---

[The first Written Statement was submitted on Monday, 21 March, but was received too late for printing in the Official Report.]

Written Statements

Tuesday 22 March 2005

 
22 Mar 2005 : Column WS15
 

Gambling: Remote Operators

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): Under the proposed legislation the Gambling Commission will have the power to specify, in licence conditions, particular information that remote gambling operators must obtain from their customers at registration. The commission will also have powers to specify the sort of checks that should be carried out in relation to such information. The commission might include as a licensing condition, for example, that licensees must require their customers to declare a connection to a particular industry or sport. The commission may attach conditions to a specific class of operating licence, or attach specific conditions to individual operating licences.

Should the commission impose licence conditions relating to registration, a licensee must fulfil such conditions (which may be supported by a code of best practice); and if they fail to do so, a review of their licence will result. Furthermore the commission may use its powers to attach a licence condition requiring licensees to share information taken at registration with the commission or other specified bodies, including sporting regulators.

Different registration requirements may be appropriate for different classes of operator depending on the regulatory risk presented by that operator. This will be an issue for the Gambling Commission to determine.

The Gambling Bill requires anyone making or accepting (which includes negotiating) bets in the course of business to possess an operating licence. "In the course of business" will take its natural meaning in the new legislation. There may be instances when a customer using a betting exchange, or another betting service, could be classed as acting in the course of business and therefore require an operating licence. It is open to the Gambling Commission to issue guidance on this matter.

Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

On 17 March 2005 the Department for International Development hosted a high level conference on the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The EITI was launched by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in September 2002. It seeks to
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column WS16
 
increase the transparency of payments by oil, gas, and mining companies to governments, as well as the transparency of the revenues received by governments. The aim is to ensure that revenues from the extractive industries fulfil their potential as an important engine for economic growth and social development in developing countries, instead of leading to conflict, corruption, and poverty.

The conference follows on from an earlier EITI conference held at Lancaster House in June 2003. Since then implementation has begun in nine countries—Azerbaijan, Congo, Ghana, Kyrgyz Republic, Nigeria, Peru, Sao Tome e Principe, Timor Leste and Trinidad and Tobago. There has been considerable progress towards increased transparency across all nine countries, and two—Azerbaijan and the Kyrgyz Republic—have now published numbers under EITI.

The conference on 17 March provided an opportunity to take stock of progress in implementation so far, agree a set of criteria and guidelines for implementing countries and companies and encourage practical steps to internationalise EITI. The UK launched the EITI source book as guidance for countries and companies interested in supporting the initiative. The UK also announced the formation of an international advisory group which will agree an approach to the future management of international EITI support, incentives for implementation and a suitable process for validating implementation. A number of countries, including Niger, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Equatorial Guinea, used the conference as an opportunity to announce their plans to implement EITI; and several countries and international organisations, including the United Kingdom, France, Norway, the United States of America, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, agreed to increase financial and technical support for EITI.

Claims Management Companies

The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I am announcing today the intention, when I bring forward proposals for new legislation giving effect to the Government's proposed reform package for legal services following Sir David Clementi's report, to bring the claims management company sector within statutory regulation. I anticipate this would be with a front-line regulator responsible for the sector subject to oversight by the proposed new oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board.

The Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force's report Better Routes to Redress made it clear that claims management companies, which often largely deal with acquiring personal injury claims, must be properly regulated. Claim management companies are well known for their high-pressure selling, sharp practices and targeting of vulnerable people and a major driver in fuelling the perceptions of a compensation culture.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column WS17
 

Claims management companies are currently relatively lightly regulated. There has been an attempt to introduce further voluntary regulation by a non-profit making body called the Claims Standards Council (CSC). The CSC has worked hard to produce comprehensive rules, consumer and commercial codes of practice and to secure the engagement of the companies working in the unregulated sector. However, claims management companies have failed to demonstrate anything like the commitment that I would have hoped to have seen by now to clean up their act. I must therefore consider how best to safeguard consumer interests, for now and for the future. The CSC can still play an important role in helping to close the current regulatory gap. If it is able to make sufficient progress to preparing the sector to be regulated it could also be a candidate for the role of the new front-line regulator, subject to being judged as fit for purpose by the LSB.

For now I believe that we have the best opportunity to ensure consumers get a better deal through a combination of more rigorous use of existing protections and the introduction of compulsory insurance regulation via the FSA and the CSC's voluntary regulation initiative. For the future we will work towards developing and delivering the watertight statutory regulatory mechanism for claims management companies that is self-evidently needed.

House of Lords: Millbank Island Site

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): I am pleased to report that the House will shortly complete the purchase of the Millbank island site, comprising the offices currently known as l Millbank, Millbank House and 5 Great College Street. The building is being purchased on a 999-year lease at a cost of £65 million plus VAT on part of the price.

The building will provide a long-term solution to the accommodation needs of Members, their staff and the staff of the House. One-third of the building, Millbank House, is already occupied by the House on a short-term lease, and the purchase secures that accommodation. The House will gain vacant possession of a further third of the building in September 2007, and it is anticipated that following refurbishment that part of the accommodation will be ready for occupation in 2009. The final part of the building is occupied by a third party on a lease which expires in 2015.

The House Committee and the Administration and Works Committee will be considering the strategy for the refurbishment in the summer.

R v Rayment & Others

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): The trial judge in the case of R v Rayment & Others at the Central Criminal Court has today, 22 March 2005, discharged the jury, ending the proceedings.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column WS18
 

The trial dealt with an alleged fraud over contracts for the construction of London's Jubilee Line extension project. The prosecution arose from allegations that the defendants conspired to defraud London Underground by gaining access to confidential insider information, which was used against London Underground Limited's interests during the course of its dealings with tenderers and contractors on the Jubilee Line extension project. The information was relevant to the award of contracts worth tens of millions of pounds and two substantial claims for additional monies under contracts awarded in connection with the Jubilee Line extension project. The allegations also concerned corrupting public officials entrusted with safeguarding London Underground Limited's interests.

Experienced lawyers considered the evidence in detail and a decision to prosecute was taken. Charges were brought in February 2000. Lord Williams, when he was Attorney-General, granted consent in February 2000 to prosecute the corruption case on the basis that there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.

The CPS was ready for trial in 2001 but the case was split into two trials. The first trial started with a jury on 26 June 2003. The case has been affected by delays and breaks. Time has been lost due to illness, scheduled holidays, periods of paternity leave, an operation and sickness of defendants. Legal argument has also involved substantial periods where the jury were not required to hear evidence. For example, in the last seven months the jury has heard evidence on only 13 days of the 140 available.

The judge's ruling followed submissions by all parties in response to a request from the judge.

Prosecuting counsel have advised that it is their clear view that there have been such delays and interruptions to this case that a fair trial is now impossible. Counsel formed a judgment that the case ought to be stopped. The DPP and I agree with that view and, therefore, approved prosecution counsel's statement to the trial judge informing her of this view.

I agreed with the DPP last year the need for more control and robust management of large cases. The DPP has responded by developing a system, which will see a case management panel, chaired by the DPP, to consider the management of very large cases. The panel will consider issues such as the selection of charges, the number of defendants, likely number and length of trials and selection of trial advocates. It will also monitor progress of the case and key case management decisions during its life. It will be coupled with a similar process across the 42 CPS areas where chief crown prosecutors will review the most serious and lengthy cases in their areas. This will be implemented from 4 April 2005 and, I believe, offers real potential for getting a better grip on cases such as the current matter.

In addition, the DPP has recently announced a new structure to deal with the most serious and complex cases in CPS headquarters. This will involve the DPP in more direct and substantial control over such cases. I welcome this restructuring.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column WS19
 

On 22 March the Lord Chief Justice issued a protocol for dealing with lengthy trials, which I welcomed. The protocol emphasises the need for robust and well informed case management to identify and allow the court to focus on the real issues in the case. The new protocol fits clearly with the criminal case management framework that I issued last July together with Lord Falconer, Baroness Scotland and the Lord Chief Justice. The protocol and framework will continue the culture change in the way in which all criminal justice practitioners operate. The public are entitled to an efficient and effective criminal justice system and cases such as the present one must never be allowed to happen again.

This decision will cause great public disquiet as it causes me considerable disquiet. Most serious allegations have not in the end been brought to a final conclusion. It is important, and in the interest of the defendants, to underline that these allegations have not been proved and that they have maintained they are not guilty.

Very considerable public money has been expended. Much time for a jury and for judge and defendants has been expended. It is important to learn what lessons we can. I have therefore asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of CPS, Stephen Wooler, to report to me on this case under Section 2(1)(b) of the CPS Inspectorate Act 2000. The terms of reference of this review will be drawn up shortly. The DPP has confirmed that the prosecution will provide full co-operation in this inquiry.

---