---

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): My right hon. Friend's frugality is legendary. Do I take it that he thinks that the activities that will flow from the Census (Amendment) Bill could involve every Government Department, without exception? Or can my right hon. Friend think of an exception, and would he care to divulge to the House which Department he thinks would be exempt?

Mr. Forth: I suppose that it is possible that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will escape the clutches of this

26 Jun 2000 : Column 672

ghastly little provision, and perhaps the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend raises an important point because, to go back to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire--

health, housing, schools, welfare and community care services--

the Bill seems to encompass almost the entire range of domestic spending Government Departments, in which case the potential for additional Government expenditure and taxpayer commitment is considerable. If that were not so, there would be no point in including the question in the census.

Hidden within that, as we teased out on Second Reading, is the concept that, as a result of asking people to divulge their religious affiliation voluntarily, Government policy will direct additional funds to some people of some religious affiliations. I assume that if I put "none" in answer to the question on the census form, I would not get much extra money. although that was not made clear. It appears that people of no religious faith will not be very fortunate as a result of the provision.

We seem to be in the dark about whether different elements of the Christian faith would benefit from the process. That seemed to be doubtful from the way Second Reading went. One can only surmise, as has been hinted at--indeed, we have almost been told--that if enough people specify other religious faiths in answer to the question, there will be a policy rush by the Government and, presumably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, to direct money to people on the basis of their religious affiliation.

I do not wish to rehearse the matters that we debated on Second Reading: you would not want me to do that, Madam Speaker. No doubt, those matters will come up in Committee and on Report, when we shall discuss them at length as, indeed, we should. I simply wish to make the point that, as a result of the Bill's peculiar circumstances, the wording of the money resolution which, on the face of it, appears to be fairly standard, gives rise to an unusual number of questions about the final form that the Bill will take if it is enacted; and, following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), about the enactments to which the resolution might relate and the sort of commitment that it contains.

Of course, we know nothing about that, as the Government have not told us anything about the extra expenditure that they envisage: either they do not know or they are not telling us.

Yet again, the House is faced with the difficult problem that so often confronts us in relation to money resolutions. We refuse to be a rubber stamp; we regard it as our duty as Members of the House of Commons to extract as much information from the Minister as we can. When the Minister comes to sum up, I hope that he will grace the House with far more information than he was prepared to give in his wholly inadequate introduction.

4.21 pm

Mr. Timms: As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested, this a standard form of words for money resolutions. The timing of the money resolution, after Second Reading and before Committee, is standard and familiar.

The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the spending that is envisaged and about costs. The inclusion of the new question is not expected to lead to

26 Jun 2000 : Column 673

an increase in printing or distribution costs. Costs that may arise relate to the processing of additional information that is collected. They cannot be precisely estimated, but we anticipate that they are likely to be about £100,000 for the 2001 census. That is certainly containable within the existing allocation.

Compared with the £203 million that the 2001 census for England and Wales is expected to cost, that additional sum is modest, and represents a good investment in the context of the value that will be gained from the information collected. As the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, demonstrate, that information will help local authorities, health authorities and others to plan services to meet the needs of their current population. Asking a question in future censuses after 2001 may lead to a small increase in the total costs of those censuses, which is another reason why we need the money resolution.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked which enactment the money resolution referred to. The reference is to the Census Act 1920, the schedule of which is being amended by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Judgments

That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

Contracts

That the draft Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Amendment) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Restoration of Devolved Government) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 1445), dated 27th May 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 1446), dated 27th May 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th June, be approved.

Local Government

That the draft London Local Authorities (Charges for Stopping Up Orders) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.--[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

26 Jun 2000 : Column 674

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 2

Functions

4.24 pm

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, at end insert--

', which inspection shall include consideration of the internal employment practices of the Service with particular reference to equal opportunities issues.'.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 20, at end insert--

'( ) inquire into the findings of an Employment Tribunal consequent upon a complaint against the Crown Prosecution Service under the Race Relations Act 1976 or Sex Discrimination Act 1975.'.

No. 3, in page 1, line 23, at end insert--

', which report shall contain a section considering the work done in the year under report by the Service to eliminate discriminatory practices both within the Service's internal employment and management structures and in its prosecution policies and prosecution decisions.'.

Mr. Dismore: I do not normally table amendments to Bills except, perhaps, on Fridays. As I am following the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and given the number of people in the Chamber, there is a sense of deja vu and a Friday feeling about the debate.

Any criticism that I may make of the Crown Prosecution Service is not meant to be a reflection on the personal commitment of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to combating racism in the CPS and more widely. Similarly, I express no criticism of the position of my noble Friend the Attorney-General. I also have the highest regard for him and his work in this area. However, we need to address two issues in relation to the CPS and racism, both of which are dealt with by the amendments.

The first issue is CPS prosecution policies and practices, which have received a lot of publicity over the years. A great deal of progress has been made on those. The other issue is the service's internal employment policies, which have only recently started to come to public attention. Until I came across a case concerning a constituent, Mrs. Bamieh, a prosecutor with the CPS, I was not as aware as I am now of problems in the CPS, and I have been horrified by some of what I have found out since I started to take an interest in these issues.

A starting point is Sylvia Denman's preliminary report on race discrimination in the CPS. She says:

The CPS Inspectorate . . . has a limited role in relation to the implementation of equal opportunities practices within the Service . . . The Inspectorate's stated purpose is "To promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service through a process of inspection and evaluation; the provision of advice, and the identification and promotion of good practice."

26 Jun 2000 : Column 675

Each CPS Area is inspected once every two years. "Equality" is a theme identified as falling within the Inspectorate's "wider remit" for carrying out its Area inspections.

My amendments would move the issue of equality, with particular reference to race, further up the inspectorate's agenda, so that it starts to pay greater heed to some of the problems that have emerged, including those that I am about to describe and those that have been widely canvassed in the media.

---