and 229 at this stage. I would be grateful for clarification on that. If that is correct, we will debate only amendments Nos. 205, 206 and 207.

As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the relative roles of the judiciary and the Executive in carrying through anti-criminal measures has been a frequent topic of discussion between us over the past two Sessions of Parliament. There is no dispute, at least in principle, about the need to take such action, but there is a dispute about whether it should be authorised by the Executive or the judiciary. It would not be helpful to go through that debate at length. I simply refer hon. Members to previous discussions in the Chamber and elsewhere.

We do not believe that putting the judiciary in the role proposed in the amendments would provide further safeguards. Clauses 45, 46 and 47 provide substantial safeguards. I have already outlined the significant ways in which the safeguards under clause 45 would work. Clause 47 provides that no obligation of secrecy, except in the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998, shall prevent the voluntary disclosure of information by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise for the purposes of any criminal investigations or proceedings in the UK or elsewhere, and of initiating, bringing to an end, or determining whether to initiate or bring to an end, any criminal investigations or proceedings in the UK or elsewhere. That is because information held by those bodies is extremely important in such investigations and proceedings.

I will not labour the arguments any further. Onward disclosure of revenue department information will require the authorised consent of that department. There are strict administrative controls on the disclosure of information by the revenue departments and under section 182 of the Finance Act 1989, which makes any unauthorised disclosure of information by the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise staff a criminal offence, punishable by a fine and/or up to two years' imprisonment.

We believe that such matters are appropriate for the Executive and that there is a range of safeguards in the current legislation. We see no advantage either to the citizen or to the operation of our criminal justice policies in bringing in the judiciary as proposed in the amendments. I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I do not intend to speak to amendments Nos. 228 and 229, because there is not sufficient time, although it might be possible to do so on Report.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The Minister's reply was predictable because, as he said, we have had this debate before. I am still unhappy about his response, but given what was said earlier, I will withdraw the amendment, despite being not at all comfortable about the idea of keeping Executive rather than judicial oversight. However, I will vote against the clause, for the reasons set out in this and previous debates, and because, even if it were drafted in a way that satisfied us, it would be better elsewhere in the Bill. I take the Minister's point that it would be difficult to justify voting against the clause for my final reason alone, but we have serious reservations.

I am happy to facilitate the Committee's work, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 2.

Schedule 1 - Extension of existing disclosure powers

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move amendment No. 137, in page 103, line 18, at end insert—

`Timeshare Act 1992 (c.35). Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the Timeshare Act 1992.'.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 138 and 139.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

These are technical amendments. Government amendments Nos. 137 and 139 provide that, under the Homes Bill and the Timeshare Act 1992, certain confidential information can be disclosed for the standardised purposes set out in subsection (2). Amendment No. 138 tidies up the drafting and is similar to an amendment already proposed by the Opposition.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

What sort of information is involved under the Timeshare Act 1992 and the Homes Bill?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Amendment No. 138, which is purely technical, deals with lifted information disclosure in respect of the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989. As to the Timeshare Act 1992 and the Homes Bill, information about what information may be made available is relevant. For example, under the Timeshare Act, the information that local weights and measures authorities in Great Britain—the enforcement authorities for the purposes of the Act—obtain in the exercise of their functions is restricted information, but information on agreements about timeshare property can be disclosed in connection with the investigation of criminal offences.

Under the Homes Bill, the evidence of title required for standard preliminary inquiries on behalf of buyers, copies of planning lists, building regulations, consents and approvals and other such information can be disclosed. In certain circumstances, disclosure of such information could help criminal prosecutions. It is a genuinely technical issue.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That sounds sensible and I have nothing to add.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 138, in page 105, leave out lines 5 to 8.

No. 139, in page 105, line 11, at end insert—

`Homes Act 2001 (c. 00). Paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 to the Homes Act 2001.'—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause 6 - Police directions stopping the harassment etc of a person in his home

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this we may take the following: Government new clause 7—Malicious communications—

`.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (offence of sending letters and other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ``letter or other article'' there shall be substituted ``letter, electronic communication or article of any description''; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the word ``other article'' there shall be substituted ``article or electronic communication''.

(2) In subsection (2) of that section (defence of making a threat in the belief that it was a proper way of reinforcing a demand and that there were reasonable grounds for making that demand)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ``which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making'' there shall be substituted ``made by him on reasonable grounds''; and

(b) in paragraph (b), after ``believed'' there shall be inserted ``, and had reasonable grounds for believing,''.

(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—

``(2A) In this section `electronic communication' includes—

(a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984); and

(b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.

(4) In subsection (3) of that section (definition of ``send'')—

(a) after ``delivering'' there shall be inserted ``or transmitting''; and

(b) for ``or delivered'' there shall be substituted ``, delivered or transmitted''.

(5) In subsection (5) of that section (penalty for offence), for ``a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale'' there shall be substituted ``imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both''.

(6) Subsection (5) does not affect the penalty for an offence committed before the day on which this Act is passed.'.

And the following amendment thereto: (a), at end of subsection (2) insert—

`.—``(2ZA) No defence under subsection (2) above is provided where the threat conveyed is a threat of an action which if carried out would be an offence under any other Act.''.'.

Government new clause 20—Addresses of directors and secretaries of companies.

New clause 14—Fear of Violence—

`.—Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 shall be amended in subsection(1) by leaving out the words ``on at least two occasions''.'.

New clause 15—Conspiracy—

`.—After section 4 of the Protection for Harassment Act 1997 there shall be inserted the following section—

``Conspiracy

4A. Where two or more persons agree to organise or plan the commission by any other persons or by themselves a course of conduct contrary to Section 1 and Section 4 of this Act, they shall be guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1.''.'.

New clause 19—Increase in sentences for hate crimes—

`—(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of any offence.

(2) If the offence was aggravated for the purposes of this section, the court—

(a) shall treat that fact as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence); and

(b) shall state in open court that the offence was so aggravated.

(3) An offence is aggravated for the purposes of this section if—

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's actual or presumed sexual orientation, race, religion, gender or disability; or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a group based on their sexual orientation, race, religion, gender or disability or based on their membership of, or association with, such a group.'.

Government amendments Nos. 176 and 243.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The new clauses are important. We welcome the Opposition's decision to work within the framework of our guillotine resolutions in order to prioritise debate on the key issues. My hon. Friends have made similar arguments.

I shall deal first with Government amendments Nos. 176 and 243, which are relatively minor and relate to the commencement and extent of the measures. Amendment No. 176 provides that measures on police direction to stop harassment of a person in his home and malicious communications will come into force on Royal Assent. Measures to protect the victims of harassment will be available as soon as the Bill is passed. Amendment No. 243 extends the measures relating to companies, secretaries and directors to Great Britain.

On the more substantive provisions, I begin with new clause 6, which is an important element in the Government's package of measures to deal with the activities of animal rights so-called protesters. It will give the police powers to deal with protesters or others who attempt to harass, alarm or distress a person through their presence in the vicinity of his home. It is important to note that it is not an offence to be within the vicinity of the dwelling as such. An offence arises only if the police give a direction that is not complied with. The new clause can apply to any number of people from a single individual to a large group.

Subsection (1) makes it clear that the police officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the person being directed is there for the purpose of persuading the victim or another individual either not to do something that he is entitled to do, or conversely to do something that he is under no obligation to do. The police officer must also believe that the presence of the person or people is likely to result in harassment or cause alarm and distress to the victim.

Subsections (2) to (5) deal with the nature of the directions, specifying that they can be given orally to individuals or a group, and that they can require the people directed to do whatever is thought necessary to prevent harassment, alarm or distress, including leaving the vicinity. Conditions can be attached to the directions, to allow a police officer to specify how far from the vicinity people must go, or that certain individuals may, by exception, remain in the area.

Subsection (6) restricts the power to make directions to the most senior police officer present at the time, and makes it clear that the power does not extend to giving directions to those who are lawfully carrying out a peaceful picket under section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. If a person refuses to comply with a direction, subsection (7) makes him guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of a level 4 fine and/or three months imprisonment on summary conviction.

The clause will allow the police to deal with people such as animal rights extremists who target individual researchers or company employees and cause great distress by gathering outside their homes. Their behaviour may fall short of the sort of threatening behaviour that is covered by the Public Order Act 1986 but, taken in the context of threats made in other places, and the knowledge that such people occasionally resort to criminal and violent acts, their mere presence can create a real sense of fear for their victims and their families.

Those powers may be of use in other situations. For instance, they would be available to deal with the mobs who have, in recent times, gathered outside the homes of supposed sex offenders—in some cases, as a result of mistaken identity—in an attempt to drive them out of their homes. However, we shall expect the police to exercise those powers with discretion; we have no reason to expect them to be used indiscriminately. They will provide a valuable addition to the police's repertoire of responses in cases when the threat to individuals is more insidious, but no less real, as it strikes at the heart of their home and family.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I welcome the new clause, but I have one concern. How will the police deal with people demonstrating outside someone's home who are told to go away but who, in an organised campaign, start demonstrating the next day until the police return to send them away again? Is there anything in the new clause to stop them doing that day in, day out?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I understand that the police powers can be used in all the circumstances that my hon. Friend described. A continued action of the sort described by my hon. Friend would require a continued police response. I do not believe that the new clause or the Bill would allow powers to be made to deal with that particular situation, but I shall return to that point when I have had the chance to consider it more carefully.

Several hon. Members rose—

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I give way first to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard).

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

The Minister said that the new clause would deal with protests in the vicinity of a person's residence. Is there a legal definition of ``in the vicinity of''? Are there any circumstances in which the Minister would think it legitimate for protesters to gather in the vicinity of someone's residence?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Taking the second point first, I think that in no circumstances would it be legitimate for individuals to act in a way that could harass, alarm or distress a person in the vicinity of the home. I do not believe that it would be legitimate, and I cannot foresee circumstances where it might be legitimate.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

I have no objection to the stated purpose of the new clause, but I wish to know what it will achieve. If a constituent of mine or of the Minister was repeatedly unable to get hold of us in order to protest about our voting on a particular issue but knew where we lived, would the Minister think it legitimate for that individual to stand outside our homes with a placard to make the point clear?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Actually, I would not. I return to the phrase, ``harass, alarm or distress''. I do not think that my family is obliged to deal with points of that kind if they are made in a way that could harass, alarm or distress them. I have a constituency surgery and a constituency office through which people can make their cases in an appropriate way. It would not be legitimate for anyone who had a grievance to harass, alarm and distress my family, neighbours or anyone else involved, despite the fact that I am a Member of Parliament.

It is common sense for the police officer on the spot to have a flexible power to deal with the situation. The court will consider matters as they evolve, and we shall see how the use of the helpful word ``vicinity'' develops. It goes wider than the famous word ``curtilage'', which we discussed earlier, and which I hope eventually to eliminate from the thesaurus of legal language.

I shall make a point that I should have made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). If the offence kept being committed in the way in which he implied it might, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could come into effect, as the harassment would be over a longer time scale.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Will the Minister give way?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Before I give way to my hon. Friend, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and then the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Later, I shall put our case about the nature of the legislation proposed.

Has the Minister seriously considered all the existing legislation? Why is it not adequate? He did not talk about that. There is plenty of existing legislation. He referred to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and other laws cover breaches of the peace. The Government have the burden of justifying additional legislation, having reviewed all the existing powers of criminal law. Before the Minister finishes his introduction to the new clause, I would be grateful if he were to justify it by explaining why he considered existing law inadequate.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We considered that matter carefully, as it was important. The legislation is necessary, as the law ought to be clearly set out in one place for all concerned—the citizen, the potential demonstrator or protester and the police. Our assessment was that the existing legislation did not provide sufficient protection for the individual at home. I do not have a list of the legislation in front of me, but I am prepared to return to the matter before we finish the debate. However, we considered all aspects carefully and felt that such a provision was the best way to deal with the issue.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Almost everyone who has spoken to us has complained that many animal rights activists get around the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which covers pursuing a course of conduct on two separate occasions, by rotating the people who cause the problem. The provision that we are debating is subject to the same weakness. One could send a different group of half a dozen people every day, and if one had enough animal rights extremists in one's team, one could make people's lives a misery without really breaching the provision. Each time, a direction has to be given and then enforced. Could a blanket provision be imposed in some way to protect scientists in their homes?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The hon. Gentleman rightly suggests the weakness of the 1997 Act, which was another reason why we felt that further legislation was necessary. We believe that the provision will give the protection to which he referred. I concede the point that anyone who seeks to bypass legislation can try to find ways to do so to fulfil their ends. We think that the police powers given by the new clause will prevent the activity about which he is concerned.

I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Like most members of the Committee, I support the sentiments behind the new clause, especially given the appalling behaviour that we have seen in Huntingdon and some other places. However, I share a concern with the hon. Member for Taunton. The new clause might have been conceived to deal with that specific situation, but where else might it be applied? On radio and television consumer programmes and in investigative journalism, this country has a history of dealing with people who may intend to act in a fraudulent or unethical way that affects members of the public. Because of other laws, the only way in which investigative journalists can deal with them is to ``harass'' and expose them. I should hate a clause such as this one, which is clearly intended to prevent the sort of offensive behaviour that has been used on people who work at Huntingdon, to be used by people who behave fraudulently, as a defence against the proper exposure of their unethical activities.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point and I have discussed it with several journalists' organisations. Journalists will not be exempt from the law. Like any citizen they will have to abide by it. The provision will not make it unlawful for journalists to gather outside a person's home when they are pursuing a story, such as in a classic doorstep. That can sometimes be difficult and problematic for the people concerned, but would obviously not be unlawful, because what I referred to earlier, with respect to harassment, alarm and distress, would not arise.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

It might arise.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall come to that.

If the journalists' presence caused real alarm or distress and they were trying to persuade the victims of their attentions to do something that they did not wish to do—that is an important double requirement—the police would have the power of direction to stop the harassment. Some might see that power as unreasonable, but I do not think that it is. A journalist has a right to ask a question and seek an answer to it, but, whether someone is being taken on aggressively by an investigative journalist or is, in the regular course of politics, being asked for an opinion, any individual has the right to refuse to answer, and for that to be an end of the matter.

A journalist does not have the right to tell someone that he or she must follow a certain course of action and, in trying to pursue the case, to harass, alarm or distress the individual—I emphasise that both tests must be applied. Some might say that a journalist does have that right and I can understand how that can be argued, but I do not accept that view. Journalists, like everyone else, must follow the circumstances. On a personal note, I worked for many years for Neil Kinnock when he was the Leader of the Opposition. The most appalling media scrums often happened, including outside the front door of his home in Ealing. They were offensive and difficult to deal with. My view, and his, was that journalists would operate in accordance with the general processes of civilised conduct, to move matters forward, if one could discuss the situation and reach the right solution.

My experience of all the journalistic organisations and of investigative journalists tells me that they will operate in a civilised way, when progress is made in this matter. If they do not, journalists will have to be placed in the same predicament as any member of society when dealing with the relevant situations. I do not think that that is an unwarranted infringement, or inhibition, of journalism in a democratic society. I emphasise that there must be, firstly and importantly, harassment, alarm or distress and, secondly, an effort to persuade the victim to do something that he does not want to do, if the police are to have the power in the new clause. I do not think that any reasonable journalist should be concerned about that.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I appreciate that, in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Hall Green, the Minister has moved on to a separate and important point, to which I will return when I speak to our new clauses, but I want to return his attention to the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire about the concerns of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and other organisations. He will know that new clause 14 is intended to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend raised. I hope that before he finishes his remarks he will turn his mind to what he plans to say about our new clause on that point.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I shall turn my mind to that, but I shall do so, if I may, after I have finished moving our clause. I have been giving way, Mrs. Adams, because I thought that that would help the Committee's debate on new clause 6. [Interruption.] I shall give way a couple more times.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I want to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Hall Green. What would happen if Roger Cook, or the new Roger Cook replacement, my former employee Paul Kenyon—who has now received good coverage for ``Kenyon Confronts'' on Monday evening on BBC1, which I commend to the Committee—were, as he has successfully been doing, to expose issues while the person involved was, in the words of the provision, ``not under any obligation'' to say something?

For example, there might be no obligation to explain fraudulent dealing with people's investments, dealing in non-returnable defective goods or disappearing with people's property. Surely the person on the receiving end of that treatment is likely to be caused alarm or distress. The provision is not cumulative: harassment and alarm or distress do not have to be caused, just one or the other; and the alarm or distress do not have to be serious. The example given by me and the hon. Member for Hall Green would appear to be caught under the Bill; it would be quite possible for the police to prevent such activity continuing after they had given a warning, as a result of a telephone call from a rogue dealer, a rogue business person or some other person whom only effective journalism can counter.

I shall return later to the question whether Members of Parliament should be exempt—we should perhaps be less exempt than the Minister thinks, but that is a separate debate.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

There may be disagreement here. I do not think that there is an unqualified right of a journalist to do anything in our society. Some may say that there is, because the journalist is somehow a guardian of our democratic rights, and must therefore be allowed to do almost anything in pursuit of the ``truth'' that he is seeking to expose. I do not accept that; journalists must work within the law.

Much more difficult questions exist than those that we are discussing. We discussed the role of journalists when we debated the Bill that became the Terrorism Act 2000, where serious issues are involved. Only last week, when I was holding a press conference on the list of proscribed international organisations, I discussed with journalists from a number of organisations throughout the world how the Act might apply to them. Serious and difficult issues are involved.

I do not accept that Roger Cook, the friend of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey or anyone else has an unqualified right to do whatever he wants. Alarm, distress and harassment are bad things; the journalist has the right to ask but not to force an individual. That is important—it may be a point of difference between us, on which I am sure that we can elaborate in later debate—but I do not accept an unqualified right for journalists.

The legislation that we have reviewed includes the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and offences such as obstruction and breach of the peace; in fact, we have reviewed all the legislation involved. It is important to make it clear that we are proposing a police power rather than an offence. It will not require an overt threat of violence or specific intentions in courses of conduct; it will allow the police to direct people to move away, and arrest them if they do not.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Does the Minister agree that in addition to the activities of the various groups that he has discussed, one of the best things about new clause 6 is that it will restrict the disgraceful activities of hunt saboteurs?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman asserts that. I certainly think that some hunt saboteur activity is unacceptable, but I am not aware—the hon. Gentleman may correct me; I confess that I have not considered the situation in detail, so he may be better informed than I—of such people going to individuals' houses.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for example, had six members of a hunt saboteurs association on the roof of his private house for a week. That happens all the time; those people target Members of Parliament, in particular. My own private address is under surveillance from special branch as a result of threats against it.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I am grateful for that information. If individuals were targeted in the way that the hon. Gentleman implies, the new clause would have the effect that he describes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with a great deal of what the Minister says, but he should be aware that it is not simply Members of Parliament who are targeted by hunt saboteurs. He fairly conceded that he has not personally considered the matter. A number of individuals who have nothing to do with Parliament have been targeted in exactly the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

Within the county of Surrey, although outside my constituency, people who were erroneously thought to be connected to one of the Surrey hunts were targeted in a most unpleasant way. Cars were set on fire. One victim happened to be a retired doctor who had never had any connection with the hunt; one of his family had at some stage appeared on a list, and the hunt saboteurs erroneously thought that the elderly parents were in some way connected. It is as appalling as my hon. Friend says; it is by no means just Members of Parliament who are targeted, but often completely innocent members of the public who have no connection with hunting—and hunt staff too.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The Committee will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's description of life in rural Surrey. If any confirmation is needed, I can confirm that new clause 6 is not limited in its scope to researchers, scientists or animal rights issues; it runs more widely than that.

I have a further point to add to the discussion of investigative journalists initiated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. An investigative journalist who persists in questioning someone in his or her home is not committing an offence. It is a matter of whether the journalist persists in causing alarm, harassment and distress, and if his or her purpose is to persuade someone to do something that they do not want to do—that is an important double test. There is a further protection in this context. It is at the police's discretion to tell the person to move on—it is not an absolute requirement that they do so. The police officers concerned will make their own judgment in such circumstances. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could take that into account when he speaks.

The purpose of new clause 7 is to make a number of amendments to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, to update and strengthen it to deal with the offence of sending letters and other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety. Subsection (1) ensures that communications sent by electronic means are included in the scope of the Act. Subsection (2) replaces the defence in the case of someone being accused of making a threat, which is currently based on a test of subjective reasonableness, with one based on objective reasonableness. Subsection (3) makes it clear that communications sent by electronic means include any oral or other communication by telephone or other means of communication. Subsection (5) increases the maximum penalty from level 4 to level 5.

The new clause is the second measure to be moved this morning that is designed to give the public greater protection from harassment and intimidation. As with the other new clause, the urgency relates to the need to tackle animal rights extremists and give better protection to the scientific community as a whole. The measures proposed do not affect threats to kill. Such threats are adequately covered already, by section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Communications that do not convey a threat that would be covered by that section may, none the less, be grossly offensive, or cause a great deal of alarm, distress and fear to their recipients. I will take an extract of a letter received by one member of the scientific community as an example. The letter asks:

``Do you want a brick put through your window? Do you want a petrol bomb shoved through your letterbox?''

Such communications give rise to concern.Two measures in particular are included to tackle that sort of behaviour. One restricts the scope for a defence on the grounds of reasonableness, and the other increases the maximum penalty for the offence.

Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, persons accused are not guilty of sending a letter that conveys a threat if they can show that the threat was used to reinforce a demand that they believed they had reasonable grounds for making. They must also show that they believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing that demand. That defence properly ensures that the Act does not catch someone who warns a neighbour that he will take legal proceedings if their dispute cannot otherwise be resolved. However, because the test of reasonableness is in terms of what the accused himself believes to be reasonable, it is arguable that the defence would also protect the fanatic who threatens violence in support of his cause.

Subsection (2) amends the Malicious Communications Act 1988 by applying an objective test to the question whether it was reasonable to make the demand and to the question whether it was reasonable to believe that the threat was a proper means of reinforcing that demand. The other key change is in subsection (5), which increases the maximum penalty under the Act; the reasons for that are clear. Finally, we have taken the opportunity in subsection (1) to place it beyond doubt that the Malicious Communications Act 1988 extends not just to threats conveyed by a letter or other article such as a leaflet, but to communications conveyed by electronic means. Amendment (a) to new clause 7 is being moved by the Opposition, so I will deal with it in my response to the debate.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Amendment (a) was tabled by the hon. Member for South Thanet, who is a Labour Member.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Nevertheless, it is not a Government amendment, so I will deal with it in my response. I always try to be positive in what I say, particularly when responding to my hon. Friends and even sometimes to the Opposition. I will respond to the amendment once it has been moved rather than seeking to do so before it has been moved.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

One thing that has caused particular distress in the Huntingdon situation is where goods and services turn up on the doorstep—deliveries of gravel, rubbish skips, car-towing lorries and so on. Would it count as a malicious communication if goods are ordered in another name and suddenly arrive at one's home?

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I do not know. My understanding is that it would not, but I shall take advice before responding properly to that question.

New clause 20 is designed to allow certain directors to be excluded from the existing provisions of the Companies Act 1985 that require them to make their home addresses available for public inspection and to substitute service addresses. They will still be obliged to provide their home addresses, but that information will be kept on a separate, secure register. The home addresses will be available to public bodies, such as law enforcement agencies. The clause is essentially making provision for regulations. Much of the detail will be left to regulation, which will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses and will therefore, no doubt, be rapturously welcomed by the Opposition.

The clause will provide for the Companies Act 1985 to be amended by the insertion of new subsections. The first new subsection will allow a present or prospective director or company secretary to apply to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for a confidentiality order. The application may be made if the applicant considers that the availability for inspection by the public of his residential address will create a serious risk that he, or a person who lives with him, will be subjected to violence or intimidation. The regulations will explain how the process will work.

The effect of the confidentiality order will be that Companies House will display for public inspection the service address rather than the home address. Subsequent regulations will make provisions covering inspection of the confidential records and applications for access. The regulations will provide for the similar protection of home addresses found on a company's own register of directors.

The new provisions will apply to any company formed under the Companies Acts, overseas companies and companies that are registered abroad but have a United Kingdom branch. The regulations will make it an offence for anyone to provide false information when applying for an order, or to provide confidential information improperly. This is not the signalling of a rogues charter. There will be a high threshold test for the Secretary of State, who will need to be satisfied that the public availability of a director's residential address is likely to create a serious risk that the individual, or a person who lives with him or her, will be subjected to violence or intimidation.

We expect the majority of company directors to continue to provide their home addresses, while necessary privacy will be provided for those at real risk. Directors will still have to provide their home addresses, to be kept on a secure register. That register will be available to law enforcement and other public bodies. That will not provide an instant solution because existing records cannot be expunged. However, in time it should offer added protection for directors in certain circumstances and help to reduce the kind of intimidation that has regrettably occurred recently.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

This is another clause that I welcome. However, I would like some clarification. Proposed new section 723B(2)(a) mentions the condition

``that the individual . . . is or proposes to become''

a director. I take that to mean that a person who is currently a director, whose address is already registered, will be able to apply to have the information changed retrospectively, so that a service address can be shown in future. There have been enquiries from directors who wonder whether it will apply to them retrospectively, or whether it will cover only new directors.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

The difficulty is that what is on the record remains on the record. One cannot wish away existing documentation. We cannot magic it out of existence. It is possible for new directors to apply for confidentiality orders to cover future publication of their details, but it is not possible to wave a magic wand and say that what has previously been made public is no longer public.

I have an answer to the question put by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire about the delivery of unwanted goods. It is possible, I am advised, that a simple instance of ordering goods might be covered by the Malicious Communications Act 1988 if the order contains information known to be false, and if the purpose is to cause distress or anxiety. However, it is more likely that a campaign of that nature might be caught by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, rather than by this legislation.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Do the Government intend new clause 20 to cover those who are, or have been, directors when they move house? There will be a problem about people moving if the legislation bites prospectively, not retrospectively.

Have the Government considered the proposal in the context of other matters on their mind relating to people's ability to opt out of the duty to disclose a private address? The only recent discussion that I have had with Ministers was about Members of Parliament and candidates for local and national election exempting themselves from that duty. So far, I have objected to and resisted the permission of that exemption. Is the provision part of a review under which people who have public responsibility should be exempt from the possibility of the public discovering where they live? The issue goes beyond shareholders and directors.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

I can confirm that the provision is not part of an overall review, but a specific response, the best that we can find, to the specific circumstance of directors of companies. It is not a precursor to general legislation. Arguments can be made about the way in which we deal with Members of Parliament and others, but the new clause and the Bill do not touch on them in any respect.

On the general point made by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, I should reassert that all those at risk, be they past or present directors, will be able to apply. Existing addresses cannot be removed, for the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend earlier.

I will not respond to any of other new clauses yet. I hope that the Committee will agree that the three Government new clauses make a serious effort to deal with many concerns of those in the scientific community. They are no more than a contribution to the important national duty, which has been shared across the House, to create an environment in which scientists can carry out their important work. That work enhances the ability of our civilisation to develop itself, so we must protect the relevant individuals properly. I hope that the new clauses will be approved by the Committee in due course.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. I may have misheard you, but I thought that when you listed the new clauses under discussion, you mentioned new clause 19. It is on a different subject. Will you confirm whether we are also discussing new clause 19, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats?

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Yes, we are.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As this is the first time today that I have made a speech, as opposed to an intervention, I join the welcome given to you as Chairman of our proceedings, Mrs. Adams, by the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

This debate is perhaps the Committee's most significant, certainly in terms of the public and media attention on the Bill, which is not surprising given the seriousness of the issues. I make no apology for saying that I propose not only to discuss new clauses 14 and 15 but to deal at length and in detail with the issues raised. The Minister rightly spent some time outlining the Government's approach, and the Conservatives strongly support what the Government are doing. Our criticism is that they are not going far enough—but it goes further than that.

The Minister has been in his statesmanlike mode this morning to give the Government's line. We know that he is something of a Jekyll and Hyde character. Today, we have seen the reasonableness of Dr. Jekyll, but had you been chairing our proceedings last week, Mrs. Adams—the Minister described them as acrimonious—you would have seen his Mr. Hyde approach. The provisions are not only necessary but vital—and I include new clauses 14 and 15—because of the climate of opinion that the Labour party helped to create when in opposition. I shall explain the evidence that I have for saying it, but I specifically exculpate from my criticisms the many Back Benchers who were first elected in 1997—that may be no coincidence—and who have served only in this Parliament. I respect them, as they have always supported the cause of scientists. I have far less respect for the many others who, in Parliament and outside, have actively spoken in favour of animal rights protests of the most extreme form.

I shall give the Committee an example of that. I asked the Library to do some research, and it has come up with many examples, but the clearest is an early-day motion in 1995 that was signed by 43 Labour Members—and by members of the Labour party only. They included the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), now the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting; the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), an ex-Minister; the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), now the Minister of State, Department of Health; the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd), now a Whip; the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), now a Whip; three who have now become what we might describe as Tony crony peers; the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), another ex-Minister; and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), now the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who was one of the Labour party's campaign directors at the last election and who is now one of the leading Members of the Scottish Parliament.

That Labour party early-day motion was headed ``Animal welfare protests'', and it said of that each of those 43 Labour party members

``believes that all citizens have a right to defy laws and regulations which have no moral basis whilst at the same time accepting the full consequence of such acts of civil disobedience''.

The motion went on to refer to animal experimenters,

``however provocative and loathsome they may be''.

It said:

``Her Majesty's Government must listen to the overwhelming expressions of public opposition and take immediate steps to halt this offensive and immoral trade''.

Although the Government seem belatedly to understand the importance of defending research science and medical research, the Labour party does not come to this legislation with clean hands. It is not enough for Ministers to sound statesmanlike—they helped to create the present climate of opinion. The Government should listen not only to us but to organisations such as the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, the Research Defence Society, various organisations involved in biotechnology and the National Farmers Union, all of which were supported by the Conservative Government.

I feel strongly about the matter, and not only because research facilities in my constituency have been attacked by terrorists. My parents had careers in research science. It happens that neither of them ever worked on animal research, but one of them worked for a research facility elsewhere in the country that was attacked by the Animal Liberation Front. These animal activists are the most extreme kind of terrorist: they are the sort of people who put bombs under scientists' cars—bombs that explode sideways and injure innocent mothers walking by with young children in pushchairs.

Well-known members of other political parties have been prominent in demonstrations at which my constituents have been attacked, but not members of the Conservative party. That is not surprising, because no Conservative would ever be involved in such terrorism. I do not want to hear that hon. Members of other parties are coming to the issue afresh and with clean hands. However statesmanlike the Minister's remarks, and however strongly we support him, I must make it clear that he is not going far enough. I make no apology for stating that.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

For the record, in case I am ever misquoted by Conservative Members, I should preface my intervention by saying that there are no circumstances in a democracy in which I would support violent protests of any kind.

The hon. Gentleman praised people who have always supported research scientists. Is he saying that he thinks that it was correct for scientists to force dogs to smoke cigarettes?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, I am not saying that. I make no bones about saying that we should debate such matters in Parliament, but it is important in a debate such as this, which will be read and studied outside, for the whole history of the subject to be laid out. I hope that in his response the Minister will set out specifically what has been the Home Office's communication to police authorities about the recent protests. Organisations in my constituency have told me that between different police areas dealing with the same, mobile demonstrations, which have moved from one facility to another and across county boundaries, there has been a wide variance in police activity. Two or three weekends ago, when the same group of mobile animal rights extremists were moving from one place to another, in the Thames Valley area, where the police took a proper view of their responsibilities, they made 87 arrests, whereas in Hampshire, next door to my constituency, not a single arrest was made among the same group of demonstrators carrying out the same illegal activities and illegal attacks on research facilities.

I want the Minister to respond to that not because I am criticising individual police authorities but because I want the Home Office to take responsibility and to understand that it must give much clearer guidance, so that we do not have such wide divergence between the response of different police authorities.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I really cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with his remarks. It is true that I am a new Member of Parliament, but I have spent my entire professional career working for medical research establishments that use animals. Does he honestly think that I would be sitting here now as a member of the Labour party and a Labour Member of Parliament if the Labour party had the attitude to scientists that he suggests? I have campaigned on the subject the length and breadth of the country in the Labour party and have never found a single member of the Labour party who justifies the use of violence or intimidation against scientists, however they feel on the subject.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I say, the hon. Gentleman comes to the issue as a new Member of Parliament, but he must recognise that it is on the record that in 1995, all those on the list that I read out, including several who are now Labour Ministers, supported civil disobedience. I am not a supporter of the use of early-day motions—they are a kind of parliamentary graffiti—but occasionally they are important, because we can look back at the record. This is another example of the way in which not the hon. Gentleman but his Front-Bench colleagues believe, as so often they do, that somehow Parliament started in May 1997. That is a kind of Pol Pot year zero in which all of the Labour party's history of supporting—

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

Order. I have allowed considerable leeway, but I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to go any further off the subject. He should return to the new clause.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I certainly will, Mrs. Adams, but the hon. Member for South Thanet has heard what I said. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said to him, given what he said about his work, he must have had an uphill struggle faced with such attitudes only six years ago.

We know that organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the BioIndustry Association, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Research Defence Society all want the Government to go further. I should observe in passing that, only a couple of months ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised with the Government the need to protect company directors' addresses in exactly the way that the Government now propose, he was told that it was all far too complicated and it would take two years for the Government to come up with anything. Suddenly, under pressure from all those organisations, because there is a general election pending, and because we have continued to press the matter, two years has become two weeks. We welcome that, but many of us think that further protection from harassment is necessary.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said in an intervention on the Minister, it is necessary to deal with situations where groups of demonstrators are mobile, and different groups can make separate approaches that amount to harassment. The Government new clauses do not go far enough in dealing with such situations. Only if the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is amended in the way in which new clause 14 would amend it, taking out the requirement for two or more occasions, would the legislation cover those situations. If it were so amended, then different groups of animal rights extremists indulging in such conduct would still be in breach of the law, and the police would be able to take action.

I do not expect the Minister to suddenly concede that the official Opposition are right and accept our new clauses, but I would be delighted if he did. I hope that he will say that he will consider the issue further, with departmental officials, and table Government amendments or new clauses on Report. I hope that he decides to do so, not necessarily because of what I have said, but because of what the ABPI, the RDS, the NFU and others have said. We have had to draft new clauses at quite short notice to deal with the matter.

New clause 15 is designed to tighten up the law in relation to conspiracy. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) has had a consistent record on the matter, and I pay tribute to her. She was kind enough to speak to me about the matter at the conclusion of the Committee's proceedings last week. Many of her constituents have been victims of the kind of attacks that we are talking about, and she knows as well as I do that conspiracy is an important issue. That is why new clause 15 would enable the police more easily to bring a charge of conspiracy.

All of us who have practised in the criminal courts and tried to prosecute cases know that it is not that easy to establish conspiracy. New clause 15 is a valiant attempt to ensure that a charge of conspiracy sticks in the circumstances that we are trying to control through the legislation. However, the Minister may well tell us that, for various technical reasons, it will not work. He knows, because he has seen all the submissions from organisations that we have seen, that those organisations believe that the law of conspiracy needs to be tightened up so that it applies to this area of illegal protest and activity. Even if he cannot accept the new clause, I hope that he will once again do us, and the organisations that have briefed us, the courtesy of saying that he will continue to think about it and examine it, with officials, and that he may table Government new clauses, in lieu of ours, on Report.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I thought of the eloquent comments that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire made earlier this morning about the dangers of authoritarianism, and of his wish for a liberal society, even in tackling crime. Is there any disagreement between the two hon. Gentlemen, in view of the rabid, right-wing authoritarianism that characterised the comments to which we have just listened?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no difference of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and me. It may reassure him to know that we practised as lawyers for many years on the same circuit, as did the Parliamentary Secretary—although I did not conduct any cases against the latter, because he came to the circuit after my time.

There is certainly no difference between us. If the hon. Member for Hall Green detected any strength of feeling, that is because my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I raised the issue of animal rights extremism in the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. My hon. Friend referred to that Bill earlier. We had 240 hours of debate on it, and if the hon. Gentleman would like, I can show him the columns in Hansard. When we raised the issue, we received no support from any Labour Member on that Committee. However, I do not want to go on at length, quoting myself from 1994.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

When the hon. Gentleman raised those points in 1993-1994, did the Government of the day present such clauses?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Yes, we were indeed trying to toughen the law, but in the past few years, animal rights extremists have found new ways to get round the legislation. It is because the law needs to be extended that we support the new clauses to make the law tougher, as the Minister knows that we do. That is also why my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire took the initiative and told the Committee that we should bring debate on the new clauses forward. Under the ridiculously short timetable that the Government were trying to impose, if the new clauses had been dealt with in the traditional way, after all the other debates, we should never have reached them. The Minister knows that, and I was glad when he said that the Government agreed to our suggestion of early debate on the new clauses. However, it must not be forgotten that it is only on my hon. Friend's suggestion that we are engaged in this debate at all.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

In answer to the remark that the hon. Gentleman made on the sly, does he acknowledge that I made a formal offer, in Programming Sub-Committee, at the first meeting of the Committee and at subsequent meetings, for the order of debate to be entirely a matter for the Opposition? We said at the outset that it was their legitimate prerogative. That is of course why we must agree.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I accept that formal description of the Minister's attitude, but I think that he is skating over a great deal of more acrimonious debate that occurred at the Programming Sub-Committee. However, the one matter on which we agree is that it was the Opposition's initiative to which the Government agreed.

A matter that emerged from the debate, arising from the helpful intervention by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green, the Minister's response and the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, concerned the possible application of the Bill and the new clauses to the media. I strongly agree with the Minister's response to the various points that were put to him. We feel that there are undoubtedly occasions when individuals and groups in the media go too far.

The Minister might, on winding up, want to refer to comments made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), who I believe is the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, when he was trying, by means of a private Member's Bill, to improve the law in this context. As a Back Bencher I supported that Bill and I wish that it had become law. However, it ran out of time. It would have been a useful cross-party attempt, early in the previous Parliament, to control excesses.

I agree with the Minister that there are occasions, now, when those in the media think that everyone, whether Ministers, shadow Ministers, Back Benchers or anyone else, owes them a living. I am not engaging in a wholesale attack on the media but supporting the Minister's view that sometimes those who work in the media go too far. Those of them who are tempted to excessive intrusion and harassment must learn that they are not above the law.

Mr. Clarke indicated assent.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I see that the Minister is nodding. Although the vast majority of people in the media are responsible, and although they have a legitimate job to do in a free society, the Minister was right to raise that matter. I am glad that the hon. Member for South Thanet intervened. The question of media behaviour is a legitimate aspect of the debate, although most of the attention is rightly focused on animal rights extremists.

I hope that the Minister will at least continue to study the important issues that I have raised, as the relevant organisations want. They and we are happy with what the Government are doing, as far as it goes. In our view, it does not yet go far enough.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

As I said in an intervention, all my life, before becoming a Member of Parliament, I have been involved in organisations that did medical research and used animals for the purpose. I am proud of that. The work of my colleagues during those years has helped millions of people. Now it falls to me, as a Member of Parliament, to protect them and do something for them in return for what they have given to so many. At present, the law is clearly letting them down.

We need to consider the activities that people engage in against scientists—by which I do not mean only scientists who use animals. People have, for one reason or another, taken it upon themselves to think that a range of scientific activities, such as research into genetic modification, is inappropriate. We must judge the new clauses against activities such as assault and the vandalism of people's homes and properties, both of which are covered in existing legislation and need not trouble us. However, we must also consider activities such as the sending of poison pen letters, telephone calls and e-mails; the issue of threats by letter, telephone and e-mail; demonstrations at the work place and at home; abuse of people going to or coming from their work; and abuse of people at leisure, in their local high street for example, because they work at these establishments. The amendments deal with such activities and we must judge whether they will be successful in that respect.

New clause 6, which refers to demonstrations at people's dwellings, is a major step forward. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that the Bill does not go far enough and that organisations such as the Research Defence Society and the ABPI agree with him. That is not what they tell me; they have certainly come up with ideas that go further than the Government's, but they are delighted that the Government are going as far as they are. Clearly, they want us to encourage the Government to go further and to reconsider some of the issues, and I shall be expanding on such matters in my speech.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I agree with his approach. Does he accept that the letters that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I received from the RDS, the ABPI, the NFU and the BIA mention the need to go further than the Government? They mention harassment and conspiracy, and the need for the Government to take them on, too.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

My disagreement with the hon. Gentleman may be a matter of tone; he implies that the Government are being supine and that what they propose is merely a gesture. The organisations seem to be delighted that the Government are going so far, but they want to go a bit further.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I certainly do not suggest that the organisations ever said that the Government are being supine; I hope that I made it clear, and that the Official Report will show, that the organisations and Conservative Members welcome what the Government are doing but believe that it is not enough, as it does not deal with the two further matters. The Government are not supine and nor are the organisations.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

In a letter to members of the Committee, the Research Defence Society said that it was delighted with the Government's efforts, but it hoped that they would pay further attention to the issues mentioned and perhaps consider them at a later stage. We may be able to deal with them now, while we are considering the amendments, and I shall encourage the Government to do so.

I return to new clause 6 and say, in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, that I do not believe that Members of Parliament should be exempted from the provision. Members are entitled to have their private homes protected.

A colleague was telling me in the Tea Room the other day that local demonstrators who objected to a recent bombing raid conducted a demonstration at her home and left a coffin on her front lawn. That is not a reasonable demonstration against a Member of Parliament; such a demonstration should have been at her constituency office, at the House of Commons or in the local high street. It is not appropriate to demonstrate at someone's private home. Before Opposition Members jump up and ask about hunt saboteurs, I say that if people are engaged in a legal activity they are entitled to the protection of the law, whether they are hunting or doing anything else. It will not be lawful for people to hunt in a few months' time and we will expect the law to be invoked. The law cuts both ways. We should ensure that it works like that.

I am worried about new clause 6. What will happen if people acting in concert demonstrate at someone's home, much in the way that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath? A small group of people turn up with placards one day and are sent away by the police. Two other people turn up the next day and are sent away by the police. Each time, the home owner will have to call the police, who will arrive 45 minutes later and send the demonstrators away. That will go on day after day.

Will the Minister give some thought to tightening up the legislation still further on Report, to provide some mechanism to enable the police to prosecute people who are acting in concert to carry out such demonstrations?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to look at our new clauses 14 and 15? Does he consider that our approach—perhaps not exactly as proposed; we shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say—would deal with those problems?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I have looked at the Opposition's proposals and, in principle, I agree with them. However, I have not had an opportunity to discuss them with people who are qualified to tell me what their impact would be. Is the Minister prepared to accept the new clauses? If he cannot do so, I hope that he will agree to examine the matter again on Report and bring back Government recommendations.

I would welcome an amendment on Report to the harassment provisions. I might table it myself, if the Government do not. Any group of people who act in concert to carry out an act that would be an offence if it were committed by one of them should be deemed separately to have committed the offence. I hope that the Minister will table such an amendment on Report, if he cannot accept the amendment today.

I welcome new clause 7, which is a major step forward. I tabled my amendment because, when I read the Malicious Communications Act 1988—I got it from the Library and read it for myself—I was horrified. It appears to provide a defence for people who communicate threats of violence by letter. At present, if a person believes that someone is doing something that justifies a threat of violence, he can write to them and threaten violence. I think that it is perfectly all right to write to someone and say, ``If you don't stop doing what you're doing, I'm going to write to my MP.'' That is a threat, but it is reasonable. Another reasonable threat is, ``If you don't stop doing animal experiments, I won't buy your products any more.'' However, it is not reasonable to write to someone and say, ``If you don't stop doing animal experiments, you will be beaten up, or your children will be assaulted.'' There are no grounds whatever for making such a threat and defending oneself by saying that it is reasonable.

The existing Act provides a defence for people who believe that their threats are reasonable. The Minister is correct in saying that that should be changed. The issue is not whether someone believes that the threat is reasonable but whether it is reasonable. That will be a good change. My amendment simply clarifies the law to make it crystal clear that there is no defence for writing to someone and threatening an action that would otherwise be illegal. If any member of the Committee is wondering whether that could ever be considered reasonable, let me give the recent example of the destruction of genetically modified crops. The courts might have deemed that that was reasonable, but they should not have done so.

Let me straight away place on the record my belief that it is right to conduct tests on genetically modified crops to find out whether they are beneficial and to establish the limits and risks involved in using them. We shall never find out whether there are risks unless we do such experiments, but people took it on themselves to destroy them, which prevented us from finding out the facts. When they went to court, their defence was that they had a right to destroy the crops, because the Government should not have allowed them to be grown. The jury, to its shame, acquitted them.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I very much agree with the sentiments that are being expressed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was unfortunate that there was previously a similar incident in the soap opera ``The Archers''? Tom Archer also got off, which people felt was a very good thing.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I entirely agree. I am not a great advocate of soap operas, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the level of feeling generated by such programmes. If we are attacking people's scientific credentials, as we did earlier—I cannot do so in great depth, Mrs. Adams, because you would stop me—I remind the Committee that the Opposition's disgraceful attacks on genetic modification led to much of the furore. The controversy that they generated cost British industry millions of pounds.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is making the unfortunate implication that, because Her Majesty's Opposition were opposed to field-scale trials of genetically modified crops, that somehow justifies the disgraceful and illegal activities of those who then destroyed them. Will he clarify the fact that the Opposition are utterly opposed to any such activities that would be made illegal under the Bill?

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am perfectly prepared to accept that Her Majesty's Opposition do not support any illegal activities. I am simply pointing out that they have shown themselves to be entirely luddite in their attitude to the scientific development of biotechnology. If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath can make such an attack on the Labour party, he can take some of it back.

However, let us return to the amendments. If a jury can acquit someone who destroyed crops, it could acquit someone who defended himself on the basis that he wrote to someone threatening to destroy crops because he believed that he had a right to do so. I want the legislation to be amended to make it absolutely clear that someone cannot send through the post threats of any illegal activity. Someone can send threats of legal retribution, but not of illegal retribution. That is the rationale behind my amendment.

New clause 20 deals with directors' addresses. I simply repeat the point that, for people who have already registered themselves as directors, the genie is clearly out of the bottle. They have put their name and address in the public domain. Nevertheless, they may be able to provide themselves with some protection by re-registering in the way allowed by the new clause, if it is allowed. When someone has got hold of a director's name and address, there is nothing that the Government can do to take it back, but someone who makes a new application to Companies House to find out a director's address would be unable to find it if such people were allowed to re-register. I should like the Minister to think about the possibility that a mechanism will be put in place to allow people to re-register.

New clause 20 will protect people who will be directors or permanent representatives of companies, but will not necessarily protect all shareholders. I would still like to hear from the Department of Trade and Industry what it intends to do to protect ordinary shareholders. Many of the activities aimed at Huntingdon Life Sciences were aimed at its shareholders. I have said publicly that it was reprehensible for the Labour party to withdraw its pension funds from that company as a result of threats. It was a gross misjudgment, which came about because our pension shareholding was identifiable—which meant that protesters could lobby us directly, putting us under intimidatory pressure. Shareholders should also be protected.

Finally, I asked for clarification on whether the Liberal Democrats' new clause 19 should be included in the group of amendments because it is not, in my view, about animal experiments. It is about crimes of hate. I completely understand and agree with the sentiment underlying the new clause, but I believe that unprovoked actions against individuals should be treated seriously, whatever their motivation. Under new clause 19, it would be considered an aggravated offence if I assaulted the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey because I disapproved of his sexual orientation—I do not know his sexual orientation or whether I would disapprove of it; I am not making any comment about him. However, if I assaulted him because he is a Liberal Democrat, that would not be an aggravated offence. [Interruption.] All right, I withdraw that example. The hon. Gentleman none the less gets my point. His new clause would create anomalies that I do not want in the law.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to what I have said and hope that he will take my comments, which were offered in the spirit of constructive criticism, in good part. He mistakenly said that the Opposition tabled my amendment.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

That was a complete slip, for which I apologise.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I wanted only to ask my hon. Friend the Government Whip to confirm that I am now officially a Government rebel. That will do wonders in my general committee.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman's desperate wish to be classed with the Opposition as a Government rebel is perhaps largely due to the apparent proximity of a general election. However, the fact that the hon. Gentleman is looking for support wherever he can find it may not be quite enough to save him.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

All I can say in response is that my research indicates that I have more than enough support. I will certainly defend the case of scientists in this place for many years to come.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

The hon. Gentleman's analysis confirms the Opposition view that rebellion in the Labour party occurs far too rarely to allow democratic debate. I encourage him to rebel as often as he likes. It will be good for his own party and probably for him.

The debate is important and, unusually, I may take more than the seven minutes that we have before we break for lunch. I said on Second Reading—

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for raising a point of order now; I had hoped to raise it before lunch and his comment reminds me of that. On the basis of the progress that we have made so far, we seem unlikely to get much beyond the new clauses today, which means that 24 clauses, two schedules and 42 amendments will not be debated. In light of the likely change to the timetable of the general election, have you received any communication from the Minister, Mrs. Adams, that would allow the date of the Committee's final sitting to be put back to 13 March? It is ridiculous that important amendments tabled by the Government, by Liberty—I understand that the Liberal Democrats have tabled some amendments with the help of Liberty, as the Conservatives may have done—and the Law Society should not be debated at all. That position will get worse as the Committee proceeds. The Minister should relent: with no general election on 5 April, we could have an extra day and debate the provisions properly.

Irene Adams (Labour, Paisley North)

It is not for the Chair to tell the Minister what to do and I have received no suggestion that he is about to change his mind.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I will not raise a point of order, but the Liberal Democrats have always taken the view that we need more time, so we support the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on that.

The new clauses and amendments are important. On Second Reading on 29 January, I anticipated that the Government would table new clauses on these matters and said that my hon. Friends would be sympathetic because the law was inadequate in certain respects. The Liberal Democrats will support Government new clause 6. However, we shall table amendments on Report to improve it. That is sensible and we could then consider what further needs to be done. A catching-up exercise is necessary.

The group includes Government new clauses and the amendment to one of them by the hon. Member for South Thanet; Conservative new clauses; and a Liberal new clause. They are somewhat strangely grouped together. They raise several issues about the right to protest and its limits, and the circumstances in which civil disobedience should be prevented from going too far.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that civil disobedience is entirely proper and laudable, provided it does not turn into violence and aggression. He must be careful not to confuse the two. The right to protest sometimes includes civil disobedience; it is not the same as threatening, intimidating, causing aggression and attacking. I put my hands up to having taken part in civil disobedience protests over the years—to save Twyford down, for example—but always avoiding violence towards those who are going about their business in other contexts.

Freedom of information issues are also important and one of the new clauses restricts the right to know shareholders' addresses; we debated who else should fall under that category and in what circumstances.

Our new clause 19 is a probing one in the sense that it provides an opportunity to raise with the Government how best to deal with the linked matters of specific forms of insidious crime and their perpetrators, through sentencing and punishment. The Government said that that was on their agenda. Neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton were responsible for home affairs at the time, but my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised important issues during the passage of what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. My hon. Friend distinguished between race hate crimes and other hate crimes—some based on sexuality, as mentioned by the hon. Member for South Thanet, others on religion and gender. We want to elicit the Government's views on those matters.

We shall support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South Thanet to Government new clause 7. As to the Conservative new clauses, new clause 14 is appropriate. It would change the law, dispensing with the need for a recurrence of harassment, which is unduly restrictive. We are happy to move on, but we think—

Standing Committee F

New Clause 6 - Police directions stopping the harassment etc of a person in his home

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I remind the Committee that with this we are considering the following: Government new clause 7—Malicious communications—

`.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 (offence of sending letters and other articles with intent to cause distress or anxiety)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ``letter or other article'' there shall be substituted ``letter, electronic communication or article of any description''; and

(b) in paragraph (b), for the word ``other article'' there shall be substituted ``article or electronic communication''.

(2) In subsection (2) of that section (defence of making a threat in the belief that it was a proper way of reinforcing a demand and that there were reasonable grounds for making that demand)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ``which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making'' there shall be substituted ``made by him on reasonable grounds''; and

(b) in paragraph (b), after ``believed'' there shall be inserted ``, and had reasonable grounds for believing,''.

(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—

``(2A) In this section `electronic communication' includes—

(a) any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984); and

(b) any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.

(4) In subsection (3) of that section (definition of ``send'')—

(a) after ``delivering'' there shall be inserted ``or transmitting''; and

(b) for ``or delivered'' there shall be substituted ``, delivered or transmitted''.

(5) In subsection (5) of that section (penalty for offence), for ``a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale'' there shall be substituted ``imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both''.

(6) Subsection (5) does not affect the penalty for an offence committed before the day on which this Act is passed.'.

And amendment (a) thereto, at end of subsection (2) insert—

`.—``(2ZA) No defence under subsection (2) above is provided where the threat conveyed is a threat of an action which if carried out would be an offence under any other Act.''.'.

Government new clause 20—Addresses of directors and secretaries of companies.

New clause 14—Fear of Violence—

`.—Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 shall be amended in subsection(1) by leaving out the words ``on at least two occasions''.'.

New clause 15—Conspiracy—

`.—After section 4 of the Protection for Harassment Act 1997 there shall be inserted the following section—

``Conspiracy

4A. Where two or more persons agree to organise or plan the commission by any other persons or by themselves a course of conduct contrary to Section 1 and Section 4 of this Act, they shall be guilty of the offence of conspiracy to commit the offence or offences in question contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1977 Section 1.''.'.

New clause 19—Increase in sentences for hate crimes—

`—(1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of any offence.

(2) If the offence was aggravated for the purposes of this section, the court—

(a) shall treat that fact as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence); and

(b) shall state in open court that the offence was so aggravated.

(3) An offence is aggravated for the purposes of this section if—

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim's actual or presumed sexual orientation, race, religion, gender or disability; or

(b) the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a group based on their sexual orientation, race, religion, gender or disability or based on their membership of, or association with, such a group.'.

Government amendments Nos. 176 and 243.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Before we adjourned for lunch, I had begun to set out our position on the considerable list of new clauses and amendments currently under our consideration. I had concluded the general description of where we stand in relation to the Government new clauses and amendment (a) to new clause 7, the new clauses tabled by the Conservatives and our new clause. I shall now return—at no great length—to deal with each of those in turn.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I was grateful to receive a letter of apology from the Minister of State following some unexpected and uncharacteristic remarks that he made during a previous sitting when I could not be here. I read what was said and felt that it was out of order and inappropriate; I should be grateful if he would say something about that.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his point of order. What went on in Committee last week is not really a matter for the Chair.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. The remarks made last week about my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a senior Member of the House, were appalling and extremely rude and gratuitous. If the Minister is prepared to withdraw them, that may well be an end of the matter; but if he is not, we should know that.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. If the Minister were prepared to let us know the precise content and nature of the letter of apology written to my right hon. and learned Friend, that in itself would help the Committee to understand his sense of remorse on the subject.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am unaware of the contents of the letter of apology. Points of order are matters raised with me, and it is for me to rule on them. That is not a valid point of order for me to rule on.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Hood. I do not resile for one moment from what I said, but it was wrong of me not to have previously informed the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) that I was going to say it, so I wrote him a letter apologising for not having done so. I have a copy of that letter here, but it is a matter between him and me. If—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. The Minister is making a point of information, not a point of order.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

On a separate point of order, Mr. Hood.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

If it is the same point of order, I have made my ruling and it is out of order.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I thought that I said that it was separate; I certainly intended to. Today, during questions, the Advocate-General for Scotland, with the Parliamentary Secretary sitting alongside her, suggested in reply to a question from me about this Committee's proceedings that the Committee had been filibustering, which is why there needed to be a programming motion—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I am waiting for a point of order. I am hearing an account of a discussion that took place in the House, which is not a matter for the Committee.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

My point of order, Mr. Hood, is whether you can direct the Advocate-General that there has been no question of filibustering on this Committee and she should not make such representations to the House.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

I am rather flattered that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I could make such a direction. With the greatest respect, it is not for the Chair to make such a direction.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I rise slowly, Mr. Hood, just in case.

I wish to thank those who have written to me, and I presume to other hon. Members, about the issues that we are debating. I, like others, have received letters from individuals and representative organisations, including constituents who work in research science. It is important that we should take account of the views of those who have seen fit to write. It is important, too, that they should know that the voice of the individual does reach Members of Parliament. I am grateful also, as are other hon. Members, for the other comments and briefings that we have received. Some of them were obviously sent by organisations with an interest in the subject, or from people paid by the organisations to do such work. They may have done it in their work time, but their comments have helped to inform our debate.

Some of my colleagues—they are not members of the Committee—have forwarded correspondence from constituents who are deeply concerned about the matter. In particular, I acknowledge the continuing interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in the matter of animal protests. They, like other members of the Committee, have constituency interests: one represents a university city and the other has research facilities in his constituency.

Before we adjourned for lunch, I said that it was right to add the Government new clauses, but that we had some concerns about the breadth of their provisions. I asked the Committee to reflect on some of the issues that are not resolved by the clauses before we reach Report.

As far as he could, the Minister helpfully set out some of the legislation that governs such matters, although breach of the peace is a matter of common law. This is not a criticism of his failure to do it this morning, but it would help if he would ask his civil servants to set out the relevant statutes that are in place in England and Wales—either at the end of the debate or, even better, in writing, but soon after today's deliberations.

When one looks at the remit and the breadth of that legislation, one realises that some of it needs to be amended. For example, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 takes no account of e-mail and modern technology and it obviously needs to be brought up to date. However, civil disobedience and the right to protest are already governed by various statutes as well as public order and breach of the peace legislation, and we need to consider what the limits of that legislation should be.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

May I clarify exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking for? Is he asking me to write to the Committee with a list of legislation that is relevant to the matters covered by new clauses 6 and 7 and the Opposition's proposed new clauses, and the extent to which they bear on such situations?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is exactly what I am asking for. It would help, especially when we come to the wider debate on the Floor of the House, to know what the law is at the moment, how it stands and what are the arguments for extending it.

The bigger debate, often touched on when considering such legislation, is about whether we should limit the right to protest, and whether the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 offer sufficient protection. Sadly, we do not often debate matters in the round. We normally suffer from Parliament reacting to events. That is a perfectly proper task, but sometimes it is better to stand back and think about what the law should be. I hope that the debate does not preclude us from a considered discussion in the near future—it will not be before the general election if that happens soon—on what we need to do to ensure that the right to protest, to speak out and to challenge people with one's views, however uncomfortable, is protected. At the same time, the right to not be harassed should be dealt with, as intimidation is unacceptable. That wide debate is not only about animal rights protests.

I would like to clear up our sub-debate about Members of Parliament and elected representatives. I do not argue, and it cannot be easily argued, that Members of Parliament, councillors or other elected representatives should for any reason be in a different position from anyone else. Many people are in public life, some elected, some appointed, and it would be invidious for us to give ourselves a special protection. I do not argue that the debate on the amount of protest that we should be expected to withstand is entirely different from the debate on whether we should be able to keep our addresses secret. I want to flag the issue up.

Last year, in the debates on electoral registration reform, we discussed whether people standing for office should be able to keep their names and addresses off the electoral register because they might be harassed or stalked. Again, that was a perfectly proper debate, and we may need to reach conclusions on the matter. My presumption is always that such information should be in the public domain. People should know where those who stand for office and are public servants live. If one is entirely a private citizen, not a public servant and not standing for office, the matter is different. I hope that we always tend towards freedom of information and no great restriction, rather than in the other direction. We should seek to limit the public's right to know and increase privacy only when there is an exceptionally good case for it.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

My hon. Friends did not request that Members of Parliament should have special additional privileges, merely that they should not be excluded from legislation intended to protect the whole community. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that he felt that all the addresses of Members of Parliament should be made public knowledge. I support him in terms of work telephone numbers and addresses, such as those of constituency and Westminster offices. However, I disagree with him about the private addresses and numbers of Members of Parliament, as we also have families.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I do not want to be too distracted into that debate, but the hon. Lady was responding to my comments, so I must reply. All the difference in the world applies to private phone numbers that people's families can use. If she, one of my hon. Friends or I decide to stand for office, we do so in the knowledge that we have families, and that our actions will have implications for them. We must not be naive about that. I strongly take the view that where we live is a matter of public interest.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Why?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Because it is hugely important whether one lives in the constituency or not. Members should always live in their constituencies, and it is a matter of proper public knowledge as to whether they do. It is a matter of public interest as to whether they live in a mansion worth £1 million or a flat worth £100,000. To that extent, we are accountable, so such information should be in the public domain.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I could not disagree more. Whether we live in a mansion worth £1 million or a hovel worth nothing is of no significance or interest to our constituents. All that matters to them is whether we do a good job on their behalf in our constituency and in this place. Our personal circumstances and addresses should be matters for us and no one else.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I hear the hon. Gentleman, and disagree with him. It matters greatly to our electors to know whether we live in the constituency that we seek to represent, how long we have lived there and whereabouts we live. That should be a matter of public record, and I would resist any attempt to change that, other than in the most unusual circumstances. That is the case in the sense that one has to put one's name and address on the ballot paper.

Jackie Ballard (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

So that my hon. Friend does not feel alone in the debate that is developing, I should like to inform the Committee that—as I am sure he knows—the address and telephone number of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown) have always been available in the local phone book, including during all the time when he was leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

So that I am not accused of something else, I, like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, have sometimes had to have the protection of the police at home. Paradoxically, that brought more attention to where I live than anything had done previously, as there was so much activity outside. That might be required for anyone, such as a journalist or a research scientist. The police are there to give additional protection, when it is needed, to members of the royal family, politicians, diplomats, business people and others. It is likely that people will need some protection at times. I do not pretend that that is not sometimes necessary, even if it turns out not to be justified. Although it might not be directly connected to the matters that we are debating, I mention it in the context of the treatment of private individuals.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I might have misled the Committee this morning when I suggested that special branch is taking a particular interest in me and my house. The truth is that I have the good fortune to live next door to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who has special branch looking after his house, so the officers keep an eye on mine.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I had misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, and he might unwittingly have misled the Committee. I am grateful to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I have asked the Minister questions aimed at ensuring that the definitions in the Government new clauses are clear. The definition of a person who is in the vicinity of premises should be narrow. It could be that case law deals with that. However, ``in the vicinity'', as defined from its Latin root, does not necessarily mean very close. It could mean a long way away. That is a pretty wide definition, which gives the police the ability to give a direction to somebody who might be 100 yd, half a mile or several miles away.

At the moment, because of foot and mouth disease, there are protective rings around certain farms to prevent activity in the vicinity of infected farms. They sometimes stretch for several miles. I should like to flag up the fact that we are looking at a definition that may be far wider than intended, and far wider than might be appropriate in the circumstances.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the concerns of the National Farmers Union is exactly that it should be possible to protect farmers who are subject to intimidation and the offer of violence in their domestic premises, which are on the farm. Does he agree that in many cases that would require some distance to be specified—certainly more than a few yards—to achieve the purpose?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

Yes.

The Bill refers to premises that are used by any individual as his dwelling. That begs some questions that we have not teased out. Some people live and work in the same place. Do the provisions mean dwellings only, or dwellings irrespective of whether they are also workplaces? Farms offer a good example: many farmers live and work in the same place. In their case, do we mean the whole area that is naturally part of their workplace, even though it might be nothing to do with their dwelling? Many farmers have fields that are not contiguous to the land surrounding the farmhouse—possibly on the other side of the road or of the valley. We need to be clear about such issues.

I am not persuaded by anything that the Minister has said, that the following phrases from the new clause represent a sufficiently strong test. The new clause states:

``that constable also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person...

(i) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or

(ii) is likely to cause alarm or distress''.

Those are alternatives, not cumulative factors. To illustrate my point, I shall use the example of last year's visit to this country by the President of China. While he was here he had a dwelling—it might have been a hotel, but it was still a place where he stayed. He may have been caused alarm or distress by the protests of people who were unhappy with Chinese policy on Tibet. Personally, I hope that they caused him distress, because that was the purpose of the protest: to bring his attention to something, to cause him to react and to affect him.

In addition, the purpose of the protesters was to persuade someone who would be defined as ``the victim'' under the new clause that he should not do something that he was entitled or required to do, or that he should do something that he was not under any obligation to do. It could be argued that to attempt to persuade the President of China to give up his Government's occupation of Tibet is to seek to persuade him to do something that he is under no obligation to do, under one definition of international law, but that morally he should do. We are in dangerous territory if we leave the new clause as it is.

Another example was given by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I do not want to repeat the debate that we had this morning, but it seems to me absolutely proper for a journalist, in certain circumstances, to go to someone's house, to wait outside their house for them to come out and to seek to ask them questions that may cause distress or alarm. That person may deserve to have distress or alarm caused to them. It must be a civil liberty to allow people to challenge those who are abusing other people's money or assets. That is part of a free society.

I understand that it is difficult to draw the line. I am not in favour of a society in which everyone is plagued by harassing journalists. However, the Bill includes more than a harassment test. The new clause uses the phrase

``likely to result in, the harassment of the victim; or...is likely to cause alarm or distress.''

That is far too weak a test. We must return to the matter at a later stage.

Hon. Members have mentioned another issue. People working in the research science industries who have sent me letters want to ensure that their families are given sufficient protection and are not put under undue pressure. I understand and share that concern. Those people could be at risk at home, on their way between home and work, at work or in other places—such as when out shopping. We have not yet tackled the issue of whether the targeted individual and their family should be treated in the same way, or treated differently. I raise the question because we should not legislate on the hoof without having answered that question.

There are other aspects that we should consider carefully before we finalise the legislation. For example, subsection (2) of new clause 6 contains the proposal that

``A direction under this section is a direction requiring the person to whom it is given to do all such things as the constable giving it may specify as the things he considers necessary''.

We often debate whether such tests should be subjective or objective. I am not asserting my view of the matter, but I am asking whether there should be an objective test rather than a subjective test.

Another point raised with me is whether it is sufficient, in practical terms, for directions to be given orally, and whether people should be guilty of an offence if they do not comply with directions given orally.

I do not remember whether the Minister was on the demonstration that I attended when we were both at university, against Rudi Dutschke's deportation by Reginald Maudling. I was there—and the Minister confirms that he was there too. The police were there. Just before I went to university, a protest took place at the Garden House hotel against the Greek junta, the colonels and their undemocratic rule of Greece. There was plenty of police activity there.

Is sufficient protection provided for the civil liberties of people who are lawfully protesting in such a circumstance—and who are thus clearly seeking to make a point to people who might fear pressure—if the police tell the whole crowd of 100 or 1,000 people to move on, when there is not necessarily any legal requirement that they should know that the police have said that? It must be wrong for people to be guilty of an offence simply because when a direction was given—to which a police officer would attest on oath in court—they did not hear it or were unaware of it. People who were quite innocently protesting could be caught up in that.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

On a minor point, and without going into romantic recollections of the Garden House hotel demonstration, at which I was not present, the hon. Gentleman has given two examples involving hotels: the hotel used by the president of China and the Garden house hotel. In our view, a hotel is not a dwelling. We believe that a dwelling is defined as a structure occupied as a person's home.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I understand that. It is a perfectly reasonable answer and if that is the current interpretation of the law, it is fine.

On a separate issue, would General Pinochet's residence, for months—or years—in Surrey, have been his dwelling? It strikes me that he had no choice about it. It was his home de facto. He was not allowed to go anywhere else, and I think that the courts would have probably defined it as his home. The issue that I am concerned about would arise if people were standing outside General Pinochet's place of house arrest. Is the Prime Minister's home at No. 10 Downing street his dwelling? Perhaps I should have said No. 11 Downing street. I am confused these days as to who in the Government lives where. That house is not only his dwelling but his workplace. I raise the question only so that we can reach the correct definitions.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

The hon. Gentleman has put a query into my mind. If one were to demonstrate outside someone's home, not requiring him or her to do something, but simply out of dislike, because he or she belonged to a different political party, that would presumably not be covered by the Bill. Perhaps the Minister should think about adding something to cover that eventuality.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

That is an overly draconian response. The hon. Gentleman should always try to tend in the other direction. I shall have to persuade him that the tendency to legislate for more powers to be given to authority should always be resisted—even, or perhaps especially, by a Labour Government.

If I wanted to protest to the Chinese Government, I might want to do so outside the Chinese ambassador's residence, which clearly is his home for as long as he is staying in London as ambassador. The same would apply to the American ambassador's residence, and would have applied to the South African ambassador's residence, if this had been happening 20 years ago. That would be a dwelling, and I would want the ambassador to do something that he was not doing, or to stop doing something that he was doing—although in my case, I would not spend my time there without a slightly stronger reason. I have better things to do. However, we need to deal with the questions that I have raised.

I think that it is proper, as in new clause 7, to extend the Bill to include other forms of communication that can be used for harassment. I do not know about other members of the Committee, but people who obtain one's mobile phone number can send text messages, which can be harassment because they fill up the text message space and it is necessary to keep deleting them. In the past two years, there have been two people who have thought that it was their life's work to leave messages on my answering machine about 25 times a day, and effectively to block all the other messages. I accept that it becomes harassment, although I have never sought protection against it. Clearly, e-mails could also be included in this category. Receiving e-mails every two seconds would be very tedious to deal with. We need to find the difference between what is tedious and what is harassment, and not to be over-sensitive about such things.

We are sympathetic to new clause 14, for the reasons that I gave earlier. The law on conspiracy is sufficient as it stands, so new clause 15 is unnecessary.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my anxiety in respect of new clause 6, that the directions have only to be given to one individual, and if he fails to carry out them out there are sanctions? An organised campaign could involve different people each day, as when a group of travellers boxed and coxed their vans and it was necessary to issue a possession order that affected not just individuals on the site but everyone who might go there in a certain period. Is not something stronger required?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I absolutely understand that point. It would be a nonsense if the police had to take action against each individual, separately. The hon. Gentleman is right: hunt saboteurs or members of a civil protest movement, for example, might operate in shifts. The people in Whitehall or Parliament square might do their shift and then go home, to be replaced by another shift. That is how many protests are organised. We need to consider such matters and ensure that we do not allow the police to have a blanket cordon—we have given ourselves a blanket cordon around the Palace of Westminster, although it is not often used—and subject them to undue bureaucratic pressure to identify different people who are part of the same group. As someone said recently about terrorist organisations, the problem with these groups is that they do not have membership lists and they do not all turn up at the annual general meeting. It is difficult to discover who is a member of such groups.

On new clause 19, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) properly intervened to say that we must be careful that the law does not give protection to particular groups and not to others. By their own admission, it is on the Government's agenda to consider how to secure religious equality. Many religious groups in this country, particularly the Muslims, feel that their faith is not protected in the same way as that of other groups.

I am a member of the Church of England, which has particular protection in the law of the land: blasphemy against the Christian faith is an offence, yet it is not an offence to be rude or offensive about other faiths. That is wrong. There should be no such discrimination. We should have no law that makes free speech that may be offensive to people illegal; if the faith does not have the capacity to cope with that, there is something wrong with the faith.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Although it may not be directly relevant to the point about the animal lobby, if we are discussing matters of race hate and so on, I can see that religion is relevant, too. I, too, am a member of the Anglican Church. Is he saying that his party's official stance is to be in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

We are in favour of disestablishment over a phased period. We are also in favour of the repeal of the blasphemy laws so that the Christian Church does not get more protection than other faiths. The Government said, on the record, that following a report from the university of Derby, which was due last October, I think, they would consider how to secure protection for people who are discriminated against or who feel that they are persecuted on the grounds of their faith. One reason why new clause 19 was tabled was to probe how far they have got with that. In a Committee last year, the Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said that we would receive the report in the autumn. We want to know what has happened.

There is already differentiation in law between certain types of crime. Parliament legislated under the present Government to treat people who were guilty of race hate crimes differently from other criminals. The hon. Member for South Thanet might have voted against those measures—I have not checked, but I doubt it, because the measures had general support across all the parties. There is at least a case for examining whether hate crimes on a wider basis—gender, sexual orientation or religion—should be given the same treatment in sentencing or when defining the aggravation of an offence.

If Muslims or Sikhs are attacked because they are Muslim or Sikh, for them the evil is the same as in a race crime. As happened in the Admiral Duncan, if people are targeted because they are thought to be gay by a madman, their perception is that they have been targeted because of their sexual orientation. The victims' experiences would be similar to those in race crimes. I raise the question because all parties have, to different degrees, promised to address race crimes and viewed them as particularly obnoxious. I believe that we have unfinished business on that, and this debate was the only opportunity in Committee of examining what the Government have achieved. I will be grateful for the Minister's considered reply.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman argued for disestablishment, but then went on to say that he and his party were in favour of the repeal of all blasphemy laws because they do not cover other faiths. Would it not be more logical for him to argue that the blasphemy laws should be extended to cover those other faiths as well?

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

May I complete my point? Disability, which is included in new clause 19, has not yet been mentioned. People are targeted, persecuted and attacked because of their disability. Again, those are particularly unpleasant, vile and obnoxious offences. All hon. Members will have experience from constituency work of people who have been attacked because they are in one of the categories that I have mentioned. We believe that the law should be strong enough to deal with that.

I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what the Government have achieved, although I understand that he might tell us that the review on sentencing is due in a couple of months and that some aspects will be properly covered by that. I cannot remember whether they are also covered by the review by Lord Justice Auld, although I think that it is examining the workings of the system rather than specifics.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

I am concerned about new clause 19, because it specifies certain groups of people and therefore leaves out others. I do not happen to be a Christian, and my local Catholic priest has been denouncing me from the pulpit in recent weeks for not believing in God. I would not be protected by the new clause. Someone could commit an offence against me without its being an aggravation, because I do not belong to one of the specified groups. It would be safest to devise a form of words that defined aggravation as an offence that was committed against an individual without provocation. That would include everyone.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I am extremely sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's view. This is proper debate. I made it clear that this was a probing new clause, which does not pretend to be perfectly drafted. Instead of ``religion'', it might be better to put ``belief'', because it would also include people such as the hon. Gentleman who have a belief, although not, in his definition, a religion.

We raised such points because the Government, encouraged by other parties and organisations both in and outside Parliament, legislated to give race hate crimes a particular position in the legal system. As that has been done, there are arguments about whether other categories should be included. One might take the perfectly proper view that they should not. The hon. Gentleman made a quieter point well regarding those activities that are particularly obnoxious, whereby people are picked on for no reason and attacked for what they are: either what they are that they can help or what they are that they cannot help, which is even more obnoxious. We want to know whether there is an opportunity to improve the law regarding that issue.

I wish to conclude by dealing with the interventions of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). A good reason why it would be impossible to extend the blasphemy law to cover all faiths is that we would then have to define faith and religion. I have always taken the view that that is impossible, unless we have a register of religions, as we now have a register of political parties. Where two or three people are gathered together, they form a religion. In other countries, they form political parties but in this country they can form a religion. That is why many of us argue that it is better to remove blasphemy law protection from the one faith group that has it, and that faith does not need legal protection. Those who have faith believe either that faith should be able to defend itself or that thunderbolts will come and act on its behalf.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's position, but surely he agrees that immense upset has been caused, particularly to those of the Muslim faith, by the many people who indulge in what that faith deems to be the most appalling blasphemies. Some of those people are extremely well known. We do not need to refer to them in the Committee and give them yet more undeserved publicity. Many leaders, particularly of the Muslim faith—I have connections with the Ahmadiya Muslims, and I think that the hon. Gentleman also knows them—would welcome some protection. That is why my view on the matter is slightly different from his.

Simon Hughes (Liberal Democrat, North Southwark and Bermondsey)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's view. It is fair to say that the view of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom is that it would like the law extended to give that protection. I understand why it takes that view, but I do not agree with it. I think that it would be better to have no protection. Like all others, the Islamic faith is capable of defending itself. In a world that allows freedom of speech, authors or others who wish to be rude about Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Sikhism should be allowed to do so. We have moved on. We should not be as sensitive as we have been. I take the view that freedom of speech should win over offence. It is an argument between more liberal and less liberal views about freedom of speech.

That does not mean that I am any less respectful of communities such as the Muslim community. I was with members of my Muslim community at one of the mosques in my constituency yesterday. I respect it hugely, and Muslims respect people of other faiths. That is not the issue, but I hope that I have explained my reason for taking a different view, which I accept is no more justified than the hon. Gentleman's. He is entitled to his view. I am sorry that I have taken longer than at any other stage so far in Committee, but several important issues have been raised.

To return to the central issue, it is important that people going about their lawful business are protected by the law from intimidation. The managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences—whom I have met—his staff and people working for other organisations do not deserve to be intimidated as they have been and should have the protection of Parliament. I do not think that there is any fundamental dissent among us, and I do not want to send out the message that there is. However, we must ensure that when we put a new law on the statute book, it is justified and we know exactly why we wrote it as we did. I am concerned that the Bill is drafted too widely. It could be more accurately and correctly drafted after consideration. We will have an opportunity to look back on the debate, and there will be a chance to make further changes later.

I hope that we end up with a law that works, that responds to concerns that have been raised and that ensures that people who engage in lawful activity, whether others like it or not, are entitled to do so. We must respect their right to do that and, in many cases, applaud them for doing it, because it is done not just in the best interests of themselves and their fellow citizens but, as they see it, for good moral reasons and in the best interests of society as a whole.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I join all members of the Committee in welcoming the Government's proposal to amend the legislation to deal with what we all regard as a violent terrorist abhorrence, directed against research scientists. The new clauses will give support to all those who have suffered from what the perpetrators—the charming people in the Animal Liberation Front—call non-violent home protests: mail, e-mail and telephone calls. The communications that I have received are certainly not non-violent. Why do I receive such communications? My constituency of Peterborough is not a million miles from Huntingdon, where Huntingdon Life Sciences is based—as well as other research facilities that use animals, including some at Cambridge university.

I have received many representations and I crave the indulgence of the Committee in quoting from some of them. It is about time that we heard from people, in their own words, what such terrorism means to them. I shall not give names. One person who wrote to me from B & K Universal Ltd said:

``What I don't understand is why people get away with victimising us. These people have no right to intimidate us...My journey to work should not be an ordeal.''

That is one of the milder letters. Someone else writes:

``Animal activists have made me feel ashamed to admit the kind of work I do, even though I feel proud that I can make the animals as comfortable and well looked after as possible. I also feel a sense of achievement knowing the line of work I do is helping researchers find new cures for diseases, to help people and other animals.''

Someone from a completely different part of the country writes:

``These animal rights extremists have hijacked the animal welfare group and are using this emotive issue to further their own private anarchist agenda.''

I am no longer prepared to listen to the kind of argument that says that if one does not support such violent, take-the-law-into-your-own-hands extremism, one is guilty of animal cruelty. I, and I am sure all members of the Committee, know that the people who perpetrate such activity are not doing it just for the animals. They are equally happy to engage in the kind of anarchism that occurred in Parliament square. They are a rent-a-mob who travel around communicating by mobile phone. Whatever piece of action is happening, they want a part of it and are going to make others pay.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Did my hon. Friend note that at the weekend, those people who supposedly care so much about animals refused to call off their demonstration at Huntingdon Life Sciences even though that ran the risk of spreading foot and mouth disease, leading to the slaughter of hundreds of animals?

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing up that important matter. He is absolutely right to point out where their true compassion lies: with self and self alone.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the hon. Lady knows from our discussions, I entirely agree with her—regarding not only her comments today but her excellent contribution on Second Reading. I know that she has worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, on those issues. As she says, many of her constituents are affected. Does she agree that that rent-a-mob is terrorising people countrywide? She, like my hon. Friends, has received many letters, from people in every part of the country, who are absolutely terrified and who have asked all members of the Committee to take the matter extremely seriously.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I completely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said and hope that every other member of the Committee does so.

To return to the comments of ordinary people who should be heard, someone else wrote to me:

``I have suffered threats to myself, my family and my home. I am constantly on edge, especially when I see strange cars near my home. I know what they are capable of; my colleagues in the industry have suffered car bombs and have had their homes trashed. The current legislation is allowing this to take place, and therefore I fully support the new Bill being passed.''

Another communication—I hope that I am not boring the Committee, but we are talking about the interests of these people and I want to place their views on the record—states:

``We ourselves are subjected to weekly shouts by megaphone, and I quote `scum, paedophile, murdering bastard, animal abuser, we know where you live, we know where your children go to school!'''

Being subjected to such threats is unacceptable in a democracy. It is not simply an animal welfare issue.

Another letter states:

``I am deeply concerned about anarchists forcing their views on other people through their behaviour, no matter what the subject might be.''

That brings me back to my main point, that this has nothing to do with animals; it is a particularly destructive and disruptive form of behaviour, which must be regarded as wholly unacceptable in any democracy, and especially so in this one.

Finally, another letter states:

``Perhaps a member of Parliament could speak out for us, unless he/she fears the same type of harassment as we do.''

Hon. Members will have made forceful representations in their local newspapers and I am sure that they, like me, will have received some very nasty, unpleasant and intimidating correspondence—and will know precisely how to deal with it.

I shall now move on to Huntingdon Life Sciences. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to the use of early-day motions, and hon. Members will be aware of my early-day motion 374. We all deplored the attack on Brian Cass. I remember waking up and tuning in to the ``Today'' programme and hearing the dulcet tones of a gentleman from the Animal Liberation Front, known affectionately by some as ALF. Asked repeatedly by John Humphrys to condemn unreservedly the use of violence by persons in balaclavas, he refused to do so. He dodged the question, saying that he did not like violence, but he sort of understood it. It is precisely his attitude that we must legislate to get rid of.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

If it was the usual spokesman for ALF, I can tell the hon. Lady that he has already served a prison sentence for previous violence against scientists.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and we should all congratulate him on his detection work. If any of the fourth estate of journalists are present, I hope that they will make that fact known. It was certainly not publicised in the ``Today'' programme.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I did not know that the hon. Member for South Thanet was going to raise that matter, but now that he has—helpfully—done so, I should mention that one of the barristers who shared chambers with me was junior counsel for the prosecution in the large ALF trial. It is right to place that on the record, and I am proud that someone with whom I worked over several years was involved in the successful prosecution of a person whom I can describe only as a terrorist.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

I am grateful for that contribution and I am glad that the Committee has been notified of that information publicly today. Returning to representations about Huntingdon Life Sciences—

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I do not know whether the hon. Lady heard the apologists on Radio 5 Live who suggested that it was not animal extremists who attacked Mr. Cass, but someone from the pharmaceutical industry trying to set them up.

Helen Clark (Labour, Peterborough)

That just goes to show the depths of argument to which these individuals will resort. I hope that we treat that suggestion with the contempt that it deserves and raise it for ridicule and, indeed, rebuttal.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been in contact with people at HLS. I particularly wanted to ascertain their views on the Government amendments. I have also been in contact with the Research Defence Society, as have many members of the Committee, and the pet care industry. The society has continuing concerns that the proposed legislation does not go far enough and will not have a sufficient effect on the more violent attacks, such as the shameful baseball bat attack on Brian Cass that we have mentioned and the 14 letter bombs that have been sent in the past few months. I was informed that one exploded in the face of the six-year-old daughter of a pesticides salesman.

Such attacks are, of course, already criminal offences. Not surprisingly, the people who have felt or been targeted have called on our police services each time that they received an unexpected parcel or saw unknown people near their offices. For some of my constituents who work at HLS, that means a daily, or sometimes twice daily, desperate telephone call. People who have made such complaints include animal auctioneers, sheep farmers, fish and chip salespeople and even members of the British Heart Foundation who donate money for testing. The net has indeed been spread far and wide.

Obviously, all that puts a further strain on police resources. The Minister will be aware that I have in the past written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the need for additional police funding for the Cambridgeshire constabulary to enable it effectively to control the unlawful activities of the animal rights extremists targeting HLS and associate companies and employees. I do not claim a party political first on that. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon has led the campaign by Cambridgeshire Members of Parliament, which has spanned both political parties and included Robert Sturdy, a Member of the European Parliament.

I was absolutely delighted that, after persistent lobbying and letters, the Home Secretary responded to the request very well. I know that the chief constable of Cambridgeshire would want me to say how grateful he and his force were for the additional funding, but I want to ensure that it is not a one-off and that there is a regular supply of money that can be used in such instances. People should make no mistake: the animal terrorism and extremism at HLS and other places is not a new vogue for 2000 and 2001. Unless it is stamped out firmly, it will go on and on. Police officers will often be unable to take breaks at weekends or to have rest days. That will discourage people from entering the police force and make people want to leave it, weakening the force and having an effect not only on animal rights extremism but on the quality of the police service. I firmly hope that the Minister will assure us of continual adequate and fair additional funding for forces in that position.

On new clause 7, I welcome the additional penalties of imprisonment or a higher fine that may be imposed under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. I also support the shift in emphasis under subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the same Act from individual belief to a shared definition of what constitutes reasonable grounds for making threats.

I shall again refer to a communication that I received from a person in a senior position at B&K, who would like rather more definition of the Bill's terms and mentions a definition of peaceful protest. That has not yet come up in Committee, but the person said:

``Genuine debate on all matters is constructive and necessary but when one group tries to force its views on others this is not democracy. With a peaceful protest there should be no necessity for...spitting...interfering with the free passage of people and vehicles going about their lawful business. Posters and placards should be relevant to the protest, accurate and not give offence.''

Whether in Committee or elsewhere, I believe that the Government should look again at the legislation concerning what is peaceful protest and what is not. We need to embark on a redefinition.

I have talked to members on both sides of the Committee about new clauses 14 and 15. I am at one with my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I am in favour of the proposals under new clauses 14 and 15 about conspiracy and harassment. As a result of those proposals, I hope, as I am sure does the whole Committee, that the Minister will consider the matter and return with excellent Government clauses on Report and create a climate in which our constituents can go about their lawful, chosen profession without fear of harassment or intimidation to themselves or their families.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My constituency is about 15 miles south of Huntingdon and scientists who live there have been persecuted in the way in which the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) outlined. I am determined that the law should be improved so that such activities are stopped, in so far as they can be. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon set the matter in context when he said that the experiments at Huntingdon Life Sciences are not optional, but necessary. They are experiments to find cures for cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, asthma and other serious conditions.

This country has a tremendous pharmaceutical industry. In Hertfordshire, we have some of the best companies in the world with some of the best research facilities. It is not just a matter of making money for Britain, but such research provides for the world cures for some terrible, crippling illnesses and diseases. I do not believe that this country is not wedded to animal welfare. We are. As a country, we take all possible precautions to ensure that animal welfare is compromised only in so far as it is absolutely necessary and where there is the overriding human concern, which is a necessity.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the superb reputation of the companies in his constituency, within the London and Thames valley area of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry are 40,000 staff who are employed by its 17 member companies, which is two thirds of the industry's total for the United Kingdom? Those 17 member companies are investing more than £1.8 billion annually in this country's research and development. As my hon. Friend said, employees in that industry need protecting.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Yes. It is wrong that people who are doing the world a service as well as making money for Britain are subjected to the sort of harassment that we have heard about. I shall not cite examples, but I have received the type of letters that the hon. Member for Peterborough has received. In fact, at least one of them was the same. We have a duty to tackle such matters.

Stephen Ladyman (Labour, South Thanet)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the regulation system for animal experiments in the United Kingdom is the tightest and most comprehensive in the world and that the standard of welfare for those animals is the best in the world? The inevitable consequence of terrorism driving animal experiments abroad is that they will be done to a lower standard under a more lightly controlled regime.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That is exactly one of the commitments, or statements, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon asked the Minister to make on Second Reading, and I was pleased that the Minister did so. The Minister also pointed out that the exercise is not voluntary for those companies. They are required by law to apply such procedures to protect people who have such treatments applied to them to save them from serious illness. As my right hon. Friend said, the Thalidomide centre is in his constituency, so no one knows more than he about the possible effects if medicines are not properly tested and a regime such as the one that we have is not in place.

The points that my right hon. Friend made at the time that especially needed to be dealt with related to directors' and shareholders' addresses. The Government have introduced welcome proposals on directors' addresses, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will continue to examine the issue of shareholders' addresses and consider what action might be taken. Malicious communications are dealt with in the new clauses, which is welcome.

The point that my right hon. Friend made was that besetting people's homes should be unlawful. The proposal does not go that far. Although we shall support the proposal, my anxiety relates to an organised rota for a large number of activists going to someone's home. One of them might one day be told by the constable to leave, and might eventually leave or be dealt with. However, the following day there might be another one, who would be dealt with, followed by another.

The proposal would not necessarily stop the continuing conspiracy aspect of what is going on at the moment. I hope that the Minister will consider ideas to tackle that. New clauses 14 and 15 make an attempt to do so by providing protection from harassment by ending the requirement relating to the need for someone to have behaved in such a way on two separate occasions. Other ways may be available, and we should continue the search between now and Report, and even after Report if necessary, as the Bill proceeds to the Lords.

Secondary activity was another great anxiety that my right hon. Friend raised. He had in mind pressure on staff of financial institutions, such as banks and pension funds, as a result of the harassment of their employees. I should like an assurance from the Minister that his proposal will tackle that problem.

Although today we are being consensual—I hope that Labour Members will support new clauses 14 and 15—we are owed an explanation of the action of the Labour party pension fund. At a crucial moment it pulled the plug, and there is no doubt that that had a damaging effect on everyone else. If the Government's political party's pension fund pulls the plug on an important investment in Huntingdon Life Sciences on the basis of ethics—which was, I understand, the basis on which it was portrayed—we are entitled to know what exactly were the ethics that drove the Labour party pension fund to do that. Perhaps the action had nothing to do with ethics but related simply to Labour party pension fund workers being threatened, and the Labour party deciding, as have others, that it could not afford to put its employees at risk. One way or the other, we are entitled to know.

The Government may want to reflect on the fact that in opposition they were very vocal on animal rights issues. I am all in favour of animal welfare, and I believe in peaceful protest, as do Labour Members. However, the point of fever pitch was reached on the issue. Before the general election, the Labour party accepted a substantial donation from a group that campaigned on animal welfare issues. Looking back on the matter, the Minister might say, ``The Labour party has made some mistakes in this area. Now we are in government, we have come to our senses. That is why we are bringing forward sensible proposals at this time.''

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend has come to part of the point that I was going to make. It seemed to me, as it did to other Opposition Members and many people outside the House who had studied such issues, that there could be a third explanation. My hon. Friend has perhaps given part of the explanation in relation to the sudden decision by the Labour party pension fund to pull the plug. In addition to substantial donations by the animal rights lobby to the Labour party, it might be related to the fact that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who was then shadow spokesman on agricultural issues—and therefore on animal and animal welfare issues—and who is now a Minister, personally received a substantial donation. I raised the issue when we were in government and the Labour party was in opposition because it was entirely inappropriate for a Front Bench spokesman on such issues to take that money, which, of course, he declared. When he came into government and became the Minister as opposed to the shadow Minister, he, and, by implication, the whole Labour Government, were partis pris, which could only give comfort to the animal rights extremists.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party may have been silly in opposition, and I hope that it has come to its senses—

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Would the hon. Gentleman like to take the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that he is not in any sense attempting to claim that animal welfare organisations support terrorist operations or are in any way connected with the kind of activity that we have discussed this afternoon?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am happy to confirm that.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I was asking—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I entirely accept that there is no such connection, and I did not say that there was.

On more detailed aspects, is the Minister saying that the sending of services such as funeral services, gravel and so on is covered by the law, either under the new clauses or the protection from harassment provisions?

What will be the impact on farms? The National Farmers Union has contacted me about serious incidents of intimidation and threats of violence outside farm premises by individuals who disagree with the method of farming that is being practised. Apparently, there have been terrorist attacks, including activities such as following the farmer's children to school and videoing elderly relatives of the farmer through a window.

The NFU is concerned about what ``in the vicinity'' means in that context. Will it be possible for those who are directed to move away simply to walk to the other side of the farm field and continue their activities? Under subsection (5), it is anticipated that the constable can make exception to his direction, including

``conditions as to the distance from the premises in question at which, or otherwise as to the location where, persons who do not leave their vicinity must remain''.

Does that mean that constables have the power to direct persons to leave and stay a significant distance away—for example, a mile or half a mile—or just a few yards? The Minister will recall that, under section 65 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was fully debated, a person who is within five miles of the boundary of the site of a rave can be instructed not to proceed in that direction. That is a much longer distance than the phrase, ``in the vicinity'' might suggest. Will the Minister clarify what that means?

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is reasonably likely that the farm buildings may be the target for terrorists or protesters? Those buildings might be a reasonable distance from the farmhouse. If the provision is designed to protect the farmer from the type of activity that we all decry, it would be necessary to include the place of work as well as the house.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

That is the problem with a farm. It is not only a dwelling but a workplace. People can be intimidated easily by burning a haystack half a mile away or causing damage to buildings that are a significant distance away. That is why the NFU hopes that it will be possible to distance the individuals concerned from the farm. The other issue is that the direction's value would be limited if it were lawful for a person to return to the scene—an hour after the police had left, for example. Will the Minister confirm whether the ban from an area has a fixed duration? For example, under other provisions, such a direction would last for 72 hours. Will the direction specify a length of time during which intimidators would be kept away?

Is it good enough for the direction to be made orally, or is it proposed that there would be a written record of it? Obviously, a concern in court would be that defendants could swear blind that no direction had been given, or claim that it was not given in the terms that it was. Will the Minister consider how that problem could be overcome? There is concern that the groups that we have discussed might actively look for loopholes in the law, or for ways to evade their responsibilities. It would clearly be necessary to prove that the direction had been given because there may be many members of the group, while only one constable is involved. Would it be possible, in such examples as the Huntingdon situation, to video an officer giving a direction?

Although I have criticised the Labour party in general, I make no criticism of the Labour members of the Committee who have campaigned vigorously and bravely on this matter. We do not see them in a party political light in respect of this matter, because they have stood up for their constituents and beliefs. However, we hope that the Minister can explain the role of the Labour party pension fund in the matter.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it may not be an entire coincidence that, when the Government's usual channels chose the membership of the Committee, they were careful to ensure—with, I think, the sole exception of the Whip—that all members, at every level, were newly elected in 1997? I do not suggest that the Government Whip was involved in anything that my hon. Friend or I mentioned earlier, because he was not; he is a good cross-party friend. However, there are usually a number of senior Government Back Benchers on the Committees. This Committee is very unusual because even the two Ministers were newly elected in 1997.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I would not go as far as to describe such hon. Members as the good guys, because that would be unparliamentary. However, they clearly do not have any form. We are planning to discuss criminal records later.

Sir Nicholas Lyell (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It is nice to rejoin the Committee when there is such sweetness and light and, happily, the Government are making an effort to bring forward constructive legislation to deal with a real problem.

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, especially because a significant number of the employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences live in my constituency. I have had substantial correspondence from them and I have corresponded with the Home Office on their behalf. I am pleased that major efforts are being made to produce satisfactory legislation.

It is important to look at the new clauses with a view to ensuring that the police have the power to make demonstrators stand well back, because standing a few yards back is not satisfactory. Of course, such demonstrators should be able to express their views. However, the harassment that my constituents have faced for months and years is intolerable and unacceptable in the kind of Britain that any of us wish to live in, regardless of party affiliation.

It is important that the legislation should not contain loopholes. As my hon. Friend said, such protesters are financially well supported and are guided by well-informed people. They will use every possible loophole in the law if we leave such loopholes. I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Of course one does not wish to prevent people from demonstrating, as it is their right. However, that right has been deeply abused in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire and the vicinity of Huntingdon Life Sciences.

I represent a farming constituency, so I join my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire in drawing attention to the points made by the National Farmers Union. Not only farmhouses but the workplace in general may be beset and harassed, so it is essential that clauses are put in place that protect people at their work as well as in the place where they live. The people working at Huntingdon Life Sciences may be beset when they go home and when they are at work. We must institute laws that protect from harassment citizens doing important and valuable work, while maintaining freedom of speech.

I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the necessity of such scientific work. The law requires that certain things must be tested on animals because there is no other way that is held to be safe. Everyone agrees that, if we could find another method of testing that did not involve animals, we could take that route; indeed, the law requires that we do. However, scientists and technological workers at Huntingdon Life Sciences are putting their lives at risk to carry out important work, so we owe it to them to protect them.

Charles Clarke (Labour, Norwich South)

We have had a lengthy and well-informed debate.

I want first to deal with some misleading party political rubbish. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made a series of assertions that were without foundation. I need simply to read out the early-day motion from which he selectively quoted fallaciously to illustrate his point. It is dated 6 February 1995 and was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). It states, in its entirety:

``This House congratulates all those around the country who have been demonstrating against the vile trade of animals for slaughter; believes that all citizens have a right to defy laws and regulations which have no moral basis whilst at the same time accepting the full consequences of such acts of civil disobedience and—``

I emphasise this point—

``disdaining physical violence against individuals however provocative and loathsome they may be; further believes that Her Majesty's Government—``

meaning the former Conservative Government—

``must listen to the overwhelming expressions of public opposition and take immediate steps to halt this offensive and immoral trade and defend such action in the European Court if challenged.''

I read out the early-day motion in its entirety and emphasised the phrase that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, for whatever reason, forgot to mention because, whatever one thinks of the individual merits of the argument, it related to peaceful process, including civil disobedience. It specifically distanced itself from violent action. I repeat the reference that it made to

``disdaining physical violence against individuals however provocative and loathsome they may be''.

The hon. Gentleman sought to mislead the Committee and the House by suggesting that the hon. Members to which he referred—he even referred to them in terms of the pre-1997 intake—encouraged violent activity. That was misleading, and he should withdraw his comments.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister may have read out the full text, but I do not withdraw one word of my comments, because the early-day motion was intended by the hon. Member for West Ham to give comfort and aid to those involved in animal protests. I accept that the wording makes reference to disdaining violent protest. The Minister was not in the House at the time, but he was a member of the Labour party; we in the House heard the language used and experienced the climate of opinion. In speech after speech and in every early-day motion, his party gave aid and comfort to those people. I have a pack of examples from the Library, and I could quote other early-day motions.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. It will not be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to quote from early-day motions. He is making an intervention.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. It will not be necessary for the hon. Gentleman to quote from early-day motions. He is making an intervention.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.