Lords Sitting of 20 May 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of. Manchester.

CFCs: Use in Government Premises
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to reprocess or harmlessly dispose of CFC refrigerants used in government air conditioning and refrigeration installations when this is necessary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, a speedy recovery and return to his place in the House.
Existing refrigeration equipment in government premises is kept in use only while operationally necessary. CFC refrigerants recovered from equipment during maintenance or dismantling are returned to the manufacturers for reprocessing or for safe disposal if the CFCs cannot be recycled.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her good wishes to my noble friend, which I shall pass on. The Government are the largest single users of CFCs; indeed, it has been estimated that they account for one-third of the total use. Does the Minister agree therefore that the Government have a particular responsibility in setting an example — for instance, by including in new contracts clauses relating to safe disposal; by encouraging research and development; hut, above all, by pioneering safe
2
disposal? Might there not be a commercial opportunity for the Government in taking a lead in that area?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that the Government, being large users of CFCs, have a responsibility to set an example. A detailed manual specifically sets out handling and disposal arrangements together with contract requirements for contractors working with CFCs and/or consultants who are consulting about them. Everyone who carries out work for any government department is subjected to the requirements of the manual.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that there is at least one commercial company in this country which has devised a scheme for the disposal of CFCs from refrigerators? Is it correct that the company has stated publicly that because the costs are substantial, legislation is required which will enable local authorities to finance the disposal of CFCs using the new process?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that not only one but many companies are working on finding a substitution for CFCs and developing their safer handling. There is no doubt that companies approach the Government for assistance as regards a change in legislation or for funding. I believe that the alternative method of disposal to which the noble Lord refers is very expensive. At this stage the Government have a good record in phasing out CFCs well ahead of all the requirements of the original Montreal Protocol and the updated agreement. Where disposal of CFCs takes place, it is safe; and, where possible, re-use is resorted to.

Young People: Social Security Benefits
2.39 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a review will be undertaken of the benefits for young people aged 16 to 18 who have

3
been in care and in need, particularly in view of the report to be published on 20th May by a consortium of national children's organisations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government are closely monitoring policy in this area. We shall study carefully the report of the national children's organisations alongside the independent research that the Government commissioned last year from MORI, a copy of which I expect to receive shortly.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that young people aged between 16 and 18 who have been in care for many years and who therefore have no home background or parental support are vulnerable to vagrancy, prostitution, begging and juvenile crime? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that while his ministry is important in helping such children a co-ordinated, overall policy is required? It should be directed at all the ministries involved; that is, those dealing with housing, work, youth employment, education and health. Will my noble friend make representations to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to set up a review which can report to Parliament on an overall, co-ordinated policy for these young people as recommended in the excellent report Fit For Nothing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the Government's policies are co-ordinated but I take note of the points made by my noble friend. Young people who have been in care are given special treatment for benefit purposes. A young person who is in care immediately before his or her 16th birthday and who is living away from home may receive income support for up to 16 weeks in order to find a job or youth training. Discretionary payments made by local authorities to young people leaving care are ignored for income support purposes. Those leaving care and receiving income support are a priority group for community care grants from the social fund.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister have any information about the effectiveness of the youth training schemes for such youngsters? The case for not giving them benefit has rested on the Government's argument that a place on a youth training scheme is available for each young person. Have the Government any information to show whether that is true on a local basis rather than on a nationwide basis? Furthermore, do they have information about the effectiveness of the schemes? Most of the information that one receives shows that while some are extremely good, others are inadequate and would justify refusal on the part of the youngsters concerned.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that many of the schemes are effective and that many provide valuable training. The guarantee of a place can be met in most parts of the country. We believe that young people between the ages of 16 and 17 should stay in full-time education, seek work or undertake youth training. We
4
do not believe that the option of claiming benefit should be available to them without seeking work or training.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord says "most". What about those not covered by "most"? The word "most" implies that for some, matters are not satisfactory.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we hope that most young people will be found a youth training place and that the TECs will make sure that those having difficulties will eventually find a place. If they are unable to find such a place and if they are suffering severe hardship, then benefit will be available.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the excellent report to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred, almost 30 per cent. of young people who applied for severe hardship allowance last year were denied it? Will he not look again at the operation of the benefit rules which seem to be operated in a very subjective way by a number of DSS officials to ensure that young people receive suitable support where it is required?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously, not every claim of severe hardship will be met. The noble Baroness mentioned that 30 per cent. had had their applications refused. But 70 per cent. were successful in their applications. Claims are looked at sympathetically by expert officers in the severe hardship unit of my department.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that 30 per cent. is a high figure and that a number of that 30 per cent. may well be sleeping on the streets?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, those suffering from severe hardship will receive income support. Those matters are looked at sympathetically by officers from my department.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government not give a firmer assurance as regards the Question asked by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and referred to in the other supplementary questions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as we have said on many occasions, we shall continue to monitor policy on this issue. We are awaiting independent research carried out by MORI; we shall consider that when it is received.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, a great many 16 and 17 year-olds are denied income support. Given that income support is meant to provide for basic subsistence needs, will the Minister inform us of the objective research upon which the Government based their decision that the needs of a young person aged 17 who is living independently are smaller than those of a person aged 20 or 25 who is living independently? What research has been carried out which demonstrates the need for that discrimination?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there is no evidence that people cannot survive on income support levels. A

5
young person who has to live away from home on income support will receive income support at the 18 to 24 year-old rate.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, is the review conducted by MORI concerned only with supplementary benefit or is it also concerned with housing, education and training? Will it be an overall co-ordinated report or merely a report for one department?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend will know that my honourable friend Mrs. Shephard announced last year that research will be conducted by MORI into the position of 16 and 17 year-olds. The research will have two main elements. First, it will look at a representative sample of some 500 successful and unsuccessful applications 'for income support under the severe hardship provisions. Secondly, it will collect detailed qualitative data on young people's experience of the benefit system.

Prisons: Industrial Disputes
2.46 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
In how many prisons there are now industrial disputes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, there were industrial disputes at 40 prisons in England and Wales as at 14th May 1991.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Earl not find that a very disquieting figure? What are the Government intending to do about these never-ending disputes in our prisons? Last October the noble Earl told me in a Written Answer that there had been 70 such disputes in different prison department establishments. We are now told that 40 are still in existence. What do the Government propose to do to bring peace to our prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, these are not matters of industrial action; they are disputes. There is a formal agreement for resolving differences of opinion. I cannot tell the noble Lord when the Prison Officers' Association or others will stop bringing about disputes. The prison service has been going through a great change since 1987 and the introduction of Fresh Start. Obviously that produces problems periodically which are there to be resolved. Industrial disputes are different from industrial action.
Lard Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, what percentage of the total number of prisons is represented by the 40 prisons in which my noble friend tells us there are disputes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are 125 prisons in all and that represents a proportion of them.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his mathematics. They are obviously as good as mine. Does he agree that one problem is the recent directive issued by the Home Office stating that
6
there will be no increase in manning levels this year to compensate for a further reduction in working hours? If there are 40 disputes now, does the Minister agree that after the directive and the response which it has provoked he can expect a few more in the not too distant future?
Has the Minister seen the blistering letter written by the Prison Governors Association to the Home Secretary? If so, will he answer the question it poses. It asks whether the Home Secretary will give:
"a clear undertaking that if additional staffing requirements are identified by a staffing assessment, you will take the necessary steps to obtain that additional staff".
Does he agree that if that assurance were given, it may go a considerable way towards bringing peace to our prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is a complicated issue and I do not wish to go into too much detail. However, the total number of Prison Officers' Association staff is 24,000. It has increased by 4,000 over the three years since 1987; it is increasing by another 2,500 this financial year. At the same time the prison population has gone down from 51,000 in 1987 to 45,000 now. That is a substantial increase in the ratio of prison officers to the prison population.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister is right. If the letter had come from the Prison Officers' Association that might be an answer; but it is the governors who are writing in these terms to the Home Secretary.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that does not alter the facts or the figures.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is resort had to ACAS or any other independent organisation to resolve these long-standing disputes?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the principle is that if the local Prison Officers' Association has a dispute it makes representations to the governor and he tries to resolve the problem. If there is no agreement, it is registered as a dispute and the governor informs the head of the industrial relations branch of the Home Office and the area manager. There is then an area dispute meeting with the governor, the area manager, the Prison Officers' Association local committee and the national executive member. If there is no agreement the matter goes to national level, where the same people, including the head of the industrial relations branch of the Home Office, take part, and they decide what to do. Either the employers impose their view or the Prison Officers' Association takes industrial action. A great deal of effort is made to resolve disputes before they reach that level.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, these disputes have gone on for years. The situation that the noble Earl reported to the House today is still profoundly unsatisfactory. Can he indicate whether, given that most of the disputes concern manning levels, thought is being given by the Home Office to obtain some form of independent analysis of staffing levels in individual prisons with the object of bringing these disputes to an end?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the introduction of Fresh Start produced a lot of problems. The Government agreed to increase staffing levels nationally. However, only 25 disputes over staffing levels occurred— though of course that is 25 too many. It is our intention and desire that there should be fewer disputes in the prison service. I agree that the position is unsatisfactory.

Iraq: Arms Embargo
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
In light of a report in the Financial Times on 3rd May of an Iraqi arms procurement network operating in Europe and the United States of America, what steps they propose to take in conjunction with the European Community and the United States Government to deal with the situation.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, Britain has had strict controls on arms sales to Iraq since 1980. United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 established a world-wide trade embargo against Iraq, reaffirmed by United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. We are in close touch with the United States and our EC partners on its enforcement. We have no evidence that arms are reaching Iraq.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, an article in a responsible journal indicated that the desires of this Government and the American Government have been thwarted. Perhaps the noble Earl can say what knowledge the Government possess through intelligence and DTI services of what is known as the "Iraqi procurement network" detailed in the Financial Times article. At any time before the Gulf war, were the Government aware of the British company, Matrix Churchill Limited, supplying Iraq with what it required and of its participation in what has been described as money-laundering activities? Those are extremely serious issues which, in view of the magnificent efforts made by British and American troops, need to be thoroughly answered and examined by the British Parliament.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, to the best of the Government's knowledge the network in the UK to which the noble Lord alludes has not functioned since the imposition of sanctions. I cannot comment on the Matrix Churchill case because, as he is aware, it is sub judice.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that there is no truth in the allegation in the detailed report in the Financial Times that Saddam Hussein is attempting to resurrect the arms network which according to the evidence was operating up until the Gulf war? Mr. Tom King and General de la Billiere are currently visiting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Is this a matter that they are investigating?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should not be surprised if Saddam Hussein were seeking every
8
means possible to re-equip what is left of his army. However, I assure the House that the British Government are taking seriously their duties under the embargo, which they imposed in 1980 and which was subsequently reinforced through the Security Council resolution, to take action to prevent arms sales.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Earl says that neither the British Government nor the United States have evidence of any arms entering Iraq, is he sure also that war materials are not entering Iraq through Jordan? Is he sure that it is not planned that war materials should enter that way?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have no evidence that the Jordanian Government have supplied arms or military assistance to Iraq since 2nd August last year.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with all due respect, that was not the question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the question was whether arms were going through Jordan. We have no evidence to that effect, as I said in my original Answer and confirmed in my supplementary answer.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Foreign Office be prepared to seek information from our ally, the United States, about the activities of the Banco Nacional de Lavoro referred to in the article? It would appear that from its Atlanta, Georgia branch lots of money for grain and armaments was being supplied to the Iraqi Government almost up to the day of the invasion of Kuwait. Could that be investigated?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we shall discuss most diligently with the United States and our European Community partners any items brought to our attention.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Earl told the House that the Matrix Churchill case is sub judice. Could he say who is being charged with what?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in spite of the answers from the noble Earl, which I entirely accept, could I ask whether he will look into the possibility that certain types of steel— I called them "war materials" — are either entering Iraq or are intended to be pushed into Iraq through Jordan? Will he inquire into that possibility?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord will furnish me with evidence I shall take up the point.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the report in today's press is correct or incorrect that, despite the United Nations embargo during the 1980s, over the past four years Iraq has received over 150,000 dollars' worth of arms from the permanent members of the Security Council?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is true that Iraq received arms from a number of countries.

Business
2.57 p m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Blatch will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on further and higher education. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Ullswater, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the education and training of 16 to 19 year-olds.

Motor Vehicles (Safety Equipment for Children) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Local Government Finance (Publicity for Auditors' Reports) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice Bill
2.59 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 24 [Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment]:
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 57.
Page 18. line 13, leave out from ("life") to end of line 15.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved this amendment at the previous stage of the Bill. I put it down again on the ground that the clause as it stands is unintelligible. The House may be happy with that. have asked a good many noble Lords whether any of them can make any sense of it. No one has been able to explain to me what the clause means. For most purposes it can be treated as unintelligible. However, we have more important matters than issues of semantics to deal with today. I do not wish to waste time on the matter if the House wants an unintelligible clause to go into the Bill. I shall therefore not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Alteration of certain penalties]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 19, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) The power saved by subsection (I) of section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (vagrancy offences) shall not include, in the case of an offence mentioned in paragraph (b) (i) of I hat subsection (sleeping rough), power to impose a fine which exceeds level 1 on the standard scale.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 57A proposes a reduction in the maximum penalty that ,:an be imposed for an offence of sleeping rough under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 from the existing level 3 fine to level 1. This means that the
10
maximum fine that can be imposed for this offence under the Bill's provisions will be two units; that is a maximum of just £8 for the poorest offender up to a maximum of £200 for the wealthiest offender. With this amendment it is correct to consider at the same time Amendment No. 60.
Your Lordships will remember that we had a very full discussion of the vagrancy offences during Committee. Several noble Lords questioned whether it was right for the criminal law to provide for any punishment for those who beg or sleep on the streets. There is no dispute that the problems of homelessness go beyond the scope of the criminal law or indeed the criminal justice system. The Government recognise this and a great deal is being done on the practical side to help the homeless.
Last year a special programme of resources was enhanced to provide subsidised accommodation for single homeless projects in London. Some £96 million has been made available over three years to finance emergency direct access shelters and more longer term accommodation. Voluntary organisations are receiving a further £6.5 million to enable them to offer advice and help to the homeless and potentially homeless. That brings to over £100 million the extra resources being made available over three years, not taking into account the substantial allocations to local authorities and housing associations to enable them to help house the homeless. Taking practical steps of this kind is, I believe, the right way to tackle this problem. But, as I said in Committee, the Government do not agree that changes to the nature of offences under the Vagrancy Act, as was proposed in that debate and as is proposed in Amendment No. 60, which is before us again today, should also be part of the solution.
I do understand the anxieties that have been expressed and we have given some further thought to this matter. What we have done, in view of the worries expressed by noble Lords at earlier stages of the Bill, is to look again at the penalties that are available for vagrancy offences. In general, we think that these are about right. However, there is, I think, an argument for looking again at the maximum penalty for the particular offence of sleeping rough.
As I explained in Committee, it is extremely rare for anyone to come before the courts for sleeping rough. No doubt this reflects the fact that no offence is committed where the person had no alternative but to sleep rough. Recent sentencing practice also shows that, where such offences are brought to court, the courts do not use the full scope of their present sentencing powers, which allow for a fine of up to £400 for this offence. In 1989, there were in fact only 16 convictions for sleeping rough throughout the country. The average fine was less than £50. I do not think it would be right to take away from the courts altogether the option of fining for this offence, as Amendment No. 60 proposes. It is for the courts to decide, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, what the right penalty is for the particular offence before them. I do, however, think that in the light of sentencing practice a lower maximum fine is appropriate.
The new amendment in my name suggests a maximum penalty of a level 1 fine. That fine is more in line with the sentencing practices of the courts. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that reducing the penalty for sleeping rough to level 1 is both helpful and sensible. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not know what to make of this amendment. It was tabled only last Thursday and it was supplementary to the Marshalled List. That was the first time that I saw it. It has the effect of pre-empting half of the amendment which is in my name, that of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and others. It would be more effective if the noble Earl reserved this amendment for Third Reading because otherwise it will spoil and cramp the debate on Amendment No. 60, which has been tabled for a considerable time. I should not like that to happen. I wonder whether the noble Earl will consider withdrawing the amendment at this stage so that Amendment No. 60, which has been tabled for a great many days, can be debated without the prejudice of this amendment. Will the noble Earl consider doing that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would not consider that this amendment was prejudicial to his own. The two amendments are on the same subject. We consider it convenient to have the debate on the subject taken together and, if it is required, a vote can be taken separately on each amendment. It will be a pity to have two separate debates on what is principally the same subject.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords. I do not wish to have two separate debates. I wish to have one debate on Amendment No. 60, which omits a fine altogether for both categories of offence. Amendment No. 57A pre-empts Amendment No. 60 by retaining a fine for sleeping rough. If the noble Earl is not disposed to do that then I have no alternative but to agree to continue to debate this amendment, but to ask the House to reject it so that my amendment can be considered as a whole.
This subject has been before the House for a considerable period of time. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, introduced, and saw through the House without amendment, a Private Member's Bill to repeal the Vagrancy Act altogether. That has the approval of the House. However, the Bill has made no progress in the House of Commons. This amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill is to take into account the objections which the noble Earl raised to the Private Member's Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. That objective is embodied in Amendment No. 60.
There are two limbs to the proposal. The first is concerned with begging and the second with sleeping rough. The second limb and its consideration is prejudiced by Amendment No. 57A. Everyone who spoke at Committee stage except the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, agreed that it is inappropriate to fine those who sleep rough. It is inappropriate to fine beggars except the professional beggar. It is that provision
12
which is embodied in Amendment No. 60. However, the Government have an amendment which does not get rid of the fine for sleeping rough. It reduces it from level 2 to level 1 of the scale. That is not enough. We have in this country something that has been the liberty the subject for anyone to do who cannot find anywhere to sleep: to sleep out in the open; to sleep under a hedge in the country; to sleep in the car on the street. It is inappropriate for anyone who does not have enough money to be harried by the police and asked to move on; or, if he will not move on, to be taken inside and brought up before the magistrates and subjected to a fine. The Vagrancy Acts are really very old indeed and are out of date. They should have been abolished long ago. The more offensive provisions were repealed long ago, and all that remains is a residue. However, the residue is not necessary. I am told that the reason why the use of these Acts has been suddenly revived is because the police require the powers in order to move on both beggars and those who are sleeping rough.
It is not necessary for the police to resort to the Vagrancy Acts for that purpose. I have been provided with an extensive schedule of other powers which can and should be used by the police. It is not necessary to resort to the Vagrancy Acts. The fact is that powers that are both at common law and in statutes are enough in themselves for keeping the highway clear of obstruction just to name one power, without resort to the Vagrancy Acts.
It is not merely a matter of powers; it is a matter of attitude: attitude to beggars and attitude to those who are sleeping rough. These are people who need help rather than harassment. It is totally inappropriate to impose fines except regarding those beggars who are a real nuisance, who persistently beg and who do so for gain and not for the support of themselves, their wives or their children. It is preferable that these people who are reduced so low as to beg or to sleep rough should be helped and given assistance rather than punished. That is an attitude which has been endorsed, I would say, by the Prime Minister. Before Christmas the Prime Minister made arrangements— or sought to make arrangements— for those in this unfortunate condition to be helped to find homes and food rather than to be swept off the street by the Vagrancy Acts.
Many of these people are young. Perhaps they have come from broken homes or one-parent homes, and they have nowhere to go. They may be so poor that they cannot afford to pay the rents in London, or other capital cities to which they have come; or they are psychiatrically disordered. It is appalling to think that psychiatrically disordered people are gaoled and subjected to fines and other such things when what they need is care in a hospital. It is a change of attitude that is needed, so that these people are helped and not harassed. They should not be fined or threatened with a fine.
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who spoke in Committee on this matter, is unfortunately not able to be here today because he is out of the country. He described his Government as being "humane, just and decent". That is why he confidently expected the Government to agree at that stage to

13
what is now Amendment No. 60. He much regrets that he is not able to be here to ask the Government to do the same at this stage today. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the Government Benches, hopes to speak in his place. We have support from the Labour Party and certainly from the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, who initiated this matter in this House, and we also have support from the Cross-Benches.
As I have said before, we have made an exception for the aggressive beggar. There need be no fear that the beggar who is begging for money will not be the subject of the rigour of the law as it now applies. However, the other categories of beggar should be subjected to help; and help will perhaps come in the form of a probation order or a conditional discharge.
Last Tuesday at Question Time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said,
"there are already too many criminal offences on the statute book.— [Official Report. 14/5/91; col. 1472.]
I agree with him. Let us give effect to the expression of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord by agreeing to Amendment No. 60, when we reach it, with a convincing majority. However, in order to be able to vote in its entirety on Amendment No. 60, I ask whether the noble Earl will withdraw this amendment; other wise I shall ask the House to reject it.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I accept— and I suppose all your Lordships would accept— that people who sleep rough, or who are disordered, need help and not harassment. However, surely there ought to be, nonetheless, some power of request to move on, and some sanction. For my part, I reject the suggestion that I am not humane, just or decent, to prefer Amendment No. 57A, which reduces the fine and seems to be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
Amendment No. 60 is open to the objection that it forecloses on the discretion of the magistrates— a discretion which is sensibly exercised. It is also open to the objection that it is designed to keep professional beggars off the streets. Good heavens! What is a professional beggar? It is better left to the discretion of the magistrates, who are used to dealing with these situations, and who deal with them very well. I suggest reducing the fine; and, on balance, I support the government amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and I endorse everything he said. I hope that I shall not have to repeat what we have said on the Vagrancy Acts on three or four occasions in recent months.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said that there must be some powers available for the police. There are ample powers for the police to use for that purpose. The police only have to prove that a person is obstructing the highway or creating a nuisance. There are ample statutes available for that purpose. However, the 1824 Act, which does not even give them the powers to move on for that purpose, is being used to threaten and intimidate people that if they do not
14
move on, then under the Act of 1824, they will be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned for non-payment of fines. The Act is being used to tidy up tourist areas at certain times of the year. It is totally inadequate for that purpose.
If the purpose is to stop people from obstructing the highway, there are about 18 different statutes covering the offences of professional begging, causing annoyance on the pavement, of deception and so on, and resisting arrest. I could quote from them if there were time. All those offences are covered by other statutes.
Those who are involved with the problem at street level are puzzled. They do not understand why the Government insist on retaining the provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824 to hound very many people who would far rather be in proper accommodation. They are not all professional beggars who can be dealt with anyway under existing statutes. A number of people find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances. They do not want to be on the streets for any longer than they have to be. They do not want to be there in the first place. They are being harried. In some cases they get a criminal record for non-payment of fines. They do not have the money to pay the fine. That makes their situation much worse. They then cannot be interviewed for a job. Who wants to interview someone with a criminal record? Who will give someone with a criminal record a room, digs or lodgings?
This only exacerbates the situation. In addition, all kinds of other things can happen on the streets as a result of such a tidying up process. It is counter-productive. There are already provisions on the statute book to deal with the other offences. This ancient law should have been shifted long ago. If necessary some of the other laws could have been tightened up.
On Friday I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and other noble Lords arguing for the removal of a whole number of statutes, most of them affecting the Isle of Man but some affecting this country, which have been on the statute book for a shorter period than this Act. Why are we so keen to keep this power? The police say to people that if they do not move on they can be arrested and charged under the Vagrancy Act 1824. That is not true. The Act does not give the police that power but they can threaten the use of it in that way, and they do. It is easier to do so. The police do not then have to arrest such people for causing a nuisance, take them to court and prove that they were causing a nuisance. It is not always the case that sitting or sleeping on the pavement can be proved to be a nuisance. That is more trouble for the police.
The Vagrancy Act seems to make things easier. In England we always look for the easy solution. But that is not a solution. We are dealing with real people— young people, elderly people and people who have been discharged from psychiatric hospital, who are in between moves and who have nowhere to go in the meantime. They are begging or sleeping rough for their own subsistence. These are not professional beggars. We agree with everything that has been said

15
about professional beggars: they can be dealt with in other ways. We are dealing here with a different population. We do not need this Act. What we need is help. We should repeal the Act as it affects these people and then provide help to fight the problems of homelessness and of cardboard city by insisting on alternative proposals.
I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for the Environment is moving in the direction of trying to provide permanent assistance. We welcome that, and we shall support and co-operate with every move he makes. However, we should not make matters worse for him and for us. We need a free hand in trying to carry on with the proper task, which is to ensure that no one need sleep rough. If people do, then something is wrong and they can be dealt with under other provisions.
I hope that it will not be necessary to go into all the arguments although I am happy to do so. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will withdraw the amendment. It is an unnecessary complication. I have not had a chance to discuss and consider all the implications of the amendment but it seems to suggest, "Let us deal with that one. That will shut them up. If necessary we shall vote and knock them down on that one. Then we can always say that we moved a little". We do not deal properly with legislation— piecemeal legislation is another English problem— when the answer is staring us in the face. The 1824 Act is outdated. It is obsolete and counter-productive. Other Acts can be used to cover any offence which noble Lords care to mention. Such offences will be covered by other statutes. We should clear out this obscene and obsolete Act. Let us get on with the job of helping to cure the problems that exist on the streets. We shall then be doing a good job for everyone involved.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that I am advised by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. There is a strong mental illness factor in this whole affair. My concern is that Amendment No. 60, although I sympathise greatly with the reasons that led to it being drafted, is of little help to the hundreds of mentally ill people who are wandering abroad on the streets of London and other cities and lodging in buildings or in the open air. The responsible Minister has recently said that 25 to 30 per cent. of single homeless men are mentally ill. Although most are not vagrants, many who are suffer from serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia. A psychiatrist running one of the London court assessment schemes, about which we heard much during discussion of Clause 3, said that in a sample of 80 consecutive cases referred to him, nearly half were living on the streets.
The only provision in the new clause— Amendment No. 60— which would do anything for such people, apart from keeping them out of prison, is to make them the subject of a probation order which could include a requirement as to residence and as to treatment for a mental condition. A probation order, however, must be accepted by the person concerned. In the case of the mentally ill, it may not be accepted, however sensible such a course may appear to other people. I suggest that the courts should have the
16
powers proposed in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill which comes before your Lordships for Second Reading tomorrow.
I do not see that Amendment No. 57A helps the mentally ill but I do not believe that it harms them. I would not object to it as such, although I would object to Amendment No. 60 for the reasons I have given. It would be helpful to me if my noble friend the Minister can say whether he is sympathetic to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill. That is where the solution to the problem of mentally ill vagrants lies. I hope therefore that Amendment No. 60 will not be pressed and that we shall concentrate instead on the Bill when it comes before the House tomorrow.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I thought I heard him say that Amendment No. 60, apart from perhaps keeping people out of prison, does nothing. But is that not what we are about? That is what I am about. I do not want to hide them in prison. I want to know that they are there and then help them. We should be directing them to properly assisted hostels where they can be looked after with care and counselling. We cannot do that if we put them in prison. We want to keep them out of prison. We want to offer them an alternative to prison. We can do that only if we get rid of this Act and stop people using it. We can direct our attention to constructive suggestions.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, this is another complicated problem. Some schizophrenics have been known to want to go to prison. They are thrown out of hospital; they do not like the digs they are put into; and they want to go to prison. I know of a case in the Isle of Wight of a schizophrenic who threw a brick through an old lady's window specifically so that he could spend Christmas in prison where he knew he would be looked after. The matter is more complicated for the mentally ill than I think Amendment No. 60 faces up to. That is the problem. If the amendment had done so, that would be a different matter. It is not the principle of Amendment No. 60 that I do not like; it is the actual wording in terms of its inadequacy for the mentally ill.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, when we talk of people who are sleeping rough— skippering— on the streets, we are talking of people who do not want to be there. The overwhelming majority of the people who are sleeping rough are totally inadequate. The great majority come out of institutions where they have been cared for. They come out of care— the youngsters— out of the army, out of prison and out of mental institutions. They do not have the faintest idea how to cope. They finish up on the streets. They are there because the hostels have been closed down. Thirty years ago there were four times as many hostel places in London as there are now. They have been closed. That is why people are spending their days in day centres and their nights skippering.
Those are the people about whom we are talking. They are people who need help. Many of them are alcoholics; indeed sometimes that is the cause, and

17
sometimes it is the effect. But I find it astonishing that we should be considering punishing such people for sleeping rough. Moreover, as regards the tiny minority who are not inadequates— the ones who are work shy and those who could not care less— it is pointless to talk in term of punishing them. They may certainly need a push from behind. They may need advice or need to be tackled for doing things, apart from sleeping rough, which they should not be doing. However, to punish people just for sleeping rough, "skippering, seems to me to be utterly nonsensical and unacceptable.
Frankly, sleeping rough is a punishment in itself, for the reasons which I have already given. Moreover, if there people are fined and cannot pay, they will then go to prison. The noble Lord who has just spoken reminded us that many of these people, historically, have sought the refuge of prison, especially in the cold weather. But they cannot even get into Brixton these days because the prison will not take them.
Begging is a different matter. In this connection one has sheep and one has goats. I put it to your Lordships that both these issues, different as they are— that is, sleeping rough on the one hand and begging on the other— are better dealt with by Amendment No. 60. The noble Earl has consistently, and rightly, argued that,
"it is not true to infer ... that those who beg are necessarily genuinely needy or homeless".— [Official Report, 11/12/90; col. 490.]
I accept that fact. However, I am sure that the noble Earl will also accept that some of these people are in that category and in genuine need and homeless. I share his lack of sympathy for those people who beg as a preferable alternative to taking up work. Those people should be dealt with and sorted out— that is, so far as they can be dealt with and identified. I do not dissent from that view. That is what Amendment No. 60 seeks to do.
Begging in itself is not heinous or distasteful, but it can be accompanied by activities which make it unacceptable and therefore something which ought to be dealt with either by way of advice or, if it is accompanied by threats, by more stringent means. That is what the amendment would do.
I believe, first, that to punish people simply because they are found at the back of warehouse or sleeping over a grille in the road cannot be right; and, secondly, that there are means of sorting out the beggars of different categories. That could be done better by way of Amendment No. 60 than by the way suggested in the Government's amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like shortly to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as regards Amendment No. 60. It is exceedingly disappointing that on this occasion the noble Earl has not returned with a better amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and others like myself who as young men practised in the courts referred to the unpleasantness of having to appear to prosecute people under an Act dating back to 1824. That Act was passed in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars to deal with people who were called
18
"rogues and vagabonds". Its aim was to clear the streets. It is unbelievable that, in this era of civilisation, one should still use the criminal law to deal with social problems.
When the matter was last raised, the noble Earl said that we cannot,
"give those who beg in the streets the special privilege of immunity from a fine".— [Official Report, 18/4/91; col. 1635.]
He told the Chamber that there had only been 16 such convictions in the whole of England and Wales in 1989. Yet, despite this fact, the Government fight on to maintain this particular criminal offence. It is almost unbelievable.
After a great deal of pressure, the Government gave prostitutes the special privilege of not being imprisoned. It took a long time to get them to agree to that provision. Those of us who supported that legislation received the same opposition: what of the persistent offender? The police must have the final power to threaten imprisonment so as to stop what is becoming an increasing social nuisance. Why should decent people suffer from being accosted in the streets? We are now considering the question of beggars, who are in exactly the same situation. The proposals before us are not offering privileges; they suggest that we do not use parts of the criminal law to deal with social problems.
Surely the time has come to remove the criminal law from this sphere. The amendment does not go as far as that; it simply says that there should not be a power in the courts to fine these people. By the evidence of 16 cases in one year, it is perfectly clear that the magistrates agree. It will be nice to hear from the noble Earl whether the Magistrates' Association and the police want such powers at this time in history.
On the last occasion, the noble Earl created two new classes of rogues and vagabonds to join the unlicensed pedlars, the riotous prostitutes, the dishonest fortune tellers, the incorrigible rogues and all the other vagabonds covered in this legislation. He referred to what he described as the "recalcitrant rough sleeper" and the "determined beggar". He told us that one such person even had the temerity to work in an abattoir and yet sleep every night— one would have thought rather appropriately— in the Bull Ring. As I said, surely the time has come to reconsider the matter. Can the noble Earl drag himself out of the 19th century and into the 20th century? This is really not the time to introduce further categories.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the amendment. However, I would not support it if there was adequate accommodation in the country for such people. When I look back I have to think of the number of Rowton houses and Salvation Army hostels which have closed. That means that there is not enough accommodation for those who need it. Therefore, many people are forced to sleep rough.
I wonder what we would have done with W. H. Davies, who wrote The Autobiography of a Super-Tramp. Would we really have brought him before the court? I shall not speak further because all the arguments have been well rehearsed. I am speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who apologises for his absence.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support these amendments, especially Amendment No. 60. I should like to begin by saying a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. It is true that the amendment does not help schizophrenics. But, with the greatest respect, it is not an amendment which deals with the treatment of those people. The object of the exercise is to remove certain penalties which schizophrenics and other people might be subject to at present; the amendment does not attempt to deal with the problem of how one treats these people in what the Government somewhat laughably call "care in the community". The amendment deals with an entirely different category. It is possible that the noble Lord is expecting too much from an amendment which is designed to remove penalties rather than produce solutions. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, many of those people are schizophrenic or suffering from other forms of mental illness. I believe that many people will agree that Amendment No. 60 would do them more harm than good.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I find that difficult to accept. Amendment No. 57A does nothing for schizophrenics. I do not see how leaving on the statute book criminal offences, which may have an ancient lineage but which seem irrelevant to a modern society, helps schizophrenics or anyone else.
Secondly, perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. He said that we still need the offence. Perhaps I can read the offences already covered by other statutes: causing, permitting or encouraging a child to beg under Section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; blocking the highway (a common law nuisance); obtaining donations under false pretences (Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968); being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose (contrary to common law)— the owner is entitled to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser— and failure to leave residential premises after being asked (Section 7 of the Criminal Law Act); using violence to secure entry into any premises (Section 6 of the Criminal Law Act 1977); being on premises for an unlawful purpose, such as theft, assault, unlawful damage or burglary (Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968); aggravated burglary (Section 10 of the Theft Act 1968); and resisting arrest by a constable under Section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, quite apart from Section 51 of the Police Act 1964 or the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
There are also the public order offences such as using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour under Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. And so it goes on. It is an offence wrongfully, without lawful authority, to act with a view to compelling any person to do that which he has a legal right to abstain from doing— that is, giving money — and to use violence or to intimidate any person; to persistently follow such person about; to watch or beset such person's house or place of work or place where such person happens to be, or the approaches thereto under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875; to willfully
20
obstruct the free passage of the highway (the Highways Act 1980); or to make an unwarranted demand with menaces with a view to personal gain or loss to another (Section 14 of the Theft Act 1968). And so it goes on. It is an offence to obtain property by deception, which will encompass feigning poverty to obtain money, under Section 14 of the Theft Act 1968. Finally, it is an offence for a person not at his place of abode to have in his possession any article for use in the course or in connection with cheat that— will include dressing in shabby clothes to feign poverty to obtain money by begging— under Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.
I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, whose acquaintance with Archbold is longer than mine and as great as mine. With all those offences already on the statute book, do we need these minor irritations of the Vagrancy Act? We suggest that we do not. They do not seem to be used or to have much effect or purpose. I hope that the House will accept Amendment No. 60.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has put his finger on the point. At one moment, he asks whether we need the offences because they are not used and are not of any use, while other noble Lords complain that the measures are draconian. The two arguments do not add up. I find it usually depressing when dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. He said that it was disappointing not to have a better amendment from the Government. I have listened at Second Reading, in Committee and on other occasions to the anxieties your Lordships have expressed on these matters. I believed that we had gone some modest way towards helping noble Lords. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, pockets the amendment I have offered and then says like a child, "More, please".
I explained in Committee why I could not accept the new clause which was then proposed. I understand and share your Lordships' concerns about the homeless, but I believe the right way to tackle the problem is by taking practical steps to ensure that the homeless have access to help and advice and that steps are taken to provide more and better accommodation. That is what we are doing.
We have heard today a good deal about why we do not need offences such as begging or sleeping rough. We cannot avoid the fact that at present there is no option but the Vagrancy Act where the mischief is merely begging. The Government believe that it would be wrong to remove the Vagrancy Act power from the police. It allows them to act against beggars in response to genuine and well-founded complaints from members of the public. The police view, which has been publicly given, is that if begging goes unchecked it could lead to no-go areas for the public and to more serious crime. Beggars can commit the offences mentioned by noble Lords, but begging as such is not an ingredient of any of them. For example, a beggar may cause alarm and distress sufficient to warrant a charge under the Public Order Act, but it is the alarm and distress which must be proved and not the begging.

21
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, suggests that beggars are always poor and in need of help. I came up against one such the other day who asked me for money. I said that I would not give him any, whereupon I was pushed in the back. He called me an "adjectival judge". The adjective began with a letter in the forepart of the alphabet. He was wrong as to the adjective and to the noun. He had requested something from someone who emerged from the same premises about a minute before me and obtained some money. Having attacked me, he went off and attacked two other sets of people and obtained money from them When a police car fortuitously came round the corner, he got out of the light and ducked towards the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, may say that he was a poor chap who was begging only to support himself. There would be real difficulties in requiring the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money to support himself, as the clause puts it, before the court would have the power to impose a fine.
The effect would be to kill off the offence. We do not believe that we should do that. While I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others, that if there is a case of genuine begging, that case should be met, that is to disregard the fact that there are people who are persecuted— for want of a better word— by beggars, and that is unacceptable.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. We intend to prevent that happening by subsection (1) (b). He must have been a brave beggar who attacked the Minister who is such a formidable person and who seems to attract beggars and intruders into his house. We have sought to deal with such an offence. If the Minister does not believe that the subsection is sufficient, perhaps he will beef it up a bit at the next stage of the Bill. What he has said does not invalidate our amendment one whit.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course it does. First, the beggar was not especially brave, because he pushed me in the back, and that was not difficult to do. Secondly, the new clause provides:
"before imposing a fine on such an offender&the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money on which to support himself'.
A court would find it difficult to prove that that was the case. The noble Lord then says that young people need help and that it is terrible that people should beg and sleep rough when they need help. I agree with him.
I wonder whether the noble Lord has ever looked at the figures. In 1988 there were only eight prosecutions for begging, and in 1989 only two. That is not a considerable drain on the resources. The figures are for young people under the age of 17. There were no prosecutions in 1988 for people sleeping rough. In 1989, only one person under the age of 17 was prosecuted for sleeping rough.
The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, becomes rather thin when he says, "We don't want this kind of prosecution of people who need help". Prosecutions for sleeping rough are extremely rare,
22
but there is a last resort power to direct to nearby shelters those who persist in sleeping on the pavement, without necessarily prosecuting them.
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, said, an offence on its own. It is an oversimplification to say that the 1824 Act punishes people for sleeping rough. Since 1935, when the Act was amended, the offence of sleeping rough is not committed unless the person spurns an alternative. That is very important. According to the Act, the alternative must be free and accessible.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I do not understand the noble Earl's statistics. I have in my hand figures which are not officially available for 1989 but which were obtained from four of the 14 inner London magistrates' courts. They show that in 1989 a total of 1,396 people were prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act 1824. The number of people prosecuted is considerable and is not just two or three as the noble Earl suggested.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know how many more times the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, wishes to interrupt me. We normally speak only once at Report stage, and he has interrupted me three times. I shall try to deal with the problem. He gave the figure of 1,396 people prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act but that figure refers to indecent exposure. The total number of prosecutions in 1989 under the Vagrancy Act was 3,482, most of which were for indecent exposure.
We then come to the point of whether the criminal law should be employed for the purpose of moving people. We could debate that matter at length. It is not unprecedented and not necessarily against the public interest to ensure that those who sleep on the streets, and who have spurned alternative accommodation, should be asked to move on because it distresses many people.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that these people need help and that there should be an alternative to prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in his usual dramatic way, said that he wanted to drag me out of the 19th century and the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars. His remarks are always spicy. It is of great concern to many people and, some would say, a reflection on our society that people sleep on the streets. They also sleep in shop entrances and in parks. Some may have nowhere else to go. Some do so because they have insufficient funds, and others because that is how they wish to live. We must address those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, says that there is a need for alternative assistance so perhaps I may tell your Lordships what the Government are doing. Last year we announced a special programme of resources to provide additional hostel, long-term, move-on accommodation for single homeless people in London. An increase of £81 million over the next two years is being provided to help the single homeless; f6i million is provided to voluntary organisations who offer the homeless, and potentially homeless,

23
advice and practical help. That brings to over £100 million the amount which is made available over three years to deal with the problem.
Over 1,000 new spaces in hostels and long-term accommodation are being provided for the people of London sleeping rough under the single homeless initiative. All are of a good standard so that people will want to use them. Housing associations provide 900 places in shared and self-contained flats and houses to which people in hostels may move in the next few months, with substantially more to follow. That should help to ease the blockage in the existing hostel accommodation.
The Departments of the Environment and of Health have arranged to open up a number of buildings on an emergency basis. At the height of the cold weather spell in February, 700 extra places were made available in London for people who would otherwise have slept rough in the middle of the winter. A substantial number are still available. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that more assistance is necessary, and that is exactly what the Government are giving.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I also said that I welcomed all the assistance that had been made available. I happily applauded the Minister now responsible— Sir George Young— who is doing a good job in this respect. However, we know that London and the big cities continually attract a moving population and that there is a constant difficulty. While I am on my feet—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we are at Report stage and it is right for any noble Lord to ask a question. However, to make a little speech seems to me contrary to the rules of the House. I rather think that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is making an extra speech.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I accept the stricture from the noble Lord. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave the example of the beggar who pushed him in the back, but is he aware that that man commits other offences and one ought not to use the 1824 Vagrancy Act? I would not use that Act if somebody belted me in the back and asked me for money. There are obviously other statutes that can be used to deal with a man who constantly pursues and hits someone, asking for money.
Is the noble Earl aware that the central point remains that, apart from everything else, it is a waste of public funds to prosecute someone under this Act? He said that there were so few that it hardly mattered. Is he aware that, having said that there are so few, it is hardly worth using the Act to deal with them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I return to the point I made at the beginning. One moment the noble Lord says that this is a terrible Act and that we should dispense with it; the next moment he says that as it is such a stupid little Act what is the point of keeping it. I have tried to explain to your Lordships that there are occasions when it is necessary. The 1824 Act does not
24
give a power to the police to move people on but it provides a power under which the police can direct those sleeping rough to alternative accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that in the case I mentioned, the person could have been prosecuted under some other Act than the Vagrancy Act. I dare say he could have been but he was not prosecuted under any Act. I was trying to point out at the beginning that begging can be an offence to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, shakes his head but all I can say is that he should live in the real world. It can be an offence when people beg. If the offence is committed because people are impecunious, then resources are available for them. If the offence becomes persistent inconvenience then the police require a power to deal with it.
I have tried to accommodate your Lordships in what was said at Second Reading, at the Committee stage and thereafter by producing an amendment which makes the offence of sleeping rough less serious. I hope that your Lordships will agree with that and not with Amendment No. 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, because the requirements of the 1824 Act are still necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 19, line 6, at end insert:
("(5) Notwithstanding section 2(3) above the court shall not pass a custodial sentence solely for an offence under section 5(2) or section 19 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1991 as it applies in the case of proceedings for an offence under section 5(2) in relation to substances and products named and defined in Schedule 2, Parts II and III of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the original purpose of this amendment at Committee stage was to fulfil the wishes of the Government as outlined in their White Paper and in the Bill. Those people who are prosecuted and convicted of misusing drugs should not go to prison. Under the Bill they still can go to prison. The amendment which I brought forward in Committee was to ensure that that should no longer happen since we decided that in a civilised society people with this affliction should not be punished for it but helped. A Department of Health survey showed that 70 per cent. of injecting drug addicts had already been in prison. That proves pretty conclusively that it does not do them much good to go to prison. The problem is that only 10 per cent. of misusers at any one time are in contact with authorities which may be able to help them. The courts are useful in that they can direct these people— as the Government intend — to the agencies which can help them.
Only 1,821 out of the 32,033 people who were prosecuted or cautioned in 1989 were sent to prison. One of the reasons for that is the enormous inconsistency that exists in the way the police deal with these people. Many of them are cautioned and some of them are prosecuted for one offence or another. However, very few of those who are prosecuted and convicted are sent to prison. There is an enormous inconsistency in the way the police behave in different areas. In Liverpool, for instance, misusers are cautioned but are never prosecuted. It seems that

25
people are not sent to prison for the severity of the offence they have committed, but according to where they live. In Wiltshire and Surrey 2 per cent. of these people are sent to prison, whereas in the metropolitan area of London it is 4 per cent. In Manchester it is 17 per cent. and, as I have said, in Liverpool none of them is sent to prison.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Ferrers gave two reasons for opposing my amendment. I felt that the first was rather a strange reason. He maintained that many of those who are convicted of possessing drugs have been supplying drugs or conspiring to supply drugs or have intended to supply them. He said that because it was difficult for the police to obtain a conviction, many of those who had not been convicted of supplying drugs but had been convicted of possession would still go to prison. If they were not found guilty of supplying drugs, we must assume they did not do that.
It seems to me wholly unsatisfactory that these people should be sent to prison for possessing drugs when the real reason why such a sentence is being imposed is that the court thinks they were supplying drugs but cannot prove that. That seems to me wholly illogical and most unsatisfactory. If people supply drugs, or in tend or conspire to supply drugs, they should be convicted and sent to prison. However, if they have only been convicted of possession, they are guilty only of possession. As such, they must be given the appropriate sentence for people convicted of possession. As my noble friend implied, it is not appropriate for those people to go to prison.
The second reason which my noble friend gave was that the courts would need the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. In Committee, at col. 1612 of the Official Report on 18th April, he stated:
"I accept the fact that in many cases such offences are not serious and that the offender has possession of the drugs simply for his own use or that of his friends. In such circumstances, a custodial sentence may well be inappropriate ... If my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, a person might be in possession of a quantity of heroin or cocaine, or both, but could not be sent to prison unless it were possible to prove an intent to supply".
In a later intervention at col. 1612 he stated:
"If the offence was not very great, or if the person actually needed some kind of restorative treatment, the courts might decide to order such treatment. However, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that those who had drugs of a very strong nature could, nevertheless, not receive a custodial sentence&In my view it is also appropriate that those in possession of strong drugs should on occasion be sentenced to terms of imprisonment".
I accepted, although I did not necessarily agree with, my noble friend's view. Therefore I changed my amendment. The amendment before us today excludes those in' possession of Class A drugs— what used to be referred to as hard drugs, such as heroin and cocaine — but includes those drugs which are regarded as less serious and which used to be called soft drugs; namely, those in Classes B and C of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I have gone as far as is possible to meet the requirements that my noble friend set in Committee. I have met the reasons that my noble friend gave for not being able to accept my amendment at that stage. The amendment before us today corrects the current differentials in sentencing, which at present are
26
extremely unfair and therefore not used in many courts up and down the country. Currently whether or not one is sent to prison depends on where one lives.
My amendment leaves stronger penalties— as my noble friend demanded— for those in possession of stronger and more dangerous drugs. It makes statutory the Government's intention not to send drug addicts to prison. It clears the air and it allows magistrates and judges in the higher courts to make decisions knowing the Government's intention. My amendment fulfils my noble friend's conditions and I hope the House will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, a principal argument against this amendment would probably be that in the public perception it would be seen as being soft on drugs. The public perception is a faint and fickle abstraction. It is here today and gone tomorrow. We must balance that danger against the very real benefit that the amendment would bring in reducing the prison population and in targeting the appropriate penalty for those who commit offences solely under Sections 5(2) and 19.
The whole spirit of this Bill, and certainly the spirit of this part of the Bill, is to divert people from custody and, where appropriate, to treatment in the community. This new subsection would enable those people found to be in possession of small amounts of what used to be called soft drugs to receive help and treatment for their drug problem in the community. It has been abundantly proved that prison does not constitute treatment in itself for such people. In some cases quite the contrary is true. Some offenders find that their problems are exacerbated in custody. While a period of imprisonment is a forced cessation of drug taking, someone with a drug problem will probably be unable while in prison to receive the kind of help and guidance that he needs. There will be no one to consider why such a person has a drug problem.
This modest amendment is in no way an attempt at legislation, or decriminalisation by the back door, nor should it be seen as the thin end of any wedge. It is an attempt to ensure that an opportunity is afforded to offer treatment in the community for those people who repeatedly find themselves before the courts on a charge of unlawful possession of a controlled drug, and who are in danger of imprisonment. The provisions of the amendment would allow for a far more appropriate treatment and would ensure that those drug users who are unaware of specialist help agencies can avail themselves of help. We know that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the cure and of the help that is available is as innocent as it is widespread.
Problem drug users are not vicious villains for the most part nor violent people who are as dangerous as a pit bull terrier. Usually they are weak, inadequate people. Such a person will almost inevitably carry illegal drugs to sustain a drug habit. He or she will not usually be someone who carries an illegal drug for personal or financial gain. We are not talking about pushers but people who have a problem with their own drug use. It is that kind of person whom we wish to see receive a non-custodial sentence. We would rather such a person received a sentence in the

27
community which gives him an opportunity to get to grips with his drug problem. Although we must not overlook the necessity of punishment for an offence, we must also remember that the possibility of cure is better than no possibility of cure.
I offer the House a figure which noble Lords may have heard before but would do well to consider again. The Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs estimates that probably only 10 per cent. of problem drug users are in touch with specialist help agencies in the United Kingdom. In the Netherlands that figure is estimated at 70 per cent. Surely anything that we can do during the passage of this Bill, without danger to society, to raise that dismal figure of one in ten is an opportunity that we should not miss.
This modest amendment would ensure that those who are arrested but who show interest in and enthusiasm for doing something themselves to stop their misuse of drugs can be diverted to the specialist help agencies.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we debated an earlier version of my noble friend's amendment in Committee. He was kind enough to say that he has amended it in the way suggested in the amendment he has put down today. He has met one of my objections to the earlier version by restricting it to Class B and C drugs. This amendment would not prevent the courts imposing a custodial sentence for possession of a Class A drug such as heroin.
However, the Government remain strongly opposed to the amendment. We must put it in the context of the threat which the traffic and misuse of drugs pose to the welfare of this country as a whole. Home Office figures published earlier this month show that drug misuse led to almost 1,200 deaths in 1989; and while the most dangerous drugs are in Class A, it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the harm done by the drugs in Class B and C with which this amendment deals. These drugs can cause physical and mental damage; they can also draw users into circles where the more dangerous drugs are available. Therefore, they are thoroughly undesirable. We need the sanctions of the criminal law, together with the resources of preventive education and treatment, if we are to make progress against this problem. We need to ensure that even if those at risk know or care little of the health dangers of drug misuse they will at least bear in mind the possible legal penalties. The kind of creeping decriminalisation which the amendment represents can only— in its effect, though not its intention— encourage more people to experiment with drugs.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft referred to regional discrepancies in the use of imprisonment for drug offences. One of the main purposes of the restrictions on the use of custody in Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill is to ensure that courts in all parts of the country will apply the same criteria. That should produce greater consistency in the use of custody both for drug offences and for other types of offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, said that drug users should have the opportunity for
28
treatment. I quite agree. For most of those who are convicted of possession, a community penalty with a requirement for treatment will often be correct. However, for a minority of cases I do not believe that we can rule out the possibility that the offence is serious enough to require a custodial sentence.
Perhaps I can persuade my noble friend that the Bill as it stands takes a fair and balanced approach to this matter. The Bill makes it clear that an offence must be serious if it is to attract a custodial sentence. Plainly, many offences of possession of Class B and C drugs will not be considered serious by the courts. Indeed, increasing numbers of such cases are being dealt with by cautions, and the Government welcome that trend. But we cannot say with confidence that there will be no cases of possession so serious as to deserve a prison sentence. Imagine the case of a schoolteacher who uses cannabis in the company of his pupils, or a pilot or a driver of a coach who is responsible for the safety of dozens of people who stows drugs away in the cabin for his personal use. I should be most unwilling to see the courts deprived of the power to imprison such people in those circumstances, and I hope very much that my noble friend will consider that his amendment is best withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, before my noble friend made his last few comments I was going to ask him whether he could outline the terribly serious offence of possession that would lead to possible imprisonment. In fact in his last comments he outlined two: one was the schoolteacher who had drugs in school and the second was the bus driver. The bus driver would be charged with driving under the influence of drugs, which is rightly a criminal offence. But I see that there may be a problem in the case of the schoolteacher. I do not know what she would be charged, with, apart from possession of drugs. She might he charged with trying to influence a minor or something of that nature. I am sure that in their contracts schoolteachers are not encouraged to bring drugs into school.
In all of my noble friend's remarks I did not hear anything with which I did not agree or any point that I did not make. Yes, of course, the sanction of the law should be available. Of course the intervention of the courts plays an important role. I do not suggest for one single solitary moment that the drugs should be either legalised or decriminalised. I said as much at Committee stage. I do not believe that that would be at all a good idea. The sole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that those people do not go to prison.
In his winding-up remarks on behalf of the Government my noble friend agreed with me. He said that the only people who should go to prison were those who were guilty of the more serious offences. Apart from the case of his schoolteacher I cannot think of any more serious offence. Anyone who possesses a large quantity of drugs is automatically charged with supply, intent to supply or conspiracy to supply. Anyone who has any quantity whatever of the more dangerous Class A drugs falls outside my

29
amendment. As such, my amendment covers every point which my noble friend made. I cannot see why he cannot accept it.
I am not sure whether it is out of order at this stage, but perhaps I may ask him a question before I finally decide what to do with the amendment. What offences would be so serious that a person could not be charged with a more serious offence but would need to go to prison if found guilty? If my noble friend can help me with that point that would assist me to make up my mind.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord who has just spoken—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am a little apprehensive about interrupting because the interventions of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on this Bill are always peculiarly helpful. However, there is a convention which says that noble Lords do not normally participate after the Minister, albeit one of my lowly calibre, has intervened.
Oh, dear, this is peculiarly embarrassing. My noble friend asked me to make an intervention. I can do so only with the approval of your Lordships. I should be quite happy if you would forgo the approval in this case.
I cannot give my noble friend chapter and verse of every conceivable occasion on which a person would go to prison. I rest on the observation that I made upon his amendment. I do not believe that we can say with confidence that there will be no cases of possession so serious as to require a prison sentence. My noble friend's amendment would remove that option. I believe that that would be a bad thing.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not want to bring everyone— including myself— to order from all sides of the House. However, my noble friend has responded on his amendment; he invited me to comment and I did so. I believe that it would be in order if he were to leave it at that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with great respect to the Minister— who is of very high calibre— perhaps I may say that it must be right that where a question is asked of a Minister and the Minister, by leave of the House, has intervened and replied, the person who asked the question can continue with his speech.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is entirely right. I stand corrected and I apologise both to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and to my noble friend if I inadvertently truncated his remarks. I thought that they had come to an end.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the only remark that my noble friend truncated is, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
30
("Amendment of Criminal Justice Act 1961 to facilitate the transfer of prisoners
.In section 26(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 for the words "his sentence shall be treated" there shall he substituted the words "his sentence may be treated".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is clearly stated in the marginal note. I explained it at some length in Committee. I shall not go over the same ground again save to say that we are talking about some 50 to 60 prisoners from Northern Ireland now in English prisons. Some are serving life sentences. In this case the rules for release are discretionary in both jurisdictions. Others are serving fixed sentences and it is with them that the amendment is principally concerned.
In both categories the families suffer exceptional hardship because of the long distances and the high cost of travelling and lodging when visiting. I emphasise again the humane purpose of the English Prison Rule 31 (1) which is in my view being disregarded.
The matter has a long history. I first took a delegation from your Lordships' House to see the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who was then responsible for prisons, in 1982. On 6th November 1990 the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wrote to me saying that, between June 1989 and November 1990, five requests for transfer to Northern Ireland had been refused on the grounds that it would be inappropriate for the applicants to benefit from the more generous terms of remission available in Northern Ireland. Since then, there has been the High Court case concerning Mr. John McComb's transfer and there may well be other cases.
On 16th January this year I saw Mrs. Rumbold, the present Minister responsible for prisons. She wrote to me on 28th March. Her letter said:
"I shall be considering with my colleagues in Northern Ireland and Scotland what steps we might take to alleviate the very real problems faced by inmates and their families in maintaining their links".
That was mentioned again by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his reply to me on 18th April. I must therefore ask today: what is the result of that consideration? Is it completed and, if not, when will it be?
There are so many things that could be done to help this small group of people and, in so doing, help to break the continuity of violence and terrorism from one generation to the next. The Home Office could abandon its purely political opposition and allow transfers to go ahead. Failing that, the full costs of travel and lodging could be repaid to the families, not only to those on income support but also to those in employment. Another approach would be to allow each prisoner, say, three or four temporary transfers per year to Northern Ireland to receive accumulated visits. Of course, the costs of either method would be high, but we are talking only of a few dozen people.
As things stand, Her Majesty's Government are in breach of United Nations principles on imprisonment and of the spirit of the European Convention on the Repatriation of Prisoners which we have ratified. The Government are being taken to the European Court of Human Rights on this matter. They are disregarding the intention of the prison rules and of Lord Justice

31
Woolf's recommendations in his report. That is a wholly unsatisfactory position. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us today what improvements the Government have in mind. There have been some 15 or more years in which to consider the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I put my name down to the amendment partly because of my earlier connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland and partly because of my experience when I was chairman of the Parole Board and witnessed the hardship inflicted on families fathers, mothers, wives, children and dependants— of Northern Ireland prisoners convicted in English courts and confined in prisons on the mainland. It need hardly be said that it is no part of our system of justice that the dependants of criminals, no matter how heinous their offences, should be made to suffer as a result of the crimes committed by those persons, particularly when the innocence of the dependants is not in question. In the case of small children, how could that be?
As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, confinement in English prisons amounts to punishment of the dependants. As he said, the journeys are long and arduous. I have seen families arriving at prisons— for instance, on the Isle of Wight— in a state of exhaustion and nervous tension, as if arriving in a strange land. It is no answer to the problem to suggest that young mothers who wish to be accompanied by their small children should leave them behind. That is merely another form of punishment as it deprives the children of seeing their father and vice-versa.
That is why it is important whenever the public interest does not point to the contrary that is the significance of the word "may" in the amendment— to transfer Northern Ireland prisoners to prisons in their own country and to give statutory authority to the difference in jurisdiction as between serving in prisons in Northern Ireland and serving in prisons in England and Wales. As your Lordships know, the differences between the practice in Northern Ireland of releasing the prisoner half way through his sentence with no parole system in place, and the practice elsewhere in Britain of hitherto releasing at two-thirds of the sentence served in prison, with eligibility for parole at any time after one third of the sentence has been served, will be altered by the conditions embodied in the Bill. Prisoners serving long sentences of seven years and more will have to serve half their sentences in prison and may then be considered for parole. I feel sure that prisoners domiciled in the Province but serving sentences in England would gladly give up their eligibility for parole— the prospects for which are in any case likely to be minimal in the case of IRA prisoners— in return for regular, frequent and more relaxed contacts with their families.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment and make three points. First, those of us who have worked in, and had a great deal to do with, prisons know that prisoners who are in touch with their families and who receive regular visits are far easier to handle because they are far happier people.
32
The prison staff are therefore affected as well as their fellow prisoners. Even if the families of prisoners from Ireland can visit, they do so very rarely and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, they are usually in a state of collapse. If the men were in Ireland, they could be visited frequently.
Secondly, with regard to the relationship between prisoners and their children to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, it is important that the children see their fathers even if they are in prison in order to maintain a relationship. Thirdly, from the point of view of rehabilitation, when the man comes out of prison, it is far easier for him to be rehabilitated if he has maintained contact with his family.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I too should like to support the amendment. A humane prison system should certainly include provision for the visiting of prisoners by families coming from a distance. If transfer will make that easier, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we debated a similar amendment in Committee. Perhaps I may say straightaway that I fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and of your Lordships about the transfer of prisoners from England and Wales to Northern Ireland. However, I still have some serious difficulties with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. That arises from the prospect of mixing two distinct systems and sets of powers. The early release arrangements in Northern Ireland are different from those that apply in England and Wales. There would be difficulties if, for example. a life sentence prisoner whose tariff had been imposed in this country was transferred to Northern Ireland and his detention was in all other respects a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
I have considerable sympathy with your Lordships' concerns about this matter. I accept that the current arrangements sometimes create difficulties for the families of prisoners who have to travel a long way to visit. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, knows that we are considering further what can be done. He asked me whether that consideration had been completed. All I can say at the moment is that we hope to conclude our consultations very shortly. As soon as they are concluded, I will write to the noble Lord. Lord Hylton, with the results of that consultation. I hope your Lordships will understand that this is a problem to which we are addressing ourselves as best we can because we realise the difficulties which the present situation causes.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all speakers who have supported the amendment. I am sorry that the noble Earl expressed anxieties on the technical aspects. I hope very much that the Government's consideration will be completed before we reach Third Reading of this Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now and reserve the right to return to it at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
("Alteration of certain penalties under the Vagrancy Act 1824
.— (1) (a) Where a person has been convicted by a court of placing himself or herself in any public place, street, highway, court or passage to beg or gather alms under section 3 or 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended, then he or she shall be liable only to:

(i) a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, or

(ii) a conditional discharge, or

(iii) an absolute discharge, or

(iv) a probation order.

(b) before imposing a fine on such an offender as is mentioned in paragraph (a) the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender was not begging for money on which to support himself or herself.
(2) Where a person has been convicted by a court of wandering abroad, or lodging in any barn or outhouse or in any deserted or unoccupied building or in the open air or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon and not giving a good account of himself or herself contrary to sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended, he or she shall be liable only to—
(aa) a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, or

(a) a conditional discharge, or

(b) an absolute discharge, or

(c) be made the subject of a probation order.

(3) Section 5 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as amended is repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I formally move Amendment No. 60. It is necessary to move the amendment in an amended form so that it does not conflict with the decision which the House has already taken on Amendment No. 57. A new paragraph to be inserted in subsection (2), before paragraph (a), states:
"(aa) a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale, or".
As we have debated this subject on Amendment No. 57, it must be for the convenience of the House that I move the amendment formally. I hope noble Lords will agree to that procedure. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for putting down his manuscript amendment. It permits consideration of a proposal which otherwise would not have been possible. We had a fairly full debate on Amendment No. 57A. I do not think there is anything more of substance I can say other than to hope that your Lordships will not agree to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.
4.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 60) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington,L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Craigavon, V.

Annan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ardwick, L.

David, B.

Aylestone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Bancroft, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ennals, L.

Blake, L.

Faithfull, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bridges, L.

Foot, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carter, L.

Gladwyn, L.

34

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Morris of Castle Morris. L.

Grey, E.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Hampton, L.

Nicol. B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peston, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Phillips, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes, L.

Richard, L.

Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kearton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Blackburn. L.

Lawrence, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Listowel, E.

Tenby, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tordoff, L.

Longford, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Underhill, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Walston, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

White, B.

Mayhew, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aldington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Allerton, L.

Havers, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Astor, V.

Hood, V.

Auckland, L.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Howe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ironside, L.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Joseph, L.

Birdwood, L.

Killearn, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyth, L.

Kitchener, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knollys, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Carnock, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cawley, L.

Manton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Margadale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marsh, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Middleton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dudley, E.

Nathan, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norrie, L.

Erne, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gridley, L.

Porritt, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

35

Pym, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathspey, L.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Renton, L.

Teviot, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trumpington, B.

Rodney, L.

Ullswater, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Waddington, L.

Slim, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strange, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Wise, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Further and Higher Education
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's proposals for education for all young people over the age of 16.
"More young people than ever before are taking up education and training opportunities. Six out of ten 16 year-olds stayed on in full-time education last autumn compared with four out of 10 in 1979. Three out of four 17 year-olds are in education or training today compared with two out of four 10 years ago. One in five 18 and 19 year-olds now continue into higher education, compared with one in eight 10 years ago. More adults are also taking advantage of the educational opportunities available. All 16 and 17 year-olds in this country have a guarantee of a place in full-time education or training if they choose to take advantage of it. We secure places for all those people who wish to go on into higher education and are suitably qualified.
"We need to build on these achievements. That means developing more vocational qualifications of a standard that will win equal esteem with the best academic qualifications. It means giving schools, colleges and universities the institutional freedom and the necessary incentives to develop and respond to the demands of young people and of employers. The Government are setting themselves the aim of achieving mass participation in higher education, further education and training while maintaining and enhancing present high standards.
"The Government's proposals are contained in three White Papers which are being published today. The necessary legislation to implement the proposals will be brought before the House in due course.
"I turn first to the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century which I present to Parliament with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Wales. This sets out new policies for education and training after compulsory school age. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for
36
Employment will describe the new training policies in a further Statement to the House and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is presenting his proposals in a separate White Paper.
"The White Paper sets out in detail the Government's proposals for further education colleges and sixth form colleges. As I announced to the House on 21st March we intend that these colleges will become autonomous institutions outside local authority control.
"The colleges will be funded by national further education councils in England and in Wales. They will receive each year a core budget plus additional funds according to the actual number of students enrolled. In this way they will have a powerful incentive to recruit and retain additional students, both young people and adults. The councils will not manage the colleges. They will follow the model of the funding council that has so successfully steered the remarkable growth of the polytechnics after we freed them from the control of local government.
"Vocational qualifications have for too long been misunderstood and undervalued in this country. The White Paper sets out how the introduction of a clear structure of national vocational qualifications can be accelerated. The range of qualifications will meet the needs of students of all abilities. At level 3, they will be set at a high standard equivalent to A-levels.
"A-levels are successful and well respected examinations which are being taken by steadily increasing numbers of pupils. I am determined to see them maintained and to control their development so that their high standard is preserved. I am writing today to the School Examinations and Assessment Council setting out my views on the principles which should govern the development of A-level and AS examinations. These principles are designed to ensure consistency of standards between AS and A-levels and to provide a framework for increasing numbers of young people to pursue courses of academic study which can be broadened by increasing the take-up of AS examinations. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
"A and AS courses are not the only route to excellence and to higher education. We must do more to promote understanding among students, employers and higher education institutions of the value and quality of national vocational qualifications at equivalent standard. The Government have therefore decided to introduce new diplomas at advanced and ordinary levels. The advanced diploma will be awarded to students taking AS and A-levels, to students gaining vocational qualifications of the same standard, and to students taking a mixture of the two. I intend to consult on the details later this summer.
"The White Paper describes two further measures which are directed at schools. First, the Government intend to legislate to adjust the school leaving date. At present some 16 year-olds are able to leave school legally at Easter before completing

37
key stage 4 of the national curriculum and before their GCSE examinations. We shall introduce legislation to require all pupils to complete their studies at the end of the summer term. This will ensure that all pupils will have their level of attainment. at the end of their compulsory education properly assessed.
"Secondly, I believe that we should allow both schools and colleges of all kinds to broaden the range of courses and opportunities which they offer. The White Paper therefore announces the intention to introduce legislation which would enable school sixth forms to admit part-time students and adults. The main work of sixth forms will continue to be for young people studying full time. They will have greater freedom to take on other students if they wish and if there is room.
"In higher education, we need to build on the successes of recent years. The academics in our universities may sometimes grumble but they are to be congratulated on their progress in expanding access to more students in recent years while maintaining the best academic standards in the developed world. The polytechnics and colleges, freed from the the control of local authorities, have also demonstrated that rapid expansion and improvements in quality can go hand in hand. The Government congratulate the polytechnics and colleges on what they have achieved, particularly in widening access to higher education and in developing vocational courses. The formal distinctions between universities on the one hand and polytechnics and colleges on the other, known as the binary line, have in my opinion now become an obstacle to further progress. The Government propose to abolish these distinctions and establish a single framework for higher education.
"With my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am presenting to Parliament today a White Paper setting out the main features of our proposals.
"First, we shall establish a single funding structure for universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher education. In order to reflect particular needs in Scotland and Wales, there will be separate higher education funding councils in England, Scotland and Wales to distribute public funds for both teaching and research. New links will be established to continue the present close relationship with Northern Ireland's exiting unitary structure.
"Secondly, the Council for National Academic Awards has successfully brought the polytechnics and other major institutions to a position where they can offer degrees under their own quality control arrangements equal in standard to those offered by the universities. We propose therefore to extend degree awarding powers to polytechnics and major institutions and to wind up the Council for National Academic Awards. We shall, however, look to universities, polytechnics and colleges to develop their own quality audit arrangements on a UK-wide basis. We shall also require the higher
38
education funding councils to establish quality assessment units to advise the councils on the relative quality of teaching and learning across institutions so that those judgments of quality can inform the distribution of public funding.
"Thirdly, we shall extend the title of university to those polytechnics which wish to use it. It is our firm intention nevertheless that the present distinctive features of the polytechnics, with their particular emphasis on links with industry, vocational degree and sub-degree courses, and applied research, should be retained.
"The Government believe that this new framework will provide for an expanding, thriving and diverse system of higher education in the United Kingdom. Our policies are designed to ensure that higher education continues to expand efficiently alongside improvements in quality. When we came into office only one in eight of the relevant age group went into higher education. Now it is one in five. By the end of this decade we expect one in three of all young people to benefit from higher education of our traditional high quality.
"Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to present these two White Papers to the House this afternoon. They will transform post-school education and training. They will enhance the esteem of vocational education. They will benefit ever larger numbers of students, from all backgrounds and at all levels. Our policies pave the way for a better society and greater economic success. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. When, a few weeks ago, without warning or consultation the Government announced that further education was to be taken out of local authority control I made clear in my response to the Statement then made in this House that no educational arguments had been produced in support of the change now elaborated on by the Government. It has been introduced for ideological reasons as part of the Government's long-standing and doctrinaire hostility to local government. It has been introduced to reduce educational spending at the local level by £2 billion in order to help the Government out of their poll tax quagmire. The change has been roundly condemned by many Conservative councillors working in local government and responsible for education.
For 12 years the Government have failed to address the crucial question of how to improve the provision of further education. They have sat back and ignored low participation rates. Recently, on their own admission, they have recognised that we have fallen further behind our neighbours and competitors in relation to those staying-on rates.
Only three years ago the Government produced the biggest piece of educational legislation since the war. They told us that it would provide all the solutions to raising educational standards and would establish the

39
necessary structures. Now we are faced with yet another set of changes which will disrupt the education service at local level.
Only three years ago the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science in another place said:
"We believe that there is a need for strategic planning in further education".
How are we to plan further education strategically with sixth forms left in the schools under LEAs and sixth-form colleges and FE colleges under a new funding council? How can a single, centralised council sensibly plan for local provision— FE colleges are local, unlike polytechnics and universities— with as many as 600 separate institutions? There is also a built-in division between the LEAs and the schools on the one hand and the new funding council and the colleges on the other.
Only three years ago the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science said:
"We have great confidence that local authorities will fulfil their duty to promote further education".
Why the change?
I now turn to the subject of A-levels and qualifications for 18 or 19 year-olds. The Government have yet again failed to concede the argument that A-levels are over-specialised, in some respects over academic, and also that far too many young people fail them or even take them. It appears that the Government have failed to concede the argument about the jungle of vocational qualifications, although we must hear a little more about that matter. Yet again the Government appear to have done nothing to resolve the problem. The solution that they have put forward looks nothing more than a messy and poor compromise. It appears to leave A-levels and AS-levels under the umbrella of an advanced diploma.
The Government are wholly isolated in believing that A-levels should be retained. The Royal Society, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Institute of Physics, the CBI and ACOST have recently said that it is time that A-levels went. I simply cannot understand why the Government will not listen to expert advice on the matter.
The Statement that we have heard is totally unclear about the Government's intentions in respect of the new diplomas at advanced and ordinary level. For example, what relation will they have to NVQ level 3? Will the diplomas clear away the existing jungle? How will they relate to the A-level and AS-level which are to be retained? The key issue is that by retaining A-levels the Government appear to be perpetuating and reinforcing the divide that so many people wish to see abolished.
All young people need to benefit from some academic study of the fundamentals and some vocational study about their application. The Statement appears to be another lost opportunity to bring that about because it clings to a structure which will not overcome the fact that 90 per cent. of young people in this country do not study mathematics after the age of 16 whereas 90 per cent. of young people in Japan study mathematics until the age of 18.
40
The Royal Society represents Britain's greatest scientists. It recently stated that high standards are not achieved by the in-depth study of three subjects, pumping young people with knowledge. They are achieved by encouraging young people to make links across the curriculum and by developing analytical capacity and creativity. In so doing the society has endorsed the Labour Party's proposals for a genuine advanced diploma, not an umbrella which will begin to leak in no time and will turn inside out as soon as the wind blows.
I wish to welcome some of the long overdue measures being proposed to adjust the school leaving date. All young people should complete five years of secondary education. I also welcome the decision to allow some students to study part time in the sixth form. That is a helpful move to increase flexibility and to keep young people participating in education who otherwise might not do so.
I now turn to the proposals for higher education. We welcome the Government's belated recognition of the strength of the case that the Labour Party has put forward for years to extend opportunities for higher education, to end the binary divide and to establish a joint funding council. For a long time we have advocated the amalgamation of the PCFC and UFC. Only three years ago when the issue was discussed during the passage through Parliament of the Education Reform Bill, Ministers rejected the proposal.
We also welcome the fact that the Government will enable the polytechnics to award their own degrees and change their status. However, I regret that the Government are unconvincing about the way in which they will carry through such changes and what they will do to safeguard standards and the quality of teaching and research already under great pressure as a result of chronic underfunding. The vital issue of quality assurance is left hanging. The institutions are being asked to develop their own quality audit. I am unconvinced that all 600 FE colleges will be capable of achieving that. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government will maintain quality?
I wish to ask the Minister several further questions. First, is access to higher education to depend on the ability to benefit, as the Labour Party believes it should, or will the Government make access dependent on the ability to pay? For example, will the Minister categorically rule out top-up fees as a means of financing expansion?
Will the Minister say what resources the Government will now commit to make good the desperate backlog of polytechnic and university maintenance, given that the £650 million of expenditure on polytechnic buildings identified as long ago as 1989 in the Hunter Report and the more than £180 million identified by the CVCP for the universities has yet to be found? How can expansion take place and quality be maintained, as the Statement implies, unless the resources are provided?
The Statement does not mention research. What commitments are the Government making to research? Finally, does the Minister acknowledge that the polytechnics, which were set up by the Labour

41
Party, have made a distinctive contribution to higher education, combining the vocational and academic and pioneering broader access and other innovations? How will the Government ensure that under a single funding council those excellent characteristics will be maintained?
What do the Government intend to do about adult education? We have received more than one assurance in this House that the White Paper will deal with that. Yet again, this Statement totally ignores it. Fortunately. the Labour Party has a much more coherent set of solutions as regards FE and HE than those which we have heard today. Those solutions have wide backing. It will not be too long before, in government. we are able to implement them.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches we thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The subject is of great importance. The White Paper, which we have not yet been able to read, is comprehensive and a glimpse at it shows that we shall no doubt be debating it at some length. Therefore, I shall he brief. I had hoped that on a subject of this kind, on which on all sides of the House we are determined that there should be great improvement, we could have had a non-party approach to the discussion.
I welcome the main point of the White Paper; namely, the commitment by the Government to a large-scale expansion of higher education in various forms. We have all known for a long time that that is one of the greatest needs in this country today. We hope that the Government will get on with it as quickly as possible.
I welcome also the abolition at last of the binary divide. It has been nonsense for a long time. There were historical and understandable reasons for it but we must catch up with history. Perhaps some parties are slower to join the race than others. However, at least that has now happened.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that it is a pity that the approach to A-levels has been something of a compromise, to put it mildly. I welcome the strong support for the NVQs. I am glad that they will be incorporated into what will, in effect, be a combined A-level.
I have not had time to study what is in the White Paper but on the face of it there seems to be something of a muddle. The old A-level and S-level are to be retained but incorporated into the system under the umbrella of a diploma will be national vocational qualifications. One hopes that this is an interim stage and that we can move on without too much delay to achieve a comprehensive A-level which embraces all options and gives variety and depth at the same time. I accept that that is not easy to achieve. However, it is important that the depth should remain.
I find interesting the part-time sixth form approach and allowing adults into sixth forms. The suggestion may be contained in the White Paper but in the Statement there is no reference to tertiary colleges. It seems to me that they present the best opportunity for 16 to 18 year-olds to mix in an easy way with adult society and to learn from other students coming from industry for part-time study what is going on in the
42
world of work. Those people will actually be there. It will not merely be their superiors telling them about it. I believe that the development of tertiary colleges is the best way ahead for 16 to 18 year-olds.
I do not wish to undermine the sixth forms, which will remain. I understand that teachers in schools wish to retain them, as I should if I were a teacher in a school. However, I believe that the tertiary college direction is better than trying to reinforce sixth forms in schools.
I am concerned about standards and quality. The Government say that they are determined to maintain quality. Quality will be maintained only if there is sufficient money and if there are methods of testing that quality exists in the large number of polytechnics across the country. Those who have worked in those colleges in one way or another over the years will know that standards vary considerably. Some have done outstandingly good work, while others, to put it bluntly, have not. We wish to be assured that quality will be maintained. What will be put in place of the CNAA safeguard which is to be abolished?
Finally, it will not surprise the Minister that I ask her about adult education. Adult education has been the Cinderella and there is no statutory obligation; and yet it has never before been as important to strengthen adult education. I know that there is provision for adult education in many further education colleges, but there are colleges which are adults colleges and technically not further education colleges. Many of those colleges have been a matter for pride in our education system. Will they be adequately maintained under the new system?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses because I appreciate how short is the notice. I am amazed at the number of specific and rather detailed questions which have, nevertheless, been raised.
I welcome particularly the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who appealed to the House to take an apolitical approach to the subject, which was not the impression from the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. If there is a criticism as regards ideology, I hope that it will apply to us all. We should all be idealistic about our worries over young people and their education and training.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, had listened to what I said when I repeated the Statement, she would realise that far from falling further behind our competitors on participation rates, the evidence shows that participation rates have gradually increased. They are not good enough and we know that there is more to do. However, we believe that these proposals will help to increase participation rates and that we shall reach the target of one in three participating in higher education. There is a vast improvement on 1979 figures.
Much has been said about the retention of A-levels. We remain wholly unapologetic about their retention. We believe that there is room in the education system for in-depth academic study and we should not deny schools the opportunity to pursue it. We have introduced considerable flexibility for education for

43
post-14 year-olds by modifying the national curriculum, by introducing vocational courses and also by introducing BTEC foundation courses into schools.
Vocational courses are now given the same parity of esteem as academic courses. The application and introduction of diplomas, which will be awarded for achievements both in vocational and academic courses—and it will be one or the other, or a mixture of both—will go a very long way towards improving the education and training of our young people.
The noble Baroness referred also to the percentage of students not studying maths after the age of 16. When the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. first said that there was something wrong with the education system it was precisely that kind of comment and criticism that persuaded this Government to do something in regard to improving it. That is the reason the national curriculum insists that all children throughout their school life study maths, English and science core subjects; that is, from the age of 5 to 16. That ensures that there will not be young people in school dropping subjects at a whim. They will have to see the subject through. I was pleased that the noble Baroness accepted that they should not see them through only to the age of 16, but through to the end of the academic year in which they reach 16. That is important.
We have a framework of the national curriculum, the core subjects, vocational qualifications, reformed examination system and the introduction of diplomas recognising excellence in both vocational and academic subjects. Far from there not being a strategy and there existing a "ragbag"—I believe that was the phrase used—there is a coherence, a continuum and a strategy that will serve our young people well.
On the specific point concerning top-up fees, the setting of fees is properly for an individual higher education institution. There are no plans that tuition fees will be required of award-holding students beyond the sums met on their behalf under the award arrangements. In regard to funding, our commitment to awarding higher education its fair share of public expenditure is clear. For the second year running public funds have increased by 10 per cent. They are renewed annually. I wonder whether I could persuade the noble Baroness to say whether the Labour Party will fund the state fees of all people going into further education and training. Open access, fully-funded, would cost in the region of £ 7 billion to meet in full. I am not sure that the noble Baroness will say that.
In regard to research we decided that the new mechanism needed to replace general research funds distributed through the UFC should be a single channel along the lines of the present UFC alongside research council specific funding. That allows co-ordination of the handling of research and teaching within and between institutions as well as providing a better overview of the financial position of individual institutions. It will now be open to polytechnics and colleges to receive general research funding from the new funding councils.
44
The noble Baroness asked whether there was anything in the papers regarding tertiary colleges. I am happy to say that they are properly recognised as being an important part of the educational structure. We have always been cautious about being overprescriptive in regard to the specific structure for education and training post-16. Nevertheless, they are properly recognised and no doubt the noble Baroness will return to the subject at another time. The same applies for adult education colleges. Without taking up too much of the House's time it is difficult to go into more detail.
On the last important point in regard to quality assurance, the Secretary of State will be in consultation with all interested parties concerned with the criteria for awarding degrees; in other words, the criteria against which colleges which are given powers to award their own degrees will be judged, and also status and title. Again, that will be a matter of concern.
The principle of inspection and of quality assurance will apply right across the higher education sector. We know that there will be a vacuum when CNAA goes. It is our view that the quality audit unit which will be responsible for degree-awarding powers will ensure that validation arrangements are in place and, more importantly, that they are working properly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in view of the immense importance of the Statement which she has just made many noble Lords hope that an early opportunity will be given to the House to debate this issue, which is of such enormous and long standing importance to the whole country? As my noble friend the Leader of the House is present I hope that he will take note of this view and arrange for an early full day's debate to take place.
In regard to the merits of the matter, perhaps I may say how much I welcome the clear-cut decision to separate higher education as a whole from that part which is administered by the local authorities. The distinction was blurred under the previous situation. From the point of view of financing it was a little confused. Is my noble friend aware that I and many other people greatly welcome putting the whole of higher education under the funding council and in a separate category? Is she aware also that those of us who take that view undoubtedly find it supported by the great progress which the polytechnics made once they were separated from local authority control and put under their own separate categorisation?
I welcome enormously the decision to grant to the polytechnics the right to award degrees. A number of young people who could perhaps have profited most from attending a polytechnic struggled to obtain a university place so that, at the end of the day, they could obtain a degree which they felt would be a qualification to assist them in obtaining various employments. The new decision deals with that situation and is an admirable measure.
I thank my noble friend for reading the Statement. It is one that any of us could comment upon at great length, but I shall restrain myself. I ask her to accept

45
that many of us feel that it is one of the most important steps that this Government have taken in the 12 years of their existence.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, before we come to the major debate, which I hope will take place, I should like to ask the Minister a question on one specific point. Will the Minister take back to the Secretary of State the idea that he should consider one specific point.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The convention is for the questions to be taken one at a time and be answered individually.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be brief. I welcome the comments of my noble friend. I shall ensure that the usual channels are aware of the request for this important subject to be debated without delay. I welcome also the comments on separation—one need only look at the success and the way in which the polytechnic and college sector flourished when it broke away from education authorities. The education authorities will come to realise that it makes sense. I agree with my noble friend in all that he said in regard to the status of polytechnics and their ability to award degrees.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she inform her noble friend that polytechnics have been issuing degrees for many years.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, absolutely!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are not speaking of issuing degrees. Self-validation is the key point. I know what my noble friend meant. The significance is that in future they will be their own degrees as opposed to university degrees.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is still not the point.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is important that the House should be clear. Polytechnics have not been issuing university degrees. Universities have had nothing to do with that for many years. The polytechnics have been issuing degrees of the Council for National Academic Awards.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. I am saying that the difference will be that polytechnics will be able to validate their own degrees, and that is significant.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I could now ask my question. I should like to ask that one particular point be looked at again before legislation comes before us. It relates to sixth form colleges. I concede all the arguments dealing with higher and further education. However, sixth form colleges are not part of the higher and further education system. They are an extension of schooling. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, pointed out in our debate on education, it is difficult to see how they can be separated from local schools in any effective way.
I did some homework on the matter. I went to my local sixth form college to speak to their politics
46
society about the proceedings of the House, in which they were interested. I discovered that there we have a collection of youngsters drawn from the five secondary schools in the vicinity and a few a little further away, from Brighton. The students at that college are studying A-levels and also working for vocational qualifications. The GCSE examinations are being taken again either because the students have not done well enough or new subjects are being studied to be added to the total. It is an avenue into further and higher education, but it is not part of it. Therefore, it is extraordinary that this provision should be made national unless the whole schooling system is to be changed. If it is to be changed then the simplest measure would be to return to all secondary schools their sixth forms. If they are to feed into the sixth form colleges then the present local arrangements should be looked at. If they are not satisfactory perhaps we can find out why they are not.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the sixth form colleges take 16 year-olds quite separately from the school institutions. In other words, the schools with sixth forms keep their sixth formers in house. Sixth form colleges are separate and are increasingly like FE colleges. Much of what my noble friend has described happens in many of our further education colleges. Many of our further education colleges provide for GCSEs to be resat and offer a mixture of academic and vocational courses. The Government took the view that separate 16-plus institutions deserved the same freedom as all the other separate post-16 educational institutions.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the moment sixth form colleges are treated as coming under the school regulations? Is there now to be an end of school regulations and abolition of the difference between those and further education regulations? That is an interesting point. Will the LEAs have compensation for not only the buildings but the land which will be handed over to the new funding council? That is a very important matter, particularly if new buildings are being thought of. As the noble Baroness will know, at the moment that is a question in our own county of Cambridgeshire. It is a question of whether the county will make available land for a new college of further education when it is not quite sure whether it will have control of it later.
I have one further question concerning the diploma at ordinary level. The diploma at advanced level is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Statement and it is explained, but nothing is said about the diploma at ordinary level. Am I to understand that that diploma is instead of the GCSE or in addition, or what?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will not be instead of the GCSE. When the noble Baroness has more time and is able to read further, she will see that there are to be discussions about the scope of the application of the diplomas and what will constitute measures towards gaining a diploma both at ordinary level and advanced level. As regards the sixth forms, all institutions in the new sector will operate under a common regulatory framework. I am fishing around

47
very quickly to find a specific answer on pay and conditions. I do not have detailed information. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The further and higher education system operates with very different pay and conditions. The sixth form colleges operate under school conditions. I shall write to the noble Baroness and I shall be more specific on that point.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not replied to the question of compensation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry. There will be a transfer of land. That will operate under the very same conditions as those which apply to the polytechnic sector. That which constitutes the institutional land and property will be transferred.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as I understand the position, under the latest version of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No.2) Bill the pay of sixth form college teachers is to be determined by a review body. Following the enactment of the Bill, if legislation is to be introduced which means that the pay of sixth form college teachers is to be determined on a completely different basis, does that not place sixth form teachers in an invidious position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have to say the same thing to the noble Lord as I said to the noble Baroness. It will be quite wrong of me to indulge in any kind of guesswork on this matter. I do not have specific answers to those questions on pay and conditions. I shall ensure that I inform both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in writing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that students at sixth forms studying part-time for A-levels will be eligible for income support? That would certainly be welcome. In the Statement the Minister has insisted that the Government are retaining the AS and A-levels. About 15 months ago I surveyed eight or 10 secondary schools in my area. I found that almost none of them could afford or had the resources to run both A-level and AS-level courses in the same subject where the syllabus was different: an example was history. As a result a school might offer 17 or 20 A-levels but barely a handful of AS-levels. The schools did not have the resources even though the universities would have welcomed the qualifications and their breadth. Does that not suggest to the Minister that the time has come to scrap that divide which schools find too expensive to bridge and instead to go along the lines of the Professor Higginson A-levels or the baccalaureate style suggested by my noble friend Lady Blackstone.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on a number of occasions I believe that I have answered similar questions across the Dispatch Box about what one local authority can do as opposed to another. Many schools throughout the land are managing on a similar funding basis to provide both A and AS-levels. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was speaking she said that A-levels were over-specialised and
48
over-academic. It is an insult to our young people if we say that they should not specialise and that they should not pursue academic subjects.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales, perhaps I may declare an interest. As the noble Baroness is aware, the University of Wales is a federal university with six constituent colleges. Can she say whether the Welsh polytechnic is to have university status? In that case can I assume that it will become a seventh constituent college of the University of Wales? In view of the fact that a separate Welsh funding council is to be set up, with a funding council for England and Scotland, will the Welsh funding council be answerable to the Department of Education and Science or will the Welsh Office come into the procedure in some way or other? In a similar way, will that procedure apply to Scotland as well?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I understand it, as in most departments, including the Welsh departments for Wales and the Scottish departments for Scotland, the departments will be responsible to their national offices. If I am wrong about that I shall notify the noble Lord and put the matter right. As regards status, it will be a matter for the particular institution to determine whether it is interested in being called a university or operating as a university. That will be acceptable depending on whether the body measures up to the criteria for the self-validation of degree courses. At the end of the day it will be a decision for the particular institution which applies to be called a university and to award its own degrees.
Baroness White: My Lords, I suggest that before the Minister discusses Wales she learns a little more about the peculiarities of the Welsh university system.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I shall not try to add to the searching criticism of some aspects of the proposals which have been made by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I was the first person to introduce in this House a debate about the polytechnics. As a result, I must be allowed a certain amount of satisfaction. I opened that debate about two years ago and at that time there was no question of these wonderful reforms. It would be nice to say post hoc propter hoc. However, I am not.presumptuous enough to say that. It is a great day for the polytechnics and I leave it at that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the whole House knows how passionately the noble Earl has campaigned for the polytechnics. I believe that that part of my speech today was accepted in all parts of the House. I thought that the noble Earl would be pleased about that particular proposal.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness could explain a little further about the control of universities, polytechnics and colleges. I understand—and it is a solution devoutly to be wished for—that the Universities Funding Council is to be wound up and put under a higher educational funding council. We hope that the personnel will be slightly different.

49
The second point I wish to make is this: what happens if a polytechnic or a college begins to go down a path which is neither academic nor vocational? It is perfectly possible that studies of this kind can emerge in autonomous institutions. How autonomous will be universities, polytechnics and colleges? Is there to be any control over their development; their academic or their vocational development? Is there to be any guidance from government as to what to do when institutions find themselves incapable, owing to their funding, of carrying on as they are now doing?
The universities, so I understand—though I have been in Germany for 10 days—have had to ask for a meeting with the Prime Minister because the Secretary of State refuses to meet them. They cannot see how they can continue to operate in their present state of funding; at any rate on the same lines. So far as concerns medical schools, for example, it has long been known and understood—though not very often stated publicly—that there are at least two too many medical schools and teaching hospitals in London. In other words, that they should be reduced by two. How is that going to be brought about? The Government take the line that it is not possible at the moment to determine the matter. I see that the Chief Whip is looking very anxious.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was remiss of me not to answer an earlier specific question about any change in support for students. There is no plan in this Statement to change that. We are not interfering with the present system.
In terms of quality and control the UFC will be replaced by the national funding councils: one for each of the three countries. The relationship between those funding councils and their respective institutions will be very much as it is between the UFC and the universities and the PFC and its polytechnics. Matters of funding and levels of funding split between research and other grants will be a matter for that. I see nothing to change in terms of what was two sectors being a single sector making its usual vigorous representations to government on the forthcoming PES rounds regarding the funding of higher education.
Lord Denham: My Lords, we are getting very near to the end of the time allowed. If the noble Lord were to ask a further question my noble friend would not be able to answer because we are so near to the end of questions after the Statement, which should not last more than 20 minutes. I think it is probably time for the next Statement.

Education and Training: 16–19 Year-Olds
5.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
50
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the plans for which I am responsible which are set out in the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century announced by my right honourable friend.
"This White Paper will transform the prospects for Britain's 16 to 19 year-olds. We have already laid the foundations; now we are moving ahead. The proposals we are announcing today will mean that, for the first time, all young people in the country up to the age of 19 will be encouraged and entitled to continue in education or training or both—which will take them to higher levels of qualifications than ever before. And the artificial barriers between the academic and the vocational, which have bedevilled us for so long, will be swept away.
"The plans in this White Paper represent a clear recognition of the importance of preparing our young people for the world of work, and the priority we attach to it.
"I turn now to the specific proposals which I am putting forward. First, we plan to attract many more young people into training by giving a training credit to every 16 and 17 year-old leaving full-time education. Training credits are a new way of promoting youth training. The credit puts buying power in the hands of young people. It encourages them to take up their entitlement to vocational education and to take full advantage of training, and the opportunity to qualify with a national vocational qualification at level 2 or higher.
"Credits are now being offered to 10 per cent. of school leavers in pilot areas. With the experience of these pilots to build on, we will progressively extend credits from April 1993. Within the life time of the next Parliament we aim to offer a training credit to every 16 and 17 year-old in the country who is leaving full-time education.
"Secondly, we shall also extend across the whole country the Compacts approach to bringing together young people and employers in raising attainment at school and college. At present Compacts are working highly successfully in urban programme areas and similar areas in Scotland and Wales. We shall invite Training and Enterprise Councils in partnership with local education authorities and others to extend this approach to all parts of the country. We shall provide financial support to start up Compacts, matching the support that they will attract from private sector and local authority sources.
"I turn next to vocational qualifications. A great deal of progress has been made in developing and extending practical job-related qualifications. Our proposals will create a structure of qualifications which offers the breadth and choice that young people and their employers need, and in which academic and vocational qualifications will have equal status.
"National vocational qualifications will be available for all major sectors of employment by the end of next year. We are inviting the National

51
Council for Vocational Qualifications to work with others to develop more general job-related qualifications within the NVQ framework suitable for young people who want a broad preparation for employment. We shall promote equality of status for academic and vocational qualifications by developing the new system of ordinary and advanced diplomas which my right honourable friend described in his Statement.
"Our plans in the White Paper, especially training credits, will increase the importance of having high quality career services, linked closely to employers. I have been consulting about ways of organising the careers service for its future tasks. There is considerable support for my proposal that Training and Enterprise Councils should be involved as partners with local education authorities in overseeing the operation of the service locally. We shall encourage local education authorities to work with TECs in partnership for this purpose. We shall provide financial support to start such partnerships where they are proposed. We intend also to legislate so as to open up a range of other options, including direct TEC management of the careers service and contracting out to the private sector. We shall increase investment in the training of careers service advisory staff and in careers libraries in schools.
"Employer commitment is essential if young people are to be well prepared for the demands of working life. The measures I have announced today will give employers through TECs extended roles in training credits, Compacts, and the careers service. Moreover, my right honourable and learned friend's proposed reform of further education will include measures to involve TECs closely in the new funding arrangements.
"The range of proposals in the White Paper will provide greater opportunities for young people to unlock their potential, a much wider choice in how they develop their talents, and a strengthened support system to guide their progress. These proposals will open doors for all our young people, whatever their background and their aspirations. They will strengthen the foundation of skills that the economy will need in future. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I welcome, as I am sure we all do, any initiative to improve arrangements for training for young people between the ages of 16 and 19. I was a member of your Lordships' Select Committee that reported recently on vocational training. We carried out a good deal of research and took evidence from a number of organisations. We looked at what was happening in other countries, particularly countries where there was a tradition of providing good training. In Germany, for example, we noted that all young people between the ages of 16 and 18 were
52
expected either to remain in full-time education or go on to an approved training course. I emphasise the fact that it was compulsory that they should do so.
I notice that the Statement refers to "encouragement" and to the training credit system. On this side of the House we welcome training credits although we question whether relying on encouragement will be sufficient in the circumstances that now exist. The Government guaranteed places on YTS in 1988. Despite that, as we know, not all young people secured a place. Moreover YTS itself had a lack of credibility among many young people. It was not perceived as providing a quality programme. A great deal depends on the quality of the training on offer. If this new initiative is to be successful, it must be seen as providing education and training of quality.
TECs are already complaining about the lack of resources available to them. If the initiative is to succeed, the appropriate organisations will need the resources to carry it through. I commend the NCVQ for the work that it is doing. It was an excellent idea to establish the NCVQ and the system of levels of qualification. I welcome the statement that it is intended to do away with the differences—the artificial barriers—between the academic and the vocational. That is a progressive development. On the other hand, I wonder whether some additional confusion may be created. My noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to that point in some detail. I should not want to see further confusion added to what has been described as the jungle of vocational qualifications.
Furthermore, it seems to me that young people in training will need support. I refer to the question of my noble friend Lady Hollis about income support. That issue has to be addressed. There is not much point in providing opportunities for young people if the resources are not there to assist them during their period in training.
We have to regard training not as a cost but as an investment for the future. The only way in which we in this country will bring up our training levels to those existing in some of our competitor countries, particularly in some EC countries, is by investing more money in it and by ensuring that opportunities are broadly available and that young people have the necessary background to take advantage of them. For that reason I agree that the education side and the training side are both important. There is not much point in allowing resources for training if the basic education has not previously been available.
Having made those comments, perhaps I may say that on this side of the House we welcome the initiative and we hope that it succeeds. I should like to know more about resources. I should like to see the recommendations made by the Select Committee of which I was a member put into operation. I wonder whether we can rely on encouragement. I should like to see young people between 16 and 19—certainly, 18 —either remain in full time education or undertake an approved training course. The only way in which we shall succeed in improving our training is if that is brought about.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I thank the Minister for repeating the

53
Statement and give it a qualified welcome. It is a step in the right direction but I fear that the Government have not grasped the nettle as to what needs to be done.
I can never quite understand what is meant by "16 to 18". I take it to mean the two years after the compulsory school leaving age, which takes one up to the 19th birthday. I am talking about the two years after the compulsory school leaving age. In those years, people should be either in full-time education or in work which is training and not production work. They should stay on at school or go to college—the sixth form colleges or the tertiary colleges to which reference was made a few moments ago—or they should be in employment. Their employment should provide a properly planned training programme, with at least two days a week of off-the-job training of some kind or another, possibly inside the place of work if it is properly organised, as some of the best places of work are, or in a college. Those should definitely be years pf training and education.
I am a little sceptical about relying on encouragement. Not all youngsters at the age of 16 are vested with the desire to do training. A good many of those I meet are vested with the desire to get away from school I and to earn as much money as they possibly can. I do not know how large the training vouchers are to be but they will have to be fairly large to induce some youngsters to spend them on training, in particular those youngsters one wants to get involved in training. They are the very people who will not use them. I cannot say that this takes us all the way we want to go.
I should like to ask a question which may have been covered in an answer to a question on the previous Statement. If so, I did not fully understand it. If youngsters opt to stay on full time at school, what precisely is the financial position? The initiative will not be successful until there is no financial disadvantage in staying on at school. I am not clear on the matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may have explained the point; if so, I obviously did not take it on board. I am not clear whether people will be worse off if they stay on at school than if they leave.
These training vouchers are to buy the training but they do nothing about maintenance. If a youngster goes into work and uses the training voucher to pay for part-time courses or something of that kind, he is earning and has money. But if he stays on at school, will there be anything like the same amount of money going into the household or into the pocket of the young person himself? We need to be clear about that.
A sentence in the Statement could be very interesting. 1 should like to know what is really meant by,
"We are inviting the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to work with others to develop more general job-related qualifications"—
I take it that the emphasis is on the word "general—"
"within the NVQ framework suitable for young people who want a broad preparation for employment".
That could imply something very interesting but it does not really tell us what is intended. Perhaps we should not expect that in answers on a Statement.
54
My only other point arises in relation to the careers service. A strong well-informed careers service is absolutely essential if the whole training scheme is to work properly. Youngsters leaving school, all types of school—my experience was with university students —simply do not know what opportunities are available. I believe that a really good careers service is an integral part of getting training in this country right.
The theme running through what is said about the careers service suggests that it will be strongly oriented towards local labour market needs by putting the TECs in the position where they will have a considerable say in the working of the service. It is right that in giving advice to youngsters about careers the careers service should be well informed about local employment possibilities. But, on the other hand, it has been maintained for years by many people that its primary responsibility is to the school-leaver or the young persons whom it is advising on what is best for them and their career in the long run; in other words, it should not be too labour market oriented. Can the Minister say whether that factor is being borne in mind when it is suggested that the TECs should have a prominent part to play in the development of the careers service?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Baronesses for welcoming the Statement, even though the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave it only a qualified welcome. The Select Committee report which was published a short while ago indicated a number of proposals which, if the White Paper is studied, will be found to be wrapped up in that document. However, one point does not accord with the Select Committee report. I refer to the compulsory as opposed to the voluntary approach which both noble Baronesses mentioned.
The Government feel that the commitment of young people and their employers to training should be secured by voluntary means. Compulsion is unnecessary. Other major industrial countries achieve high levels of skill without compulsion. The effects of compulsion would be damaging in that young people would be forced to follow routes that they did not choose and employers would be burdened with bureaucratic requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, commented on the quality of youth training. She wondered whether it was serving the young people who were undertaking the training. I can inform the noble Baroness and the House that 89 per cent. of all youth training leavers who complete their training go into jobs or into further training and education. Moreover, of that figure, 67 per cent. gain a vocational qualification. Those are very high percentages. I believe they indicate that youth training is a quality product and that young people are gaining not only qualifications but jobs through undertaking such training.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that young people are gaining a national vocational qualification. However, if it is only a qualification at level I, we must not boost this as being a great achievement.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, when I mentioned vocational qualifications I was referring to all sorts of qualifications. I was not necessarily referring only to those attained at level 1.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also paid tribute to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and commended the work that it has done. The council has indeed now put its mark on 250 qualifications.
In answer to the claim that these new qualifications may bring about confusion among young people, I should point out that at present there is a jungle of some 4,000 different qualifications set by 300 different bodies. The idea of the national council is to bring these qualifications into a single nationally recognised structure—that is most important—which is clear and which young people can recognise. It will also assist them in identifying where they fit in with academic standards. They can use all this as building blocks for further training, improvements and qualifications.
Both noble Baronesses asked whether the training allowance currently paid to trainees on youth training will continue to be paid. It will indeed continue to be paid while training credits are being used. It will be the same as youth training; that is, so long as the young people are not undertaking their training while in employment, in which case, their employer would be paying their wages. However, the minimum amount which would be paid to them if they were not in employment will be maintained. Therefore, young people in training will certainly receive the level of payment which they receive at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said that we had not grasped the nettle and that we were talking about the two years after the completion of full-time education. The whole point of youth training, and of course now the extension of training credits to young people, is as follows. Ten per cent. of those young people are now in pilot schemes and receiving their credits. By 1993 a further 10 per cent. will be in receipt of them. Thereafter, an increasing percentage of young people will have the opportunity of receiving these credits. That is the guarantee which the Government are giving of a place on a training scheme if young people decide to leave school.
The two Statements today have indicated that this is an exciting moment in the lives of young people regarding their qualifications. I say that because here for the first time we are balancing academic achievement with vocational achievement. With the level of NVQs, young people will be able to read across and assess how they would be getting on with GCSE and A-level standards, which is most important for them. If they are following a vocational path, they will also be able to assess where they are as regards the academic side. Therefore, I hope that the Government's guarantee will attract fewer people and that many more people will be going on into further education. As I said, it is an important time for young people.
The introduction of training credits is important. It will allow young people to plan much more carefully what they will receive from the training provider. For
56
example, some TECs have already provided passports, cheque books or smart cards. Students will be able to use them to identify not only how much they have spent but to assess how far they have progressed. Moreover, if they achieve a level 2 qualification in a short time, they can use their credit for further training. It is a flexible way of helping young people to progress in training and get them qualified for jobs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked exactly what the general NVQs mentioned in the White Paper were. The general NVQs will help young people to keep their options open. They will offer preparation for a range of related occupations and keep open the possibility of moving on to higher education. They will help develop general skills as well as specific working skills. They will be part of the NVQ framework and have equal standing with academic qualifications at the same level. They will also be clearly related to occupationally specific NVQs so that young people can progress quickly and effectively from one to the other. They will also form part of the element that can be put towards a diploma at the ordinary or advanced level. The academic and vocational qualifications together will form a diploma at the ordinary or advanced level, depending upon the level of the NVQs. The general NVQs are non-specific in terms of vocational qualifications and will help to prepare young people for the world of work.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I shall press the Minister a little further on what he said about general skills. I am not convinced that he answered adequately the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the fundamental purpose of education. I am sure that we are all glad to hear that education will to a considerable extent be related to future occupations, and yet education is surely more than that. There is such a thing as education for life. There are matters of citizenship, personal relationships and personal development. Some of us become nervous when we hear that education at this level is being thought of too narrowly, in terms of matching people to jobs, without consideration of the much deeper qualities which will make all the difference to the way our country develops in the years ahead. Perhaps the Minister will say a word or two about that point.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate identified what the general NVQs will be. I said that they would prepare young people for the world of work, but that is only part of what they will do. What is most important is that they are, to some extent, non-academic. They will increase the awareness of young people, as he said, of personal skills—skills for life—to a level where they will equate with other academic qualifications. Young people will then be able to understand what level they have achieved vis à vis the academic side, so that they can, as I said. put them towards the award of a diploma.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the careers service, to which I do not believe she

57
had an answer. The Statement says that the Government wish to increase the importance of a high quality careers service, linked closely to employers and that there has been consultation about ways of organising the careers service. I support what the noble Baroness said about the careers service being important to young people at school, because it is then that they need advice about what they are going to do. The advice should not just be about employment. Is it intended to remove the careers service from the local education authorities and hand it over to employment? If so, the link with the schools will be much more difficult to maintain.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness reminded me that I have not replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the development of the careers service. We see the careers service as being one of the most important links in the chain of development of young people. Because there is closer working now between the LEAs and the TECs, which are the providers of youth training, we propose that a partnership arrangement could be considered or developed. That will not be forced on careers services or LEAs; it is a consideration that is going forward. Consultations are taking place to see whether such a careers service development is possible. No decisions have been taken as to the future of the careers service. There are a number of options which will take account of the local needs of the careers service either in partnership with the TECs or as a contracted-out service, but that will require legislation.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend two short questions— one general and one specific, the latter largely for information. I do not know whether my noble; friend was as disconcerted as I was to hear the right reverend Prelate imply that there was no necessary ethical content in specifically matching men to jobs. My first question is: is it not a fact that all jobs have an ethical and spiritual content? My specific question, which is based on my ignorance is: legal education spans the academic and the vocational to a peculiar degree, although the law is not the only profession of which that is true. Where does legal education occur as between the two Statements?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to agree with what my noble and learned friend said about the matching of young people with jobs. Young people should be encouraged to develop according to their vocational wishes, although the general and academic side of their lives must not be ignored. The diplomas are being developed so that young people can gain a diploma with a match of the academic and vocational qualifications. I do not have the answer to the question my noble and learned friend asked about legal education. I shall of course ask and write to him about it.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Seear also asked whether the Government had any proposals which would encourage more 16 year-olds to stay at school by ensuring that they were not at a financial disadvantage compared to people entering
58
employment at that age. I do not believe that the Minister answered that question. In the same context, does he agree that the wage earned by school leavers entering employment is often too high in relation to the adult wage, and that therefore employers and trade unions should be urged to widen the gap between the school leaver wage and the adult wage as new pay agreements are made?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe I went some way towards answering the question asked by the noble Baroness when I said that the training allowance would continue to be paid to young people receiving youth training. There will be no change in that respect. It will continue as it is whether they receive youth training under the present scheme or training under the credit scheme. There is no difference in the money paid.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister must think that I am being stupid about this, but what I was trying to get at was this: if a young person stays on in the sixth form and does such an old-fashioned thing as A-levels in—shall we say, English, French and History, which could not be regarded as vocational —I suppose French might be—will that young person receive any financial help for maintenance? If not, that young person will be discouraged from staying at school to do the traditional A-level work and encouraged to take up training when he will receive money through a training grant.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that there is no change in the present position. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, commented on the fact that the wages paid to young people are too high. I shall not be drawn on that point. It is for employers to decide what to pay young people.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister deal with two points which I concede may be rather detailed for the Statement he has given to us today? I feel some answers are necessary for the smooth working of the scheme. First, what is being done about training the trainers? We tend to talk in broad terms about the trainers and there is no doubt, as we all know from our visits to training establishments, that the quality is very good indeed, with enthusiastic and dedicated trainers. However, it does not necessarily mean that someone who is good at his specific trade, or whatever it happens to be, is a good teacher. We are talking about training, so this can be crucial. I hope that the Government are examining the point and setting up some kind of in-service training to ensure that the standard of training is given importance.
Secondly, an unrelated matter is that I had the pleasure some weeks ago of visiting an organisation called TAP—Training Access Points. I am not sure whether it is a national organisation. What impressed me was that all the courses available in the area were on the computer. The centre was based in Middlesbrough and on the computer there was information on all the types of courses which could be obtained simply by pressing buttons. The aim of the Government and those on this side of the House is, so

59
far as is possible, to expand training. That is what the Statement is about. It seems to me that unless youngsters are in a position to find out where specific types of courses are available much effort will be wasted. Has the Minister any information on TAP, particularly considering the necessity for financial aid to such bodies, to keep them going and to expand them? There is no doubt that they are doing a useful job.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is quite right to inquire about the standard of trainers and the training that young people will receive. That is an aspect which, by their contract with the Department of Employment, the TECs will maintain. They will supervise the approval of trainers and the quality of training they give.
The noble Lord also asked about Training Access Points. They are usually found in the careers service. Through the computer links I have seen what is available for young people in training provision in their locality. I understand that this is a national provision which is constantly updated. The noble Lord will see from the White Paper that the Government intend to provide further finance for the development of the careers service and also to upgrade its facilities.

Criminal Justice Bill
6.13 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 26 [Savings for mitigation and mentally disordered offenders]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 19, line 18, at end insert:
("(2A) Any mitigation of a fine the amount of which falls to be fixed under section 16 above shall be effected by determining under subsection (2) (a) of that section a smaller number of units than would otherwise have been determined.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 19, line 20, leave out ("a custodial sentence for any particular term") and insert ("any particular custodial sentence").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Effect of previous convictions]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 20, line 33, leave out ("the Children and Young Persons Act 1969").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential drafting amendment which we discussed with Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause: ("The Life Sentences Review Tribunal
.—(1) There shall be a tribunal, to be known as the Life Sentences Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this Part of this Act.
(2) Schedule (Life Sentences Review Tribunal) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Tribunal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 65 and to speak also to Amendments Nos. 66, 68, 71, 72 and 73. While this series of amendments is not directly consequential upon the amendments carried in Committee, they complete a detailed plan: the introduction of reforms in sentencing for murder and release decisions as recommended by your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment in 1989.
The key proposal was that the sentence for murder should be at the discretion of the court, not fixed in advance as now, so that all the circumstances of the offence might be taken into account before deciding upon the proper penalty. That was the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which was carried in Committee on 18th April by a large majority. The amendment did not abolish life imprisonment for murder; indeed, the Select Committee specifically recommended its retention, but aimed to remedy the inflexibility of its application.
A second amendment carried in Committee on the same date required the judge, when sentencing a person to life imprisonment, to state in open court the reasons for passing that sentence and to specify a penal term currently known as the "tariff', that is, the irreducible minimum period to be served in custody in the interests of retribution and general deterrence before questions of risk come into play in reaching a decision on release. The penal term would be appealable to the Court of Appeal in the same way as the sentence itself.
Those amendments now form Clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill. The remaining amendments again stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Nathan, chairman of the Select Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, Lord Chief Justice of England, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, leading for the Opposition, and myself, speaking from the Government Benches. I make clear at the outset the context of which these amendments form part in the hope that the Government may regard them as contributing to a uniform scheme, the main features of which have already obtained the consent of the House in Committee.
These amendments deal with the remaining, but contentious and difficult, matters of how decisions on the release of life sentence prisoners who have been convicted of murder or other serious offences should be reached. The proposal before the House this evening in Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 is modelled closely on the precedent of the mental health review tribunals which, since 1983, have had the responsibility of deciding when it is safe to release restricted patients. I remind your Lordships that some of those who are confined in the special hospitals at Broadmoor, Rampton and elsewhere have been

61
convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and made subject to a hospital order with restrictions. Since the Mental Health Act 1983, the tribunal system has worked satisfactorily without any lessening of confidence in the way in which the decisions on discharge have been taken.
In this series of amendments, notably Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, the proposal is to establish a Life Sentences Review Tribunal to which cases of all life sentence prisoners would be referred towards the end of their penal term. In the case of any lifer who has been convicted for murder, the tribunal would only have power to release on licence and subject to recall. In non-murder cases, release would be either on licence or unconditional. When reaching its decisions, the review tribunal, which would be headed by a High Court judge assisted by a registered medical practitioner specialising in psychiatry and a chief probation officer, would have a statutory obligation to,
"have regard to the risk of the life prisoner's committing further serious offences and the need to protect the public against that risk".
Your Lordships will find those words in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause which is printed as Amendment No. 66.
From this short outline it will seen that the crucially important decision on the release of a life sentence prisoner will be transferred from Ministers (and from the civil servants who advise them) to an independent tribunal with the characteristics of a court. So why is this provision necessary? As the Select Committee probed the administrative procedures which have grown up around this category of prisoner, we found that the proper functions of the executive on the one hand and the judiciary on the other hand had become confused. It was no one's fault, for no one had ever designed the complex procedures in the first place. They had simply evolved piecemeal over many years and in response to a number of unrelated pressures. Because of the rigidity imposed by the mandatory life sentence a measure of fairness was sought by asking the trial judge to recommend how long should be spent in custody in the interests of retribution and deterrence— the basis of the so-called tariff— and a measure of consistency was sought by asking the Lord Chief Justice to add his own recommendation on what that tariff should be. Yet in the Select Committee we found that these judicial recommendations could be, and in a majority of cases over a sample period were, adjusted by a junior Minister. In almost every case they were adjusted in an upward direction.
On what grounds were such decisions bearing on the quantum of punishment taken? They were not taken on the grounds of risk, prevention or protection of the public, because those factors do not arise until shortly before the expiry of the tariff, when consideration is given to release. In practice the decision on how long a life sentence prisoner must serve in prison— the tariff period— which is not the same as how long he may serve before he is released, is decided in private and for reasons that are never disclosed. The unavoidable conclusion is that in the past few years a habit has formed of Ministers
62
frequently increasing the judicially recommended tariffs whenever it was felt necessary to do so to reflect their own view of the gravity of the crime. Unlike the trial judge, who had seen the offender in court, the Minister lacked any first hand knowledge of the offender or what he had done. Thus the process depended on written reports from prison officers, doctors, the probation service or the police. For the most part the reports were written in good faith, but they were not open to challenge by the prisoner and they were not made known to him or his legal representative. If error crept in, it would go uncorrected. If facts open to more than one interpretation were before Ministers, contrary views would not be reflected.
If the prisoner wished to make representations before the tariff period was set, there was no facility for him to do so. Even the length of the tariff, once fixed by Ministers, was not communicated to the prisoner. It is true that he could in most cases, although not in all, work it out by making a mathematical calculation. But why not tell the prisoner what it was? The same criticisms apply to the decision taken shortly before the expiry of the tariff; that is, whether to release on licence or to continue to detain the prisoner because of the risk of further serious offending. That review is carried out first by the Parole Board and then by the Home Secretary. These procedures— the release mechanisms— have already been found to be unlawful for discretionary life sentence prisoners by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell last year. We shall probably hear more about that case in the course of this debate.
It is the greatest mistake— indeed it is a caricature — to shrug off Strasbourg judgments as emanating from some form of alien court interpreting a non-British body of law. It was to check the terrible abuses of power by national governments which preceded the Second World War that the European Convention on Human Rights was signed in 1949. The principles which it enshrined were largely the principles of the common law. Foremost among them was that a person charged with a criminal offence was entitled to be tried and punished by a court of law, and not by the executive. If found guilty and sentenced to punishment, he was entitled to know what was said about him and by whom. He must be given an opportunity to challenge what was said about him, and he was entitled to legal representation. None of those features is present in the current procedures for administering life sentences, or arriving at release decisions.
I assure the House that it is not the intention of the movers of the amendments— nor would it be the effect of those amendments— to release potentially dangerous offenders any earlier than at present. Any suggestion to the contrary is unworthy. That has not been the experience with restricted patients convicted of manslaughter and discharged by mental health review tribunals. There is no reason why it should be so with the life sentences review tribunal. Nor is it justifiable to represent the Select Committee's carefully judged proposals as in some way going soft

63
on crime. On the contrary, if the Government are prepared to present these changes in the way indicated, the proposals are capable of commanding greater public confidence than the present system, because of the arbitrary and flawed nature of the mechanisms currently in place.
The practice that has grown up in this piecemeal way is as offensive to the traditions of the common law as it is inconsistent with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. It cannot be allowed to continue. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I was not expecting to get to my feet quite so soon, but on reflection it will probably be helpful to the House if I do so.
As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Nathan, Lord Harris, and others to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder and to require the judge passing a life sentence to state in court the penal term now appear in the Bill as Clauses 23 and 24. On the same day we debated those matters we considered amendments in the same terms as those now before the House and I invited the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, not to press them because obviously I would have to consider the consequences of the earlier decisions of the Committee and what should be the Government's attitude to the amendments as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was kind enough to agree to that course.
In the debate which took place on that day your Lordships gave extensive consideration to the whole package of recommendations in the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The Government accept that the provisions now before the House for reviewing life sentences are part of one comprehensive scheme, or, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham put it, they complete a detailed plan.
It would be wrong for me to pretend that I was convinced by the arguments so far as concerns life sentences for murder. However, that does not imply any disrespect for the view which the House took. It is just that the Government still think that it is necessary to mark a unique crime with a unique penalty, and we believe that the public expect nothing else.
We also still consider that the procedures now applying to the release of offenders convicted of murder properly reflect the public's right to be assured that the state will protect them from offenders of this kind. That responsibility falls upon the Home Secretary of the day as an intrinsic part of his responsibility for the maintenance of the Queen's peace and the protection of the public. He is accountable to Parliament for the way in which he exercises that responsibility and must be answerable to Parliament if he gets it wrong.
It is against that background, and with apologies for dwelling on past discussions, that I believe it will be helpful if I now tell the House how the Government
64
are minded to proceed in dealing with the specific amendments before us. As I understand it, the amendments set out two alternative proposals. The first proposal, which is reflected in Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68, is to establish a tribunal whose jurisdiction would include life sentence prisoners convicted of murder. The second proposal, which is reflected in Amendments Nos. 67, 69 and 70, would establish a tribunal whose jurisdiction did not include prisoners convicted of murder.
Your Lordships will appreciate from what I have said that so far as the amendments relate to the procedures for determining the release of prisoners serving what are now mandatory life sentences, namely, those convicted of murder, I have difficulty with them in principle and would prefer it if they were not included in the Bill. However, if they are insisted upon I shall not seek to put the matter to a Division, simply because they form part of the whole package of proposals put forward by the Select Committee and there are obvious attractions in all of them now being considered as a package in another place.
Rather different considerations arise, however, in relation to the discretionary life sentence for offences other than murder. As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, the European Court of Human Rights has held that in those cases it is appropriate for the prisoner's release to be considered by a body having the status of a court once the period set by the trial judge to punish the offence has been served. Our law will therefore have to be amended on that point. I can assure my noble friend Lord Windlesham that there never was any doubt about that; there never was any intention of shrugging off the effect of that judgment.
While, as I indicated in Committee, we should have preferred to take more time to consider the full implications of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, we have decided that it would be right to respond to the views expressed in your Lordships' House by introducing amendments to the Bill during its later stages to deal with that point.
It follows that I agree in principle with much of the alternative set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and others. Clearly, the European Court of Human Rights judgment requires cases involving discretionary life sentence prisoners to be considered by a body having the status of a court. That body should have the power, once the initial term set by the trial judge has passed, to order the prisoner's release if it is safe to do so. Clearly, the body should operate in a judicial manner, giving the prisoner the opportunity to appear before it and to be legally represented.
However, the Government wish to offer alternative proposals on some of the more detailed points. We believe, for instance, that it may be preferable for the tribunal function to be carried out by the Parole Board, operating under a special procedure in the cases concerned rather than that a completely new tribunal should be set up. The relevant panel of the Parole Board would, however, be constituted under

65
the chairmanship of a judicial member of the board, which reflects the proposal in the amendments we are considering.
The present amendments also envisage that a life sentence prisoner might be released unconditionally rather than on licence and that where a prisoner is released on licence the licence might at some future point be lifted. I find it difficult to see, if that approach were accepted, in what sense the sentence would still be a life sentence. It would mean that at some point, perhaps even immediately after release, the prisoner was freed of any restriction or obligation as a result of the life sentence which had been passed on him. I must therefore give your Lordships notice that that particular provision will almost certainly not be reflected in the Government's proposals.
We would also wish to include transitional provisions to enable discretionary life sentence prisoners who have already been sentenced to benefit from the new arrangements.
That is for the future. This afternoon your Lordships will wish to reach a decision on the amendments actually before the House. Therefore, the course the Government propose is this. If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, wishes to press Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68 I shall not ask the House to divide against them, recognising that they are part of a comprehensive package which will send the Bill to another place in proper form. However, I must state that that is without prejudice to the Government's attitude to that package.
If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, presses Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68, Amendments Nos. 67, 69 and 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will not he put. If they were put as a result of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, not pressing his amendments I should not object to their inclusion in the Bill either. However, your Lordships will not be surprised if at a later stage we seek to substitute government amendments which will achieve similar ends, but perhaps by rather different means.
I hope that your Lordships find that approach helpful. I hope equally that noble Lords will agree with me that in view of the important principles which are at stake it would be right for the other place to have an opportunity to express its view on the matter. We shall be inviting the Members of another place to do so when the Bill returns there.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I was inspired by what I saw in the press last week by way of prophecy to consider what would happen if those journalists were right. The proposals that have now been put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench prove that, at any rate in part, they were and a role is now proposed for the Parole Board in the resolution of this difficult matter.
I wish to say one or two things, although I must make it plain that I say them entirely for myself, because I have not been able to consult about them. As my noble friend Lord Windlesham said, there will have to he a proper tribunal because, otherwise, the procedure will not comply with Article 5 of the European Convention. If it is a proper tribunal, it is likely that the mental health review tribunals will be a
66
good model. They involve a substantial body of statutory procedure and hearings with witnesses and representation. There is therefore a considerable commitment of time and personnel in any such procedure.
What follows from that, although it would be particular to the Parole Board, is not a matter on which I shall find any difficulty in persuading the Government to do what I hoped they would do, because they would be committed to it in any event by setting up any form of tribunal to deal with the judgments that have come from Strasbourg.
The first point that I should like to make is that, with all due modesty, there probably are among the membership of the Parole Board people of the background, experience, calibre and right disciplines to form exactly the kind of tribunal that is required for those cases. I would not envisage only three people being chosen, but perhaps a panel from which a selection could be made for a particular case.
However, if my noble friend intends to pursue that course, I should tell him that I do not know the amount of time that will be involved in dealing with those cases— that is no doubt one of the reasons why a little more time for preparation might have been a good thing— but it will be not inconsiderable. In persuading people of the necessary seniority and calibre to undertake the task of sitting on the tribunal, Her Majesty's Government will have to consult fairly widely those who otherwise direct the duties of those senior people in order that they may be spared not only for the period of time during which they will be needed to sit on the tribunal, but also for the period of time in which they will enable themselves to acquire the necessary experience of this kind of case by sitting on Parole Board panels and dealing with parallel problems. Unless they have that experience, they will not be uniquely qualified, as they would otherwise be, to deal with the cases that it is now proposed to put before them. My noble friend may like to reflect upon that point because it will be an important ingredient in acquiring people of the required standard.
Secondly, I must tell my noble friend that, on the resources that the Parole Board at present possesses both in terms of money and of staff, that could not be done. As I said, there will have to be a tribunal anyway in order to deal with the cases from Strasbourg— the Gunnell and Wilson cases. It will simply be a matter of putting the funding into the right coffers within the Civil Service machinery. Although we could do it in terms of personnel, we could not do it in terms of resources at the moment. On behalf of my colleagues, I look forward to this as a fairly notable challenge and I think that they will probably share my view.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Perhaps I may comment briefly, and I hope within the rules of order, upon the very proper reply at an earlier stage in the debate made on behalf of the Government by my noble friend. I should first like to thank him for obviously having made a serious attempt to cope with

67
the situation with which we are now faced without knowing the Government's final determination upon the matter that we discussed last week.
I was one of those who felt it impossible not to support the Nathan amendments last week and I want to make it quite clear that I have not changed my opinion. However, I should like to put one thought into my noble friend's mind which would arise only if he takes the course, which I hope he will not take, of sticking to the view that murder is a unique offence demanding a unique penalty, which I believe to be contrary to the position in law. He could mitigate some of the evils if he would realise that the substantive law of murder as it presently stands is nonsense because of the mental element that it involves following a series of decisions, for some of which I was responsible in a judicial capacity and on some of which I should have liked to come to a different conclusion had I not been bound by what I regarded as a long series of authoritative decisions which had preceded my own.
Ultimately, the horrible grey area that exists at the moment between murder and manslaughter is not tolerable. It had its ridiculous origin in a by-product of the Reformation which I explained in one of my judgments. I shall not elaborate on that in order to save the House time, but it went on in the insertion into the law of murder of the doctrine of diminished responsibility. As a matter of sheer history, that was put into the law, imported from Scotland, only as a kind of sugaring of the pill when Parliament and the Government of the day made their unsuccessful attempt in 1957 to reintroduce the death penalty for a limited number of kinds of murder.
There is also the horrible grey area of provocation, which makes it impossible to define murder in its substantive sense as a unique offence. On the contrary; the jury has it in its power to make decisions which are quite rightly unpredictable, as the law at present stands. If they intend to stick to their decision, which I hope that they will not, I hope that they will look at the awfulness into which the substantive law of murder has got itself. I hope that they will perhaps look at the decision of the House of Lords when it was split three to two in its judicial capacity in the case of Hyams, which illustrates what I said about the motivation. If it had not been for the long set of what I thought were binding precedents subject to what is called the practice direction in the jargon of the trade, I should have joined with Lord Diplock in saying that murder should be confined to cases in which there is an intention to kill. I thought that in that case Lord Kilbrandon was of the same opinion as myself when he joined Lord Diplock, but I regarded myself as bound not to legislate and I joined the other two. That is how the case came to be decided. The substantive law of murder is part of the difficulty with which we are faced and I hope that my noble friend will take that point on board.
We must now decide what we do next. I was grateful to my noble friend for making it clear that if, as I understood it, it is intended to put the first set of proposals to the opinion of the House, he would not
68
seek to divide on this occasion. The matter will have to be decided because the Government have to refer it to another debate in the Commons.
I was also glad that in certain other events my noble friend was good enough to say that he would accept the "Harris of Greenwich" line of country on non-judicial life sentences, because something of the kind has to be done in order to satisfy the European convention and the decisions of the European Court. I do not pretend for a moment that with two large pages of print these amendments are necessarily the last word. But I hope that, at any rate in principle, my noble friend and the Government will find it possible to accept the view that, whether one keeps the mandatory life sentence for murder or not, it is not possible to leave the period of time which that actually means very often to a junior Minister, or sometimes the Home Secretary himself, when it is part of the judicial function and part of our constitution that the period that is required— whether one calls it the tariff, the penal term or whatever— should be decided in public, communicated to the accused and decided for reasons which are given and which do not depend entirely on the whim of the Executive clothed in impenetrable mystery.
Lord Richard: May I say how much I agree with a large part of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had to say. I am bound to say that, in talking to members of the public about this issue, the proposition that unintentional killing can nevertheless in law be murder and therefore the subject of a mandatory life sentence is one which many people outside the law, and perhaps outside these two Houses, would find very difficult indeed to accept. As we all know, an intent to commit serious bodily harm which results in death, even if there is no intent to kill, is in law murder and attracts a mandatory life sentence.
I do not think there is any necessity to go into the arguments rehearsed at Committee stage on this issue. I simply make two points. First, I thank the noble Lord, the Leader of the House for, so to speak, taking us into the Government's confidence, at least to a certain extent, as far as these amendments are concerned. Secondly, I hope that my noble friend Lord Nathan will not be induced, seduced, or whatever verb one likes to use, into merely moving the fall-back amendments so far as discretionary life sentences are concerned. For the structure to be presented to the other place as a whole, it must clearly include both discretionary and mandatory life sentences.
Finally, perhaps I may leave this thought with the Leader of the House. Are we really going to end up in a situation, which seemed to be the implication if not the express statement of the Leader of the House, in which two people sentenced to life imprisonment, one a mandatory life sentence for murder and the other a discretionary life sentence for another crime, are treated differently under the British system depending on whether it is a murder or a non-murder conviction? The most absurd anomalies may arise from that.
I merely give one example. The mercy killing carried out by a loving spouse would be murder. There

69
would be an intent to kill. There would be very little that a jury could do other than return a verdict of guilty of murder in those circumstances. He or she in those circumstances would not have the advantage of the tribunal system proposed in these amendments. On the other hand, somebody convicted of 27 rapes and therefore sentenced to imprisonment for life would have the advantage of the tribunal system referred to in the amendments. That makes no sense. I merely serve notice on the noble Lord the Leader of the House that if the proposals come back to this House in that state he should not expect to have the suppport of Her Majesty's Opposition.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on a point of clarification, my name is to the alternative amendments, Amendments Nos. 67, 69 and 70. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, those amendments are of limited application and exclude life sentences for murder. The issue is not whether it is mandatory or discretionary. Therefore those alternative amendments are in effect subsumed by the first set of amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Windlesham and may not, with respect to the noble Lord, be moved during the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House in view of the most helpful attitude taken by my noble friend the Leader of the House. But in this somewhat delicate situation it would be seriously unwise to anticipate the attitude of another place. Much depends upon the manner in which the Government intend to propose implementation of the essential reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights and set up some appropriate judicial machinery not only as regards release of those serving mandatory life sentences and discretionary life sentences but also long-term prisoners. That may well become involved in this concept. It will serve no useful purpose to restate the arguments today, and I would only thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for his conciliatory attitude taken on behalf of the Government.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I begin by agreeing with the course of action proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think we should accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with whose speech I very much agreed. That being so, we should not proceed with the amendment in my name, Amendment No. 67, dealing with the position of discretionary life sentence prisoners.
The only comment I make in relation to what the Leader of the House said is one which takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Apparently, we are going to have a position in which a man who kills his wife, she having begged him to kill her because she has a terminal illness, will have his case examined exclusively by Ministers in exactly the same way as is now the position. Obviously in such a case there is an intent to kill. On the other hand, a man who is convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and on the grounds that he is a dangerous and unpredictable man will have his case heard by the tribunal, with the right of legal representation and the right to give evidence on his
70
own behalf and to call witnesses before that tribunal. I am bound to say I can think of nothing stranger than for the Government to recommend a policy of that kind to the House of Commons. But that is apparently their intention.
We shall have a further opportunity to discuss this matter if Commons amendments come down to us. Therefore one reserves some of the arguments for that occasion. All I say to the Leader of the House in terms of the position of discretionary cases is this. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who is chairman of the Parole Board, raised one or two quite substantial issues. Let us suppose that the tribunal which the Government will accept in this category of cases is to be established within the Parole Board, as apparently is the Government's view. I am sure that, having held the office of Home Secretary, the noble Lord will recognise that this will change the character of the Parole Board to a very substantial extent. The Parole Board does not and never in its lifetime has had oral hearings. It has not given people the right of legal representation.
I do not argue that that is a bad idea. Manifestly it is highly desirable, given the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. But although I agree with the noble Viscount in terms of the constitution of the tribunal, I hope that the Government will persist in their intention to have a High Court judge as the chairman, a consultant psychiatrist (who in my view will be absolutely essential) and a chief probation officer, and I emphasise the word "chief-. In my view those three must be members of the tribunal. I do not have a view as to whether or not there should be other members.
Finally, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House heard the noble Viscount's powerful arguments to the effect that these changes will require additional resources for the Parole Board. It will be quite impossible to establish a tribunal of this sort without reviewing the resources currently available to the Parole Board.
I have made only the essential points that I wanted to make in the course of this brief debate. I had the opportunity to speak in Committee stage on the two amendments carried against the Government. I have not the slightest intention of repeating those arguments tonight. For the moment we reserve our position on this matter until the Commons amendments return to this House.
7 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the manner in which he has dealt tonight with these difficult matters. But I am bound to say that I wish to press the amendments which stand in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham and other noble Lords. I want to refer to one or two matters that strike me as being of particular importance which have not been mentioned this evening. However, I do not intend to go over the ground covered in the previous debate on 18th April. I shall refer only briefly to some of the issues with which I dealt then.

71
As noble Lords said, it is quite right that the proposals that we put forward in the report of the Select Committee constituted a set of measures of reform and those were embodied in the amendments put forward, two of which have already been passed overwhelmingly by your Lordships' House and one falls for consideration this evening. However, I point out that the present group of amendments relating to the release procedures has merit and could and should be adopted even if your Lordships had not agreed by an overwhelming majority to the abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder.
It does not seem to me that there is any contradiction between the question of whether or not a mandatory life sentence should be abolished and the procedures relating to release. When they were last debated on 18th April, I spoke of the provisions in the amendments relating to the rights of the prisoner and particularly the right to make representations to the tribunal, the right of legal representation, the right to receive copies of documents and relevant information relating to the case, subject to the very limited restriction on those rights, to enable him to exercise those rights effectively. As noble Lords are aware, under the release procedures presently in force the prisoner has none of those rights.
When I first looked at this matter it seemed to me remarkable that prisoners are not at present entitled, as of right, to be given reasons when not recommended for release on life licence. I found it significant that the Prison Officers' Association told the Committee that it felt particularly strongly on this issue and said that when a prisoner received a "knock-back" it was the prison officer who was on the receiving end of the prisoner's wrath. We received much evidence on the question of whether there should be open reporting— that is, allowing the prisoner access to all reports on the basis of which decisions on whether or not to release would be made. Both the Carlisle Committee and the Kincraig Committee in Scotland came down firmly in favour, subject to a reservation in Carlisle in the following terms:
"There will be highly exceptional cases where disclosure will need to be denied to prevent specific harm, particularly to a third party or even&to the inmate himself."
The Select Committee agreed with both open reporting and the limited reservations to which I referred.
So far as the prisoner is concerned, the sense of injustice arising from a "knock-back" without reasons and the fantasising as to the reasons that often results would be avoided. Resentment against prison officers which they presently suffer, based on the false assumption that they have maliciously submitted an adverse report, would also be avoided. So the introduction of the recommended procedures relating to the tribunal would be entirely consistent with the evidence that we received on these matters, and with the recommendations of Carlisle on reporting.
I believe that the House should go forward with these amendments— namely, the main amendments, Amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 68— omitting the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris,
72
both limited to the discretionary life sentences as they have hitherto been, because those matters are subsumed in the larger one which we put forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Bill
7.6 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Badgers (Further Protection) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
7.8 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Reay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exercise of powers in relation to Crown land in private occupation]:
Lord Reay Lord Reay moved the amendment:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert ("(whether it is an interest in land or arises under a licence).").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I hope to explain this amendment quite briefly. The background is that where Crown land is occupied by the Crown— for example, by a government department— there is no need for an authorisation enabling inspectors to exercise rights of access, entry and unobstructed inspection in accordance with the inspection protocol of the CFE treaty to be given under Clause 2 of the Bill as the Government themselves can give permission to the inspection team to enter the land. When, however, Crown land is in private occupation an authorisation will be needed to ensure that the private occupier cannot refuse entry. Clause 4(1) makes it clear that when Crown land is privately occupied an authorisation may be issued.
Upon further consideration of the provision, the Government have decided that account needs to be taken of the fact that a person occupying Crown land may do so in two ways: first, by way of a lease (that is an interest in land; for example, a property right); and secondly, by way of a licence (that is a right granted by a contract). The words "private interest" might be construed to refer only to the first of those

73
possibilities; that is to say, an occupation as a result of a lease. To make clear beyond doubt that an authorisation may he issued and that rights of access and entry are guaranteed in respect of Crown land occupied as a result of a licence, this small, detailed amendment is required. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the matter so clearly. He read his brief with aplomb, but I still do not understand. Without going into great detail, it appears that if one occupies land by virtue of a private interest one does not need then to define that private interest, whether it is an interest in the land or arises under a licence. However, if the Government wish to define the issue, who am I to disagree?
Can the Minister confirm that if the amendment is passed it will have no tangible effects on the lease of a tenant holding Crown land which may become the subject of an inspection under the framework of the Act? In other words, can the Minister confirm that the provision will not affect the lease in the sense of there being a continuing legal interest but that it will merely give the authorisation powers in respect of inspection which the Bill sets out.
I understand that the United States should learn today whether the compromise formula that .it has proposed for solving the dispute about the reclassification of Russian tank divisions as coastal defence units which are outside the scope of the treaty is to be accepted by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's chief of staff is in Washington today. It would be helpful to know whether the compromise has been accepted because to a large extent that problem has held up further progress on this Bill. It has prevented further progress on other arms control provisions. What is the latest situation as regards that matter?
Lord Reay: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising; no objections of substance to the amendment. He asked whether it was necessary. I merely repeat that it is required in order to make clear beyond doubt that an authorisation applies in respect of both types of private occupation. I understand that the provision will have no effect on the particular lease about which he inquired.
With regard to the broader and political issue that he raised, contacts have been made between the allies and the Soviet Union. The United States has taken the lead for the allies and some progress has been made. However, the key problem of ground equipment in naval infantry units in particular remains unresolved.
We hope that the visit to Washington today of the Soviet Union's chief of staff will yield satisfactory results. However, we do not yet have any information about the result of the discussions.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Registered Homes (Amendment) Bill
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a much needed piece of legislation. It has been clear for some time that complete exemption from registration for all small residential care homes is no longer defensible. The opportunity now exists to act on behalf of a significant number of vulnerable people in small homes who at present have no protection. The Bill deals solely with homes accommodating three people or less. There are many thousands of such homes throughout the country and at present all are outside regulatory control.
As a former chairman of a local authority social services committee, I have a personal interest in the subject. The simple course is to have an amendment Bill rooted in the established regulatory scheme. That will achieve the objectives and effects which most people believe to be essential. The aims are, first, protection for highly vulnerable residents from the risk of unsuitable and unscrupulous people setting up and running small care homes; secondly, control arrangements that recognise the special nature of the very small homes; thirdly, a regulatory system that gives the authorities enough clout but not too much and creates a good balance; and fourthly, a regulatory system that will be relatively cheap to operate with fees kept to modest and, being self-financing, involving no cost to the charge payer.
The Registered Homes Act 1984 is the right vehicle for this change. It is widely agreed that simply to extend the scope of the present law would be too onerous on people running small homes. However, the 1984 Act contains the most essential elements— the building blocks— that are needed for the regulation of small homes. Clause 1 pulls out some of these, adds one or two that are new and re-assembles them.
Most people now running such homes are admirable and provide an excellent service for their clients. However, we hear harrowing stories of different situations. The Bill is necessary in order to sort out the small number of cowboys. The fundamental requirement is to register with the local authority. An exception is made of people caring only for relatives; an important point to make. There is also the power to widen the exemptions in reserve if that were thought to be suitable. Registration is dependent on the fitness of the applicant to be involved in running a home. It tackles the source of concern and criticism which has been voiced during the past two years. Indeed, a campaign was run in one of our more popular Sunday newspapers. There is some evidence of people who have been found unsuitable to run larger homes and declared unfit to do so continuing in business by reducing the number of residents to three per home and spreading them over a larger number of homes. Of course, that was never the intention.
The Bill constitutes no threat to the vast majority of proprietors. There will be no heavy additional burdens on local authorities. A single criterion avoids the risk

75
of destroying the special attributes which small homes often have. There is a special homely environment in small homes with three or fewer people. We do not wish to run the risk of driving people out of business because there are so many regulations to contend with that they consider it not worthwhile. We do not wish to create a situation in which a genuine and honest proprietor is so anxious about meeting regulations that anxiety and upheaval are created for the residents. I am convinced that the single criterion strikes the right balance.
That is backed up in two ways. First, there is a requirement on a proprietor to complete a simple annual return. It is not enough for local authorities to register people and then have no further contact. The authorities need to know that the same person is still running the home and that there has been no dramatic change in the home. An annual return will keep both sides in contact with each other and will ensure that there is a simple check that things are as they were when the original application was made.
Secondly, by drawing on the power of entry provided in the 1984 Act, the authority is given the means to act where there is a real cause for anxiety. However, it is not intended to require authorities routinely to inspect all homes. That would set up quite a bureaucracy and greatly increase costs. However, there must be power to act in response to special and, let us hope, exceptional circumstances where serious complaints mean that full inspection is necessary.
Sanctions similar to those which the authorities already have in relation to larger homes are another feature of the Bill. In the last resort registration can be refused or the home closed.
Returning to the first clause, I wish to emphasise one other important new provision. I have already mentioned fees. The central feature of the scheme for larger homes is that effectively it is self-financing. That principle is extended here to cover the present proposals for small homes with one essential difference; that is, the Bill gives authorities the power to waive all or, perhaps even more importantly, part of the registration fee and the annual fee where they believe that to be appropriate. The level of the fee will be set by the Secretary of State by regulations following consultation. We hope that it will not be too great. Even so, some people running small homes will already be known to the registering local authority and may have been approved under control arrangements for, perhaps, an adult placement scheme. The registration of that person as fit would be only a formality. For that reason, scope to waive fees would be very valuable.
A transitional period is needed before the Bill is brought fully into effect. That will give the Department of Health time to make regulations, to consult about them and to issue guidance. It will also give time for proprietors to lodge their applications. The first half of Clause 2 deals with that by providing that the commencement date should be set by order. There are also special provisions covering the period
76
immediately after commencement when all applications should have been lodged but processing may not have been completed.
The second half of Clause 2 is made up of a group of necessary consequential amendments to the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
7.24 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and also her honourable friend in another place, Mr. John Butterfill, who promoted the Bill in another place. It may seem strange that an important issue like this is not presented in a government Bill. However, it has not been so presented and I am glad that the Government are supporting the initiative taken by the noble Baroness.
The exclusion from the provisions of the Registered Homes Act 1984 of small homes caring for four or fewer frail people was raised in another place during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act and was raised in this House by my noble friend Lord Carter.
During the passage of the Bill my honourable friend Ms. Harriet Harman said that one of the problems was that the Government seemed not to know how many small homes would be covered by this sort of legislation. That is understandable. Without registration, they could not know. They may know of some but not of all of them. She carried out a survey by means of contact with directors of social services. They estimated that one in five of all homes in their areas are unregistered because they are small, having fewer than four residents. That meant that the safeguards provided by the 1984 Act as regards the quality of standards, staffing and premises and the character of the proprietors of homes do not extend to residents in one in five of such homes in Britain. That proves the importance of the legislation which the noble Baroness is now introducing.
When the Bill was dealt with in another place on 14th March Ms. Harman went on to propose in another place that a way forward would be to give registration authorities the power to enter, inspect and take action against small homes. They are given the power when a problem is identified but there is no duty on local authorities to require them to register small homes which they know to be in their area. Therefore, when they know there is a problem they have the power to act but are not weighed down with extra registration duties when they already have inadequate resources to carry out their present registration functions— a point made by the noble Baroness.
The issue is important, first, because of the nature of the people concerned. They are frail, not necessarily because of age but because of handicap of one form or another. Therefore, they are vulnerable. Vulnerable people must have special protection. Secondly, as the noble Baroness said, there is a small minority of unscrupulous people. However, even if it is a minority

77
this matter is one which we must take action against. If that were not so, the noble Baroness would not have thought it necessary to bring forward this Bill. I agree with her about that.
As we know, some proprietors have convictions against them for offences such as assault or financial improprieties. If a proprietor has in his home two or three frail old people who are not in position to take decisions for themselves, he can easily guide them into signing a piece of paper which may sign away what limited funds they have.
Another encouraging point about the Bill is that it is supported by Age Concern, the Association of Directors of Social Services, which strongly supports the Bill, the National Care Homes Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Association of Residential Care and the Independent Health Care Association. Therefore, the noble Baroness is in good company.
I am a member of the council of Counsel and Care, which provides advice and help for elderly people. During the course of its work there has been a good deal of contact with a number of private residential care homes with three or fewer residents. While many of those small homes, as we have said, provide excellent care for elderly people in a family atmosphere, the organisation is anxious because currently there is no regulation or monitoring of those establishments.
In a number of isolated cases the organisation has been asked to give advice to people who are worried about vulnerable relatives in such small homes. Complaints have been received about neglect of frail elderly people. Relatives have voiced anxiety about the suitability of the home owner, which at present is unchecked. In some cases it has emerged that the person in charge was the former proprietor of a home deregistered by a local authority after serious problems in the home had been investigated. Obviously it can happen that someone who has been deregistered decides to run a string of small homes with three or four residents because then there will be no registration. There are some such cases and that is why it is necessary to have a system of registration.
Counsel and Care warmly welcomes the Bill but there are a number of points that I wish to draw to the attention of the noble Baroness. One is that the Wagner Report, A Positive Choice, highlighted the fact that in some areas a proprietor may set up a number of private homes with three residents, none of which is registered in any way. The result is that one person, however unsuitable, may be responsible for providing personal care for any number of elderly people in need of personal care. The Wagner committee recommended that in such cases small homes should meet the full registration requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984. Counsel and Care certainly shares that view and I shall be interested to hear from the Minister, and indeed the noble Baroness, whether they believe that some special provision should be made for those who run a chain of small homes.
Counsel and Care welcomes the Bill's requirement that registration of small homes will include some test
78
of the fitness of the proprietor to run a home, and was further pleased at the suggestion for an annual return of the registration in which the staff of the home are noted by the registering authority. However, they were disappointed that no fuller definition was given of what "fitness" means. That is an important point. What does "fitness" mean? In the experience of Counsel and Care, registration officers pay more attention to a person's financial capability in running a home and less to his or her qualifications and personal suitability in providing the personal care for prospective residents. That is a point that we should look at, to see how we can better define the term "fitness".
The third point is that the Bill does not impose a duty to inspect small homes; it merely allows for the right of random inspection. Counsel and Care feels that it would be more suitable if small homes were inspected to ensure the maintenance of high standards of care rather than randomly visited after a problem has been reported.
Those are questions to which the Minister may be able to respond in her reply. I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced, and so too is my party. In our policy statement, which we discussed in your Lordships' House on another occasion, we said,
"Labour will close the loophole which permits many homes to escape regulation by limiting the number of their residents to fewer than four, but will ensure that the building regulations are appropriate to their size."
This clearly is an all-party measure and we warmly welcome the initiative taken by the noble Baroness.
7.33 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, on the last occasion on which I spoke in your Lordships' House, on Wednesday last, I was justly chastised for running over time. Tonight, shaken but not stirred, I shall he brief.
I should like first to welcome the extension of the regulation system to small homes. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of local prejudice, which the case of C&G Homes last year so graphically illustrated, and which can prevent the setting up or force the closure of residential care homes. In that case the Court of Appeal declared that Bath Health Authority's arrangements for housing eight former residents of psychiatric hospitals in two houses in the community were contrary to a restrictive covenant limiting the use of the property to that,
"incidental to the enjoyment of a private dwelling house".
Those two houses were being used as part of the policy for rehousing former patients into the community. There had been no complaints from neighbours as to the conduct of the occupiers of those houses. C&G Homes had a restrictive covenant placed on the houses in anticipation of a problem based on the status of the occupants alone; simply because they were mentally handicapped people.
If appropriate, I should like at Committee stage to introduce amendments which will deal with the use of restrictive covenants. I do not think it is acceptable in our society that four students can live together in a house without restriction yet four people with a

79
mental handicap are forced out due to local prejudice. If there are problems, the criminal and civil law protect neighbours from disruption.
The key to community care is satisfactory housing arrangements, and residents must be protected from unjustifiable prejudice. Few opportunities arise in your Lordships' House to help towards the legal protection of the most vulnerable members of our community, whose chances of living a fulfilling and independent life depend on the availability of residential care. I hope that the Bill will afford us the opportunity to do that.
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I am happy to confirm the full support of the Government for this Bill. It was just over a year ago in another place that an amendment to the National Health Service and Community Care Act sought to remove the exemption given to small care homes in the Registered Homes Act 1984. At that time the Government gave an undertaking to consider whether there was a way in which those issues which understandably cause anxiety could be tackled. I am therefore most grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for the opportunity to mark the first anniversary of that undertaking by debating the considered and necessary proposals contained in the Bill.
It is entirely right and quite consistent with the evolutionary process that the Bill should not be a mirror image of the 1984 Act. My noble friend Lady Gardner gave the reasons for the adaptation of the provisions of that Act to suit the special nature of small homes. I am happy to endorse what she said. The Department of Health took the opportunity last summer to sound out opinion on what form the regulation of small homes should take. The result of the consultation supported an approach broadly similar to that adopted in this Bill.
The Wagner Report and local authority and care home interests recognise the need to keep the elements of the regulatory system for small homes to an essential minimum. That is not disputed even by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. We are fully aware of the range of views people have about the possible need to impose requirements on the physical condition and structure of those homes or on the nature of the services and facilities they offer. It is my strong belief that we should do nothing to detract from the atmosphere and quality of life of a domestic home that those very small homes are uniquely able to provide. It is right that we should guard against putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of people running small homes. For those reasons I am sure that the relatively light regulatory touch envisaged in this Bill is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to a proprietor who possibly had a chain of small homes. That point could be met by the procedures envisaged
80
by the Bill. I do not see that there is any necessity, particularly if the homes are in different parts of the country, to provide specifically for that situation.
Registration will be dependent on the fitness of the applicant. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked what "fitness" meant. In this case we can take the same line as the 1984 Act. After all, local authorities have had considerable experience in registering homes and have therefore evolved a measure of what fitness means in these situations. Regulation on that basis therefore tackles the principal concern and criticism surrounding small care homes and their proprietors.
There is no threat to the vast majority of proprietors; no heavy additional burdens on local authorities, but there is protection for highly vulnerable residents from risk of unsuitable and unscrupulous people setting up and running small care homes. Registration of small homes will bring them with in the scope of the arrangements introduced last month for registration authorities to be able to obtain from the police details of convictions recorded against a potential owner or manager of a residential care home. That is an important point on which considerable anxiety was expressed in this House when the subject was discussed during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
I am attracted also to the notion of an annual return accompanied by what I hope will be a nominal fee. Our consultation paper last year made no proposal for a review of the initial registration. At that stage we felt that a one-off event was appropriate. We were quite reasonably criticised. The registration authority would be in an uncertain position if its only contact with a person running a small home was when it handed out the certificate of registration. Something more is needed. For large homes the answer is to inspect, but that is justified in any case by the registration criteria imposed by the 1984 Act.
The modification of those criteria of the 1984 Act in this Bill removes that justification. Regular inspection is not the answer, nor would it be even if it could somehow be achieved without adding hugely to the resource implications and to the burden of compliance on home owners. An annual return, which can be a simple document but which has to be completed as a condition of continuing registration, is pitched at just the right level. Powers of entry and inspection would nevertheless be available if and when needed.
I also recognise the benefits that judicious use of power to waive fees will bring. My noble friend referred to that in particular. People running small homes may already be known to and have been approved by the local authority so that little additional action would be required on registration, giving the local authority room to waive the fee to an appropriate extent. That should help allay fears that the requirement for registration would deter those providing care on a small scale, including those already providing such care; for example, under adult placement schemes.
As my noble friend has said, the Bill gives powers for the date of coming into force to be appointed by order. Immediate implementation would not be

81
practicable. Before registration of small homes can get under way my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will need to make regulations detailing the requirements applicable to these homes, including the maximum fee levels. We would expect to consult on this. Secondly, operators of small homes will need some time to become aware of the registration requirement and apply for registration before Section 2 of the 1984 Act bites and it becomes an offence to run an unregistered small home. This is a welcome and necessary measure. It has widespread support. I commend it to the House.
7.42 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in this debate. I wish to reply very briefly to a number of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I understand and sympathise with the feelings of people who say that they would like to have full registration requirements and a full duty to inspect. That misses the point of the intimate nature of the small homes with such a small number of people in them. These provisions were specifically excluded from the original Act for those reasons. The mention made by the noble Lord of one in five homes in this country being of that type shows what an important part they play. We would not wish on any account to put at risk people who are legitimately and honestly running homes now and who suddenly found themselves so overburdened with elements of bureaucracy that they felt that they could not carry on. That would be a great loss to us.
I can understand the concern of the noble Lord's group. but that concern is not merited on the whole. I believe that the powers of entry and inspection which exist mean that the cases that are described as doubtful, or cases which people wonder about, will be drawn to the attention of the local authority either by the relatives or by local people through their councillors. Instead of placing a great additional burden on the local authority, which has its hands fairly full already, there will be a process whereby those who need extra inspection will be picked out and drawn to the attention of the appropriate concern. I believe that the provision will work quite well.
The old story about the sledge hammer is a good one. We do not want to go over the top with these regulations. It is important to insist on registration for all homes. The noble Lord raised the point of putting three people into each of five homes which adjoin one another. There have been legal arguments about whether that arrangement should be considered as one establishment and that it should have been registered. People were doing that and now that loophole is closed.
The definition of "fitness" is much more difficult. I thank the Minister for her comments on that. Like most questions of this kind, once one begins to make a definition where does one stop? One goes on and on trying to arrive at a definition, but one does not finish up with a definition which is really accurate or precise. The local authorities will get to know their people very
82
well. The general public and the relatives will get to know people. Therefore, very quickly anyone who is unfit will be shown to be so.
I have every sympathy with the points raised by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. However, I do not think they are relevant to this Bill. I do not think that an appropriate amendment would be relevant. I am sure that we all share her concern that people should not be allowed to live in these properties simply because they are mentally handicapped. That was a covenant attaching to the property. We are doing exactly the reverse: far from releasing covenants and removing restrictions, in this Bill we are imposing restrictions on the homes. That provides almost the reverse of the coin and that would help her. I cannot see that the Bill is the appropriate means for dealing with her suggestion. I thank the Minister for her very helpful summing up. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Property Misdescriptions Bill
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Private Member's Bill was originally promoted in another place by my honourable friend Mr. John Butcher, the Member of Parliament for Coventry South West. Unfortunately he became ill shortly after First Reading. I am happy to say that he is now well on the way to recovery. The Bill was then taken through all its stages in the other place by my honourable friend Mr. Anthony Coombs, the Member of Parliament for Wyre Forest.
So far the Bill's passage has been smooth. It has had all-Party support. The Government have not only backed the Bill but have made help available with drafting and advice. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that estate agents and others who market property take great care to avoid making false or misleading statements in the particulars supplied to potential purchasers. It makes such misdescriptions a criminal offence, with a fine on summary conviction of up to £2,000, and on conviction on indictment an unlimited fine. The penalties do not include imprisonment.
The Bill does not apply to vendors; that is to say, clients who engage estate agents to sell their property. It puts the onus on the estate agents to do their best to check that the facts given to them by vendors are correct. It is a Bill to protect consumers—that is to say, individuals buying a house or a small business such as a corner shop. It is also a Bill to encourage estate agents and others in the property market to set the high standards to which most aspire and which the public have a right to expect.
The Consumers' Association not only supports the Bill but has done a great deal of most useful work developing its content and in assisting my honourable friend and me during its passage so far. We are very grateful to them. It is significant that among others supporting the Bill are the National Association of

83
Estate Agents, the Institute of Valuers, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, the Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the National Consumer Council. This widespread acceptance of the Bill so far is I believe due to the fair balance which it strikes without placing too heavy a burden on the professionals, the majority of whose members already act responsibly and will find the Bill no problem. It will do a great service to people contemplating buying a property and give confidence in future that wilful and irresponsible misdescribing of property is a risk no agent is likely to take.
In effect, the Bill will close an important loophole in existing trade description legislation. The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 applies to goods and services, but not to sales of property. This means that at present a person has less protection against a false or misleading description when buying a house than when buying, say, a tin opener or a tube of toothpaste. Strangely, an estate agent can claim incorrectly that the central heating system in a particular house has been approved by British Gas and get away with it. Yet the same claim can be made by a salesman selling the same system in a do-it-yourself shop and that could lead to prosecution.
The Bill also fits in well with the government's own package of reforms to improve the property market arising from its review instigated in 1989. That has resulted in several new orders and regulations under the Estate Agents Act 1979, which extend the range of circumstances in which the Director of Fair Trading can ban an estate agent from trading. Those orders are due to come into effect this summer. The Government have also encouraged estate agents to improve their own self-regulation and they have begun to set up an industry-wide voluntary code of practice and an ombudsman to enforce it. The Government are, I understand, waiting to see what happens to this Bill before taking any further action on misdescription.
Members of Parliament in another place quoted many examples of the need for this Bill. There were reports of exaggerated room dimensions; leasehold properties described as freehold; a motorway described as a quiet road; a covered alley as a conservatory. There was a photograph in which a block of flats had been blocked out giving the impression that the house beside it stood alone in the countryside. Mr. Austin Mitchell made graphic reference to the "peculiar lyricism" of the language of some estate agents in describing property. Your Lordships could doubtless tell of examples from your own experience.
Although it can be said that no-one is likely to, or should, purchase a property without having it surveyed professionally, or at least checking thoroughly whether the agent's description is accurate, much time and trouble can be wasted and cost incurred in following-up a property which, had it been accurately described, would have been recognised as unsuitable in the first place.
When originally introduced the Bill applied only to residential property and that being sold by estate
84
agents. As a result of the House of Commons Second Reading debate the Bill was amended in Committee and its scope extended. It now includes commercial property and applies to solicitors acting as estate agents and builders marketing houses that they have built or renovated, thus providing a level playing field for those engaged in marketing property. Wider protection is also provided for consumers. If noble Lords want to know more of the reasons for these changes I can elucidate in my reply to the debate. The Title and the Long Title of the Bill were amended accordingly. None of these changes was a source of controversy, the Committee stage taking only seven minutes.
I turn to the Bill as it now stands. Clause 1 contains the core provisions. The first subsection creates the principal offence of making in the course of an estate agency or property development business a false or misleading statement about certain prescribed matters. Subsection (2) provides for proceedings to be taken against an employee if he is responsible for the commission of an offence by his employer. Subsection (3) sets out the maximum penalties for an offence under this clause. Subsection (4) excludes certain civil law consequences of the offences.
Turning to subsection (5), noble Lords will see that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) establish definitions and clarification of terms used in the clause. "False" is defined as "false to a material degree". This is the same as the definition in the Trade Descriptions Act and rules out prosecution for trivial errors. A statement is "misleading" if a reasonable person may be expected to infer from it that the statement is false. It should be noted that an omission can be an ingredient in an offence. That does not mean that an agent is bound to tell everything he knows about a property. This paragraph only applies if the information omitted renders a statement misleading. For example, a house may be described as being in a quiet cul-de-sac, but no mention is made of a motorway a few yards away on the other side; or, as happened near my own home recently, a cottage offered for sale was described as having a septic tank, but no mention was made that it was a septic tank shared by another cottage. If no road had been mentioned in the first instance, or no reference made to the septic tank in the second instance, the clause would not apply. The Bill does not require a description of everything about a property, but it does require that any statement that is made must be accurate. It aims, as one might say, to catch the half truths.
Paragraph (d) of subsection (5) empowers the Secretary of State to specify by order the prescribed matters mentioned in subsection (1). The kind of misdescriptions specified might, for example, include the proximity of a property to places, amenities or services; the nature of the title of a property; structural characteristics; the length of a lease; the existence and nature of any planning permission and such like. Assurances have been given that such an order would not be made without consulting interested organisations.
Paragraph (e) defines the term "an estate agency business". This definition is taken from the Estate

85
Agents Act 1979. Solicitors are exempted in Section 1(2) (a) of that Act. This paragraph disapplies the exemption so that solicitors acting as estate agents are now covered by the Bill. Paragraph (f) defines the term "property development business". Subsection (6) defines an "interest in land" and that is the same as in the Estate Agents Act 1979.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides a defence of due diligence for a person charged with misdescription under Clause 1. This defence is identical to that in the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and similar to that in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
Clause 3 and the schedule to the Bill deal with enforcement, making it the responsibility of trading standards authorities, London borough councils, county councils, metropolitan boroughs, Scottish regional and island councils and the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule, enforcement officers are given powers of entry, inspection and seizure, and in certain circumstances search warrants may be issued. These provisions differ from those in the Consumer Protection Act in only one respect, albeit a very important respect. Under paragraph 4(9) this Bill does not empower enforcement officers to enter private dwellings.
The schedule also creates offences of obstructing or refusing to co-operate with enforcement officers, of giving false information, of impersonating an enforcement officer, and of improperly disclosing information disclosed under the schedule.
Clause 4 is concerned with offences by bodies corporate and Scottish partnerships, establishing that directors, officers and partners are liable to conviction. Clause 5 sets a time limit for the prosecution of offences under the Bill. Clause 6 is about financial provision. The estimate based on complaints made in 1989 is that there might be some 900 complaints each year, and the cost is estimated in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill at £80,000 per annum at 1990–91 prices. Clause 7 extends the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I do not apologise for taking some little time in describing the Bill. I believe that, though strictly limited in scope, it is an important measure and should be of benefit to many people. I look forward to hearing what your Lordships have to say. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Carnegy of Lour.)
8.2 p.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for explaining in such detail the Bill and the background to it. As she rightly said, it deals with what one might call the flowery language and exaggeration used in selling property. We know that some estate agents have been notorious for their descriptions of houses and other properties. In making such descriptions they commit a general offence of making misleading statements in the course of their business.
The trading standards officers in the city of Birmingham recently conducted a survey into the
86
prices of houses being advertised for sale by estate agents in the inner city. The survey revealed practices that were not covered by the noble Baroness in her introduction of the Bill and which have not been highlighted before. I refer to what estate agents call price reductions. The survey was conducted during February, March and April of this year. The advertisements monitored related to 2,050 properties. Of those 2,050 properties monitored, it was claimed that 208 had had their selling prices reduced at some point during the survey. Of those 208, 42 claimed reductions of almost a quarter of the selling price. The claims were false, in that the selling price had not been reduced, and in the case of 10 properties the price had actually been increased. The advertisements appeared in local newspapers. In total 11 separate estate agents were being monitored. They ranged from the national chains to locally based outlets.
An additional problem was discovered during the survey. It was found that many of the properties—in fact a large proportion of them—were advertised as new or that it was said that new instructions applied to the properties even though in some cases they had been advertised for more than three months. I am seeking information. I ask the noble Baroness whether her Bill will extend to cover such misdescriptions, which are obviously misleading and contrary to the consumer's interest, or whether the Bill seeks only to regulate what one might call the flowery descriptions of properties which estate agents on occasion use.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 creates an offence of giving a misleading price indication for goods. Trading standards officers can institute proceedings, and do so in many instances, when the retail trade is advertising during sales a reduction in price when an item has not been sold at that price for the previous three months. Trading standards officers diligently ensure that the consumer is not misled about what we call retail sales in stores. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 extend only to new properties and do not take into account what we call the second buyer. If trading standards officers find that estate agents are misleading people on the prices of new properties, they can do something about it. They cannot do anything in the case of second buyers.
I am sure the noble Baroness will agree with me that these practices are intended to make a property appear more attractive to an intending purchaser. I am concerned about this matter. I hope that it is the case that the provisions of the Bill will be sufficiently broad to encompass such misdescriptions. We are all well aware that for most people the purchase of a house is the largest single expenditure in their lives. As a result of the survey carried out by the trading standards officers in Birmingham, the local Evening Mail published a story on its front page under the banner headline "Houses for sale fiddle". If the noble Baroness could encompass in her Bill some of the points I have raised we could do away with such fiddles. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness's comments. Perhaps an amendment will have to be put down at a later stage.
8.8 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, on these Benches we unreservedly welcome the Bill and we are grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing it. We feel, however, that it is long overdue. I have never been able to understand the reluctance of estate agents to adopt honesty of description. One flourishing estate agency, Roy Brooks, has built its reputation on two factors. I should like to quote briefly from a booklet compiled by Desmond Wilcox of some of its most famous advertisements for property in the London area.
Roy Brooks built his whole reputation on telling the truth, the whole truth and, often, the unwholesome truth. Perhaps the most famous of all his advertisements appeared in The Times for a property in Pimlico. It said:
"WANTED: Someone with taste, means and a stomach strong enough to buy this erstwhile house of ill-repute in Pimlico. It is untouched by the 20th Century as far as convenience for even the basic human decencies is concerned. Although it reeks of damp or worse, the plaster is coming off the walls and daylight peeps through a hole in the roof, it is still habitable judging by the bed of rags, fag ends and empty bottles in one corner. Plenty of scope for the socially aspiring to express their decorative taste and get their abode in 'The Glossy' and nothing to stop them putting Westminster on their notepaper. Ten rather unpleasant rooms with slimy back yard. £4,650 Freehold. Tarted up these houses make £15,000".
Apart from giving us a nostalgic look at house prices in the early 1960s in Central London, I think that the policy is quite clear. Roy Brooks has built up an extremely successful business out of such blatant honesty. I applaud that, and I welcome the Bill without reservation.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for introducing the Bill. As is customary, I should say that I speak from this Dispatch Box in my personal capacity and not in the name of my party, as this is a Private Member's Bill. Like my noble friend Lady Fisher, I welcome the Bill. It seems to me, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, to close a serious loophole in trade description legislation. As such it is to be welcomed.
The majority of estate agents are undoubtedly good and honourable people and firms. However, one has to accept the fact that there is a minority which seem to pose as rip-off merchants and which are wholly determined, as the noble Earl said, to defraud their customers. It is essential to enforce honesty in the business. If—I emphasise the word "if"—it is necessary to make it a criminal offence (I am always doubtful about the criminalisation of offences) in order to ensure honesty in the profession, then I support that aim.
I have but three comments to make on the Bill as it stands. The Minister is perhaps the best person to answer the first point which concerns advice. I wonder whether anything in the Bill affects the ability of an estate agent's client to have recourse to civil remedies if the estate agent in question is convicted under the criminal principles of the Bill. In other words, if an
88
estate agent is shown by the court to be quite clearly guilty of an offence under this legislation, does the client then have further recourse to the civil courts for damages? I hope that the Minister will reflect on that point when he replies.
The other thoughts that I have, which are by no means meant to be critical of the Bill, might be helpful if the Bill were to receive a Second Reading this evening and proceed to the Committee stage. The role of solicitors as either estate agents or conveyancers is very complicated. It is complicated in England and Wales and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, pointed out, it is even more complicated in Scotland. Indeed, my understanding is that in Scotland the bulk of estate agency business is conducted by solicitors. However, that is not so in England and Wales. Therefore, I must pose the question: is it right that a solicitor, when acting as an estate agent, should be liable for penalties under the Bill whereas, when acting as a conveyancer, he may be excluded from the provisions? Indeed, he may even be the same person; but he could perhaps claim that he was only making misrepresentations as a conveyancer rather than as an estate agent. That seems to me to be a grey area which should be clarified.
My next point, which follows on from one made by my noble friend Lady Fisher, concerns prices. My noble friend quite rightly pointed out that the prices of new houses can be controlled, or at least monitored, under the Consumer Protection Act whereby action can be taken in the case of false representation. But, on resale, the house or property in question is excluded from that Act. I should therefore be interested to know whether there is any mechanism for remedying the mischief to which my noble friend quite rightly referred.
However, there is also a further mischief which may arise which does not appear to me to be covered under the Bill. I believe that many noble Lords know that some estate agents —I recognise that it is a minority —will try to talk up the price of a house by referring to the selling price of a neighbouring property. For example, if someone wants to buy a house in an estate and is told by the estate agent that the neighbouring house was sold the previous week for £150,000 and that therefore the house in question is certainly worth the same, that person would be inclined to believe such a claim. However, if it is then demonstrated that such a representation was wholly false and that the neighbouring house was in fact sold for £50,000, what remedy would there be for such a client under this Bill? In other words, is such a situation covered by the Bill? If it is not, perhaps it should be.
My final point relates to the difficulty of defining, "false to a material degree".
In the process of dealing with many Bills in the House we have discussed the meaning of the word "material". The answer has always come back—I suppose it is the only answer—that it is for the courts to decide what the word means. When we are dealing with what is probably the major investment of a lifetime for a family or a private individual it is extremely difficult to play around with words and to rely upon the courts. I say that because with present

89
day litigation costs if a client wished to take an estate agent to court or to report an estate agent for a criminal prosecution under the Bill the expense might be considerable. It is most important to bear that factor in mind when trying to frame legislation, though I recognise that it is difficult to frame legislation which meets a particular problem.
Having said that, from my point of view I believe that the Bill closes what has hitherto been a loophole in the legislation. I very much hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
8.19 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on the way she has presented the Bill this evening. In deciding to sponsor the Property Misdescriptions Bill, I believe that she has taken on an extremely useful and responsible task for which we all have cause to be grateful. As my noble friend pointed out, the Government have supported the Bill from the beginning. Moreover, as the Minister revealed during the debate on Third Reading in another place, the Government have provided full drafting services throughout the Bill's passage.
I shall be brief, but I should like to mention one other matter which the Bill leaves loose and untied. Clause 1, and therefore the whole Bill, applies only to statements about prescribed matters, and the prescription of those matters is left to the Secretary of State. When the Bill was being considered in another place, the Minister responsible gave an undertaking that interested organisations would be consulted before the necessary order was made to prescribe the relevant characteristics of property on which the Bill will bite. On behalf of the Government, I am happy to give the same undertaking to your Lordships' House. If the Bill receives your Lordships' approval and becomes law, it will not have practical effect until that order has been made. I can assure your Lordships, therefore, that no one will be affected by it until the Government have consulted interested organisations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Is he implying that, provided your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, the Government will introduce a draft text of the ,order before we go into Committee?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot say on what date we shall introduce the draft order. I shall find out and write to the noble Lord. I can only repeat my assurance that no one will be affected by the Bill until the Government have consulted interested organisations on the list of property characteristics which are to be prescribed. I believe that this is a very worthwhile and welcome Bill. It will considerably improve the position of the property purchaser in both the residential and commercial markets. On the other hand, it will not place any significant burden on those who already conduct their businesses in an honourable and prudent way. Nor should it impose significant extra burdens on the enforcement
90
authorities. I believe that it will improve public confidence in the business of buying and selling property, and that can only be good for the industry.
I shall deal now with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about solicitors. Solicitors will be treated in the same way as others when acting in the course of an estate agency or property development business. However, they will not be affected when providing conveyancing services. The 1979 Act relates to estate agents, their practice and conduct. Solicitors do not need to be covered because they are separately regulated in those respects by their own statutory regime. However, the Bill creates a new criminal offence which it is right should apply equally to those who are competing with one another in the business of selling property. I hope that that explanation clears up the point.
The Bill does nothing to affect consumers' civil law position. It clearly defines what is meant by "conveyancing services". When doing that work, as I have said, solicitors and licensed conveyancers are subject to their professional and statutory regime. The Secretary of State will consider prices when consulting on the draft order. I have just received advice that the order will be drafted after the Bill has passed. My noble friend Lady Carnegy will answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that the order will be drafted after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Does he mean that the Bill is merely an enabling Bill no doubt an enabling Bill with a worthy purpose but that the Government will decide what powers and properties they will designate after the Bill has received Royal Assent? Are we asked to approve that procedure?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot add to what my honourable friend said in another place. The order will be drafted after the Bill is passed. We are consulting, and that is an important point. The Bill will have no practical effect until after the order has been made.
8.24 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate for the welcome they have given the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, for the research she has done and the questions she asked about misdescriptions of the price of property. I believe that I am right when I say from my reading of the long Second and Third Reading debates that that point has not hitherto been raised. It is characteristic of the noble Baroness that she has foraged about and found that point. She is right that the public has protection when buying a new house for residential purposes. As she said, there have been cases where enforcement authorities have gone to court when it has been found that the procedure was incorrect. The problem which she has unearthed is that other property is not covered by existing legislation. It is likely that the Secretary of State will include that point when he drafts the prescribed matters. By bringing the matter to light the noble

91
Baroness will encourage the Secretary of State to include it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, amplified that point.
As to when the order will be drafted, the noble Lord is perhaps unduly impatient. The consultation has not been completed. The Bill has only just left another place. It has come here fairly rapidly. It will take time to get the consultation going and draw up the list. The point made by the noble Baroness is a good example of an issue that has come to light in this House which can be included in the draft. We cannot expect to have the draft order before the Bill leaves the House.
The noble Baroness asked about a house being described as new when it was not new. My understanding is that that point will be caught by the Bill. If I am informed otherwise after the debate, I shall let her know.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, queried solicitors and the exclusion of conveyancing. He quizzed my noble friend the Minister on that point. When drawing up the Bill, the line had to be drawn somewhere. When the Bill was extended to solicitors undertaking estate agency work, there was a good deal of discussion with the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland. They rightly claimed that their own internal professional regulations would deal with such matters. It is important that people engaged in estate agency work should operate on a level playing field. Builders selling houses they have built or renovated will not be engaged in conveyancing.
Conveyancing has been omitted from the Bill deliberately so as to draw the line somewhere. I accept what the noble Lord said. It seems to be a grey area. Wherever the line is drawn may result in a grey area. The more one examines the Bill, the more one sees the wisdom of the Bill stopping where it does. No doubt the Bill could be extended in due course if there proved to be a problem. I hope at this stage that noble Lords will not wish to extend the Bill to conveyancing.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is unhappy about the phrase:
"false to a material degree".
There is only one answer which he himself gave. The point has to be defined by the judges. Case law is developing. At the moment the judges and the parliamentary draftsman feel that the definition is adequate. I hope that I have covered all the noble Lord's queries. Does he have another?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening. She has been courteous in covering all my points, as did the Minister. Before the noble Baroness asks us to decide on the Question, I wonder whether it is right to give a Bill a Second Reading with the implication that it will go through its Committee stage and leave your Lordships' House without any of us knowing the substance of what it will apply to. The noble Baroness may well feel that we could give the Bill a Second Reading. When she has to decide on the timing through the usual channels she may feel that it would be sensible for noble Lords to have a draft of the order before the House prior to the Bill being given its Third Reading.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. My own view is that many times when we legislate orders have to be drafted after the Bill leaves the House. This is not the first time by any means. There are many reasons for doing so, and many good reasons in this case. I am personally not too hopeful. I know that the noble Lord always raises the point when Bills go through, as do many of his colleagues. They are right to do so and to point out the problems.
Proper consultation is important. I want the Bill to become law and not to be lost because there is no time left for it. Many Private Members' Bills are going through and perhaps this one will be lost if we delay too long. Therefore, I am not too hopeful about the order. I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to say more on that aspect.
I have not mentioned the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, who kindly welcomed the Bill. He said that it was overdue. I agree. It is amazing that it has taken so long for this gap in consumer protection legislation to be filled. He gave examples of a firm which advertised its great honesty. It seemed to me that that was an example of lyricism of a different kind from that referred to by Mr. Austin Mitchell in another place. The noble Earl is quite right. Most firms do not need the Bill; they will find it no problem at all. However, there are firms as well as individuals who do need it and we all know of examples. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and a smooth passage and that it will become law before long.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Mobile Telephones
8.32 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury The Earl of Shrewsbury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the development of mobile telephones in the United Kingdom.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for allowing me a slot in which to pose my Unstarred Question this evening. I should declare an interest as I possess a mobile telephone.
I shall detain your Lordships for as brief a time as possible. However, I feel the matter to be of great significance to the business community. I wrote to the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on it on 25th March and to date I have only received an acknowledgment of receipt of that letter from his private secretary. This is a matter of considerable import and I feel quite justified in bringing the subject to your Lordships' attention without further delay.
It is an accepted fact that the cellular telephone is an essential business tool in the United Kingdom. Since 1983, when the Government awarded licences to operate cellular radio communications networks to two companies, the systems designed and operating in this country have become the envy of the world. Great Britain is acknowledged as the world leader in the

93
field. The network is improving and expanding daily and vast sums of money have been invested by British companies in the development of the systems.
Indeed, in the year 1990–91 the Cellnet Company alone invested over £200 million in order to triple the size of its network. The total cellular market now exceeds 11 million customers, who enjoy the use of a far more efficient and high quality service than was the case it the early years of the system.
I am advised by both the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association that vast numbers of their members' vehicles are now equipped with cellular telephones. In the commercial world, banks, insurance companies, building societies —I could go on for ever but will not at this late hour —provide such communications facilities to their employees.
The UK now has the highest number of cellular customers in the world outside the United States. The range of choice and price of user equipment is wide and the facilities provided are available to both the large and small business user. For example, mobile phones are used by jockeys, who have little time in their heavy schedule to sit at a conventional phone to book rides. They are used by one-man businesses which Are almost totally reliant on, as BT says in its advertisements, "being in when you're out".
As I mentioned, the systems are used by freight transport operators to track their drivers and vehicles, to enable drivers to communicate when vehicles break down and to alter schedules in bad weather. In addition, the possible availability and procurement of a return load for these hauliers can often make the difference between profit and loss. The margins are very tight indeed in this industry—about 3.5 per cent. to 4 per cent. With so many manufacturers using the "Just in Time" system of deliveries, which is vitally important to their cashflow, often a delay of 24 hours can cause massive production problems arising from lack of parts and raw materials. The road transport haulier needs to be available at a moment's notice and to act with efficiency and speed when the opportunity arises. The mobile phone is thus a vital facility for the smooth running of business operations. It helps to prevent the needless waste of resources and promotes the efficient use of vehicles. Dare I say that the system is used by many of your Lordships?
In his recent Budget speech, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that it was his intention to levy tax on the benefit in kind enjoyed by the mobile telephone user when using the system For private calls. These proposals are included in the Finance Bill at present in the other place.
I am completely unclear as to how the Inland Revenue intends to define "private use". I shall be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench can help me. For example, how will telephone calls be treated if they have an element of private use but are mainly business? I have in mind a lorry driver who telephones his wife late at night while a long way from home, having probably been away for a number of days. He may ask what instructions for the morning pick-up of freight have been left with her by his employer. This is surely a business use. But then the
94
poor chap spends the last 30 seconds of his call asking how his children are—presumably a private use. Can my noble friend say how it is intended to treat this type of case?
It also seems grossly unfair to me that it would appear in my reading of the clause in the Finance Bill that the use of a mobile phone for just one call of a private nature in a tax year would make the user liable to a tax charge on the benefit in kind. This cannot be right. I ask my noble friend whether he would agree that there should be a minimum threshold at least of a number of private calls below which there would be no tax charge unless the threshold were exceeded in the relevant tax year—that is, should there be any sensible need whatsoever to impose this punitive tax in the first instance.
I find it quite impossible to see the difference between the mobile telephone and all the other equipment used to facilitate the efficient and competitive working of a business. In short, it is as essential a facility as is a typewriter, calculator, telephone, telex or fax machine. In every office from time to time an employee uses these facilities for a private purpose. It is well known and accepted. There is no tax charge for benefit in kind on such use, therefore why should mobile telephone users he singled out as the whipping-boy?
It is of course sad that there is no code of conduct when it comes to the use of mobile phones. Inevitably, a small minority insist on posing in restaurants with these items of equipment, probably to the great discomfort of other diners, doubtless including the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The use of such equipment has become a thoroughly normal part of everyday life which we have to accept.
Since I put down this Question, I have received a considerable amount of mail from many companies and organisations, including trade unions, which use or whose members use cellular telephones. To a person, they all oppose the Chancellor's intentions in this area. For example, I am advised by Dixons, the high street retailer, in its letter to me, that:
"As a major user of cellular telephones, we support the view so clearly expressed by Sir William Clark during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill in the Commons, that mobile phones are an essential business tool. To tax them, therefore, would be detrimental to those who rely on mobile communications to increase the efficiency of their business throughout the country&We are disappointed at the Government's decision to impose an additional burden on the telecommunications industry when the Government has given so much support to the [United Kingdom's] position as world leader in this rapidly expanding market".
The Transport and General Workers' Union has advised me that the basic weekly wage of a heavy goods vehicle driver is £150.67 per week before stoppages. There is no way in which these employees can afford to pay any levy whatsoever imposed on the private use of a cellular phone. These phones are in their cabs. They are there to help their business. Neither can their employers afford to pay this when the margins in their industry are so tight. The employees of most businesses already repay their employers for the cost of any private calls. They should not have a further charge imposed on them

95
when they already pay substantial amounts of income tax, national insurance and now even higher rates of VAT.
It is my view that such a tax on mobile telephones would be detrimental to the future growth of a highly successful area of the telecommunications industry. It would be detrimental to all types of business which use cellular facilities. It would be an unfair and selective tax which would not be beneficial to the Government's reputation, and it would be a tax fraught with difficulties in terms of collection, open to abuse, and not a substantial earner of revenue. It would be a tax that would smack of the bad old days of central government interference. These are not simply my own views; these are also the views I have received from many branches of trade, commerce and industry and indeed the trade unions. They are very widespread views.
I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister one final question. In view of the very substantial and widespread opposition to the Government's line of thought with regard to mobile telephones and their taxation, would it not be in the best interests of all concerned if the Government were to lay this particular measure in the Finance Bill on one side for the time being while establishing a consultative process involving all the representative bodies such as the CBI, the Chambers of Commerce, the various trade bodies and the trade unions to seek the views of the user before legislation is finally passed which will be widely damaging and thoroughly unpopular?
As I know that I do not have the right of reply, perhaps I may express my gratitude to noble Lords who are to speak to this Question this evening. I look forward to listening to their views and I look forward to my noble friend's reply. Commerce and industry are under very great pressure at the present, and need help not hindrance. I am most grateful.
8.42 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. Like many other small businessmen, I was astonished at the tone of the Chancellor's Budget when he dismissed the mobile telephone as a scourge of modern society, especially as those remarks appeared in a Budget that he described as encouraging to small businesses.
My noble friend has already described the wide variety of benefits that accumulate to small businesses as a result of better communications. My own small business, which comprises a landscape practice, is an example of that. Mobility is essential. I started the business in 1982, but it was 1986 before we purchased a mobile telephone. The subsequent improvement in efficiency and management has been significant. No longer do I leave decisions unmade and problems unsolved for the best part of a day or longer simply because I am unaware of them. No longer am I desk bound at the start of each day making and receiving calls that should have been made the previous day. The ability of a mobile telephone to keep one in touch with clients and colleagues wherever one is has contributed to a growing business and to a growing
96
payroll. At every stage of this expansion the Government are a beneficiary, as are those in the dole queue.
No small business would consider it unfair if the Inland Revenue targeted private usage that was simply and quickly defined. Small businesses would consider it unfair, however, if the tone adopted by the Inland Revenue was similar to that of the Chancellor's personal irritation. The mobile telephone may well be a symptom of a certain lifestyle which causes annoyance to those eating in London restaurants. However, as a percentage of the usage of mobile telephones, such irritating occurrences must be infinitesimal. I warn the Government and my noble friend that there is a danger of the Government throwing out a business baby with the yuppy bathwater.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for raising the matter this evening. I believe it is some 10 years since mobile telephones appeared in the form of car telephones. As the noble Earl quite rightly pointed out, the technology has grown explosively ever since. Like all new technologies, we should certainly encourage it if it is of use to business and industry. We cannot ignore such technology.
As both noble Earls have pointed out, the Chancellor made a rather silly and cheap joke in his Budget Statement. I believe businesses will consider that that joke will rebound on the Chancellor. Mobile telephones are necessary for efficient business across the whole range. They are also necessary for efficient services such as the delivery of goods. They are necessary to enable lorries to be in the right place at the right time and for vans to deliver goods at the right time. They are necessary for home services such as painters and plumbers so they can be contacted and sent to the right place at the right time. As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, mobile telephones are necessary for long-distance work. It is therefore absurd to sneer at their use. I believe that the Chancellor did that in his Budget Statement.
I join with both noble Earls in the belief that it is a travesty to tax the private use of mobile telephones as a form of perk without taxing the same use of telephones by businessmen who may be in Tokyo, for example, and wish to ring their wives. Why should a businessman in Tokyo, New York, Chicago or San Francisco telephone his wife to inquire how she and the family are, and not be taxed for such a phone call, as is the case at present, while a lorry driver who telephones his wife at the end of a day's stint to find out what messages have been left for him and then adds on 30 seconds to ask how the kids are is to be taxed on that? That situation does not make sense to me. There is also the problem of collection.
I join with both noble Earls in thinking that this is an ill-advised measure by the Chancellor. I believe he will come to regret it. Nevertheless we have to accept that, as with all new technologies, certain uses can be a nuisance to the public in general. It is on that point that the Government should concentrate. I believe it is

97
illegal for drivers to use their car telephones while they are d riving. However, one can drive along the motorway any day of the week and see many people using Their car telephones while they are driving. My noble friend Lord Underhill tried to introduce an amendment into the Road Traffic Bill which would have prohibited the practice. However, the Government resisted it. The Government should crack down on the practice.
There is then the matter of the use of mobile telephones in public places. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has drawn attention to the problem. It can be a nuisance to hear someone forever ringing different people when one is sitting in a restaurant or on a train and expecting a little peace and quiet. That is another point the Government should concentrate on. Possibly the only serious use of a mobile telephone, apart from business use, was described in Mr. Jeffrey Bernard's column in The Spectator this week. The noble Viscount may have read the article. A man was described as entering a pub which Mr. Bernard regularly frequents. I believe the pub is called The Coach and Horses. The man had a mobile telephone and he decided its only proper use was to stand at the bar, ring the number of the pub and ask the owner, who had not served him with a drink for the past five minutes, whether it was possible to get a drink. That sparked off instant action from the pub owner, who was known to be a somewhat bad tempered gentleman.
That may appear to be a somewhat frivolous account but I am making the serious point that a balance should be struck. Like all new technologies these telephones are useful, increase productivity, are at the forefront of technology and should be encouraged. On the other hand, there are times when they can be a public nuisance. There must be some regulation, whether a code of conduct, code of practice or some other form, which would ensure that they were properly used to enhance business, industrial and service productivity and not be a nuisance to the public in general.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for giving me this opportunity to put on the record once again the Government's strong support for the mobile telephone industry in this country. To answer my noble friend's Question directly, the Government have fully supported the development of mobile telephones in the UK. We continue to support that development and look forward to it continuing in the future. The growth of the mobile telephone industry in this country has been a major success story, and one which owes much to the policies of this Government.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I reminded noble Lords of a little of the industry's history. Until 1985, the only two-way mobile telephone system generally available was the radio telephone system run by British Telecom. The technology in use at that time resulted in bulky equipment and limited network capacity. In 1985 the Government issued licences to two new competing networks, run by Cellnet and Racal-vodafone. The services they provided were sold to users through a tier of retailers or service providers.
98
That structure resulted in a highly competitive market and one which has expanded rapidly. There are now well over 1 million mobile telephone subscribers in this country, giving the UK the two largest cellular radio networks in the world. This has generated an estimated 20,000 jobs in the UK, directly in the operators as well as in service providers, dealers, and among manufacturers of telecommunications equipment.
There is, therefore, already a very significant mobile telephone industry in this country, and one which the Government have actively supported. The Government do not want to see the development of the mobile telephone market stop there. In 1989 the Government announced that they would issue licences to three new operators of personal communications networks. Those operators will provide the next generation of mobile telephones which are expected to bring the benefits of mobile telephony to a wider section of the population than is currently served by them. At the same time, the existing cellular operators will take part in the pan-European mobile network with all the benefits of mobility throughout Europe which that will bring.
The Government's consistent policy has, therefore, been one of encouraging competition in the provision of mobile telephone services. That approach was continued in the Government's recent White Paper on telecommunications policy which, most notably, abolished the duopoly previously enjoyed by British Telecom and Mercury in the provision of telecommunication services over fixed links. It also significantly extended the range of services which mobile operators will be able to provide to their customers. In particular, mobile operators will in future be able to come forward for extensions to their licences in order to provide a range of fixed services. That will increase the opportunities available to mobile telephone operators and the benefits which they will be able to provide to customers.
The Government, therefore, have a clear and consistent record of encouraging the growth and development of mobile telecommunications in the UK and supporting the excellent efforts of the companies involved. That approach has helped the country to lead the world in new developments in mobile telephony.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the specific concerns raised by noble Lords, and in particular by my two noble friends behind me. The first is the proposed tax on mobile telephones provided by employers. It has been suggested that the changes announced in the Budget relating to the taxation of mobile telephones provided by employers indicates a reduction of the Government's commitment to mobile telephones. I can assure noble Lords that that is not the case. The intention of the changes is simply to bring mobile telephones in employer-provided cars, which were previously not separately charged to tax, properly within the tax system and to simplify the arrangements for taxing other mobile telephones provided by employers and available for employees' private use. The proposal will not introduce a new levy on telephones bought by individuals for their own use.

99
Nor will telephones used purely for business be taxed. Where an employee is required to reimburse his or her employer in full for the cost of private calls made, and does so, no tax will be payable. Noble Lords will appreciate the importance of ensuring that all benefits in kind are properly and equitably taxed. The Budget proposals are intended to ensure that that happens in the case of mobile telephones provided to employees.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury asked how private use will be defined. The answer is that private use is defined in the Finance Bill as the use of the telephone to make calls other than calls which are wholly and exclusively necessary for the purpose of the employer's business. If there is private use the standard charge will apply unless the employee is required to pay his employer for the cost of private use.
My noble friend also asked me how the element of private use will be treated. The important factor is the purpose of the call. In general, the Inland Revenue will not seek to treat as a private call a call made for the purpose of the employer's business which contained an incidental, non-business element. For example, if a lorry driver phoned home to find out what his tasks were for the next day that would be regarded as a business call. If there was a brief enquiry as to the wellbeing or health of his wife or children that would not disqualify the call as a business call. However, it might be a different matter if, after a brief inquiry about his tasks for the day, he then spent the next 20 minutes telling his children bedtime stories. There must be a balance. In those circumstances the Inland Revenue is likely to argue that the purpose of the call was a private one.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury referred to a person making one call and asked whether that would be taxed. The answer is simple. If he makes one call and he pays his employer—it might be only 40p—then he has paid for the private call and the tax does not apply. That would apply to someone who does not spend much time on the telephone.
In his Budget speech my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that taxation of mobile phones would be simplified and a modest charge introduced. We must get the matter into perspective. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was wrong. My right honourable friend the Chancellor in no way sneered at mobile telephones or their users. That is not the case. To put the matter in
100
perspective, the maximum tax bill that anyone will receive as a result of the measure is £80. Basic rate taxpayers will pay only £50. I cannot believe that that is a major threat to the British telecommunications industry.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked why mobile telephones should be differentiated from other modern business equipment. Mobile telephones are increasingly provided by employers as a benefit for their employees in the same way as company cars and private medical insurance. Unlike office equipment, mobile phones are often available outside the office and outside office hours —in the evening and at weekends. Their use is unlikely to be subject to immediate supervision whereas the use of telephones within an office tends to be supervised. More and more companies now have systems which are able to produce itemised bills and it is easy for them to identify private use of telephones.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, talked about a code of practice for the use of mobile telephones. There is not much room for the Government to act to stop people causing a nuisance with their telephones in public places. We leave that to the good sense of the individual. Someone can cause a nuisance with or without a telephone.
The other point related to cars. We dealt with that matter in the recent Bill. It is now possible to obtain car phones which are activated by voice rather than by pushing buttons. Cars may also have speakers, which makes it unnecessary for people to clutch something to their ear while driving— a practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, which one often sees and which is not to be encouraged.
This country has one of the world's most successful mobile telephone industries. I can assure noble Lords that the Government will do all they can to ensure that that success continues.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can be explain exactly what he meant by his reference to a brief family discussion after a business call?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is quite simple. Brief is brief. If the call is very brief but the individual thinks that he may pay tax on the benefit he can reimburse his employer for the modest amount of money that that call cost.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.