Criminal Justice Bill

HL Deb 23 April 1991 vol 528 cc223-60

House again in Committee on Clause 68.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood)

I now call Amendment No. 96ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 96ZA: Page 45, line 24, at end insert: ("(3A) An order under subsection (3) (b) or (c) above shall provide that section 71 below shall have effect as if subsection (5) were omitted.").

The noble Earl said: It appears that, temporarily, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I have changed names. This is a consequential amendment to amendments made in another place to this clause. I am quite content to explain it to the Committee. However, on the understanding that this is a consequential amendment, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 68, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Harris of Greenwich

We have already discussed this matter. I do not propose to speak further on it.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.

Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 96A: After Clause 71, insert the following new clause: (". In relation to contracted out prisons, Rule 51 of the Prison Rules 1964 shall not have effect.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a recommendation in the report of Lord Justice Woolf. As the Committee will recall, Lord Justice Woolf stated in his report that boards of visitors should not become involved in disciplinary matters. The Prior Committee also made that recommendation, although the Government did not accept it. Now Lord Justice Woolf has made the recommendation again. We shall be interested to hear the noble Earl's comments. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

Rule 51 of the current prison rules allows a prison governor to refer a disciplinary charge to the board of visitors if he considers that the disciplinary offence requires a punishment greater than the governor himself has the power to award. Under Rule 51 boards of visitors have the power to make disciplinary awards which include forfeiture of remission of up to 120 days in the case of adults and stoppage of earnings or cellular confinement for a period of up to 56 days. Rule 51 would not in any event apply in quite its present form to a contracted out prison as in such a prison the governor's disciplinary role would be fulfilled (under Clause 69 of the Bill) by the controller, who would be a civil servant. He would most likely be a person on a prison governor's grade appointed by the Home Secretary. But our intention is that privately operated prisons would follow the same system as ordinary ones, save that the controller would take the governor's place in the disciplinary system.

The dual role of the board of visitors as independent monitors of the system on the one hand and as part of the prison disciplinary arrangements on the other hand was criticised by the Woolf inquiry, which recommended that the role of the board of visitors in adjudications should cease. It recommended that matters which were too serious to be dealt with by the governor using his existing powers should henceforth be made the subject of criminal proceedings in the magistrates' courts. The amendment seeks to give effect to this recommendation in respect of privately operated prisons—though as the present prison Rule 51 would not in any case apply to such a prison, the new clause would technically have no effect.

This matter will of course be one of those to be covered in the forthcoming White Paper on the Woolf proposals. A detailed consultation document has already been issued discussing the various options for change in the light of the Woolf recommendation. This has been sent to a wide range of interested parties. It takes account not just of the recommendations made by Lord Justice Woolf but of those put forward by the earlier review of prison disciplinary procedures conducted by Mr. Peter Prior.

One very important point which we have to consider in relation to Lord Justice Woolf's recommendation is whether all disciplinary offences committed by prisoners which are too serious to be dealt with within governors' disciplinary powers would be suitable to be prosecuted in the ordinary courts. Involving the courts more regularly is likely to involve some delay and a degree of formality which may not be strictly necessary. There would also be considerable extra expense because of the need to escort prisoners and because of the involvement of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and courts in dealing with cases which are currently dealt with inside prisons. The courts might also have difficulty in recognising and reflecting in the punishment the particular significance of certain offences in the prison context, and the range of punishments available to the courts in respect of a serving prisoner would of course be more limited than in relation to an ordinary member of the public.

These are not necessarily decisive objections to what Lard Justice Woolf has proposed, and indeed as the consultation document indicates, the Government have not formed any view at this stage on which of the possible options, including that set out by Lord Justice Woolf, would be the most suitable. It is appropriate to consider the issues very carefully and to consult interested parties about the options before making decisions. For that reason I find it difficult to accept the amendment.

The amendment also happens to be silent on the question of appeals from governors' disciplinary awards, which was an important part of the new arrangements proposed by Lord Justice Woolf. He proposed the creation of a complaints adjudicator who would both deal with prisoners' grievances and act as the final tribunal of appeal in the internal disciplinary system. While the first of those two functions is covered in the proposed new clause after Clause 75, the noble Lords who have tabled the amendment have not made any proposals as regards appeals from disciplinary hearings.

Lord Richard

I am glad to have heard the noble Earl say that he did not regard the points he was making as decisive. He will know that such procedures are in fact in use at present in Scotland.

One of the interesting recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf was that the present disciplinary system should be replaced by procedures which were more open, fair and inexpensive, and which already operate satisfactorily in Scotland. Can the noble Earl give us an assurance that the Scottish experience will be taken into account in looking at the proposals with regard to whether they should be implanted South of the Border?

Earl Ferrers

We shall obviously take into account the experiences in Scotland. That is clearly important.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Would it be possible to have regional peripatetic adjudicators who visit inside the establishment, instead of prisoners being taken out? If prisoners are taken out it costs more money and is time-consuming, and they have toy, have escorts.

Secondly, is there any chance of changing the name of board visitors? There is some confusion with prison visitors. People outside the establishments do not really know the difference, although there is a very great difference. I should like to pay tribute to many members of the board of visitors who spend a lot of time doing voluntary, unpaid work within prisons and young offenders' institutions.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

We were more interested in finding out the noble Earl's response to the amendment than in attempting to insist upon it. As he will realise, the board of visitors at a contracted out prison, a prison which is in the private sector, will be rather different from one which exists in the public sector. They will have different responsibilities according to the character of the establishment. I do not wish to reopen the discussion we have just had, but that fact is self-evident.

It is important to get the disciplinary question right. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could give us an indication of when the Government's response to Lord Justice Woolf's report will be published. Are we talking about a time before the Summer Recess or some time after that? Perhaps the noble Earl could help us on that point.

Lord Hylton

First, I should like to apologise to the Committee for not having been here at the start of the discussion on this amendment. I should like to follow up what my noble friend Lady Masham said about an adjudicating person or body coming into the prison. Why can we not have a magistrate or magistrates' court coming into the prison and dealing with prisoners who are on charges? That is the sort of thing that magistrates would be rather good at.

I should like to make it clear that I am in favour of separating the two functions now carried out by visitors, not only within contracted out prisons but in other prisons also.

Earl Ferrers

I shall certainly take account of what both the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said about peripatetic adjudicators. When the noble Baroness first mentioned this, I thought she meant adjudicators who go round from prison to prison. In so far as she was asking whether the adjudicator would go to prison—I think this was the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—I am sure that the adjudicator would go to the prison, and it would not work the other way round.

I shall also bear in mind the noble Baroness's remarks about the name of the visitors. I cannot give an undertaking that we shall change the name but we shall certainly look into the point.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked when the Government's response to Lord Justice Woolf's report would be made, and he asked whether it would be published. It will be published later this year. I cannot give a commitment that it will be published before the Summer Recess, but we are working hard on it and the response will be made as soon as possible. There are many very difficult issues to consider.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am obliged to the noble Earl for having dealt with that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 p.m.

Clause 72 [Intervention by the Secretary of State]:

On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I should like to raise some matters in relation to this clause. As the noble Earl will recall, I dealt with the matter on Second Reading and I should now like to ask one or two questions.

Three officers have different roles in relation to a contracted-out prison. First, there is the director. In a public sector establishment, he would be called the governor; but now, in a private sector establishment, he will be called the director. Secondly, there is the controller, a Home Office official appointed by the Secretary of State who has a number of powers set out in the statute. Thirdly, there is a governor who arrives suddenly if there is a breakdown of order in the establishment or if it is perceived likely that there will be a breakdown of order.

Clause 72(1) states: This section applies where, in the case of a contracted out prison, it appears to the Secretary of State that the director has lost, or is likely to lose, effective control of the prison or any part of it". I have no difficulty with the first element of that clause; namely, that if there is a serious riot, it may be clear that the director has lost control. However, what do the words, or is likely to lose, effective control mean?

As all of us who have had any dealings with prisons know perfectly well, rumours sweep through prisons with a high degree of regularity. Rumours swept through Strangeways Prison before the riot last year. However, if every time such rumours sweep through a prison, it is thought that the director is about to lose control of the prison and a Home Office official, who will be a member of the governor grades, suddenly arrives to take charge of the prison, the director will not have a particularly happy time. The governor—a Home Office official who is in effect a crisis manager—will deal with staff, none of them prison officers but all employees of a private company. I am not clear how he will handle the situation. I should be grateful for any assistance the noble Earl can give. A number of fundamental issues seem to arise.

Secondly, if there is a riot in a prison and major disturbances take place—there have been outbreaks of violence of that kind in a number of remand establishments; for instance, last year at Pucklechurch—it does not seem sensible for a Home Office official arriving from a substantial distance to try to take charge of the chaos. The most sensible step is for the director to ask for assistance from the local chief officer of police. I do not for the life of me understand why that is not seen as the most sensible action to take. By the time an official specially appointed by the Home Secretary arrives, possibly after many hours have elapsed, the disturbance could easily have got wholly out of hand. I reiterate that it is a matter for the police. It is not a matter for a member of the governor grades who arrives at the establishment after a substantial period of time might have elapsed.

There are a number of other matters which arise under this clause. There is something which I find difficult wholly to understand. If the governor, as he is described—in other words, the crisis manager—arrives, is it thought that he will arrive with teams of prison officers from other establishments. Are the private sector employees to be given the kind of training that prison officers receive in dealing with riots? Will that be part of the contract between the Secretary of State and the company concerned?

I am sure that the noble Earl will realise that these are important issues involving the management of these establishments. After the very serious disturbances at Strangeways last year, and at all the other establishments where there was a breakdown of control, it seems to me necessary for him to explain in some detail what the Government have in mind to deal with this situation.

Earl Ferrers

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is quite right to draw attention to this matter. To repeat the phrase used earlier, this is breaking new ground. He is quite right to question what the Government have in mind.

The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to take direct control by the appointment of a governor—as the noble Lord correctly said—of a contracted-out prison if and for so long as the private sector director loses control of it and action is necessary in the interests of public safety. It is based on the principle that the Secretary of State must ultimately remain accountable for the way in which prisoners are treated and for the safety of the public at a contracted-out prison in the same way as he does at other prisons.

The provision is intended for use where, for example, there is a serious prisoner disturbance or even the threat of a mass escape. On his own initiative the Secretary of State would have the power to decide that preventive measures should be taken rather than simply leaving it to the private sector contractor to call for help if he felt that he needed it. There is no reason to think that a contracted-out prison will be any more prone to crises than any other prison. We should expect its management to operate in a way which avoided the risk of disturbances.

The noble Lord said that if a Home Office official suddenly appears he may have a difficult time. That may be so. The noble Lord may also have had in mind that a governor suddenly appearing in a contracted-out prison which is in a state of unease could contribute to that unease because the inmates might realise that something had happened. That is always a possibility. But that possibility should not override the Secretary of State's necessity to take action on a prison, whether it is a contracted-out prison or state prison, if he thinks that there will be trouble. If things do go wrong, the protection of the public, the staff and the prisoners is of the first importance. The Home Secretary is and must remain ultimately responsible for that. He needs to be able to intervene if there is a disturbance or other serious emergency. In an ordinary prison crisis management falls to the governor. In a sense he is the Home Secretary's representative and will act in consultation with the Prison Department headquarters. The governor does not act in isolation.

In the same way we should not expect the contractor and his staff to try to cope in an emergency without the outside support and guidance of the Home Office any more than we would expect that of an ordinary governor. All that the clause does is to provide the means whereby the Home Secretary can ensure that disturbances or other emergencies at a contracted-out prison are handled in a way which minimises the risk to public safety and enables him to discharge his responsibility for public safety.

The noble Lord queried the wording of Clause 72(1) (a). Both paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 72(1) must be met before the Secretary of State can intervene. The phrase: likely to lose effective control". is fairly plain language and the courts will give it its ordinary meaning. We must also read Clause 72(1) (b), because in intervention will not be justified unless it is necessary in the sense that is described there. Mere rumours would not justify intervention.

In an emergency, the Home Secretary would, if it seemed necessary, have power to appoint a governor. The Bill refers to a governor to make it clear that a single person will assume operational command, and that the normal divisions of responsibility between the director and controller will cease, for the duration of the emergency. Appointing someone to act as governor also means that the persons concerned will slot automatically into the normal command and control system for handling a serious incident, and would have the necessary authority to call for assistance from the police or other parts of the prison system. But it does not mean that some complete stranger will turn up to take over the establishment, or that other prison governors will be expected to come along and bail out the private sector if they get into trouble. Most probably the person who was normally the controller of the establishment would step up to be its governor while the emergency lasted. The controller would of course be fully familiar with the establishment. When the emergency was over, the governor would step down and the director and controller would resume their normal functions.

I realise that the explanation I have given has been fairly lengthy. I hope that it will fill some of the gaps in the noble Lord's knowledge.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I shall not press the noble Earl a great deal more today on this point. I shall be grateful if he will write to me on the matter before Report stage.

I raise one major problem associated with this issue; I am not involved in nitpicking. First, I refer to the management of an institution where disturbances could get out of hand and where, as one saw in Strangeways, a number of people, both members of staff and inmates, could be very seriously hurt. The problem about the Government's approach is this. In an ordinary prison department establishment the governor knows the strengths and weaknesses of his staff. However, a governor from outside, having been appointed by the Secretary of State to take charge of the situation either because violence has broken out or because it is perceived that violence may come to pass, will not know the strengths and weaknesses of the employees who are not employees of the prison department but of the private contractor. That seems to me a matter of some concern.

Secondly—I should like the noble Earl's letter to deal with this issue—is the director entitled to call in or ask for assistance from the local chief officer of police before the arrival of a Home Office official who will become the governor of the establishment?

Has the whole matter been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers? A number of issues were involved in the Strangeways affair. They have given rise to quite considerable concern on the part of some senior police officers as to when they should properly intervene. That seems a matter of even greater importance if one talks of a private sector establishment which is not run directly by the prison department of the Home Office.

I repeat that I am not involved in being thoroughly tiresome. However, it seems to me that, given the fact that we have had epidemics of violence in the past 10 years in both ordinary prisons and remand establishments, it is extremely important to get the matter right. One fundamental question is this: will the private sector employees of the contracted out establishment be given training in how to deal with a disturbance in the way that regular members of the prison service are given training?

Perhaps I may refer to another question. There was a sad case a few months ago involving Harmondsworth Detention Centre, which, as the noble Earl will recall, is run by a private sector establishment and which deals with people who have become involved in disputes relating to the immigration acts. The answer given by the Minister did not deal directly with the issue but obviously arose from reports in the press. However, it was clear that the employees of the private sector company had not been given adequate training in suicide prevention.

There has been a series of episodes in prisons and in remand establishments in which people have killed themselves. Prisoners are particularly vulnerable in remand establishments because they are awaiting appearance in court. It is important to know how much training people working in such centres will be required to undertake when working for a private sector company.

I have dealt with the matters at some length because the issues involved are serious. I shall be happy if the noble Earl writes to me before the Report stage in respect of those issues.

9.30 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I too wish to emphasise the importance of training. Last summer I watched a demonstration of restraint given by prison officers. It was obvious that if that was not carried out correctly people could be seriously hurt. Not all prison officers opt for training in restraint. It is a specialised technique and must be carried out in the correct way. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.

Lord Hylton

I have visited Harmondsworth Detention Centre and have an interest in asylum seekers, who, unfortunately, are sometimes detained there. Will the noble Earl be kind enough to send me a copy of his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris?

Earl Ferrers

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving me the opportunity to answer in writing many of the detailed points that he has raised. I shall also send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The issues are important and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was right to point out that during disturbances people can be hurt.

He said that the controller or governor of a normal prison knows the strengths and weaknesses of his staff. He also said that if a governor were brought into the prison from outside he would not have that knowledge. However, towards the end of my original reply to the noble Lord I said that it was anticipated that the governor of the prison would be the person who had been the controller. That may not happen in every case but such is the intention. In those circumstances he would know the strengths and weaknesses of his staff.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lady Masham were anxious about training. That is an important issue and the training of private prison staff will cover riot and suicide prevention. I shall take the opportunity kindly afforded to me by the noble Lord of looking at the matter in more detail and shall write to him.

Clause 72 agreed to.

Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 97: After Clause 72, insert the following new clause:

("Certificates of accreditation

The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing procedures for issuing certificates of accreditation to contracted out prisons, which conform to specified standards including standards with respect to—

1. (i) space per person, air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space, window space and time per day spent in cells,
2. (ii) bathing facilities and frequency of opportunities for bathing,
3. (iii) sanitary facilities and inmates' access to sanitation,
4. (iv) supply of clothing,
5. (v) provision of meals,
6. (vi) medical care,
7. (vii) inmates' access to work, training, education, association, exercise and physical education,
8. (viii) facilities for visits and inmates' contact with families,
9. (ix) inmates' access to lawyers,
10. (x) provision of information concerning bail and legal aid,
11. (xi) inmates' access to advice and assistance from probation officers and social workers, and
12. (xii) facilities for religious observance.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment would establish a procedure for laying down a range of specified minimum standards which privately-managed prisons would have to satisfy in order to receive certificates of accreditation.

At the Report stage in another place on 25th February Mrs. Rumbold said that contracts issued to private managers would require them to meet high standards which would be rigorously enforceable covering all the matters set out in this amendment. She also said: the parts of the contract which deal with the matters under discussion will be made public. Confidentiality will apply only to those parts of any contract which, for sensible, commercial reasons are too sensitive from a security point of view".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/91; col. 724.]

Since then, Lord Justice Woolf's report on the prison disturbances in April 1990 has been published. One of the 12 principal recommendations of his report is the establishment of a national system of accredited standards with which, in time, each prison establishment will be required to comply. An amendment proposing accredited standards for the prison system as a whole was ruled by the Table to be outside the scope of the Bill. However, the debate on this amendment, which the Committee will appreciate is confined to contracted out prisons—at least in form —will enable Members of the Committee to ask the Government for their reaction to Lord Justice Woolf's proposals on this point.

If a national system of accredited standards for prisons is to be established would it not be sensible for such a system to apply also to privately managed prisons? There is unanimous support among organisations working in the penal system for a code of minimum standards for the prison system as a whole. Support for such a code has been affirmed by two House of Commons Select Committees, on home affairs and education, by the Parliamentary all-party Penal Affairs Group, the Prison Governors' Association, the Prison Officers' Association, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, the National Association of Probation Officers, the TUC, the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League, the Annual Conference of Boards of Visitors, the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors, NACRO and the Penal Affairs Consortium.

In those circumstances, and against that background, I hope that if the noble Earl cannot accept the amendment in total he will at least smile favourably upon the intention behind it and, indeed, perhaps tell us that the Government agree that a code of standards should be introduced, that it should be official, enforceable and should apply to all existing prisons.

It will not be possible overnight to bring all prisons up to those standards. That is not an argument against a code of standards but is an argument for a planned programme of improvements working towards an agreed set of standards over a specified period of years. As I said, I hope that the Government will be in a position to give us some favourable indications on this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Richard, whether or not a prisoner's Member of Parliament should be included in that list of provisions because I see no mention of it.

Lord Richard

As the noble Baroness asked me a question, perhaps I may be permitted to reply. I do not believe that such a provision needs to be included. As far as I know Members of Parliament have access to their constituents. Therefore, there is no need for a provision which deals with that in detail.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

Perhaps I may pre-empt what the noble Earl will say and ask him not to say it! Whenever this question has been raised the answer has been: "What is the point of having minimum standards when you know that you cannot achieve them?" I hope the noble Earl will not say that today.

Minimum standards create a target to which every institution can set its aim. The whole point of a set of minimum standards is that it is possible to measure up to them and have dates by which each institution can reach the achievement on minimum standards. Once they are achieved it is possible to move on to the situation which obtains in most European countries. Having achieved minimum standards, they then become enforceable in the courts. It becomes a stage-by-stage operation.

As we all know, there are now European minimum standards. It is rather shaming that we are the one country which seems quite incapable either of having minimum standards of our own or acceding to the minimum standards which obtain throughout Europe. Perhaps the noble Earl will explain to the Committee what possible objection there can be in having a set of minimum standards as a target.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

There has been a tremendous improvement recently in the provision of lavatories in the establishment to which I am attached. Lavatories are being put into every cell or room. That has created a major upheaval but it is a hopeful sign. I wonder whether such an improvement is taking place in establishments throughout the country.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

Perhaps I may raise a point as this is the last amendment to a part of the Bill which is subject to a cross-note which reads, "Remand prisons" covering Clauses 68 to 72. When Lord Justice Woolf reported, he said that if the private sector were to be involved in the remand system—he was therefore considering that the Government would confine the private sector to remand systems—it was accepted by the Government that contracts would have to set clear and enforceable standards. There is no reason why the standard required of the private sector for remand establishments should be any different from those required of the prison service.

We are concerned with the prisons in Clause 68 as extended by Clauses 3 and 4, which were inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, as the noble Earl will remember, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was misled by the side-note, which reads: Contracting out of certain remand prisons". She believed that this part of the Bill, particularly Clause 68, was concerned only with remand prisons. After a great deal of help from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who spelt it out to the noble Baroness, it became clear that Clause 68 was concerned with all prisons in the country and not just remand prisons.

I must say that I was misled by the side-note, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I agree that I should perhaps have read the text more carefully. However, I was misled not merely by the side-note which reads, Contracting out of certain remand prisons", but also by the cross-note which reads, "Remand prisons". The cross-note governs not just Clause 68, but also Clauses 69, 70, 71 and 72. According to the cross-note, all those clauses refer only to remand prisons.

I do not believe that anyone noticed the cross-note; we were all, so to speak, guided by it. The noble Earl, when replying, spoke of the side-note but in a rather dismissive way. He said that it was not part of the Bill—which is true—and that it was a matter for parliamentary counsel. No doubt that will be corrected in the next print of the Bill. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl says that it will be put right and if at the same time he apologises to the noble Baroness for causing her to consider that not only Clause 68 but also the remaining clauses referred solely to remand prisons.

The cross-note is more a part of the Bill than the side-note. It has some import and judicial notice can be taken of it. Even the side-note can be taken notice of judicially as an ultimate resort. However, the cross-note is much more a part of the Bill and can he said to have misled not merely the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, but also some of the rest of us who are not quite as sharp as the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He managed to point out to us—otherwise we may well have missed it—that Clause 68 had been extended to include any prison in the United Kingdom. I hope that the cross note as well as the side note will be fully amended. It will be as well to have a statement from the noble Earl that that will be so.

9.45 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

As regards the last remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I explained earlier that although the side headings are important from the point of view of guiding the person reading the Bill to the appropriate clauses, they do not form part of the substance of the Bill proper. I take his criticisms on board. I realise the confusion that was given to both him and to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I shall certainly see what can be done about that. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me whether I could smile—

Lord Henderson of Brompton

Will the noble Earl include the cross note in that undertaking as well as the side note? The cross note is much more important than the side note.

Earl Ferrers

I am getting a little confused as to what the noble Lord refers to as the cross note as opposed to the side note.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

The cross note appears at the head of page 45, above Clause 68, and consists of the words "Remand prisons" in italics. That governs not just Clause 68, but Clauses 68 to 72 inclusive. All those clauses are governed by that cross note. It is that, combined with the side note, which causes the confusion.

Lord Hylton

Egged on by my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, I have now been reading the text of Clause 68 rather carefully. I notice that subsection (1) (b) at line 7, reads: or persons committed to custody on their conviction". That means people who have been convicted by the court but who have not been sentenced. That extends the matter very much wider than simply to remand prisoners.

Earl Ferrers

For some curious reason we seem to have bumped back to Clause 68, whereas we were dealing with Clause 72.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

All these clauses are covered by the cross note "Remand prisons", so it is not curious at all.

Earl Ferrers

I merely thought that it was curious, but I stand corrected if it is not. I do not think that we want to labour the point other than to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for pointing out the anomaly not only of the cross note but also of the side note. I shall have both the cross note and the side note looked at in order to avoid the confusion which seems to have arisen.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked if I would smile favourably on this amendment. I do my best to smile favourably, which is a very different thing to grinning about it. I shall do my best to smile favourably. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said in the engaging way that he has that he hoped that I would not say whatever it was that he did not want me to say, as though I were going to say it when I was not. It is always helpful to know what the noble Lord does not want me to say. I shall try to meet him over that.

The Woolf Report recommended that there should be a national system of accredited standards set by the Home Secretary. Not all establishments would be able to meet the required standard at first, but those which did would receive certificates to that effect. If all the standards were met they would achieve accredited status. As standards at the other establishments improved, they too would receive certificates, and eventually accredited status, when Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons confirmed that they had reached the standard. There are obvious attractions in setting out more explicitly what prison establishments should be expected to deliver, but the matter is far from straightforward. The Government will be giving their response to the general question of accredited standards in their forthcoming White Paper on the Woolf Report. We are today concerned only with the setting of standards for contracted out prisons.

If we were to adopt Lord Justice Woolf's recommendation for a national system of accredited standards, I am sure that it would apply to any contracted out system in the same way as to an ordinary system. Indeed, if experience in the USA is anything to go by—there they already have both private prisons and a system of accreditation of prisons—I am sure that the contractors would be most anxious for the establishment to gain the necessary accreditation. But with a privately operated prison the Home Secretary will not be dependent on any system of accreditation to ensure that the required standard of service is provided. He can and will set this out very clearly in the contract, and the contract will give him the means to ensure that the required standard of service is actually delivered. I can assure the Committee that the specification for the building and the operating contract for a privately operated prison will cover all the matters referred to in the amendment. I can also assure the Committee that the standards set in the contract on these matters will be made publicly known.

Lord Richard

I wish to press the noble Earl a little further. It is difficult for us to deal with what is, in effect, a blanket answer in which he says, "Yes, I think your amendment is in the right direction. It will all be in the contract". Will it be possible for us to see the tender documents for these contracts? If we see the tender documents we shall then be able to judge whether the standards in the contract are right. If all we do is see the contract at the end of the day, it will be very difficult for us to do anything about it or even raise the issue because by then it will have been signed.

The noble Earl is obviously in a helpful mood at the moment. I hope it lasts. Can he let us have sight of what the Government think the standards in the tender documents should be? We would then be in a position to judge.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

Following on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, can a copy be placed in the Library? I am sure the noble Earl realises that one of the better arguments for a private sector remand establishment was always that the standards would be considerably superior to those that existed in the public sector. That attracted many of us to the whole concept. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, makes an extremely sensible suggestion. I do not think that any question of commercial confidentiality can arise. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, given the fact that we are moving in an altogether new direction, that we should have the opportunity of scrutinising tender documents. The most sensible way for this matter to be handled is for the documents to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Earl Ferrers

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he thought that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is extremely sensible. I concur with that. What the noble Lord asks is entirely reasonable. No commercial confidentiality is involved. It is perfectly reasonable that the Committee should wish to see it. I hope that the information on this matter will be available before we come to Report stage. If that is so I shall see that it is placed in the Library of the House.

Lord Richard

In those circumstances, and in view of the noble Earl's generosity and kindness and everything he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.

Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 98: After Clause 75, insert the following new clause:

("Appointment of Complaints Adjudicator for contracted out prisons

.—(1) Her Majesty may appoint a person to be Complaints Adjudicator for contracted out Prisons.

(2) It shall he the duty of the Complaints Adjudicator to investigate or arrange for the investigation of complaints made by or on behalf of inmates of contracted out prisons concerning their treatment.

(3)The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the categories of complaint which may be made to the Complaints Adjudicator and the arrangements for making complaints to him.").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge who is not with us at the moment. We want 10 find out from the noble Earl the Government's response to this issue which has been identified by the inquiry presided over by Lord Justice Woolf. We should like to know what the noble Earl has to say about it. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

The question of grievance and disciplinary procedures in prisons is an exceedingly important and complex one. That is demonstrated by the analysis of the issues in Lord Justice Woolfs report, which occupies no fewer than 18 pages of the document. The report recommended the appointment of a complaints adjudicator who would be responsible both for investigating complaints and for acting as the final tribunal of appeal in the disciplinary procedures. The proposed new clause, however, refers only to a complaints adviser to investigate complaints from prisoners.

As the Committee will be aware, a new complaints and grievance procedure was introduced on 25th September last year following a major review. The new procedures aim to make the system more accessible to prisoners, to enable everyday complaints to be speedily resolved and to preserve access to the governor, the board of visitors and the prison service area manager. They also require that reasons should be given and replies provided within certain time limits. I believe these new procedures have generally been welcomed, though it is still an internal procedure without the independent element which Lord Justice Woolf believed was necessary.

We recognise that there are strong arguments in favour of introducing an independent element into the complaints and grievance procedures. But this needs to be carefully thought through, not least because of the resource implications, which could well be greater than the Woolf Report estimates. Further work is now in hand so that a considered decision can be reached, and this of course will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on the Woolf Report.

In subsection (2) the new clause refers to, the investigation of complaints made by or on behalf of inmates of contracted out prisons concerning their treatment". Of course prisoners in a contracted out prison would have access to the machinery for investigating prisoners' complaints on no less favourable terms than prisoners in other establishments. In some respects their position will indeed be better, because each contracted out prison will have a controller, appointed by the Secretary of State, who will be independent of the contractors running the prison. Under Clause 69(4) of the Bill it will be the duty of the controller to keep the running of the prison under review and to investigate allegations made against prisoner custody officers working at the prison. When prison rules are made to govern the operation of contracted out prisons, we intend to provide a right of access to the controller for prisoners.

I hope that with this explanation of what the Government are doing about complaint and grievance procedures both in prisons generally and in relation to contracted out prisons the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I certainly do not intend to press the amendment because, as I indicated, we were mainly interested to hear what the Government had to say. The noble Lord rightly said that there are significant resource implications. Of course there are resource implications and that is no doubt why the recommendations contained in the Prior Report were not implemented.

The noble Lord also pointed out the fact that Lord Justice Woolf devoted a substantial amount of space to this issue in his report. He thereby made it clear that he regarded it as an issue of high significance in relation to some of the problems that arose at Strangeways and elsewhere. However, as I said, I do not intend to press the matter this evening. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10 p.m.

Clause 76 [Interpretation of Part IV]:

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 98A: Page 49, line 5, at end insert: ("(3) Sections 64, 65(1) and (2) (a), 66 and 73 to 75 above, subsection (I) above and Schedule 9 to this Act shall have effect as if—

1. (a) any reference in section 64(1), 65(1), 66 or 75 above to prisoners included a reference to persons kept in secure accommodation by virtue of a security requirement imposed under section 23(4) of the 1969 Act (remands and committals to local authority accommodation); and
2. (b) any reference in section 64(1) (c) to (e) above to a prison included a reference to such accommodation.").

The noble Lord said: The Committee will recall that earlier we discussed the government amendments to give effect to new arrangements for the remanding of juveniles to local authority accommodation. They will end the need for young people under 17 to be remanded into prison service custody.

The amendment is intended to provide some additional flexibility over the escorting to court and back of juveniles who are remanded with security requirements under the new arrangements. It would enable use to be made of the prisoner escort arrangements provided by the Secretary of State under Clause 64 for that purpose.

The amendment does not mean that the prisoner custody arrangements would have to be used whenever a remanded juvenile was taken back to the court. It would be up to the local authority charged with looking after the juvenile—the designated authority—to decide how best to take the juvenile back to court when the time came. The amendment gives it the option of using the escort arrangements provided by the Secretary of State if it wishes to do so.

It seems to us sensible that if transport, with the proper degree of security, is available under the Secretary of State's arrangements a local authority should be able to make use of it for juveniles who have been remanded to its accommodation. The normal safeguards, in particular inspection by the prisoner escort monitor and the lay observers under Clause 65(1), would of course apply to the transportation of juveniles under these arrangements.

I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment provides a useful degree of flexibility and will therefore accept its inclusion in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I welcome the amendment, which is highly desirable. I do not want to plunge the Committee into a series of anecdotes, but one is from time to time told disturbing stories of young people who leave the social worker on the steps of the building in which the juvenile court hearing is taking place and that is the last that is seen of them. It seems to me therefore that it is a good idea to have an arrangement whereby the escort service resources can be used. That being so, I welcome the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 77 agreed to.

Clause 78 [Cash limits for magistrates' courts]:

[Amendment No. 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 99ZA:

Page 52, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert: ("(a) for paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (I) there shall be substituted the following paragraph— (a) to appoint such number of probation officers—

1. (i) as may be determined by them without objection by the responsible authority; or
2. (ii) where objection is made, as may be agreed between them and that authority,

to be a sufficient number of such officers for their probation area, subject, in the case of such classes or descriptions of officers as may be prescribed, to the approval of the appointment by the Secretary of State;";").

The noble Earl said: There has been concern that a probation committee should be free to decide how many probation officers its area needs and that if local authorities are involved in that decision it would cause unworkable tensions between the two parties. We have listened carefully to the representations made to us on this issue. While we are still of the opinion that local authorities must be able to object to expenditure on probation officers proposed by the committee and to seek a determination from the Secretary of State on this significant part of the committee's budget, the amendment would make it clear that it is not necessary for the probation committee and its paying authorities to reach agreement on the number of probation officers as a matter of routine. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I have one question. The Minister referred to the representations that the Government had received. Perhaps we may be told who they came from. Did they come from the local authorities, the probation service or who else?

Earl Ferrers

We have had a number of representations from different sources. I do not have the information with me, but I shall write to the noble Lord and see that he is informed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 99ZB: Page 52, line 26, leave out ("of") and insert ("for").

The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 79 [Information for financial and other purposes]:

Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 99A: Page 53, line 1, at beginning insert: ("(1) Persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice shall not discriminate against any persons on the ground f race or sex or any other ground.").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment to Clause 79 standing in my name and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Hutchinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. This is the third occasion on which I have risen to speak on the subject. I do not intend to rehearse my previous speeches in any detail; I merely remind the Committee of the main reasons why I believe that the amendment is necessary.

A strong suspicion has built up among ethnic minority groups over a long time that they are unfairly treated by the criminal justice system. To a great extent this is borne out by the findings of a number of research studies and also by Home Office statistics on the ethnic breakdown of the prison population first compiled in 1985.

A number of studies show that members of minority groups are treated differently from white people at various stages of the criminal process on a like-with-like basis. Home Office statistics on the prison population show that members of ethnic minorities entering prison have on average fewer previous convictions than white prisoners and that before conviction they are less likely to receive bail than comparable white defendants.

I wish to emphasise once again that there is no suggestion of anything deliberately discriminatory in the way the courts deal with ethnic minorities. The Government have recognised the deep concern felt by minority groups and have provided for publication of information in Clause 79(1) (b) for, the purpose of facilitating the avoidance … of discrimination". I do not believe that that goes far enough. The concept advanced in subsection (1) (b) takes for granted that discrimination in the administration of criminal justice should be avoided. The information is being published to prevent that. Why should the Government not state clearly and openly the principle that no one engaged in the administration of criminal justice should discriminate? If, on the other hand, there is no acceptance that discrimination is taking place, even Clause 79(1) (b) should not be necessary. It seems to me that it is accepted that discrimination may be taking place but not t hat someone is responsible for it happening, however unwittingly.

One is also curious to know what action will be taken if the information published discloses discrimination. Let us hope that the Home Secretary will continue to consider it expedient to keep publishing such information as no mandatory duty is laid upon him beyond considering publication.

The amendment puts the emphasis clearly on the need to avoid discrimination, not only through the publication of information but also by clearly laying a duty on all concerned not to discriminate. When I moved an amendment to Clause 3, a number of noble Lords felt that it was not the right place for such an amendment. My noble friend Lord Elton said: I see an apparent discrimination at many points in the criminal justice system, and not simply in the sentencing process".—[Official Report, 26/3/91; col. 1041.]

My noble friend Lord Renton stated: If there is a need for such an amendment, surely it should apply right across the board".—[Official Report, 26/3/91; col. 1045.] I believe that this amendment meets those criticisms. It is a declaratory amendment which applies to the entire Bill.

Once again, I cannot emphasise enough the widespread concern which is felt among ethnic minorities. I believe that the amendment will serve as a strong message to them as well as to all those who administer the criminal justice system. It will also give substance to the words in the Government's White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, namely that, the rule of law will be maintained only if those charged with criminal offences are treated fairly and justly in the courts. There must be no discrimination because of a defendant's race, nationality, standing in the community or any other reason".

My noble friend Lord Elton was not able to stay for this debate. However, he kindly left me a note and invited me to quote from it. He believes that the discrepancy in sentencing between ethnic minority offenders and others may not have come about through discrimination itself but rather through the response of minority groups to perceived discrimination in the system. He further believes that this in turn leads to a vicious circle which can only be broken by a meaningful gesture by the Government. He hopes that if the Government will not agree to enact this revised and improved amendment, they will at least find another means of convincing our minority communities of the justice of the system—and that means demonstrating it.

To sum up, there are a number of reasons why there would be advantages in a statutory provision of the kind contained in the amendment. By drawing attention to the issues through a statement in primary legislation, the Government would be making a statement about the importance they attach to the principle of non-discrimination. Further, the Bill as it stands lays down in statute a detailed set of principles for sentencing covering the use of custodial and community penalties. These cover so many other sentencing principles that it would be strange if the crucial principle of non-discrimination were left out. Finally, such a statement in legislation would reinforce the efforts of many organisations and individuals within the criminal justice system to ensure that the system is fair and is seen to be fair.

Over the past few years the Department of the Lord Chancellor, the Home Office, the courts, the legal profession and the police and probation services have undertaken a series of initiatives to recruit more members of ethnic minorities; to adopt codes of practice designed to promote racial equality; to provide race relations training for their members; and to monitor their activities to ensure that they do not involve discrimination. However, much more needs to be done in all these areas. Often those members of agencies in the criminal justice system who are working to promote such policies find themselves facing indifference or even hostility from colleagues. A statement in primary legislation on the importance of efforts to combat racial discrimination would be a valuable way of making it clear that such efforts have strong official backing. I beg to move.

10.15 p.m.

Baroness Birk

I rise to support the amendment. Unfortunately I was unable to be present on the first day of the Committee stage although I added my name to the original amendment. I read with great interest of the amount of support that the noble Baroness received from all sides of the Committee and from people who hold entirely different views on a great many other subjects. I was greatly encouraged by that support.

The amendment which the noble Baroness has tabled tonight and to which I and other noble Lords have added our names covers the whole spectrum of the criminal justice system rather than purely sentencing. That was one of the arguments used against the original amendment. The amendment tonight also covers all forms of discrimination, not just racial discrimination. The Government have argued previously that the move against racial discrimination is implicit in the clause. The noble Baroness read out the relevant part of the clause. Nevertheless for the Government, rightly, to get the credit for their stand against discrimination, the clause must be made more explicit. As it stands at the moment it is rather oblique and is like a sentence with one part missing.

Discrimination affects two groups of people: those who are at the receiving end of discrimination and those who perceive themselves to be the objects of discrimination. The perception of being discriminated against is just as important as the act of discrimination. That was stated on the first day of the Committee stage. If this amendment is accepted they will find a clear unequivocal statement rather than leaving it to the somewhat oblique statement in subsection (1)(b) of Clause 79. It is equally important, if not more important, for those who are administering justice.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is not in his place. I read what he said about prejudice and about getting into the private consciousness of people. With respect, I think he is wrong. We have to accept that we all have prejudices; it is important to recognise them. I have been a JP for many years; previously I was a lecturer and prison visitor of Holloway Prison. That is a good school in which to learn what one's own prejudices are and to take action in order not to express them.

Unless people recognise their own prejudices there will be great difficulty. If this is brought to their mind in the Bill and it is known to be the intention of the Government, that will help to create an awareness. I readily agree that one does not immediately see specific results, but it does create an awareness.

Although we talk about ethnic groups and minorities we must be frank that what we are talking about, particularly when it comes to the courts and the administration of justice, are the black people. We are talking about colour and about people's prejudice against colour on the one hand, which we have to accept still exists, and on the other hand about what is perceived by the people who feel they are at the receiving end.

As the noble Baroness has pointed out, there are a disproportionate number of black people in prison. I have sat on the bench with colleagues who have a prejudice against black people. However, the great advantage of having three magistrates in magistrates' courts as they are comprised at present is that prejudices are balanced out. That is extremely important.

I know from my own experience that it is often more difficult for black people to get bail. When I am on the bench I often have to fight, not just the police and others, but my own colleagues, in order to give black people what I feel is an equal right with white people.

I readily accept that the amendment is not totally precise and specific. That is impossible in this area. Nevertheless it reflects something which is very important. It enables the Government to exhibit their sensitivity in this area. The amendment can help people to have more confidence in the criminal justice system and give a nudge to those who might be abusing it, sometimes without realising it. If the Government accept it, they can be rightly proud.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

I shall not apologise for taking up a little more time on the very important amendment which has been so well moved by the noble Baroness. She has persisted, and I believe she has got it absolutely right this time. I support it as a member of NACRO's race issues advisory committee. I have been a member since 1983. The committee has concerned itself with the question of black people in the whole criminal process throughout that time.

I am glad to see the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his place for this amendment because I suspect that he would want to see the amendment incorporated in what I previously referred to as his Bill. I am sure that he will agree with me that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with whom I have had certain dealings as a member of the committee and who has been overwhelmingly supportive of the work that we have done, will want to see something along the lines of the amendment in the Bill. I am therefore encouraged about it tonight.

The distinguished chairman of our committee said in our first report in 1986: I have to admit to feelings of some dismay at our findings. We expected to find discrimination and disadvantages in operation. What we did not expect to find was such a vast lack of knowledge and resistance to change". In our second report in 1989 our then second chairman was greatly encouraged by the work of the committee. He said that the lack of knowledge had now been dispelled and the will to change was clearly evident in almost every agency in the criminal process. However, he added: But no one is more aware than members of the committee of how much further there is to go". The noble Lord, Lord Elton, to whom the noble Baroness referred, used these words when the matter was raised before: If a particular and identifiable section of society believes that there is a system of justice which is just for other people but not for them, whether or not that belief is well-founded, the effects on our society as a whole will be very damaging because those people will see the judicial system not as a means of maintaining law and order, but as a means of keeping them down". I was much moved by those words because they expressed exactly what we had found in our committee. As the noble Baroness indicated, one is up against unconscious discrimination in the whole process—discrimination which is apparent and perceived by those discriminated against but not by those u ho are responsible for it.

The amendment can do untold good. The committee has no doubt whatever about that. All the members, who have now been working for nine years in that area, hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government.

Lastly, recruitment is a crucial factor in improving matters. If the prison service, the legal profession, the probation service, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the magistrates' courts committees have criteria governing eligibility and promotion which are more difficult for black people to achieve than for whites, their rules are discriminatory. All those professions have such rules, so that institutional racism is to be found quite unconsciously in most of those agencies, all of which are taking remarkable steps to get rid of it.

In his Brixton report the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, referred to: The sense of a concealed discrimination in relation to job opportunities and housing felt by young blacks". When one finds that 25 per cent. of all women remanded in this country are black and 30 per cent. of black people remanded receive no custodial sentence when they come to trial, one realises that something in the system is clearly wrong. If the Bill included this principle, it would encourage many of those who at present hesitate to join the different agencies in the criminal justice system. It would give strong backing to all those dedicated persons who are working to promote policies of non-discrimination and who meet such indifference and sometimes hostility in their work. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

Perhaps I may briefly say a few words on this amendment to which my name is attached. I am most impressed by the latest draft produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, because it seems to take into account all the criticisms of her previous drafts at an earlier stage. The fact is that both the earlier amendment about the elimination of racial discrimination in sentencing and the amendment which was of a much wider character—I believe Amendment No. 100—were attractive. I thought that perhaps both might go in, but in the course of the argument I realised that both were defective. The noble Baroness has produced the perfect synthesis of those two amendments plus taking into account the criticisms which were made. I can think of no better purpose of parliamentary discussion than to distil an amendment of this sort which I very much hope has the agreement of everyone in the Chamber.

The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, were most helpful. Equally, the criticisms of the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Beloff, have been taken into account. I cannot see that anyone could possibly have any objection to this form of words which goes right across the board. Discrimination on the grounds of race or sex or on any other ground is inadmissible.

I think it right to say that much of the discrimination is unconscious and that the lack of knowledge and will to change may both be unconscious. I do not think that it is only the ethnic minorities who find that there is perceived discrimination. There are various people like myself who do not come from an ethnic minority and who perceive discrimination. I have no doubt that it is unconscious, but when one finds members of the Bar casually talking about the alternative Bar or the ghetto, one realises that something is deeply wrong. It may be lack of knowledge or lack of will to change, but it sinks in that discrimination is there. It must be eradicated.

I believe that this amendment would help very greatly that distinguished judge Sir Henry Brooke (the son of a former Home Secretary) who on behalf of the Judicial Studies Board is now undertaking some kind of study of discrimination in the judicial process; and not merely the judicial process but across the whole criminal justice system. It will assist him, and strengthen his arm tremendously, to have this clause put into the Bill. I know that there is great energy on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Ministers of Health, as well as others concerned with the criminal justice system, in endeavouring to eradicate discrimination within their spheres of influence. They have been most persuasive and I am sure that their agents have worked very hard; but their agents in the Bar and the Law Society, among circuit administrators, clerks and so on, in both the higher and lower judiciary, as well as the probation service and the police, will all have their hands strengthened by the addition of this clause to the Bill. For that reason I wholly support the amendment.

In conclusion, I shall make only one small point. I think that the side note will now be insufficient. It refers solely to information for financial and other purposes. Those who seek this subsection of the clause will find it difficult to discover under "Information for financial and other purposes". If the side note can incorporate the import of the amendment it would be an improvement.

It is very nice to speak to an amendment which one believes has the support of all sides of the Committee.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

Perhaps the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the slur on the Bar which he made in reference to use of the term "ghetto". Our committee has found that the Bar has done more in this area under the very distinguished judge whom the noble Lord mentioned than any other single organisation. The word "ghetto" was used in relation to sets of chambers which consist entirely of black barristers and referred to as a matter that must be discussed and on the whole disapproved of. It was in no way used as a slur, as the noble Lord suggested.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

I do not suggest that it is a slur but a habit of thought that seems to be unconscious among members of the Bar which they do not understand is offensive to racial minorities. It is not a slur but a matter of fact that "ghetto" chambers are talked about; as, alas, are chambers referred to as the "alternative Bar". I should have thought that that phrase was pejorative; I put it no higher than that. It is not a slur, but pejorative. That is a record of fact. It may be that nowadays people do not talk so much in that manner. There may have been an improvement over the past few years. But such speech is a habit of mind that people might consider abandoning.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

The noble Lord—not for the first time—has entirely the wrong end of the stick.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

I should like to say a few words about the last part of the amendment, "or any other ground". There has been a problem of discrimination against prisoners who are HIV positive or have AIDS. It is because of such problems that the amendment needs to be flexible, as it is. Prisoners come before the courts and into prison with many problems and disabilities. They should be helped, not shunned and segregated.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I rose a little earlier in order to come between such amiable Members of this Chamber as my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. Fortunately the noble Baroness beat me to it.

I wish to make only a few observations on the amendment. I have no doubt that there are plenty of precedents; I have not checked them today. However, I seem to recall that when I held the same job as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when dealing with sex discrimination legislation, a declaratory provision was recommended by Lord Gardiner. There was a great deal of argument as to whether the amendment should be accepted. After an immense amount of argument it was rather grudgingly agreed that it could be written into the statute. I have a slight suspicion that the noble Earl will have similar arguments addressed to him.

I believe that the provision is a wholly sensible idea. Like everyone else, I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has brought the issue back to the Committee. Perhaps I may make some comments on the matter in relation to the prison service. Much excellent work in this area is being carried out by the prison department. Many devoted members of the service put in a huge amount of work in order to improve the situation in our prisons. Nevertheless it is only right to acknowledge that there have been a number of substantial problems. Some noble Lords will recall the circumstances of the Alexander case. We may remember the debate in which the noble Earl participated about events at Wandsworth Prison; and the very strange badges worn by a minority of members of the staff to which the Chief Inspector of Prisons drew public attention.

I remember a disturbing matter which came to my attention when I was chairman of the Parole Board. I saw, as did a number of my colleagues, dossiers which included phrases such as "typical of his race", "devious and unreliable" and so forth. I emphasise the fact that that occurred in only a minority of cases. Nevertheless, there were sufficient examples to prompt me to see the then Director General of the Prison Service. He was deeply worried about the matter and circulated an instruction to the prisons.

I repeat that I am not trying to point an accusatory finger towards many members of the prison service; the number of cases involved was small. However, there were, as I have said, a sufficient number to worry us all and it demonstrates the need for constant examination of this issue in all parts of the criminal justice system. For all those reasons a declaratory decision of this kind is highly desirable and I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

Lord Hylton

I support this important amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. We know that real discrimination exists in many spheres of life and we wish to eliminate it from the criminal justice system. For instance, we know that real discrimination exists against women, ethnic minorities and racial groups. While some is real some is imagined and does not actually exist. However, both types contribute to the alienation of those groups which believe that they are at the receiving end.

It has long been accepted that in court cases involving a person who speaks no English or has only a limited knowledge an interpreter is of the first importance. I suggest that in addition we need in many different situations cross-cultural interpreters who can tease out the nuances and misunderstandings that all too readily occur. I hope that, if accepted, the amendment will have a major bearing on the training of many categories of people—for instance, police officers, court officials and prison officers. I hope that the Government will accept it.

Baroness Flather

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the phrase "any other ground". I presented the amendment to include the phrase "any other improper ground" which appears in Clause 79(1) (b). For some inexplicable reason the original draft of the amendment does not appear in the Marshalled List. It should read: on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground". That provision appears in the Bill and would make the issue more precise.

Earl Ferrers

We have had a useful and interesting debate, as we had in earlier proceedings upon the Bill. I repeat that in the criminal justice system there can be no room whatever for racial, sex or any other unfair discrimination—indeed, any other unfair improper discrimination as my noble friend would have it. It is clearly important that we all do what we can to ensure that no such discrimination occurs. The amendment moved so comprehensively by my noble friend seeks to help to ensure that by imposing a new statutory duty en those who work in the administration of criminal justice not to discriminate on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground.

I quite understand the reasons why my noble friend and Members of the Committee believe that to be important. But the amendment would simply re-state on the face of the Bill what is already a matter of law. Those who work in the criminal justice agencies are already under a duty to treat people fairly, and that clearly includes avoiding discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. Indeed, if the criminal justice system does not operate in a fair way, the whole purpose of its existence is unfair and unreasonable.

As regards sentencers, that duty is reflected in the judicial oath which requires sentencers to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Clearly, racial discrimination would be incompatible with the terms of that oath. Other people in the criminal justice system, particularly those who work in the prison, police and probation services, are similarly bound in their codes of conduct and discipline not to discriminate.

It has been argued that the inclusion in the Bill of a statement of the kind proposed would emphasise the importance of the need to avoid discrimination. My noble friend asked why the Government will not state the principle that people should not discriminate. She understandably wants matters made clearer. But generally when provisions are written into statute it is to bring about a change—to confer new rights or obligations or to forbid some activity which was previously permitted. This amendment does not however seem to imply any change. It merely re-states an existing obligation. Those working in the criminal justice agencies are already, as I have explained, under a duty not to discriminate, so no extra duty seems to be placed on them by the amendment. What must they do differently to comply with this new duty that is not already required of them by the existing duty, and how would the new duty be enforced?

As the Committee is aware, this issue has been discussed on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It is an issue to which the Government have given a great deal of thought and consideration. It is not easy to see what might best be done to help ensure the objective that we all share of a criminal justice agency that is both fair and seen to be fair by all sections of the community. It seems to us, however, that the provision already in Clause 79 of the Bill that places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish regular information is the most helpful and constructive way forward.

The provision not only draws attention to and emphasises the need to avoid discrimination; it also ensures that those working in the criminal justice agencies will receive regular information which will help them to judge how this need is being served and to identify any corrective measures that might be required and it will help keep these issues regularly in the forefront of people's minds by the annual publication of information.

The noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Hylton, were quite right when they both said that whether or not there is discrimination, it is perceived by those affected that there is, even though the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that that was not intended. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that that may be done unconsciously. I can understand those anxieties. To use an old cliché, it is very important that not only should justice be done but it should be seen to be done. People must have confidence in the system. I agree that it is not enough to say that there is no reason why people should not have confidence in the system and we must do all that we can to achieve that.

The problem is that this is a statement of a desire, and Acts of Parliament are not there for making statements of desire but for making legal obligations. There is a further danger; that is, that a person—and he may be of an ethnic minority—sentenced to imprisonment may complain that he was so sentenced not because of his offence but because of the colour of his skin, and he can appeal against that sentence. Equally, it may work in reverse. A number of white people may attack a number of black people and be sentenced to prison for creating an affray. The white people may say that they were sent to prison not because of the affray that they created but because the attack was against black people. One finds that element occurring. One can appeal. But it is difficult to argue against it and say that a person was sentenced correctly for what he had done and not because of discrimination.

I have listened carefully to what has been said today and have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. We all want to see the sentiments of my noble friend put into practice. But I am bound to say that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. I should like to consider between now and Report stage whether there is any way in which we can introduce a government amendment which goes further than the existing drafting of Clause 79—one which might go some way towards meeting the anxieties expressed as well as meeting the difficulties which I foresee in inserting statements of desire into a Bill which should contain legal references and implications. I should be grateful if my noble friend would allow me to consider the matter between now and Report stage.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

Before the noble Baroness decides what to do I want to express my sadness at the Minister's reply. When all is said and done, all the amendment is asking is that we put on the statute book a statement that, Persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice shall not discriminate against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other ground". I should have thought that that went well with Clause 79, which says, The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of…(b) facilitating the avoidance by such persons of discrimination against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground". It is saying that it is wrong or illegal to discriminate and that we should monitor the position to ensure that that does not happen. I should have thought the two matters went well together. I cannot understand why the Government find difficulty in accepting the amendment.

It is all very well to say that, because one takes an oath to administer justice without ill-favour, affection or one has also taken an oath not to discriminate; but that is not spelt out. The amendment would spell it out in the Bill. I cannot understand why, if the Government are willing to combat discrimination in the judicial system, they are not willing to include a provision to that effect on the statute book.

The Minister asked to be allowed to think about the matter further. I ask him to take into consideration what I have said. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Earl Ferrers

I am sorry that the noble Lord does not understand my reasons. I tried to explain them clearly. The noble Lord says that the amendment would make it a legal requirement not to discriminate. That is a very good sentiment, but what happens if people do discriminate? That is not referred to in the amendment. Obviously sanctions would need to be included.

The noble Lord says that the position must be monitored. Provisions were included in another place for the very monitoring which he requires. However, I have given an undertaking to look at the situation. I want to see whether we can meet the requirements and desires of Members of the Committee in a way that can be suitably expressed in legal documents.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I welcome the fact that the Government intend to look at this matter between now and Report stage. That is fine. I cannot recall the precise circumstances of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendment of Lord Gardiner. As I indicated a few moments ago, to the best of my recollection this same argument took place. His amendment to the Bill was ultimately accepted. It dealt with sex discrimination in regard to public appointments. It was a declaratory provision in exactly the same way as is this amendment. No doubt the noble Earl and his advisers will look at that precedent. I suspect that there are many others.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

When the noble Earl considers this provision will he bear in mind the judicial oath and the law? When this matter was first investigated judges and magistrates referred to their judicial oath and to the law. They said that there was no discrimination. After a long period both the judiciary and the magistracy now accept that, in spite of the judicial oath and the law, there is discrimination. Both organisations have been, and are doing, a great deal to eradicate it. That shows that more must be done. I hope that the noble Earl will bear that in mind.

Baroness Flather

I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. I shall await with interest what comes forward at the next stage. I do not want to labour any of the points that I have already covered, but I shall pick up one point which is of concern to me. If this amendment does not confer any extra rights it will not affect the position of those who are found to be discriminating or who are perceived to be discriminating. If the defendants think that they have been discriminated against their rights will be the same as they are now. Presumably those are either right of appeal or a judicial review. I assume that that position will not change whether or not this amendment is inserted into the Bill. It will concentrate wonderfully well the minds of all those people who are involved in administering the system at whatever level they may be. I can see no harm in that whatever. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 100 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 79 agreed to.

Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.

Clause 83 [General interpretation]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 101: Page 54, line 9, at end insert: ("(2) For the purposes of any provision of this Act which requires the determination of the age of a person by the court or the Secretary of State, his age shall be deemed to be that which it appears to the court or the Secretary of State to be after considering any available evidence.").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. Both these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

[Amendment No. 101A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Earl Ferrersmoved Amendment No. 102: Page 86, line 35, leave out ("given by section 1(8)") and insert ("of Part I").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale)

>: I call Amendment No. 102ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Richard.

Lord Richard

I have no idea how this amendment came to be put down in my name. I have no knowledge of it. I disown it completely and I do not move it.

[Amendment No.102ZA not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.102A: Page 88, line 5, leave out ("17") and insert ("16").

The noble Earl said: I might say the same about this amendment. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 102B, 104A, 104B, 104T and 105A. This set of amendments makes further minor and consequential changes to existing legislation which arise from the Bill's provisions. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

In calling Amendment No. 102B I have to point out that 18A should be 19A and 18B should be 19B.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 102B: Page 88, line 46, at end insert:

("Bail Act 1976 (c.63)

18A. In section 4(3) of the Bail Act 1976 (general right to bail of accused persons and others), for the words "section 6 or section 16 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 (breach of requirement of probation or community service order)' there shall be substituted the words "Part II of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (breach of requirement of probation, community service, combination or curfew order)".

18B.—(1) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act (restrictions on the imposition of bail conditions) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1), after the words "(4) to (7)" there shall be inserted the words "(except subsection (6) (d))" and the words from "or, in the case" to the end shall cease to have effect.

(3) After sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph— (1A) No condition shall be imposed under section 3(6) (d) of this Act unless it appears to be necessary to do so for the purpose of enabling inquiries or a report to be made. (4) In sub-paragraph (2) for the words "Sub-paragraph (1) above also applies", there shall be substituted the words "Sub-paragraphs (1) and (1A) above also apply". (5) In sub-paragraph (3), for the words "subparagraph (1)" there shall be substituted the words "sub-paragraph (1A)"").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 103: Page 89, line 10, at end insert: ("20A. In section 20(2) (b) of the 1980 Act (procedure where summary trial appears more suitable), for the words from "on obtaining information" to the end there shall be substituted the words "is of such opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section".").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 104. They were both spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 103B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104: Page 89, line 11, leave out ("the 1980") and insert ("that").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104A: Page 90, line 7, leave out ("section 1A(1)") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 1A").

The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104B: Page 40, line 11, at end insert: ("(2) In subsection (4) of that section, for the words "section 15(11) below" there shall be substituted the words "section 51(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104BA: Page 90, line 26, at end insert:

("Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c.23)

29A. In section 22(11) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (time limits in relation to preliminary stages of criminal proceedings), after the definition of "appropriate court" there shall be inserted the following definition— 'custody' includes local authority accommodation to which a person is remanded or committed by virtue of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and references to a person being committed to custody shall be construed accordingly;".").

The noble Earl said: We discussed Amendment No. 104BA with Amendment No. 94B and the other amendments on juvenile remands. Perhaps I may draw attention to a misprint on the Marshalled List. In Amendment No. 104BA, in the first line after the heading the reference should be to the Prosecution of Offences Act and not Prosecution of Offenders Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 85 agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Transitional provisions and savings]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104C: Page 92, line 9, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("Schedule IA to that Act").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 104D to 104H, 104HA and 104J to 104R. I nearly said, knave, king, queen and ace; but I decided not to do so.

This set of amendments completes the transitional arrangements for the Bill's provisions which are set out in Schedule 11. They are mainly concerned with the young offender provisions in Clauses 47 to 57 of the Bill and the new juvenile remand provisions. The other amendments make minor changes to the provisions already in Schedule 11 to the Bill—for example, those concerning the new early release arrangements. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

11 p.m.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 104D to 104R: Page 92, line 9, at end insert: ("3A. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to this Act shall apply in relation to offenders convicted (but not sentenced) before the commencement of that paragraph as it applies to offenders convicted after that commencement."). Page 92, line 19, at end insert:

("Increase of certain penalties

5A. Neither of subsections (3) and (4) of section 23 of this Act shall apply in relation to offences committed before the commencement of that subsection.").

Page 92, line 40, leave out ("more than twelve months and less than four years") and insert ("—

1. (a) more than twelve months; and
2. (b) less than four years or, as the case may require, such other period as may for the time being be referred to in section 27(5) of this Act,").

Page 92, line 45, after second ("sentence") insert ("or six months, whichever is the longer").

Page 93, line 46, at end insert:

("Responsibilities of parent or guardian

10A. None of sections 47 to 49 of this Act shall apply in relation to offences committed before the commencement of that section; and the repeals of subsections (7) (c), (7B) and (7C) of section 7 of the 1969 Act shall not apply in relation to offences committed before the commencement of those repeals.").

Page 93, line 46, at end insert:

("Remands and committals of children and young persons

10B.—(1) In this paragraph— section 23" means section 23 of the 1969 Act as substituted by section (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation) (1) of this Act; the modifications" means the modifications of section 23 set out in section (Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation) of this Act; remand or committal" means a remand of a child or young person charged with or convicted of one or more offences, or a committal of a child or young person for trial or sentence.

(2) Section 23 as it has effect with the modifications shall not apply in relation to any remand or committal which is in force immediately before the commencement of sections (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation) and (Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation) of this Act.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) below, section 23 as it has effect without the modifications shall not apply in relation to any remand or committal which is in force immediately before the day appointed under section (Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation) (1) of this Act.

(4) Any person who, in pursuance of any such remand or committal, is held in a remand centre or prison shall be brought before the court which remanded or committed him before the end of the period of 8 days beginning with the day so appointed.

(5) Where any person is brought before a court under sub-paragraph (4) above, section 23 as it has effect without the modifications shall apply as if the court were just remanding or committing him as mentioned in subsection (1) (a) of that section.

10C.—(1) Subsection (2) (a) of section (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation) of this Act shall not apply in any case where proceedings for the offence in question have begun before the commencement of that section.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) below, subsection (2) (b) and (c) of that section shall not apply in relation to any committal under section 37 of the 1980 Act which is in force immediately before that commencement.

(3) Any person less than 17 years old who, in pursuance of any such committal, is held in a remand centre or prison shall be brought before the court which committed him before the end of the period of 8 days beginning with that commencement.

(4) Where any person is brought before a court under sub-paragraph (3) above, section 37 of the 1980 Act shall apply as if the court were just committing him under that section.").

Page 94, line 2, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,").

Page 94, line 4, at end insert:

("(2) Subsections (2), (3) and (5) of that section shall not apply in any case where proceedings for the offence in question have begun before that commencement and the offender is aged 17 at the date of his conviction.

(3) For the purposes of the provisions substituted by subsection (3) (c) of that section, any sentence of detention in a young offender institution which, at that commencement, is being served by an offender aged 17 shall be disregarded.").

Page 94, line 10, at end insert:

("Supervision orders

12A.—(1) In relation to pre-existing failures to comply with the requirements of supervision orders, section 15 of the 1969 Act as substituted by Schedule 6 to this Act shall apply as if—

1. (a) in subsection (3) (a), for "£1,000" there were substituted "£100";
2. (b) in subsection (5) (b), for "£5,000" there were substituted "£2000"; and
256
3. (c) in subsection (5) (c), for "£5,000" there were substituted the words "£2,000 in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18 years and £400 in the case of a person who has not attained that age".

(2) In this paragraph "pre-existing" means occurring before the commencement of section 52 of this Act and that Schedule.").

Page 94, line 12, leave out ("Section 53(4) of this Act") and insert ("Subsection (2) of section 53 of this Act shall not apply in relation to attendance centre orders made before the commencement of that section.

(1A) Subsection (4) of that section").

Page 94, line 15, leave out ("the commencement of section 53(4) of this Act") and insert ("that commencement").

Page 94, line 16, at end insert:

("Provisions for treating persons aged 17 as young persons

13A.—(1) Paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 6 of Schedule 7 shall not apply in any case where proceedings for the offence in question have begun before the commencement of that Schedule.

(2) Paragraph 5 of that Schedule shall apply in relation to any sentence imposed on any person who was convicted before that commencement and was aged 17 at the date of his conviction.").

Page 94, leave out lines 20 to 25 and insert ("references in any other provision of this Act, or in any enactment amended by this Act, to youth courts shall be construed as references to juvenile courts").

Page 94, line 25, at end insert:

("Supplemental

15. For the purposes of this Schedule proceedings for an offence shall be regarded as having begun as follows—

1. (a) in the case of an offence triable only summarily, when a plea is entered;
2. (b) in the case of an offence triable only on indictment, when the magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence as examining magistrates;
3. (c) in the case of an offence triable either way, when the magistrates' court determines to proceed with the summary trial of the offence or, as the case may be, to proceed to inquire into the offence as examining justices.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 12 [Repeals]:

Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 104S: Page 95, line 15, at end insert:

("1965 c.71.

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965

In section 1 in subsection (1), the words from ("and") to the end of the subsection; subsection (2); in subsection (4), the words from ("in each of the said sections 70") to the end of the subsection; in subsection (5), the words from ("but in lieu thereof") to the end of the subsection.").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is consequential upon the vote which was taken recently on the so-called "Nathan" amendments. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

I believe that this amendment goes with the other amendments which were all part of the murder and life imprisonment amendments which were previously debated. My noble friend Lord Waddington gave an undertaking that these matters would be considered. The substance of the amendment now before the Committee will also form part of that consideration.

Lord Richard

I believe that that is right. However, I understood that, as a matter of form and procedure, the amendment needs to be moved so that I can now, presumably, withdraw it to allow it to be considered by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I hope that I am correct in that assumption.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am a little uncertain on the matter. Perhaps the noble Earl can assist us. As I understand it, two amendments were carried against the Government and one was not proceeded with—namely, the one which related to the tribunal. I am not clear as to the relevance of this amendment to the other three issues. If it relates to the first two issues, it is consequential on the Committee having taken its decision. Perhaps someone will be able to clarify the position.

Lord Richard

As I understand it, it is consequential upon the first two decisions.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

In that case, I believe that the Committee is obliged to accept this amendment. It is not a matter for the Government's reflection; it arises directly from the decision taken by the Committee on a vote.

Lord Richard

I think that that is probably right. If one looks at the amendment it will be seen that it repeals the words in the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 which state that the penalty for murder shall be life imprisonment. It is a textual but consequential amendment upon the two votes which the Committee took last week. However, I do not know whether that means that I move it—I have already done so—and then leave it; that I move it and then withdraw it; or, that I move and the noble Earl then says, "Yes, it is consequential so we can leave it where it is". Perhaps the noble Earl can assist in the matter.

Earl Ferrers

My understanding was that this was a matter which would fall to be considered by my noble friend with the undertaking that he gave on the other amendments. I understand that this amendment is consequential on the first of those amendments and that the noble Lord is entitled to move it. In which case, we shall accept it. I congratulate the noble Lord on his achievement.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees

I should tell the Committee that there is a misprint in Amendment No. 104T on the Marshalled List and that it should read "line 36" and not "line 35".

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 104T: Page 96, line 36, at end insert:

("1976 c. 63

The Bail Act 1976.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 8(1), the words from "or, in the case" to the end.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 96, line 54, column 3, at end insert: ("In Schedule 3, paragraph 5.").

The noble Earl said: We spoke to this with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105ZA: Page 97, line 18, at end insert:

("1983 c. 20

The Mental Health Act 1983

In section 50(3), the words from "and that period" to the end.").

The noble Earl said: The amendment removes a reference to "remission" from the Mental Health Act 1983. It is consequential on the provisions in Part II for reform of the early release arrangements. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105A: Page 97, line 23, column 3, at end insert ("Section 131(2).").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105AA: Page 97, column 3, leave out lines 50 to 52 and insert:

("from "and after the words" to the end. In section 5, subsections (2) (b) and (8).").

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 86 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

[Amendments Nos. 105B to 105ZD had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 105E: Page 54, line 29, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").

The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106A. The amendments merely extend to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands the increases in the standard scale of fines and the statutory maxima provided for in Clause 15(1) and (2). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 106: Page 54, line 31, leave out ("and 21") and insert (", 21 and 23(3) and (4)").

The noble Earl said: The amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 106ZA: Page 54, line 31, leave out ("and 21") and insert (", 21, (Sentence for murder) and (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment)").

The noble Lord said: I have been asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, to move the amendment on his behalf as his judicial duties prevent him attending tonight. The effect of the amendment, although somewhat elliptical, would be to abolish the mandatory life sentence on a conviction for murder in Scotland and to bring the law in Scotland into line with that of England. I understand that the purpose of the amendment is to obtain the Government's reaction to the position. I believe that I am right in saying that the view of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, is that it would be strange, to put it mildly, if the sentences for murder differed depending on which side of the border the offence took place. I beg to move.

Earl Ferrers

My noble friend the Leader of the House made clear in the short debate that we had last Thursday on Amendment No. 76A, and the amendments related to it, that the Government will need to consider the consequences of the votes on the earlier Amendments Nos. 69A and 69ZA and to respond in some way. In doing so, we shall need to ensure that the position in Scotland remains the same as in England and Wales. The substance of this amendment will also be considered.

Lord Richard

In view of what the noble Earl said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 106A: Page 54, line 34, at end insert: ("(5A) An Order in Council under section 81(11) of the 1982 Act may direct that both or either of—

1. (a) section 37 of that Act as amended by section 15(1) above; and
2. (b) section 32 of the 1980 Act as amended by section 15(2) above,

shall extend, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, to the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment has already been spoken to. However, as it is the last amendment, I wish to take the opportunity of thanking noble Lords on the other side of the Committee, as well as those behind me and on other Benches, for their patience in dealing with amendments on the Committee stage. I beg to move.

Lord Richard

I reciprocate the sentiments which the noble Earl has just expressed. I can do that for the Front Bench, but it is difficult to do so for those behind me since there are none. I do so in their absence. This has been an intricate and difficult Bill but progress has been considerably helped by, I cannot say the concessions made by the noble Earl, but by his attitude towards the amendments put forward by the Opposition.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

I second that. In the famous words of any Lord Justice in the Court of Appeal, I have nothing to add.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eleven o'clock.