HL Deb 20 March 1973 vol 340 cc688-705

7.14 p.m.

Report received.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 19, at end insert— ("(2) For the purposes of this Act the payment in full before the commencement of this Act of any fine or other sum ordered to be paid by any Court by way of sentence in criminal proceedings shall be deemed to have been a compliance with the sentence notwithstanding that the payment was not made within the time, or any further time, allowed by the Court.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember that this Bill only applies under Clause 1 to those who have duly served or complied with the sentence of the court when they were convicted, and if the sentence is that a fine be paid by a particular date then if they do not pay by that date they do not have the advantages of the Bill. I defended this draconian attitude at the Committee stage on the ground that the orders of the court ought to be complied with and if anybody got into difficulties he could always go to the court and apply for an extension of time. That view found a welcome with the noble Viscount, and that I still think is right as from the date of the commencement of the Act. But it would be very hard on somebody who, 20 years ago, failed to pay on the due date, if he could in no way put himself right. Accordingly, what this Amendment does is to propose that if a man, however long ago that happened, pays in full before the commencement of the Act, then he should not be regarded as having failed to comply with the terms of the crder. It would be, I would hope, for the Home Office, and certainly for bodies like Justice, NACRO, and the Howard League to publicise the effects of the Bill on such people before it receives the Royal Assent. No doubt some time will elapse before it is passed, or before it comes into force, and I hope therefore the House will consider that this is a reasonable solution to the problem. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, perhaps I could preface my brief remarks on this Amendment by again congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and thanking him and his advisers for going so far to meet a large number of points that were raised, I think mainly by me, at the Committee stage. There is not, I think, a single Amendment down on the Marshalled List that I do not want to accept and recommend to the House. They all seem to have come out fairly well, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord will let me say this at this stage. There are problems which we still have not got right, not necessarily on this Amendment, although it does to some extent tie up with the Schedule and the way this is set out. There are problems on a number of these Amendments which, considering we have another debate to come, I will not inflict upon the House, but I would suggest that we are getting into the realm where nobody but a Parliamentary draftsman is even going to get this right. At the risk of again saying something that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, does not like, I must sav that we have not got a Parliamentary draftsman available to us to clear this up and I am afraid these discrepancies will continue to arise, however earnestly the noble and learned Lord tries. I think the best course for me will be to have a word with him afterwards where technical problems have arisen and draw them to his attention, rather than to describe them in detail. I do not think there is one on this Amendment and I certainly would recommend it to the House.

May I also say, so that I do not have to go on saying it throughout the course of the Bill, that there are still parts of this Bill on which the Government reserve their position, and when I suggest to the House that we should accept this or that Amendment in the course of what I think may be fairly swift proceedings, it does not mean that I have in any way resiled from that position. We are still not happy about Clause 4 and the Schedule, and we are still not happy about Clause 7 and one or two other things, but our position should not be endangered by anything that I say this evening. I hope that makes the position absolutely clear, but in the meantime this Amendment is a good one and is an improvement to the Bill.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, the noble Viscount will never incur my displeasure (or whatever phrase he used) but I am bound to say that it is a reflection on Government—and I do not mean his Government; I mean our governmental system—that, because of the specialised nature of Parliamentary draftsmen, for whom anybody who has had anything to do with them has the highest regard, we are unable to deal with a Bill of this importance as we should do since certain absolutely vital facilities are not available. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is as well aware as anyone, despite the brilliance and energy of his drafting and those who advise him, of the limitations that are imposed upon him. I do not want to press the noble Viscount on this particular point because I had to face it at various times and perhaps he has done it more bravely and frankly than I ever did, but it is an awful thought that perhaps in another 10 years' time we shall still be using this argument with regard to a highly desirable measure. One wonders whether a reserve capacity could be built up. In fact, we are being asked to pass a Bill which in certain respects the Government and, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and others, will accept could be considerably improved.

On the other hand, I accept that the noble Viscount has encouraged my noble and learned friend to go ahead with this Bill, and at least the fact that it gets through the stages here is valuable, but it is not encouraging for its progress subsequently in another place. I hope that the noble Viscount will, therefore—and I am sorry to go into a subject which does not arise on the Amendment, but he started it—consider the possibility of how, perhaps in the next Session, the Government might pick up the Bill themselves, as was done on a number of other Bills in the time of our Government.

But as to this particular Amendment, as my noble and learned friend knows, I have had doubts about certain aspects of the Bill, and the particular provision with which this Amendment seeks to deal still seems to me to be inequitable. I should like to repeat that my noble and learned friend was good enough to use the phrase which I used on the last occasion, namely, that it was draconian that somebody who had failed to fulfil his obligations to the court should never be able to have his conviction spent. My noble and learned friend now provides that this can be done with regard to those people who do whatever is necessary before the passing of the Bill. Since the Bill is not likely to be passed into law very soon, that provides a certain leeway, but it seems to be quite inequitable to apply this provision to those who take this action before the passing of the Bill and not to make some provision for those who, for one reason or another, have failed to fulfil their obligations to the court.

I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend that it is right that people should respect the orders of the court. I may be using the wrong phrases, but if they are required to pay a fine then they should pay it. But there are some people who, either through incompetence or through misguided views on some point of principle, refuse to do so. Although they can purge their offence by doing what they ought to do, in the sense that if they pay up or do whatever they are called upon to do they are all right, it nevertheless remains for ever a conviction on the record and can always be used. It seems to me to be wrong that there is no provision for the spending (if that is the right word), or the annulment, of a conviction in such circumstances. Even at this late stage, I would urge my noble and learned friend to see whether or not there is some Amendment that could meet this point.

I repeat again the objection I have as a layman who feels that the courts, in the very proper desire to uphold their authority, are at times inclined to regard offences against them as worse than offences, for example, against the criminal law. That may be an exaggeraated statement but that is what we are saying. In this particular Bill we are saying that somebody who has failed in this respect after the passing of the Bill will never be able to regard his conviction as spent. It may be that I have misunderstood the matter and if I have, perhaps my noble and learned friend will correct me, but it seems to me to be a simple point of equity and I hope that even on Third Reading something can be done by some device. It may be that this offence ought to attract a certain type of penalty; it might be deemed to be the equivalent of, say, a six-months sentence or something of that kind that could not be spent before a reasonable period—perhaps five years or ten years—but that ultimately it ought to be capable of being wiped away. That generally is the object of my noble and learned friend, and it is a slight blot on the Bill that this instance has not been taken care of.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, may I support what my noble friend has said by adding a few words here. I cannot understand why the wording of this Amendment is objectionable to anybody if the intention is to carry out ultimately what is required. I say, with all humility, that had I been asked before, in my own practice, for someone to draft an Amendment of any kind, and I had gone to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I should have felt more than 100 per cent. satisfied that his wording would have suited the case. I say that, knowing that that is the opinion of practically everybody who has had any connection with the noble and learned Lord and who has had cause at any time to approach him on a matter. The wording of this Amendment conveys to me precisely what one wants. There is nothing, complicated about this particular Amendment, and I ask the noble Viscount to accept it because I can see no objection to it at all.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I have already suggested to the House that it is highly acceptable.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, then I am extremely sorry to have intervened. If this Amendment is to be accepted there is no need for me to say any more.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said. I am sorry that I have not gone far enough to please my noble friend Lord Shackleton, but I will certainly give consideration to what he said, and if by the Third Reading of the Bill he cares to let me have an Amendment putting forward his view, I will give it every consideration. I am glad to know that the present Amendment is acceptable to all. I would only add that I think the position about the Parliamentary draftsmen is absolutely ludicrous. It went on through the whole time that we were in Office and also, I believe, in the Government before that. No large company in this country would allow its business to be held up for the lack of twelve technicians. There has never been a proper system for recruiting Parliamentary draftsmen. Although they run training courses for Commonwealth draftsmen they have never had any training course of their own. I hope that at some time some Government will be brave enough to tackle this question.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Rehabilitation periods]:

7.28 p.m.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 36, after ("sum") insert ("(and for this purpose a suspended sentence ordered to take effect, with or without any variation of the original term, on the expiration of another term of imprisonment shall be treated as having been imposed on the same occasion as that other term);").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which arose out of a point referred to by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the Committee stage of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount inquired what would happen if a suspended sentence were ordered to take effect on the expiration of another term of imprisonment. It was right, I believe, to say that that point was not expressly covered by the Bill. The Amendment provides that a suspended sentence so imposed shall be treated as having been imposed on the same occasion as that other term. That makes applicable Clause 3(2)(b) which provides for consecutive custodial sentences for specified terms imposed on the same occasion shall be treated as one custodial sentence for a term equal to their sum". I hope that that solution to the problem may commend itself to the House. The noble and learned Viscount, who, I am sorry to say, is unable to be here, has been good enough to write to me to say that he likes the way I now deal with suspended sentences, and he adds that he has gone through the other Amendments on the Paper and has no criticism to make of them.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.30 p.m.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 43, at end insert— ("( ) A custodial sentence imposed as an alternative to a fine or other payment shall not be treated as a custodial sentence unless it has taken effect, and a committal order for default in payment of a fine or other sum shall not be treated as a custodial sentence;").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This Amendment relates to a question of custodial sentence imposed either as an alternative to a fine or as a committal order for not paying the fine. Of course, where a custodial sentence is imposed as an alternative,£20 or 14 days, the person concerned has an option. There seems no reason to treat that as a custodial sentence if he pays the fine. But if he chooses to go to prison, there seems no reason for not treating it as a custodial sentence. On the other hand, where it is a committal order for default in payment of a fine, this is not imposed because of the original offence; it is not in itself a criminal offence, and it would, therefore, seem right not to treat it as a custodial sentence. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, this again, I would suggest to the House, is an improvement. It is an area of the law where we have uncovered the most appalling number of problems, and it is, therefore, one on which I would be glad to have a word with the noble and learned Lord, if he would be good enough to look at some of the problems with me.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 4. Page 3, line 32, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("two years").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which relates to mental health orders. The subsection provides that: …the rehabilitation period in respect of that conviction shall not expire until twelve months after the order ceases to have effect, or five years from the date of conviction, whichever is the later. It was represented to me that twelve months after the order ceases to have effect was perhaps on the low side, having regard to the fact that, of course, with mental health orders there can be danger to the public. Accordingly, the Amendment proposes in place of twelve months a period of two years. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, again I think this is an improvement. There is one point on the certificate which I will draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord. I am not at all sure how the courts will be able to issue a certificate of rehabilitation in the case of people who have orders made on them under the Mental Health Act, because, of course, the whole question depends on the discharge of the order and that is not a matter for the courts; it is for the hospital authorities or in some cases my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I think that there is an area to explore, that is, how the courts will ever be able to give the certificate in these cases.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I will certainly look into that point before the next stage of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 5: Page 4, line 23, after first ("periods") insert ("or terms") in each case.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I will also discuss Amendment No. 6 with this Amendment. Clause 3(9) provides: The Secretary of State may by order substitute different periods for any of the periods mentioned in subsections (1), (2) (3) and (5) of this section, and may in like manner substitute a different age for the age mentioned in subsection (6)… Some doubt was expressed on the Committee stage of the Bill as to whether this really covered all the periods of time referred to in the Bill, although it was intended that it should. For example, in Clause 3(1)(b) the rehabilitation period is: seven years where the sentence imposed was a custodial sentence for a term not exceeding six months". So there are places in which the word term is used as well as the more usual phrase "period". The object of these two Amendments is to see that the Secretary of State has power to alter any, what I would call neutrally, lapse of time which is referred to in the Bill.

There is one additional point which I should mention. The draft Amendment sought to deal with these two words "periods" on the same page in the same line by saying that this was to apply "in each case", and it was thought by the powers that be that it might make it clearer if this was split into two, dealing first with the first word "periods" in the line and then the second "periods" in the line. What they had not realised was that in that case one must omit the words "in each case". I hope that in moving Amendment No. 5 the House will allow me to say that the words "in each case" should be disregarded. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I have spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 23, after second ("periods") insert ("or terms").—(Lord Gardiner.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Evidence of previous convictions]:

7.36 p.m.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, this Amendment deals with the clause which already provides that: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2…evidence of all spent convictions…shall be admissible at any time", and there are various proceedings listed, beginning with adoption and going on to guardianship, wardship, custody, care or control, or access to, any minor. It is suggested that to that should be added marriage. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 28, after ("wardship,") insert ("marriage,").—(Lord Gardiner.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, this Amendment is of a similar nature and applies to proceedings in which there is an issue as to whether a particular person is a fit and proper person to be a foster parent. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 29, at end insert— ("( ) in any proceedings under section 5 of the Children Act 1958 (as amended by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) or section 62(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968").—(Lord Gardiner.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, the foster parent point is fine, and was what I asked for. I am not certain that the reference to the Social Work (Scotland) Act is right. I think the pattern of the noble and learned Lord's Amendments—and I am not quite sure what the policy should be on this—is to deal with cases which go to the courts and not to some other tribunal. It was for this reason, I suspect, that he left out the question of fitness under the Education Acts, because that does not go to the courts but to some tribunal. I am told that the question of management of residential establishments, including children's homes, in Scotland under the Social Work (Scotland) Act, if it goes on appeal at all, goes to an appeal tribunal chaired by the sheriff and not to the sheriff sitting as a court. I think, therefore, that probably this is one which, if we are not going to have tribunals, ought not to be in, and the reference is probably to Section 64(4) rather than 62(3). Again this is an area we might discuss.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, a Scottish Parliamentary draftsman was good enough to look at this for me, but I will certainly reconsider the observation the noble Viscount has made.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, Amendment No. 9 and Amendment No. 10 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 31, leave out ("of an offence").—(Lord Gardiner.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 33, leave out ("offence") and insert ("conviction").—(Lord Gardiner.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Viscount suggested that there might be some clash between Clause 5(4) and Clause 6. In order to make quite sure that that is not so, the Amendment provides for the insertion in Clause 5 of the words "but subject to the provisions of section 6". I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 36, after ("2") insert (",but subject to the provisions of section 6,").—(Lord Gardiner.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 deal with the question of court-martial, which we discussed for some considerable time at the Committee stage. What the Amendment now proposes is that all spent convictions should be admissible at any time upon conviction by any court-martial, which will, of course, already have the full military record, provided that they are not convictions which had become spent before he became a member of the Armed Forces. I hope that that solution may commend itself to the House. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 37, at beginning insert ("(a)").—(Lord Gardiner.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, this is a point which I discussed with the noble and learned Lord, and as far as I can see this is a very reasonable compromise. On the other hand, the Ministry of Defence are still brooding on the whole question of courts-martial. Nothing has yet hatched, and therefore I cannot commit the Government to saying that this is the right way to handle courts-martial or that this is the only amendment that will be needed.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I do not particularly welcome this compromise. I have yet to be convinced, and so I suspect has my noble and learned friend, that this is necessary. I cannot for the life of me see why in this particular matter courts-martial should be in a different position. It is quite different from the question of whether you employ somebody in the Services and whether this information will be available from the criminal records office and so on. The convictions will still remain. I can well believe that the Ministry of Defence are brooding. I hope that they will do some fairly solid brooding and, if necessary, if I may suggest it, I hope the noble Viscount will not hesitate to speak to the Secretary of State himself about it. I am all for getting this Bill through, but I cannot believe that my noble and learned friend regards his own Amendment with any more enthusiasm than I do. Nevertheless, I will go along with it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 42, at end insert— ("(b) evidence of all spent convictions of a rehabilitated person (not being convictions which had become spent before he became a member or entered the employment of the armed forces of the Crown) shall be admissible at any time upon his conviction by any Court Martial held in Great Britain or elsewhere and (insofar as such evidence is admissible during his trial by virtue of the provisions of any enactment or any rule of law) during his trial by any such Court Martial.")—(Lord Gardiner.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, this is not on this particular Amendment, but before we leave Clause 5(4), I have just had a note suggesting a possible way of getting over some of the remaining difficulties at civil courts, which I mentioned on the Committee stage, and on which the noble and learned Lord and I when talking found no solution. They have now come to a head because we have hit trouble on the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act. This is a very important point, and I would welcome further discussion with the noble and learned Lord. I have a form of words which may overcome all the difficulties which I mentioned to him the other day arising out of Clause 5(4).

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this stop press information he has, relates to Amendment No. 13 or is this just a sort of interjection in the middle of the Bill, for luck?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

No, my Lords. With the leave of the House, I am trying to be open with the House here. I thought that as we were about to leave Clause 5(4) and there is an unresolved problem which was discussed in Committee and which has not appeared in the form of an amendment, it was legitimate to say a few words on the subject.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I say, on procedure, that you cannot debate the Question, That Clause 5(4) stand part of the Bill, which is what the noble Viscount is doing; and I must enter the mildest of protests.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 5, line 42, at end insert— ("(5) Where a person convicted was conditionally discharged, or where a probation order was made, and that person within a period of two years after the order has ceased to have effect appears or is brought before any Court exercising criminal jurisdiction in any part of Great Britain, the provisions of section 2 of this Act shall not be construed so as to preclude the making or restrict the contents of written probation or social reports about him to that Court.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the rather difficult question of probation orders and conditional discharges which we discussed at some length on the Committee stage of the Bill. The Amendment proposes, in the case of a conditional discharge or probation order, that a person— within a period of two years after the order has ceased to have effect appears or is brought before any Court exercising criminal jurisdiction in any part of Great Britain, the provisions of section 2 of this Act shall not be construed so as to preclude the making or restrict the contents of written probation or social reports about him to that Court. One appreciates that, if within a reasonable period somebody has been put on probation, the probation report or any social report is of considerable value to justices and I hope that the House may feel that this is a reasonable compromise. I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I shall certainly be in order in what I say on this. The noble and learned Lord has gone a long way to meet the difficulties I pointed out about this. There is a further point which has occurred to us. When a court is dealing, as would now be possible under this Amendment, with somebody who has previously been on probation, the idea is that it should know how he has responded to probation—whether it is a good idea to try it again or whether it has been considered a failure and it should think of something else. There is something to be said for the court's being able similarly to take account of the way somebody has responded to a supervision care order under the Children and Young Persons Act, because with the rehabilitation period being in some cases very short for young people it may be that this would be relevant in exactly the same way as a probation report would be relevant to the way a court treated the person when he came up again. I would therefore commend this to the noble and learned Lord because it may come into the same category as the point that he is covering in this Amendment.

There is, however, one great defect in this Amendment which I had not myself spotted. It does not deal with the point which I am practically certain that the noble and learned Lord concedes, that the court ought to be able, if it puts somebody on probation for a year, to deal with him for any breach of that probation by the commission of a further offence during the year. Although the court is enabled under this Amendment to look at the way he behaved on probation, the rehabilitation period as it stands in the Bill depends upon his not being convicted within the period of the probation order or before the conditional discharge has expended itself. But, of course, he may commit an offence within the period of the probation order or the period of the conditional discharge but not be convicted until after the period is finished. So the court ought to be able, we say—and I think the noble and learned Lord agrees—to deal with breaches of a probation order or of a conditional discharge notwithstanding the fact that the man does not appear in court until after the year, or whatever it is, is finished. This has not been put right. I think it is an oversight but I am quite sure that it must be put right. Therefore, the dependence upon conviction rather that the commission of the offence in this particular case is not apposite, and I think we shall have to have a further Amendment on this.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I will certainly give this matter further consideration. It has always seemed to me a very fine point, but what happens a month on one side of a date or a month the other side does not seem to me to matter to a practical extent. All the dates in the Bill are from the date of conviction. They might, of course, be from a date of commission of the offence but they are not; they are all from a date of conviction. The simple reason is that, as all lawyers know, a person is often charged with having committed an offence between July 14 and December 19 of a particular year, and there is no record of the date of the offence, but there always is a record of the date of conviction. I quite agree that logically it does not seem sensible to date the 12 months from the date of conviction, because if there is going to be a breach of the order one wants to know whether it has taken place within the 12 months. If the man is not prosecuted for another month or so it is logically not right, but I will certainly give further consideration to the point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 [Unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions]:

7.49 p.m.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 7, line 22, at end insert— ("( ) to the Secretary of State or a person authorised by him in writing for purposes relating to the security of the State or the maintenance of law and order; or")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if it is not inconvenient to the House, may I discuss Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 together? They are a little difficult to follow from the Amendments in the Order Paper, so perhaps I may read what Clause 7(4)(c) and (d) will come to if the Amendments are accepted. Subsection (4) would provide that: In any proceedings under subsection (2) of this section, it shall he a defence to prove that the accused disclosed the specified information in the course of his official duty". Then paragraph (c) would read: to the Secretary of State or a person authorised by him in writing for purposes relating to the security of the State or the maintenance of law and order". Paragraph (d) would read: to a member of a class of persons which the Secretary of State has by order designated as a class of persons to whom specified information may be disclosed for purposes specified in the order". Then subsection (7) would read: Any order pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (4) of this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.

Your Lordships may remember that at the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Viscount thought that the publication by the Secretary of State of the people to whom he was giving access to the criminal records should not be limited to classes of persons but could include individual persons, although they should not have to be specified. I quite appreciate that individual persons may be those concerned with security, and that it may be quite reasonable that in cases relating to the security of the State or the maintenance of law and order the Secretary of State should not have to specify the persons in question.

I have also yielded to the objection of the noble Viscount to the Bill as it stands, that the instrument to be laid by the Secretary of State should have to be approved affirmatively by both Houses of Parliament. I have now accepted the negative form of resolution, particularly as I have the support of my noble friend Lord Shackleton, who took the view that while there have been a great many difficulties in the past in finding Parlia mentary time for Negative Resolutions in the other place, that will now be avoided.

There is one other point which I should mention and which I believe can be dealt with as a printing matter, or however these points are dealt with. If these Amendments are passed, then I think it will be found that the words in subsection (7) "pursuant to paragraph (c)" will no longer be right, and the Bill will then have to read "paragraph (d)". But I believe that that can be dealt with automatically. My Lords, I beg to move.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his further thoughts and for recasting the Amendment in the way he has now explained to us. I studied this point and came to precisely the same conclusion, and I think that this is a very great improvement.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 en bloc.

Amendments moved—

Page 7, line 23, leave out ("the Secretary of State or a person whom") and insert ("a member of a class of persons which")

Page 7,line 24, leave out ("a person or as one of")

Page 7,line 26, after ("disclosed") insert ("for purposes specified in the order")

Page 7,line 39, leave out from second ("shall") to ("House") in line 41, and insert ("be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either '—(Lord Gardiner.)

On Question. Amendments agreed to.

Schedule [Form of certificate]:

LORD GARDINER

My Lords, if the House—and, in particular, the noble Viscount—agrees, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 20 to 31 en bloc, because they all relate to the Schedule and they all either make amendments to the Schedule which are necessary in accordance with amendments which have been made to the Bill, or are drafting improvements.

Amendments moved—

Page 8, line 9, leave out ("You have today been") and insert ("On 19 you were")

Page 8,line 14, leave out ("your") and insert ("this")

Page 8,leave out ("today")

Page 8,line 24, leave out ("limited") and insert ("allowed")

Page 8,line 25, after ("court") insert ("or any further time which is allowed")

Page 8,line 27, leave out ("limited") and insert ("allowed")

Page 8,at end insert ("or any further time which is allowed")

Page 8,line 33, leave out ("is not triable") and insert ("cannot be tried")

Page 8,line 40, leave out ("your") and insert ("this")

Page 8,leave out ("today")

Page 9, line 5, leave out ("two years'") and insert ("thirty months'")

Page 8,line 14, leave out from ("OFFENCE(S)") to ("The") in line 15, and insert ("REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 1 ABOVE ").—(Lord Gardiner.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.