Lords Sitting of 16 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

Lord Wright of Richmond
Sir Patrick. Richard Henry Wright, GCMG, having been created Baron Wright of Richmond, of Richmond upon Thames in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life— Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the Lord Howe of Aberavon.

Police Disclosure of Information
2.48 p.m.
Lord Denham Lord Denham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider it acceptable for a member of the police to pass details to the media after arresting or charging a person.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the responsibility for authorising disclosure of information to the press rests with chief officers. Home Office guidance suggests that no names should be published at the point of arrest or charging. Unauthorised disclosure of information is a disciplinary offence and could lead to dismissal.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the passing of any privileged information by any member of the public service to the press for money is in fact the start of corruption?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asked the same question and added "for money". That puts quite a different interpretation on the matter. There are occasions when disclosure to the press is appropriate. It is acceptable if it is has the approval of the chief constable and there can be a proper public interest in investigating crime. Therefore, there is no ban in general on mentioning names once a person has been arrested. That is a matter hr the police. If my noble friend is suggesting that police officers deliver information to the newspapers in return for money, that is a very different matter.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House the position once an offence has been committed but before anybody is arrested? Does he agree that it is unhelpful when details, for example of burglaries, are let out which simply tell other criminals where to go?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, these matters are very complicated and that is why they must have the approval of the chief constable. The guidance which the Home Office gives on these matters specifically relates to the
200
effect with regard to contempt of court. It may well be that the issuing of information about people could prejudice a subsequent court hearing.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in answer to his noble friend, the Minister referred essentially to the position of the police. Is he aware that it is commonly believed that there is always money on offer from the media to people who will provide them with such information? Has the Minister any comment to make on his view of the media's behaviour in this regard as well as the behaviour of the police?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not feel that it is appropriate for me to comment on the media's behaviour in how they dispose of their money. What is important is whether police officers are in receipt of money for divulging information. If that happens, they are subject to disciplinary procedure.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between the case where an arrest is made and not followed by a charge, in which case it is not proper for the police to disclose the information about the arrest, and, on the other hand, the case where an arrest is followed by a charge, in which case it is quite proper for the police to release the information if they consider it proper to do so?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is impossible to make clear distinctions of when it is proper and when it is not proper to issue that kind of information. That is why it is up to the chief constable to state the conditions on which information should be released officially from the police by their press office. I believe that that is the correct position. As I said, the guidance issued to the police particularly warns of the dangers of interfering with contempt of court.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that at all events the present situation does not appear to be wholly satisfactory, that the Question is well founded, and that some further investigation should be made? Does he further agree that far too much of such information and too many details are being published by the media irrespective of whether they do, or do not, pay the police for it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the situation may be unsatisfactory in your Lordships' minds as to what emerges in the newspapers. I do not dissent from your Lordships' holding views on that. What is important is whether the law is adequate. At the moment we are not convinced that the creation of a specific criminal offence is required for something that can be adequately dealt with by existing means. If, behind all this, my noble friend is suggesting that police officers are divulging, for money, information which they should not divulge, that is an extremely serious charge. If there is evidence of that, it will be taken up by the chief constable or the commissioner as appropriate.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, if money is passing from the media to those who work in police stations, whether they are police officers or civil employees, in order to induce them in breach of their contract to disclose

201
unauthorised information, is not the prime responsibility both morally and legally with the media rather than with the police?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whether or not people should invite others to disclose information for money is a matter of concern for those offering the sums of money. It is a matter of individual choice whether anyone accepts that offer. If they accept the offer, the responsibility is theirs. It would be difficult to frame a law which would forbid newspapers offering money for information.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister more than once said, "if' something happened. There is no evidence that anything did happen of that nature. If we are not careful, are we not in danger of casting aspersions by innuendo on the police force, or on the police officers involved? That is not the sort of Question we ask in this House unless we can produce positive proof.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, makes a helpful and valuable point. Behind all this is an inference regarding certain cases that occurred in the past. All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is that on the occasions in question action was taken to ensure that proper propriety was, and will continue to be, accorded by the police.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that perhaps the Question is directed principally at the police? Does he not agree also that there are more bodies and authoritative councils which might also be embraced, not least, unfortunately, dissemination of information from the Cabinet?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if my noble friend wishes to table a Question on dissemination of information from the Cabinet, somebody will be delighted to answer it. But that has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.

London County Courts
2.57 p.m
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many complaints in respect of the working of the county courts in London have been recorded in the last year.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, during the year ended 31st December 1993 the 13 London county courts issued 260,000 cases and 89,000 warrants. During the same period the courts recorded 3,064 complaints, of which 1,393 were referred to the courts administrator. During the first half of the year the new Central London County Court received 1,040 complaints, but only 436 in the second half. That downward trend is continuing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. However, is he
202
satisfied that this matter is now under control and that the number of causes for complaint will continue to diminish?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would be wrong to be satisfied, but I believe that considerable improvements have taken place. Two factors affected the level of complaints this year. First, the Courts Charter indicating how complaints could be made was issued at the beginning of the year; secondly, two large county courts in the centre of London were amalgamated to give the new Central London County Court. Carrying out an amalgamation of that kind while business was still being conducted imposed severe strains. I believe that now that matters are settling down improvements will continue.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord give a high priority to the quality of service provided by the county courts, not least because the majority of civil cases are litigated there? Is he satisfied that sufficient resources have been available to the county courts, in line with the undertakings given to this House during the passage of the Courts and Legal Services Act, to ensure that they can deal effectively with their increased workload as well as to ensure that their staff are properly trained? Can the noble and learned Lord also inform the House whether he is contemplating appointing additional circuit judges not only to deal with the existing jurisdiction limited to £ 1,000 in small claims cases, but also to make feasible a significant uplift on that limited monetary jurisdiction?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I certainly attach very high importance to the standard of service given in the county courts. I have already indicated the improvements that have been made in the service in central London. One of the factors which shows the improvement is the very much shorter length of time one has to wait for a trial in the county court than was the case in the past. On the noble Lord's second point, the arbitration jurisdiction is a jurisdiction of district judges. I shall certainly take into account the availability of district judges in considering whether any extension of that jurisdiction should take place. There has been quite a substantial increase in the total establishment of circuit judges and district judges over the past few years.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that a recent report of a joint working party of the Bar Council and the Law Society stated that the principal problems facing London county courts are inadequate staff training, insufficient technology and unsophisticated filing systems, the organisation being described by a London county court judge as a "cottage industry"? It advised that, as the Lord Chancellor has decided to turn the county court service into an executive agency,
"Before this melting pot of change has solidified into whatever shape it may take",
it is vital that there should be an appraisal by independent management consultants of a number of

203
aspects of the system to ensure that the courts are appropriately' resourced and are run in the most efficient way.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am aware of the recent report to which my noble and learned friend referred. I should have thought that cottage industries have some very good features. In so far as the county court service has those features, I am glad to applaud them in that respect. We are seeking to modernise the systems used in the county courts. We have made quite substantial strides in recent years in that respect and we continue to do so. I am hoping that a comprehensive computer system called the Local County Courts System will be in operation towards the end of this year. So far as concerns the filing system, it will have an effect in improving that. As much as possible we are seeking to use modern technology in the county courts. So far as concerns training, there is always scope for improvement. But quite substantial improvements in training have taken place over recent years. Another contributory factor in that improvement is the fact that the turnover of staff is much less than it was.
Lord Ezra.: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that recently there was a television programme which was highly critical of procedure at the county court? It gave the impression that when contestants are called to sessions of that court it is a matter of pure chance as to whether or not their case is actually heard. It certainly left me with the feeling that that would be the last place I would want to go if I had any case to put forward.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is always possible to give an impression. My general impression is that the standard of service in the county courts is very good. If the noble Lord should by any chance have a dispute that he wishes to resolve, I believe that he will have it resolved in the county court to his satisfaction, and probably more cheaply than in most competing tribunals.

NATO: Defence and Aid Expenditure
3.5 p.m
The Lord Bishop of Worcester The Lord Bishop of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the annual defence expenditure of NATO countries and what funds are allocated by those countries each year as aid to the economies of the former Warsaw Pact countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, in 199: 2, the latest year for which comparative figures are published, the defence expenditure of NATO countries worldwide was estimated at £ 295 billion. More than £ 3.9 billion was provided by NATO countries as bilateral and multilateral assistance to the former Warsaw Pact countries over the same period.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is she aware that in Moscow there are women in the underground stations selling garments from the family wardrobe and family ornaments in order to raise funds for the home? In view of the Zhirinovsky factor, can she give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will inject into the European Community a more proactive and not illusory but visionary foreign policy which will raise the prospects for eastern European countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there are many reasons why different household goods and even personal goods are sold in countries of the former communist bloc to raise funds. I shall not comment in detail on that, but I shall comment that the United Kingdom has taken particular trouble to work with the two European funds— TACIS for the former Soviet Union and PHARE for the eastern European countries — to improve the targeting of their resources and also to make sure that they are following programmes which can be replicated by those countries when such time comes that they can actually manage this. We are of course well aware of all the problems that nationalism, wherever it exists, can cause and we are particularly keen to make sure that not only do the European funds work well but that our own know-how fund— some £ 17.2 million to Russia— is working to the best quality possible.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in view of what is happening in, say, Belarus and Ukraine, it is time to consider whether there is any more peace dividend and whether in fact we might not have to stop some of this economic aid in order to protect ourselves as members of NATO?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of the grave disquiet at some of the things happening Belarus and Ukraine. It is true that we are managing to influence some of the areas of government in both those two countries. I believe that as long as it is feasible to influence them to take control of their nuclear plant and to improve their economic performance we should keep that line of influence running. It may not be indefinite. It probably cannot be; and the money would not anyway last that long. But I believe we should be trying to influence them.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, following rather closely on the last supplementary question, is the noble Baroness aware, as I am sure she is, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, accompanied by, of all people, the American representative to the United Nations, has been touring eastern Europe and arranging cascade sales of arms— "cascade" in this context meaning the downwards and onwards sale of old NATO weapons as new NATO weapons are procured?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely surprised to hear what the noble Lord has just said, that the US representative to the United Nations should be doing this. I shall certainly look into the detail of what the noble Lord said and write to him.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of criticism of the operation of the know-how fund, including criticism of its failure to spend its budget in some countries, including Russia, because of incompetence on the part of those administering the scheme? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that she will investigate these criticisms and will try to speed up the process between the decision to support a programme and the gap of many months before contracts are issued?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is the first time that any deep criticism such as the noble Baroness has just made of the know-how fund has been put to me directly. I was present at the meeting of the joint assistance units with all the ambassadors from central and eastern Europe earlier this week. I have met many of the leaders of the countries receiving these funds. On every occasion, and without exception, it has been the British know-how funds which have been said to be best targeted and the best applied and which give the best value. It has been the PHARE and the TACIS funds which have been criticised in the way which the noble Baroness described.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, during the visit of the President of Armenia last week, did the noble Baroness have an opportunity to discuss with him the effects of the blockade imposed on that country by her neighbours and the need therefore for additional aid funds? Can the noble Baroness say whether it is possible for us to now consider opening a mission in Erevan so that better relations can be fostered between this country and Armenia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that I told your Lordships last week that we keep this matter under review. I did discuss with President Ter-Petrosyan the problems faced by Armenia and the ways in which they may be overcome. I have nothing further to add at the moment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, whatever may be said in the countries concerned, including what is said by our own ambassadors there, those who are involved in providing some of this aid in the United Kingdom, including educational projects, feel deeply frustrated by the delays in issuing contracts? Can she tell the House that she will look into these criticisms?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if those who are frustrated by such delays will write to give me details, I shall look into each and every one of them. But, by and large, the delivery of all that the know-how fund has been doing has been far superior to what is given by some others. One of our problems will always be to get the response from the receiving nation to the questions that we must pose to make sure that public money is properly disbursed.

Sarajevo
3.12 p.m
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been on the removal of heavy weapons around Sarajevo.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the NATO decision of 9th February required all heavy weapons in Sarajevo, except for those within two kilometres of Pale, to be withdrawn to 20 kilometres from the city or placed under UN control. The parties have so far made a limited response, although the ceasefire is generally holding. UNPROFOR is continuing to monitor the parties' compliance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I hope that she does not think that I am asking this Question in a superfluous manner, considering the debate which we had on Monday. However, the subject is so important that I am sure the House wants to hear about the progress being made. On Monday one of the uncertainties was the chain of command. Can the Minister assure us that whoever is doing the negotiating, whether it be General Rose or anyone else, is able to say to the Serbs, "If you do not comply then the attacks will be made"? If he has to say, "If you do not comply, I shall have to see whether the various people concerned will agree to the attacks being made", does the Minister agree that that is a very bad negotiating position? Her assurance on this point will be very welcome.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I do not in any way dispute his right to come back to this question, which we discussed on Monday. I can tell him that the chain of command which I described in the debate, with consultation between the UN Secretary-General's special representative Akashi and General Rose, the UNPROFOR commander, together with the Commander-in-Chief for the southern region of NATO, is the command structure. Both the designated NATO commander and the UNPROFOR commanders must approve the air strikes. They will have the former prescription— if the Serbs do not comply they will indeed act— and not the latter prescription given by the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the United Nations is now calling for 3,000 more troops to be deployed around Sarajevo? Does that mean that there has been a change of policy; and that the United Nations is now embarked not on a humanitarian mission but on a peacekeeping mission before any overall peace has been agreed? I ask for an assurance from the noble Baroness that in no circumstances will any further British troops be sent in the present situation.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall deal first of all with the question about British troops. General Rose has made a request to the UN that more

207
UN troops should be provided. We shall consider that with other UN troop providers and perhaps others who have not yet provided troops. What I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is that the UNPROFOR role, by virtue of the North Atlantic Council decision that it should supervise weaponry in Serb camps, is a wider role than it was before; but it is still not going down the path which the noble Lord indicated.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is still a high degree of imprecision in this situation which could be disastrous? We talk about placing heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. What precisely does that mean? Does it mean that UNPROFOR will be in a position to prevent the weapons being fired? That seems to me to be t he only sensible interpretation. If that is so, that would be a little more precise. As regards the weapons being subject to NATO air strikes when the ultimatum expires, can the Minister say what that means? Does that mean that they will be attacked or that they may be attacked?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thought that we went over this ground fairly thoroughly on Monday. It is for the UNPROFOR commanders, together with the UN special representative, to decide whether the parties have complied with the terms of the NATO declaration, including whether they have complied with the provision to put their heavy weapons under UNPROFOR control. If they have not done so, then the UNPROFOR commanders, together with the UN special representative, have the power to act under Security Council Resolution 836.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the present attempt to lift the siege of Sarajevo is of the utmost importance? If she agrees with that, does she accept that it is vital that the UN Secretary-General's request for extra troops should be met? In contrast to what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has just said, can she tell the House that the Government will be responding positively to the request to provide extra troops to support General Rose?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note carefully what the noble Baroness has said. I remind your Lordships that Britain is already the second largest contributor of troops after France. There are many other nations with troops available who could also help. It is true that we have the finest commanders and the finest command structure. There has been no hesitation by the British Army to do their very best in Bosnia, and many people are alive today thanks to them. But I do not believe that your Lordships would expect me to say more at present. It is a very delicate matter. I do not wish to say or do anything which will exacerbate the situation. I believe that the noble Baroness knows me well enough to realise that Britain will do its best.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, no one wishes to exacerbate the present situation. But should we not begin looking to the future? In view of the confusion which seems to exist, does the noble Baroness agree that it is time that Article 27 of the United Nations Charter, which proposed the setting up of a military
208
staffs committee under the control of the permanent members of the Security Council, should be considered so that responsibility can be gathered into one set of hands?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, to see that matter carried through. He knows that I share with him, in certain circumstances, some sympathy for that view. To carry that out when we are in the middle of one of the most difficult situations that the UN and NATO have ever faced, is not the right time; but I agree that the matter should be addressed. I shall do my best to see that that is done.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that, under pressure from the United States, the media or anybody else, Her Majesty's Government will not make General Rose's task any more difficult than it is already?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that comment. We are doing our best not to make the tasks of General Rose and the special representative Akashi any more difficult. The delegated authorities to the Commander-in-Chief South, to Mr. Akashi and to the UNPROFOR commanders, is what counts. The UNPROFOR commanders have the authority, and it is they, not US anchormen such as Larry King, who interviewed Gerry Adams, who will take the decision.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Commons Registration (East Sussex) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Hill Samuel Bank and United Dominions Trust Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Inquisitorial Tribunals and Inquiries
3.21 p.m
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman rose to call attention to the current procedures of statutory inquisitorial tribunals and inquiries investigating allegations of serious fraud and other misconduct; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are two problems each of my own making. First, in framing the Motion for debate I have opened up such a wide range of tribunals and inquiries that it may be difficult to see the wood for the trees. It may be helpful to my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry to know that the wood upon which I shall be focusing will be the

209
injustices and unfairness that can be occasioned to individuals who are participating in such inquiries and tribunals.
Secondly, I believe that if one criticises a particular system, there is an obligation to try to suggest remedies. I am in some difficulty because I can only repeat the findings and advice given by the Salmon Commission in 1966 and the Franks Committee in 1958, which made firm recommendations about the way in which the unfairness that can result from inquisitional inquiries can be reduced if not entirely eliminated. I shall be referring to those two bodies.
I acknowledge that the DTI, which is responsible for a wide range of inquiries under the Companies Act, has in its revised guidelines tried to strike a balance between public advantage and private rights. But at the end of the day the system of an inquisition— and these are inquisitions— cannot be entirely fair.
Tribunals and inquiries come in many shapes and sizes. I suppose that at the top of the list is a Royal Commission. I shall not dwell on that because it is a commission which looks into national policy and the like. The most prestigious inquiry is that held under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. It is also one of the rarest because there have been only 20 such inquiries since the passing of that Act. The Salmon Commission looked at the matter in 1966 and stated that that formal inquiry should be confined to nationwide crises of confidence; for instance, the leakage of the bank rate in 1957.
At the other end of the range are an enormous number of tribunals and inquiries which come under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, revised in 1992. They come under the supervisory umbrella of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. They cover a wide variety of administrative-type inquiries, ranging from parking adjudication— I am not sure what that is but I am sure that it is important— to the national lottery, which is still to come into operation, and Commissioners of the Inland Revenue. Scores of inquiries come under the supervision or overall guidance of that Council' on Tribunals. I shall not be referring to those, except to say that whatever safeguards apply to one type of inquisition should apply to all.
There is a scale of inquiry which falls in the middle band between those two extremes. That is the band to which I shall refer today. Those inquiries are authorised by various Acts and have their own rules and I shall refer to them. There are also inquiries which are set up without any statutory authority; for example, the Scott Inquiry, which is now taking place and to which I shall not refer.
The common feature in all those inquiries is that they are inquisitional. They have been set up to inquire into allegations of misconduct and they can be very unfair. They are unlike judicial proceedings in courts, which are adversarial. In such judicial proceedings there are opposing parties: plaintiff and defendant, prosecution and accused. Most important, there is the judge who presides, hears both sides and finally gives his verdict.
210
Inquisitional inquiries, to which I am referring, are chaired by a president, an inspector or whatever he may be. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when presiding over the Profumo Inquiry, said that he had to act as "detective, inquisitor, advocate and judge". Acting in that variety of roles must give rise to a serious risk of much unfairness.
The Salmon Commission inquired into the 1921 Act and stated:
The inquisitional procedure is alien to the concept of justice generally accepted in the United Kingdom".
That is a fairly dramatic statement to make about a system that is widely used today. The commission went on to state that if the procedure were to be retained— and it may be necessary "in exceptional circumstances"— certain cardinal principles must be adopted. Although those remarks were directed at inquiries under the 1921 Act, they are equally applicable to any form of inquisitional inquiry. Indeed, the Franks Committee made that clear in its 1958 report.
Some of these inquiries are held in public and some in private. Neither is sub judice. That has serious consequences. If the inquiries are held in public, the media can be most selective on what it reports. Representatives will attend the inquiry all day and there will probably be only one paragraph about it in the daily paper. They will pick out the most newsworthy item and if that happens to be salacious, so much the better for the sales. I can understand the reasons. Not being sub judice enables an inquiry to be badly distorted in the media. At an inquiry held in private, of course, the press will not be present. Its members can predict, estimate and guess what the evidence is or will be and what the outcome will be. The 1966 report of the Salmon Commission stated:
"The press should exercise extreme caution in reporting proceedings".
Perhaps in 1966 such remarks may have had an impact on the press that they do not necessarily have today.
If the inquiry is held in private— and company inquiries are always held in private— no witness hears what other witnesses have said about him, however damning it might be. If the one being criticised is called before his critic gives his evidence, the inspectors do not have the allegations or other evidence to put to the one being criticised at the time he is giving evidence. The inspectors cannot tell him that he has already been criticised because that criticism comes from a witness who comes later. The inspectors can recall a witness, but rarely do that.
Whether an inquiry is held in public or in private, no witness can cross-examine any other witness. If the inquiry is held in private, a witness will not know what has been said. If the inquiry is public, he may hear what has been said, but has no right or power to criticise or to challenge that. A witness can take his legal adviser with him to most inquiries, but that legal adviser is not allowed to give evidence, to address the inquiry, to cross-examine or to question any witness.
In a private inquiry, no witness knows what has been said (apart from in his own evidence) until the report is published. The report may contain something about which a witness, who has not heard it before, will express astonishment when the report is published. A

211
witness might say, "If only the inquiry had asked me about that, I could have told them what happened", but the witness was not asked. He did not even know that the point had been raised during the inquiry and the inspectors had not put it to him — either because they did not consider that it was important or because they had overlooked the fact.
If there is a clear conflict of evidence between two witnesses, the inspectors decide whom to believe. The disbelieved has no opportunity to cross-examine his accuser. He can be branded in a report as a liar and not have the opportunity to cross-examine those who have accused him, or to test their evidence.
One of the six cardinal principles that the Salmon Commission laid down was that in such circumstances a witness
"should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him".
That was directed at the 1921 Act, but must surely apply with no less weight to any inquisition that might expose someone to unfair treatment.
Where inspectors intend to raise a criticism about someone in their final report in a Companies Act inquiry, they are required to give a draft of that report to the man or woman to be criticised and invite them to comment. Those who see that draft then have to try to convince the inspectors that they are wrong. They have to try to do that without any opportunity to see the evidence against them, let alone the opportunity to cross-examine their accusers on it.
Perhaps I may give some brief illustrations of the sort of unfairness that has resulted from this procedure. I refer first to an inquiry under the Companies Act 1985, the report of which made serious criticisms of certain individuals. Those criticisms were based on a complete misunderstanding by the inspectors of the facts— I believe that that is widely accepted. The individuals had no proper opportunity to respond to them. However much one is damned, there is no appeal in such circumstances. The individuals were therefore left with that criticism in the report. It ruined their careers. That is gross unfairness and should not be allowed to happen.
Another case relates to a DTI inquiry into share and option movements which occurred ahead of a takeover bid in 1988. I see from press reports that, despite the media fanfare with which that inquiry was launched, it is still on-going. Nothing has been heard of it since. No doubt a lot of expense is still being incurred. Many people who are involved in that inquiry have already waited for over five years and must be hoping for an outcome. Surely that delay must be unfair to all those involved.
A further example relates to a highly publicised notice in 1991 stating that an official receiver was taking action under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to disqualify a director from acting as a director. I do not know whether or not that application was justified— nor can anyone else until the proceedings are heard— but I understand that, due to other proceedings that are pending against other people, it is unlikely that the inquiry will be heard until 1996. In the meantime, the individual concerned does not know with
212
what he is likely to be accused and has no opportunity to give an answer to it. It cannot be fair to keep someone under such a cloud for five years.
I now turn to a slightly different category, but again these are examples of the unfairnesses that can result from this type of inquisition. I should make it clear that many such inquiries are conducted most properly and that no unfairness is caused, but when unfairness does occur, it can be very traumatic and very damaging to innocent people. Into this different category of examples come the inquisitorial inquiries, such as those that are carried out by district auditors which condemn individuals who may have to wait a very long time, often incurring considerable expense, before having any opportunity to challenge that inquisition's findings, let alone clear their names.
I have taken a fairly random selection of inquiries that can cause concern and in which unfairness has been caused to individuals who are innocent or who are assumed to be innocent, as we all are unless and until we are proved otherwise.
The purpose of the inquiries is to report on the facts. They should not pass judgment by drawing conclusions from conflicting evidence that is not tested by cross-examination. My purpose in this Motion is to express my concern about "the inquisitorial procedure" which the Royal Commission under Salmon said was:
"alien to the concept of justice generally accepted in the United Kingdom".
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with me that we are most grateful and indebted to my noble friend Lord Boardman for raising a subject that is often swept under the carpet. Noble Lords will recollect that the Government tried to solve some of the problems in the City of London by introducing what is known as the Financial Services Act. When that Act was going through another place, many of us said, "Let us be careful about this because we could over-regulate the City". I think that anybody who has endeavoured to work with the Financial Services Act will agree that the compliance costs, regulations and red tape of that Act have not achieved the result for which the Government wished. One of the fears of many of us in the City is that if the City is over-regulated, other financial centres will benefit because business will go to those centres.
I very much agreed with the points made by my noble friend Lord Boardman when he drew attention to some of the cases which have been shown to be completely unfair. I remind your Lordships of the Blue Arrow case which went on for nearly four years. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the individuals concerned, but what I do say is that to keep a person under threat for four years is completely barmy and does not accord at all with our interpretation of justice.
There has also been the Levitt inquiry. Many of us were completely astounded at the sentence of community service that was given for an obvious fraud on many members of the general public. There has also been the Barlow Clowes case, which again involved

213
taxpayers' money, lengthy proceedings, etcetera, etcetera— not to mention the Guinness affair, which went on for years and years. In each of those cases individuals were under threat because of the allegations that had been made against them. As my noble friend Lord Boardman said, they did not have an opportunity to refute those allegations. That meant that our system of justice consequently came under close scrutiny and criticism.
We have had the recent case of an individual in the National Audit Office who alleged that there had been certain misdemeanours within Westminster City Council. I do not know whether there have been, but it was completely unfair, in my view, to keep the people alleged to have perpetrated some kind of swindle in suspense. Under threat, one of them committed suicide. There must be something wrong with our legal system — and I remind noble Lords that I have no legal knowledge at all— when in many cases the tribunals, investigations, court cases, trials and the rest of them go on for far too long. With the greatest respect to any of my legal colleagues here, it is a bonanza mainly for the legal profession in many cases.
When I was Chairman of the Back-Bench Finance Committee in another place, I was worried, as many of us were, about the accusations of insider dealings within Lloyd's of London. After I led a delegation to the Lloyd's Council an independent committee was set up under Sir David Walker. I had the honour to be a member of that committee which looked into what was known as the LMX spiral. Many Names in Lloyd's lost a lot of money because of poor underwriting and lack of communication between members' agents and the managing agent. The committee began work in March 1992 and its report came out six months later. I should have thought that that was one way in which we could look at the question of investigations to see whether we could truncate the time it takes to reach a report.
There are too many regulators. Within the City of London there is the Securities and Investments Board, which does a first-class job of work, there is FIMBRA, LAUTRO, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, and now we shall have the Personal Investment Association, the PIA. All those bodies— I shall not call them quangos— overlap and take our eye off the main objective.
I suggest that when we have allegations or trials under the Companies Acts, or whatever, we must look at the jury system in this country. In many cases the complexity and complicated points in a court case are just not understood by the jury. Jury members just do not have the knowledge to understand them. I should have thought that it was high time that we looked at the proposal to have a court— what we would call it I do not know— of experts in the Companies Acts rather than believe that we can leave an ordinary jury to deal with it. In many cases, I am convinced that the jury are blinded by science.
My main point in supporting my noble friend Lord Boardman is to cut out the unfairness of a threat hanging over an individual about something which he or she has not had the opportunity to refute. We have the Serious
214
Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and so many other avenues, but we do not seem to pick simply on one to deal with allegations of fraud or whatever it may be.
My noble friend referred to the case where a person was told, or it was alleged, that he was unfit to be a director. I do not know whether he was unfit, but such a person should be able to prove his fitness or otherwise as soon as possible because in many cases he is probably in the meantime being deprived of any livelihood. He cannot stay on any board and consequently there is hardship, and so far as I know he has no recourse to anyone at the end of the day — four or five years later, or whatever it takes— for compensation for loss of earnings.
We spent so long on the Financial Services Bill and there were so many drafts and redrafts that the final Act was nothing like the original Bill. It was revised, I believe, six or seven times before it saw the light of day. I urge my noble and learned friend and the Government to concentrate on how in the case of inquisitions, trials or whatever we can overcome the long delays, even if it means dispensing with the jury system. In my view, it would mean justice for those people who are alleged to have done something but who have not had the opportunity to refute it.
3.46 p.m
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the House should be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for introducing such an important subject for debate. It is my fervent hope that during the course of this debate the problems can be aired in a constructive manner and that the upshot of our contributions will acknowledge that, whereas we are all of one mind that fraud must be eliminated, must be pursued, we should not lose sight of the fact that Britain is still way out in front in the league table of business ethics and morality in financial and other commercial operations.
If one were to take a snapshot view of some five years' press comment relating to business practice in Britain one would probably come to the conclusion that business practice, and particularly financial practice, left a great deal to be desired. The reality is far removed from that conclusion. In addition, one would probably infer that fraud in the City of London was rampant. Again, not so. I think that it behoves me to remind the House that the daily foreign exchange dealings alone of the City of London amount to over 300 billion dollars — more than the comparable turnover of New York and Tokyo combined.
The reason for such prominence being given to the apparent problem of fraud in the City is simply derived from the fact that, as one of the three great global centres of finance, it is bound to attract the bigger attempted frauds. The sheer volume of banking business going through London and the availability of very liquid markets means that criminals who specialise in this area will target the UK banking system. These are frauds on the City not of the City, and this distinction is important.
The current procedures of statutory inquisitorial tribunals arose from the considerable public dissatisfaction with the system for the investigation and

215
prosecution of serious and complex fraud and from the feeling that the fraudsters were "getting away with it". Following the report of the Fraud Trials Committee in 1986, the Serious Fraud Office was established in 1988. Frankly, just looking at the extent of the responsibilities of the SFO I think that working there must be one of the most onerous jobs in the country.
Be that as it may, it is imperative to have a system in place which can deal with complex fraud and, indeed, the very existence of such a system probably has a deterrent effect on would-be fraudsters. There is no argument about the need for such a system; what can be questioned is whether the methods employed during investigations of fraud are acceptable or, on the other hand, are the systems which are currently in place adequate in the face of premeditated fraud or should we have some form of statutory regulation which would make investigations more clear-cut?
I fear that I am falling into my own trap of conveying the impression that there is a huge problem of fraud. I do not believe that this is so. Just let us cast our minds back 30 years or so: insider dealing was rife— as indeed it still is in many countries. Even some 10 years ago the role of non-executive directors was nothing like as onerous as now; audit committees were the exception rather than the rule that they have now become; very few companies had internal audit departments; the role of external auditors was quite superficial by comparison with the in-depth analytical review of the financial affairs and statements of the company which is, I hope, universally carried out now.
The Companies Act, FIMBRA, IMRO, LAUTRO, SIB, Cadbury have all combined to make all of us involved in business and finance extremely aware of the responsibility 10 dc all in our power to prevent, search out and eliminate fraud. The growing awareness of the role and responsibility of the board has changed corporate governance beyond recognition.
The existing systems in place in companies almost certainly prevent much fraud but, sadly, there will always be people whose sole aim is to defraud. The investigations into fraud must be, of their nature, extremely difficult and fraught with what I call the "probability factor". In a murder case there is a body — or nearly always so; in a fraud case there is often very flimsy evidence. If I pass a cheque to someone over a lunch table, am I perceived as guilty of some fraudulent activity?
However, all fraud has to be investigated— deeply — in order to stamp out crime, improve business ethics and maintain our national and international reputation. In the course of such investigations rough justice is often seen to be the norm. Totally innocent parties can be prejudiced and, despite the maxim that "everyone is innocent until proved guilty", mistakes do happen. Surely, my Lords, we must endeavour to ensure that nobody should make premature judgments on the basis of superficial evidence. Rough justice has no part in our business world— or should not have.
Looking at the whole issue, I suggest four options which could improve the current system. First, it is imperative that the investigatory process should be
216
expedited with real force. As has already been stated, the longer the process takes, the more likely it is that the innocent will be irreparably damaged.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, I believe that there is a very strong argument against trial by jury for cases of complicated fraud. Very few people, however well educated they are, can understand the complexities of most of the cases that come before them. The documents themselves are almost incomprehensible to those who are unused to finance. On the principle of juries always trying to adopt the line of "proof beyond reasonable doubt", I am not surprised that many juries acquit. There must be a case for fraud cases to be handled by judges alone, provided that those judges are fully trained in financial practices and are completely financially and computer-technology literate.
Thirdly, consideration should be given to the introduction of plea bargaining. The director of the Serious Fraud Office had some very interesting comments to make on this issue in a speech he made at the London School of Economics on 10th November 1992. In essence, he made the following points: the avoidance of a contested trial by making a plea of guilty yields enormous benefits in terms of cost, time and manpower; and, if defendants knew in advance what the sentence would be they would weigh up the cost to them of going ahead with a trial and hoping to be found not guilty against the cost of anxiety, monetary outlay and many other factors. That could result in the defendants being more inclined to plead. Mr. Staple also made the point that he believes it is possible to introduce a system encouraging guilty defendants to plead, while at the same time protecting them from improper pressure to do so. Surely that should be encouraged. I do commend Mr Staple's speech to your Lordships. It can be obtained from the SFO.
I turn now to my fourth option. Every possible attempt should be made to ensure that there is no trial by the press during the course of investigations of fraud. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, referred to that fact. Why is it that during the period while a suspect for a murder is being investigated the press obey the sub judice rules, yet we have the appalling spectacle of hoards of baying pressmen being alerted that an arrest is about to be made of a suspect in a fraud case? Trial by jury is one of the principles of our judicial system— to my knowledge, trial by the media is not.
By its very nature fraud is obscure and difficult. By its very nature it is exceedingly complex. What concerns me greatly is that, because it is so complex, it is imperative that we realise that the skills and knowledge base of all the members of investigatory teams cannot possibly be of the highest order. That is a fact; it is just not possible to ensure that every single person engaged in such a task has all the background experience which will equip him or her with the ability to make fair and correct judgments and to arrive at the right conclusions.
As a mere novice in the business of understanding computer science, I can still see how computers can, and indeed do, increase the risk of fraud. Computers and conspiracy are an explosive combination which require intense vigilance in all companies and institutions and,

217
indeed, penetrating investigation when vigilance has failed. If we cannot get that right— and, by "right", I include making sure that the innocent are not irreparably damaged— we will be forced ultimately to go down the road of statutory regulation. That would be a sad development, a development that might not yield the required results as there is no assurance that tighter regulation would reduce the level of attempted fraud as fraudsters are not generally part of the authorised network.
The "open" system of regulation has enormously benefited the development of the City as the top international financial centre. The existence of our open system has ensured, for example, that foreign banks have felt welcome here. They have come in their hundreds. At the last count there were 537 foreign banks from over 70 different countries in the City of London. We should bear in mind that there is no evidence that a single bank has left London as a result of the too-well publicised occurrences of fraud. To the contrary, every indication supports the view that London remains attractive because of its openness.
As I implied at the beginning of my speech, in a debate like this there is a danger that we will concentrate too much on the negative aspects of our business and financial activity. As in all areas of human activity and endeavour, mistakes do happen— but so do successes, many successes. We have unsung heroes in the battle against crime, among them the City of London police. I am sure that noble Lords will recall the story of the bond which was stolen in broad daylight in a street in the City not too long ago. It involved over 200 million dollars, nearly all of which has been recovered in the course of arrests and trials in seven countries around the world. It is quite a success story, but not too much media publicity has been given to that particular success.
In conclusion, I feel that the current strategy in preventing and dealing with fraud is probably right. The combination of "watch dog" agencies with those strange acronyms (FIMBRA, IMRO, LAUTRO and SIB), together with the vigilance of the DTI and Customs and Excise, ensure that as much as is probably humanly possible— or, acceptable in a democracy— is done to prevent fraud. Perhaps it is the tactics that need looking at again— the tactics employed in, to quote the wording of today's debate,
"the current procedures of statutory inquisitorial tribunals and inquiries investigating allegations of serious fraud and other misconduct".
3.56 p.m
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is sad that such a debate should be necessary. I have asked myself why. I stand four square behind my noble friend Lord Boardman on the points that he made. However, I wonder why we should reach a stage now where we are to some extent querying the integrity of our own system. When there is any doubt, it seems as though a Minister or an official runs for cover and immediately appoints someone to head or run an inquiry— an inquiry which is usually, and more often than not, unfair and unjust for a high proportion of people.
218
I wonder why that has happened. Drawing on my limited experience, I believe that such changes have probably taken place only over the past 20 years. I do not cast doubts upon the integrity of those in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury or other bodies which seek to control the system, but I wonder whether the move towards the centre is correct. I believe that it was Samuel Johnson who said:
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless".
When I worked in such fields in the City of London and in other places we controlled ourselves. We were controlled by our bosses. The name of the house was all important. You could not deal in shares in any way other than through the bank itself which held the shares in your name. You had no control over financial matters. Your partners or directors had a corporate and collective responsibility. You were a known Name and you knew with whom you did business and with whom you did not.
Over the passage of time we have seen many comments in the newspapers about dishonesty, lack of integrity and fraud across the board. But those of us who have worked in the financial world— and I must not mention any names— were often told, "We do not lunch with them"; "We do not meet with them"; "We do not join syndicates with them"; or, "We do not work with their clients". Often when we heard such phrases, within a matter of six months or a year we would read a headline in a newspaper that someone had run off.
Why does such a problem occur? More often than not I believe that the frauds— if that is what they are called — do not begin intentionally. People set up a business in a genuine effort to try to make money, but when things go wrong and they see their shares collapse they run for cover and their standards drop. At such times it should surely be the responsibility of the board of directors or the shareholders themselves to exercise influence.
I was interested to note that there are many speakers in this debate, but not so many months ago we had a debate on corporate governance when I believe only three or four people spoke. There is a need for guidelines, and we know what those guidelines are. The noble Baroness has referred to audit committees and remuneration committees. The controls are fairly obvious and can be implemented by people and organisations themselves.
I believe that the move towards the centre in terms of control is wrong and it is also more costly. When I first went to work in the financial world I used to shake hands with people. The other day I was present at a meeting where there were, I believe,15 lawyers and no client. I tried to shake hands, but one man said to me, "You cannot shake hands on that. It must be a legal agreement". In the early days one gave one's word, and one's word, as we have heard before, was one's bond. A similar situation arose in the case of a horse deal in the East End: one spat on and then slapped one's hand and that was legally binding. The punishment for breaking the rules entered into with that gesture was death. Today one can complete a commodity deal on one sheet of paper but it needs 40 to complete a loan. The banks regard everyone who borrows money with intense suspicion, as if they were about to run off with the

219
funds. Something has gone wrong because more and more paper covered in small and large print is produced; and some of us find as we get older that we can no longer read even the large print.
I worry about these trends. However, they are not just symptomatic of the financial world, which is what we are discussing today, where people conclude transactions for greed and gain and not necessarily for glory. In the area of public life generally we have had the Scott inquiry and examples of people who have genuinely sought to do things which they think are in the national interest. Perhaps we should remind them that,
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
Why is it that we are regarded with suspicion in whatever we do? For a period of time I chaired a government committee on Middle East trade. I dealt with countries which had problems of terrorism and all kinds of other problems. I dealt with Syria, Libya, Iran and with countries that were often under sanctions. I believe that Britain was the first country to impose sanctions on another country.
It is interesting to note that Britain now probably has the highest standards of all in trying to ensure that sanctions imposed by the United Nations or other bodies are adhered to. Perhaps noble Lords are aware that other countries allow their citizens to do anything which they believe to be right in the national interest provided they have consulted on the matter beforehand. Here, if one wishes to communicate with certain countries which might prove to be useful trading partners once one has persuaded them to conform with the regulations involved with sanctions, one has to obtain a permit to communicate with them. That applies of course even to parliamentarians. Parliamentarians need to approach the Department of Trade and Industry, make an application on paper that is almost of banknote quality and state the nature of one's discussions with the country concerned. It is as if the Government are saying, "We know what is best for our citizens", when more often than not it is the citizens who now best what is good for the Government.
It has been said that,
"Knowledge without. t integrity is dangerous and dreadful".
The bringing together of knowledge and integrity is a difficult feat. I believe that there are many of us who still think that one does business with someone or works with someone because one likes and trusts that person and not so much because of the organisation in which that person works. If there are to be controls in this area, I believe they should be as decentralised as possible and that firm guidelines should be laid down. Those noble Lords who may have had friends who have had to appear before public inquiries of one kind or another will know that, however innocent a person may be— I have taken part in such an inquiry myself— he will feel his heart start to pound and wonder whether he has done anything wrong. One feels that there is no sense of justice in such an inquiry and that one is talking to people who know nothing about the subject which they are investigating. One feels that they are learning on the job and are changing their minds as they go along, having reached a conclusion at the beginning.
220
I worry about these inquiries. I am not so worried about the cost of them, as they keep an enormous number of people employed, but I worry about the time that they take up. Often one is asked to appear before one's peers in an organisation and given a rocket for having done something wrong. One accepts the rebuke, even if one knows it is unjust, and that is the end of it. The rebuke is short and sharp, and if it turns out later to have been unjust, one is told, "Bad luck. That is just part of the system and it will help you to grow up".
I have not said anything terribly constructive, but I feel that somehow officialdom has sought to impose itself upon people in a way that has reduced their integrity. It is sufficient for someone to say that an action is within the law; he no longer makes a subjective judgment about the morality of what is involved. I still believe that a handshake ought to be legally binding. However, I must confess that things go wrong all the time and one's integrity is questioned. I end with a quotation from Kipling:
"If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too"
4.5 p.m
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman for initiating this debate. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a completely different form of inquisitorial inquiry into other misconduct, or rather alleged misconduct, where: the procedure used often seems to be exceptionally hard. I refer to what are sometimes called back duty inquiries, where a taxpayer, or frequently a non-taxpayer, comes to the attention of the Inland Revenue. These begin with a letter to the taxpayer demanding that he re-affirms the declarations he has already made in his tax returns, and asking him to give unrestricted access to his private records. There is also a demand for an interview, where the inspector reads something called the Hansard extract which is a statement made in the other place by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on 5th October 1944. This statement warns the person of the penalties for non-disclosure of all income— up to three times the tax involved as well as penal interest. There is the threat of possible criminal proceedings; but then it also suggests that those penalties might be mitigated in return for what is called full co-operation.
In other words, exercise your right of silence at your extreme peril. It is in the interpretation of the word "co-operation" that problems arise. In many cases— not all, of course— it takes a great amount of determined pressure before the inspector is prepared to indicate in advance the nature of the questions which he wants answered at the interview or even to tell the taxpayer what he is inquiring into. Let me add that there are in fact few complaints made by individuals about the way the Inland Revenue has conducted their hack-duty inquiry. Perhaps that means those individuals are just pleased to be out of the clutches of the Inland Revenue; but I think it probably means that on the whole inquiries are conducted in a firm but reasonable way, and in accordance with the Inland Revenue's long-standing procedures. But it is those procedures which I believe

221
need to be considered. Can we still allow the Inland Revenue to operate under methods of interrogation laid down some 50 years ago?
The Court of Criminal Appeal has not hesitated to throw out cases where it felt that the accused had been subjected to oppressive questioning or had confessed under the fear of threats or because of promises of favourable treatment. Is it not right that every sort of statutory inquisitorial tribunal and inquiry should also conduct itself in a way that conforms to the current high standards required of the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Should it not also have to conform to rules of natural justice— rules that include the right of a person summoned to appear before such an investigation to be told if he or she is accused or suspected of any offence or of any civil wrong doing? Such a person should have the right to be told from the very outset exactly what those charges are or what they may be. He or she should have the right to be told the nature of any evidence against him or her. He should have the right to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who have made allegations about him; and he should have the right to have the time to prepare and present, with legal assistance if necessary, a defence before any provisional finding of guilt is made by the very same person who has to make the final finding as well.
Those being investigated for so-called white collar crimes, for tax evasion or for abuses of their public duties should certainly not be given any special privileges. On the other hand, I hope that your Lordships agree that they should not be given less protection than, for example, an alleged mugger.
4.11 p.m
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Boardman for introducing this timely debate. I hope that the authorities will pay attention to it.
I very much enjoyed the speech of my noble friend Lord Selsdon. I too remember the time in the City when one either did or did not lunch with somebody. I remember an over-enthusiastic and junior director of the place where I worked introducing to the lunch table somebody whom the chairman did not much like. Afterwards the chairman, in a rage, tore the page with his signature on it from the lunch book. The issue went that far. It was not a bad principle. On the other hand, did we control ourselves that well?
There was a Guinness scandal in 1886 when the merchant bank which first brought our shares to the market underpriced them and gave them to its friends, so it is alleged. I am looking into that myself for certain reasons, and it appears that that happened.
We dressed matters up in the old days, but we were not always whiter than white. I have never opposed the idea of some extra regulation, especially now that business is becoming so much more international and we are so much more tied to other countries, where standards are perhaps not as high as ours. There is, I am afraid, a Gresham's law in business standards: the lower tends to replace the higher unless one is very careful.
222
I would put a ring around the word "inquisitorial" in this Motion to get to the heart of the subject, because in effect we are talking about the introduction, in a clumsy form, of the inquisitorial system of justice which applies on the Continent. The Board of Trade or DTI inquiry is like the examining magistrate in France. The difference is that it is done in the wrong way in public in that the DTI goes in and the media report the fact. It is also done the wrong way in private in that there is no possibility of reply. The single most important contradiction is that the inquiry can compel the giving of evidence and then, if the witness who is so compelled is subsequently prosecuted, in practice if not in theory his evidence is given to the prosecution in a trial, totally vitiating the right to silence. I believe that that issue should be considered much more carefully.
4.13 p.m
Lord Spens: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. I seem to have spent my life for the past eight years following Guinness.
I speak with a certain amount of experience of these tribunals. I have weathered seven in the past 10 or 12 years. It is only recently that it has occurred to me that they may not be all that they should be. The three tribunals with which I have been involved recently concerned Milbury Homes, House of Fraser and Guinness. The Guinness tribunal is still going on some eight years after the events being investigated.
As a merchant banker, one runs an occupational risk of appearing before such tribunals. It seems to me that the first port of call is the adviser, who always has to take some of the blame. I have never been able to understand why advisers should be thought capable of running a company. I have only ever been slightly criticised. That was for not putting someone on the board of a company, even though as an adviser one has no duty or powers to put someone on a board. That approach by the inspectors was extraordinary.
I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howe, when he faced the Scott Inquiry. He clearly found it an uncomfortable experience. He was not faced with the problem, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, of the use of evidence against him, because people in his position have immunity.
I wish to focus on Section 434(5) of the Companies Act 1985, which follows the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. It states:
"An answer given by a person to a question put to him … may be used in evidence against him".
In 1971 Lord Justice Sachs, in the Pergamon Press case (which I believe is the test case in the whole issue of inquisitorial trials), said:
"The Inspectors' function is in essence to conduct an investigation designed to discover whether there are facts which may result in others taking action; it is no part of their function to take a decision as to whether action be taken and a fortiori it is not for them finally to determine such issues as may emerge if some action is taken eventually".
That is such an important statement that it was included in the handbook which is handed to inspectors when they start an inspection.

223
I believe that until 1987 everyone was reasonably happy with inspectors, although perhaps the flowery comments of some of their subjective judgments caused problems; otherwise they were reasonably acceptable. In January 1987 a political decision was taken to change the procedures. In the Guinness tribunal the inspectors were told to investigate offences and the police were deliberately kept out of the investigation for four months. The effect of keeping the police out of the investigation was to obviate any problems arising in connection with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Indeed, that was so important to the Guinness trials that from the very first day of the preliminary hearings the prosecuting counsel, John Chadwick, QC, said:
"It will come as n surprise to your Lordship or to anybody else when I say that if Mr. Parnes' transcripts of evidence were not admissible the prosecution would have to think seriously whether to proceed against him at all.
We know that that decision was taken. We know the dates of the meetings between Ministers, DTI officials, Home Office officials and the Crown Prosecution Service. However, we ran into the brick wall (at least in those days it was a brick wall) of the public interest immunity certificate which was issued to prevent us from obtaining the detail of those meetings. That was long before Mr. Justice Smedley and Matrix-Churchill. The trial judge decided that he had no power to go behind the certificate. He then ruled that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act did not apply to businessmen of intelligence and sophistication and that that had been decreed by Parliament. That ruling was supported in the Appeal Court and this House declined to hear the appeal.
The matter has not ended there. Mr. Ernest Saunders has taken his case to the European Court and has won the first round in that the court has said that that was a prima facie and major breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It has required the Government to reach a friendly settlement with Mr. Saunders, failing which the court will rule formally later this year. The mind boggles at what sort of friendly settlement can be reached, with a man one has put inside for five years on the basis of rigged evidence. Therefore, I assume that we shall find ourselves in front of the European Court and will have to await its ruling.
It is a shame that four men have received long gaol sentences and huge fines totalling some £ 11 million on the basis of an apparently obscure route of using against them in a criminal trial evidence obtained without the protection of PACE. On any basis that has to be an abuse of the system. I think someone has described it as a sort of "noble cause corruption".
However, there is another problem with these tribunals. At the same time as the Guinness tribunal started, another secret tribunal was created. This was a licensed dealers' tribunal, which examined under the chairmanship of a Member of this House, with two lay assistants (two very respected City people appointed by the DTI and the Treasury), one of the transactions over which I was at the time facing two charges. This tribunal in 1988 apparently ruled that there had been no false market and no breach of Section 151. The judgment of
224
that tribunal and the 2,000 pages of evidence which went with it were concealed from the inspectors on the main Guinness inquiry; they were concealed from the Bank of England and they were concealed from the defence until the 54th day of the trial in which I was involved.
The judge ruled that, luckily, none of the witnesses had yet been called, and so I had not been hurt. But what he had missed and what he did not draw attention to was the fact that in fraud trials under the 1987 Criminal Justice Act, Section 6, there is a clause which allows one to make a "no-case-to-answer". It is quite clear that had that evidence been made available to the defence, that application would have been made and six years and many hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of costs would not have been incurred— costs which, incidentally, I have not yet been repaid.
It seems to me that these two tribunal systems were very different in their categories. One was a Roskill-type tribunal— the latter one— which found effectively in a judgment against the Government argument that there had been a false market and there had been breaches of Section 151. That evidence was kept from all those people for all those years. Unless we have some system which allows cross-transmission of evidence as regards tribunals, these injustices will go on.
4.23 p.m
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman for raising this subject this afternoon. Unlike many of your Lordships who have spoken already, it is many years since I worked— if that is the operative verb— in what is known as the City, or indeed worked as a professional in any way; and so much of what I have to say and what I have learnt has been within the portals of your Lordships' House, and indeed within this Chamber.
When I looked at the Motion we are discussing, I thought it might be reasonable to take a fairly light-hearted view. I hope that my noble friend and those of your Lordships who have spoken before me will accept my apologies if I should tread on any toes, be it ever so lightly. I hope that your Lordships will accept that the thrust of my comments, if my noble friend will forgive me, are inquisitorial and I hope may throw some light upon another view which has not yet found its way into the debate this afternoon.
The thought of inquisitorial tribunals and inquiries, indeed, sets my imagination rolling on pictures of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger with hot tongs, electrodes or the rack. That might be a light-hearted thought, yet which of us might not take that view if we were to be suddenly charged in the course of business with an unending list of offences? Much of this was touched on by my noble friend Lord Selsdon when he said, "Our word is our bond". The thrust of this afternoon's debate is that we have moved away from that.
My noble friend Lord Boardman also refers in his Motion to serious fraud. I am sure your Lordships will know what he is aiming at. Any of your Lordships who have had cause to deal with the activities, the figures

225
and, indeed, the practices of the common agricultural policy, Euro-finances, green pounds and other activities on a Euro-scale will be astonished at the serious fraud. Indeed, my first thought when considering the subject of fraud— though it might not enter your Lordships' minds, let alone that of my noble friend— is, "Is that all?". I am astonished at their moderation, and I cannot help thinking how easy it is to perpetrate these activities.
However, it is the third element in my noble friend's Motion that I should like to touch on— "other misconduct". I shall try to narrow my remarks to the reports of the Department of Trade and Industry and the inspectors who are appointed. Your Lordships may not be surprised to hear that many of these reports are filling my shelves in Scotland and in London. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam nearly did himself a mischief attempting to lift the report on the House of Fraser affair, which is a mere 752 pages. It is quite short compared with some other reports that have been presented.
The main thread running through this aspect of the DTI report concerns an inquiry involving what are termed in Section 431 onwards of the 1985 Companies Act "relevant persons", which usually turn out to be a Queen's Counsel and a chartered accountant. These inspectors are appointed under the 1985 Act and previous Companies Acts by the head of the Department of Trade and Industry. Somewhere, somehow, under the terms of this Act somebody has to investigate all the facts and figures and perhaps come up with conclusions.
Regarding the report on the House of Fraser affair, when I put my name down to speak in your Lordships' House in a debate on 28th March 1990, kilos of paper appeared and I received several representations, including one from some of the interested parties that they would be obliged if I would read their side of things. Your Lordships will be aware that I am quite capable— at least I hope I am— of making up my own mind, such as it is.
However, as regards the main theme of this narrow aspect of the inspector's inquiry and report, someone, somewhere must carry out exhaustive, diligent and professional inquiries to establish facts. When all this is completed, then perhaps a report should be presented. Your Lordships have already heard— and doubtless we shall hear more— about how this should be publicised. I recall several tales of when these reports have appeared — indeed, my noble friend Lord Clark quoted one particular aspect, I think it was in 1968— and perhaps the remarks might have been a little unfair. But of course hindsight is valuable and the words used by the inspectors were quite mild when certain facts were subsequently made clear.
I wonder whether the current system covered by the Motion of my noble friend Lord Boardman requires improvement. So far as the Serious Fraud Office is concerned, one thread has run through the debate so far: the length and detail of the inquiries. I look forward to hearing something on that from my noble and learned friend when he comes to wind up. We may also hear more of that in future.
226
I believe that the system is changing, as has been touched on by my noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lord Moyne. Systems within commerce and finance are turning more and more to self-regulation. The front page of today's Financial Times has a major headline:
"Taskforce set up to cover abuse in the equity market".
This has been set up not, thank goodness, by the Department of Trade and Industry, let alone by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but by the Securities and Investments Board. Perhaps we might agree that professionals who understand how business is done in the City of London might be the best judges of how to deal with any prospective misconduct, abuses or fraud.
The point was made fairly forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that, if there are problems within the City of London, the rest of the world seems to think that they are not sufficiently serious to be worse than anywhere else in the world. Indeed, the standards in the City of London are of the highest. As a good Scottish accountant, I believe that the figures referred to by the noble Baroness prove that the City of London is pre-eminent. We hope that it will remain so.
I refer briefly to the House of Fraser report and to the debate in your Lordships' House. It has been mentioned that all the offences mentioned in that report were part of a fast moving situation and thus some form of monitoring or control would be required. I believe that the Securities and Investments Board is the best body to undertake that. Perhaps I could ask your Lordships to consider one aspect. I hope that my noble friend who opened the debate will agree with my point. I refer to the position of the auditors. They are appointed by the shareholders.
Where there are problems— pray God that it does not come to a dispute between the auditors and the directors — we should take on board these points. First, under the Companies Act the auditors have the right to be heard and represented at the annual general meeting. Is that enough? Secondly, noble Lords will be aware that I am something of a sportsman. My noble friend Lord Selsdon might have been to the part of the world to which I shall refer. American football, a rough, violent and detailed game, has not one but, so far as I am aware, five judges, line judges and umpires. When there is a problem, one sees one of those gentleman throw down on the field a yellow duster. When play ceases, those gentlemen gather together and the situation is resolved there and then. Could not such a system be used in a dispute between auditors and directors? With regard to many of the enormous Department of Trade and Industry inquiries and some of the other matters about which we shall hear, a change of auditors might be the first sign to my noble friend Lord Boardman and any other financial observers of a problem.
I conclude by declaring an interest. I do not refer to the colourful activities mentioned previously. My noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry will understand that I refer to one specific organisation in Queen Street, Edinburgh. I do not refer to the Faculty of Advocates or the Law Society of Scotland, to which I owe my interest and curiosity in and training on the

227
subject. I believe that the benefits from that organisation will bring the evils that have been referred to today to a satisfactory conclusion.
4.32 p.m
The Earl of Harrowby: Lords, I have waited five years to see such a Motion appear on the Order Paper. I have first-hand knowledge of one specific case. I should like to explain to noble Lords the consequences which can arise.
I am not a lawyer. I shall not dissect the legal niceties. I shall not speak about the rights and wrongs of the specific inquiry to which I refer, except to note that there were no convictions after appeal and it cost the public and private sectors tens of millions of pounds. I intervene to express my shame that natural justice in my country can be as abused as it was in that case.
I shall speak about that specific case. Three men were criticised for not having their finger on the pulse. Since the end of the war, I have been connected with large, medium, small and very small firms in commerce and industry. Never have I met three men who formed a better and more impressive top management team. The inspectors criticised those men. The criticism was entirely idiosyncratic. The two inspectors just did not realise that in a firm with 100,000 employees tens of thousands of pulses, not just two, have to be tested and one has to delegate. In just the same way, Ministers are responsible for the actions of their civil servants. There was a complete misunderstanding in that case.
The outcome of the case is relevant. Three first-rate senior executives were hounded into resignation. A Minister may resign, but he does not lose his reputation because everyone knows that he is taking the blame. Everyone remembers the case of Sir Thomas Dugdale. That situation does not arise in an inquiry when an individual is criticised. The individuals to whom I refer were hounded by the national press which gave no relief. I have little regard for the national press. I do not include the local press or indeed other forms of the media with my condemnation. However, in this instance, and generally, the national press were spurred on by the inquisitorial ethos in much of the legislation about which we speak, of which the DTI is probably the main proponent.
Lastly, those individuals were undefended by the legal profession both in the specific case to which I refer and in general. The legal profession accepted that inquisitorial possibility in the first place. I regret that no noble and learned Law Lords are present to participate in the debate. So often one has heard them speaking in this Chamber defending the rights of the accused. It would have been interesting at least to hear their comment on the Motion moved by my noble friend.
I was brought up with my father's dictum that there is no such thing as fairness, and that one suffers if one assumes that there I s. That may be so, but it does not relieve the remainder of us of the obligation to resist unfairness when we find it. In such cases, unfairness inevitably occurs. Reference has already been made to Dr. Morrow's suicide note. There is the Clothier report. What will happen from the Scott Inquiry?
228
I had a label on me of "time expired". My retirement from the connection of which I speak took place before the inquiry proceeded. I regretted that bitterly; I would have resigned along with the three individuals if I had been in a position to do so. My heart went out to my ex-colleagues who had to make the difficult decision whether to accept those resignations in the light of the need to balance the unfairness on the one side and the interests of the organisation on the other.
Inquisition is one thing: it is an undesirable concept. An inquiry is quite another matter. An inquiry, as we know it, is a request by the Secretary of State for advice on whether he should refer a specific case to the DPP. Under no— I repeat, no— circumstances should such a report be published. It is personal to him, and it was so designed. If the full glare of publicity is required for any reason, then the format of that inquiry must be judicial so that individuals are protected within the law.
No doubt my noble friend the mover of this Motion will follow the usual procedure and withdraw it. In my ignorance of parliamentary procedure, I would not have done so. I would have demanded the necessary change in legislation or, I suspect, in ministerial habits and procedures. One thing is clear. Destroying men's lives, some of them good men, must stop.
4.40 p.m
Lord Morris: My Lords, like all other speakers, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boardman for his most timely tabling of this very important Motion. My only regret is that it is a timed debate. The subject is very wide indeed. At the outset I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Harrowby that he should have no feeling of disappointment that, unhappily, no Law Lords are taking part in the debate. I say that in the certain knowledge that the debate will be wound up by three of the most distinguished lawyers who have served this country. I refer of course to the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Williams, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. I beseech him to stay, for he is in for a treat. Of that I am certain.
My major reason for intervening in this debate is familial. Even before I came to this House I became particularly interested in a Royal Commission which happened to be chaired by my noble and learned and well beloved relative, Lord Salmon. It was a very interesting Royal Commission in a number of regards. First, it broke a world record for Royal Commissions. It was formed in February 1966, and reported in November 1966. To my certain knowledge no Royal Commission has ever reported with such expedition.
The list of members of that Royal Commission and all those who gave evidence to it is like the most elegant, sparkling necklace, including as it does names of such high repute and quality. That quality is mirrored in the report itself.
My noble friend Lord Boardman is absolutely right. This debate is certainly not on that Royal Commission report. However, if the principles and major recommendations of the report had been borne in mind when Parliament gave the powers to Ministers of State in various departments to set up tribunals and inquiries, those appalling injustices could not have happened.

229
That was a point suggested by my noble friend Lord Boardman, and he is absolutely right. Let us take just six short recommendations (which are sub-recommendations of the third recommendation). On those alone and nothing else, if those fundamental principles were brought to bear, there would be no problem.
The background to those principles is very interesting. It is stated in the first sentence before they are listed in the report. I beseech noble Lords to listen to the language:
"The following cardinal principles … should be observed to minimise the risk of personal hurt"
"hurt", my Lords,
"and injustice to any person involved in the inquiries".
I stress that word "hurt". We are not talking about injustice. We are talking only about hurt. The reason that those cardinal principles were adumbrated in the report is that the commission recognised full well that, where there is a conflict between the public and private interest, if one individual is harmed in the name of the interests of the state, then an injustice is very likely to come about. The procedures for avoiding that injustice have been known over the centuries. They are adumbrated in the procedural recommendations, which are as follows:
"Before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he should be informed in advance of allegations against him and the substance of the evidence in support of them".
If that alone had happened in the case of the terrible experience of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, he could never have experienced the appalling suffering and the terrible expense that he went through.
The recommendation also states that,
"He [the witness] should have adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of being assisted by legal advisers … His legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds … He should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel and of stating his case in public at the inquiry … Any material witnesses he wishes called at the inquiry should, if reasonably practicable, be heard … He should have the opportunity of testing by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel any evidence which may affect him".
Those procedures follow the procedures in a court of law. They have been worked out over centuries. Only if those rules of procedure are adhered to can there be any hope of individuals not being harmed by tribunals of inquiry.
I do not like the term "inquisitorial". It is tendentious. But "inquisitorial" refers to nothing other than a tribunal of inquiry. I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston when he suggested that the presence of a jury has a deleterious effect in terms of time on an action in fraud. I am convinced that the presence of the jury is absolutely essential in cases of fraud. Undoubtedly, the length of time that fraud trials take is directly the result of incompetent prosecution and weak judges. There is no other reason for it. I close by again thanking my noble friend Lord Boardman for giving us the opportunity of attending this debate.
4.48 p.m
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the whole House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for this wide-ranging debate on matters of
230
real public importance. I begin by declaring a professional interest in the subject matter. I am counsel for the Fayed brothers, whose case will come before the European Court of Human Rights next month. But in what I am about to say, I speak for myself. I express a long held view— one that was expressed by many noble Lords— that the DTI inspection procedures are unfair and urgently in need of law reform.
I should, first, like to explain why my views differ from those that were expressed by two of your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, seemed at one point in his speech almost to doubt the need for effective public measures to tackle and regulate serious fraud as though it were not a serious problem. My own view is that serious fraud has become a serious problem and that, on the contrary, more effective measures on the lines of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission are needed, but that the procedures accompanying them must be fair.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, seemed to think that one of the great menaces in this area at the moment was of trial by the media. Again, I disagree. I believe that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 strikes a fair balance between the crucial needs of the right to fair trial and the equally important need for open justice and freedom of public information and debate.
However, having explained the issues on which I differ, I join with almost every other Member of your Lordships' House in explaining why I believe the current procedures to be unsatisfactory and unfair. I hope that I summarise all the points that have been made so far, and one or two of my own, by concentrating on the unsatisfactory features of the system.
Under the Companies Act, the Government are allowed to publish an official report of an investigation, which is highly condemnatory of an individual and effectively finds him guilty of serious criminal offences, despite the presumption of innocence, which is the golden thread of our legal system, and despite the fact that the individual stands condemned not by a court of law but by government appointed inspectors. The inspectors' condemnatory report is admissible in evidence in any legal proceedings and can also be used in proceedings to disqualify him as a company director.
The report may be made and published on the basis of a process which has each of the following eight features present. First, it need not respect the presumption of innocence. Secondly, the process is conducted in secret by the inspectors with no safeguard of open justice. Thirdly, it does not require the inspectors to follow any prescribed procedures, but leaves them free to conduct their investigations in any way that they consider appropriate. Fourthly, it does not require the inspectors to inform the individuals under investigation about the identity of witnesses against them. Fifthly, it does not entitle those under investigation to confront or cross-examine witnesses or even have access to the file containing the evidence against them. Sixthly, it entitles inspectors to reply upon evidence that would be inadmissible in a court of law and to prepare a report on the basis of evidence of that kind. Seventhly, it vests in the Secretary of State a sweepingly broad discretion to publish the inspectors'

231
findings to the whole world with massive publicity, even though the findings are likely or certain to destroy the reputation of those under investigation. Eighthly, despite the severe damage to personal and commercial reputation, the process does not allow the condemned individual any right of appeal or indeed any effective access to a court of law at all to challenge the findings or to attempt to recover his reputation.
I should explain to non-lawyers that that last aspect arises because the Secretary of State and his inspectors enjoy privilege from libel proceedings and also because English judicial review does not provide an effective remedy for an excessive but lawful exercise of the inspectors' draconian public powers. Indeed, English judicial review does not provide an effective remedy regarding the substance of the inspectors' factual findings, unless it can be shown that the inspectors have taken leave of their senses— a kind of judicial certificate of official insanity on the part of the inspectors.
Like Ministers, our courts have given very wide latitude to inspectors to regulate their own procedures. For many years several independent and authoritative bodies have powerfully criticised the unfair system of publication of inspectors' reports for lack of effective safeguards for individuals against the misuse of public powers. Perhaps I may mention just one or two instances. In 1980, the Law Reform Committee of the Senate of the Inns of Court of England and Wales was strongly critical, referring to the fact that some inspectors had been:
"unable to resist passing judgments which they are not really well qualified to make".
It referred to the fact that no confrontation or cross-examination was allowed and said that the method of inquiry was "inherently unfair" and carried a high risk of being unfair And it explained why. I agree with that committee's proposed reforms, which call for fundamental changes in the machinery for the supervision and control of companies, including the creation of an SEC type of commission. In preparing for this debate, I was interested to discover that in the United States there are much more effective safeguards for the accused than exist in this country.
Other critics were the Bank of England and the Securities and Investment Board, which are both specialist and experienced regulatory bodies. They informed the Select Committee of the other place a couple of years ago that in their view inspectors should establish facts rather than make judgments. They pointed out that one advantage would be that published reports:
"would not lambast individuals without any apparent remedy".
The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, voiced similar, well founded concerns. In a letter published in The Times in September 1974— almost 20 years ago — Lord Fletcher, a senior solicitor and former Deputy Speaker of the other place, wrote:
"The procedure is lot merely an unsatisfactory method of ascertaining truth It lends itself to the publication of reports criticising and reflecting adversely on the conduct and reputation of individuals … These reports are particularly injurious because they are promulgated by the government and assumed to be the result of a judicial or semi-judicial investigation".
Surely the time is over-ripe for action by the Government to remove a source of real injustice. The
232
very important aim of uncovering and prosecuting commercial fraud and other criminal misconduct does not justify the use of unfair and excessive means by government appointed inspectors. To be a fair system the inquisitorial system must fully respect the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. In my view, it fails to do so and there is a pressing need for reform.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him to recognise that of course I accept his perhaps rather unfair rebuke. I was trying to point out not that there should be no laws, but that laws should be firm. I feel that it is better to sort things out near the root of the problem rather than throw money and lawyers at it after it has flowered.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is not for me to rebuke the noble Lord at all. What I believe is that the great old system, when gentlemen were gentlemen in the City of London and things could all be done with a handshake and by self-regulation, is, alas, long gone.
4.59 p.m
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, for raising these issues. My own contribution may not find entire favour with all noble Lords who have offered their thoughts so far. It seems to me that the grossest defect of the present system is described in the one word, "delay". It cannot be right to delay these matters for the length of time that we have seen recently.
I shall mention two names. I know neither of the people, and neither of them would recognise me in the street. It seems to me to be quite monstrous and indefensible that two persons, criticised and charged in Blue Arrow and in Guinness— Miss Brimelow in Blue Arrow, and Mr. Mayhew of Cazenove in Guinness— should have been hanging in the wind year in year out and ultimately find that the charge is dropped. I find that wholly indefensible.
The present powers of the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry or, as he likes to call himself, the President of the Board of Trade, are required. We need to look carefully at the operation of the powers in practice. There is a serious argument for a full-time body of inspectors. At the moment, as has been said, it is normally a Queen's Counsel and an accountant. They build up no body of experience and expertise.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me leaping on my usual hobby-horse— that is, my suggestion that High Court judges should retire at 65. If they did that, not least of the benefits would be that there would be a permanent inspectorate of exceptionally high quality which might be better relied upon to introduce the elements of fairness which are sometimes lacking. Of course, we have concentrated this afternoon on a fairly limited area. But the area is extremely wide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, pointed out. The Inland Revenue have draconian powers, as do many other tribunals— VAT tribunals not least among them.
It seems to me that the two characteristics one wants in DTI inquiries are quite simple. First, their procedures

233
must be recognised to be fair, and plainly they are not. I cannot begin to approach the demolition which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, applied. I do not agree with all his criticisms but many of them cannot be gainsaid. So there must be the acceptance that the procedures are fair, even if the findings are adverse to an individual on occasions, as is inevitable.
The second characteristic of an inquiry is that it should establish fact. One significant blemish over the past 10 years (a blemish one sees no longer) is the rush of blood to the head of both inspectors who see it as an opportunity for violent and vituperative language rather than confining themselves to a recitation of fact— a recitation of fact, incidentally, which is often much more devastating and effective than headline paragraphs towards the back of the report.
However, that is not a problem one needs to overstress. In 1989— 90 there were only five DTI outside inspections and even internally only 158. It is important also to bear in mind the mechanism and the regime that operates. It is designed essentially to protect companies or their shareholders from wrongdoing. It is designed to protect the public and maintain high standards in the financial community. I suggest that that inures to the benefit of both the public and the financial community. After all, small investors do not have lunch and do not keep books that record their luncheon guests, so far as I am aware; they do not conduct their business on the shake of a hand. They invest the totality of their modest life savings either by pension contributions indirectly, unit trusts or similar small transactions. They are given lamentably little protection at the moment by our system of company legislation or indeed by the operation of many companies.
There have been many examples recently where it seems to many of us that companies have been used as vehicles for directors' benefit and it is almost a heresy to point out occasionally that the company is not the property of the director; it is the property of the shareholders. There is hardly a day now (I hope to put this point moderately) where one does not read the business news in a reputable newspaper and sees another saga of greed and corruption with directors taking multi-million pound going away presents, to use the phrase of my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick, not for running their institutions properly but as a consequence of departure in shame and disgrace. That cannot be justified and it is a significant blemish on the operation of commercial transactions in this country. It is partly to deal with that that the DTI regime exists, though I agree, with significant blemishes.
One must bear in mind also that the mechanism of being able to trade as a corporate entity is an extremely attractive privilege. It is a limited company. I have no friends who are Names at Lloyd's, but I expect they recognise the benefit of limited liability trading these days— one cannot have the penny and the bun forever. If one wants the attraction— and they are extremely significant for limited liability, plc or corporate trading — one is bound to incur some disadvantage. Some of the advantages have been understressed, whereas the disadvantages of that sort of inquiry may have been
234
overstressed. After all, one has corporate secrecy; limited liability; the shareholders too often are passive either through ignorance in the case of small investors or acquiescence in the case of large pension fund and corporate investors whose history over the past 15 years has not been marvellous.
All those advantages inure and there must be some consequent disadvantages to those who may be subject to DTI inquiries. As an immediate step, we need the introduction of some safeguards; not endless cross-examination of every witness by counsel or solicitor for every person who may be investigated. Perhaps I may say in parenthesis that the history of the Orkney child abuse inquiry does not encourage one along that path when I believe £ 6 million of public money was spent — I almost said "wasted"— with no conclusion at the end of the day.
I conducted an inquiry— not a DTI inquiry— into allegations of abuse at a children's home. I sat with a lay assessor. We had to determine our own procedures, bearing in mind that simple lodestar that we should try to be fair. It is too easy a palliative to suggest that all inquiries to be just must be public. It would have been a gross wound to the child complainants in that case for their complaints, sometimes of serious sexual abuse and sometimes of violent abuse, to be heard in public. We must offer the opportunity for representation, to do as I believe we did; namely, to give a reasonable opportunity for people to know what they must meet; to give them the opportunity to read the transcript of their evidence and return if they wish or make re-submissions in writing; and, fundamentally and most importantly, to give anyone about whom complaint is made the opportunity to reply before the report is in final form.
There is therefore a degree of consensus among your Lordships, although I tried to apply a slightly cautionary brake. I must not use the phrase "cavalry charge" because my friend the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is not here today; he was troubled about cavalry charges yesterday. We need to be cautious about doing away with a system which has virtues. What it needs is immediate improvement substantially along the lines of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and ultimately, in our belief on this side, in the proper incorporation, funding and resourcing of something on the lines of the SEC in the United States. I am not sure whether that will please all your Lordships who peer from the other side of the House, but that is our remedy.
Finally, the Scott Inquiry may be intended to be outside the remit of this Motion. But, as it was referred to, in our opinion it is doing good public work and we are saddened by and deprecate what appears to be a fairly vigorously co-ordinated effort to rubbish the findings before they are published.
5.9 p.m
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I join in the thanks to my noble friend Lord Boardman for bringing before the House this afternoon this Motion, which raises a matter of great interest to its Members.

235
he noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave us perhaps a timely warning that we should not exaggerate the extent of fraud and the extent to which it affects business in this country. At the same time I think it is right to say that one cannot really imagine ourselves going back to those innocent days when all business was apparently done on a handshake. I have no doubt that even today much business takes place on the basis of trust. Indeed, any lawyer who looks at the files tracing the history of a dispute often finds that it begins in a situation of great trust which breaks down only gradually. The fact of the matter is that there is fraudulent behaviour around and one has to have machinery in place by way of appropriate regulatory authorities and so on to deal with that kind of conduct.
It is particularly important nowadays, when the market is no longer simply national but is to a high degree international, that those who are doing business on the market, or are thinking of doing business on it, should have confidence that it is a market in which they can operate with the knowledge that there is machinery to deal with matters such as fraud. It is fair to say that the amount of investments which are placed in the City of London tends to show that the systems we have command a good deal of confidence.
Nonetheless, in the course of the debate various different kinds of bodies have been mentioned. There has been much said of the DTI-type inquiry, but of course there are many others. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, mentioned ones such as the Orkney inquiry. It is perfectly plain that the procedures will not always and cannot always be the same.
Reference has also been made to criminal investigations. The matters there are for the Serious Fraud Office. Those are not in the same kind of way public inquiries.
These various kinds of inquiries point to different regimes which may all have a bearing on some particular case. It may, for example, be required at the outset that Ministers decide whether or not an inquiry should go ahead or whether or not it would be appropriate to give priority to the system of prosecution. That is a difficulty with the kind of inquiries set up for the DTI because they may often involve— not always of course— questions of criminal misconduct and there may come a stage, either before the inquiry is set up or even while the inquiry is running, when a decision has to be taken as to whether it would be more appropriate to go ahead with a prosecution or with the inquiry. That in itself can be one of the factors that leads to the kind of delay which has been mentioned several times in the course of the debate.
We would all share the belief that it is desirable that inquiries of whatever kind should be disposed of with the greatest possible speed. I remember noting that the famous trial in the last century of the city of Glasgow banker— there was a huge fraud on that occasion— had all been completed within four months of the discovery of the fraud. That would be unthinkable nowadays. It clearly would be desirable if it could be done, but the simple fact of the matter is that things are very much more complicated today than they were then. One does not have a simple set of books to look at.
236
So far as speed is concerned, it depends on what particular aspect one is looking at. If one is dealing with trials, in that connection a working group has been set up by my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to look into the question of trials and to see whether anything can be done on that. On the matter of inquiries, there are two competing values. It is said, on the one hand, that these should take place speedily. But, on the other hand, it is said that they should always have the full type of safeguards with full cross-examination and so on. One cannot necessarily have both. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, the Orkney inquiry had a very great deal of cross-examination. The question is whether a faster procedure could not have been devised or used in that circumstance. It is easy to criticise but one must remember that sensitive issues relating to children and so on arose in that case and people wished to put their points of view. But speed and a full and elaborate procedure of cross-examination do not always go hand in hand.
It is true to say that there is a worry about the length of time taken to publish DTI reports. That can be because the investigation takes a long time; it can be because the investigation is delayed by a prosecution; it can be that even if the report has been prepared, publication is in the end delayed because of, shall we say, criminal proceedings. Those are all matters which may affect the speed with which the result of such an inquiry may come to be known.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made a very powerful contribution criticising the matter of DTI reports. It is right to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, that they apply to people who are operating under the system of limited liability. A great privilege goes with that and those people are, after all, stewards of shareholders' funds. It is therefore important that a system is in position which ensures that any wrongdoing is rooted out and lessons are learnt for the future.
I accept that there must be occasions when individuals feel that they have been criticised unfairly. That has to be balanced against the important benefits which flow from the reports published. No one in the debate has suggested for a moment that a lot of those reports do not contain most valuable recommendations. The reports often reveal malpractices or defects which may be cured by changes in practice or indeed by remedial legislation. The reports are prepared by distinguished and authoritative inspectors. I noted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that perhaps retired judges might be used for that. It is true to say that the present inspectors are invariably people of great distinction in the law and in accountancy and that their reports have carried great weight.
It is also true to say that at the end of the day the inspectors, if their reports are to carry great weight, should feel free to express the conclusions which they reach in the light of their investigations. They do that in various ways. Not all the reports which appear are of the same tenor. Some are more like plain factual statements; others are more highly coloured. Some are perhaps

237
slightly exaggerated in the telling by the press. But I accept that some have been highly critical. Where the criticism is justified, that is proper.
Criticism has been levelled at the particular form of procedures used in these reports. I am sure noble Lords will have noticed what is said. It is true to say that the procedures have been to a good extent changed or improved in practice over the years, and it is correct to say that that the guiding star in all such procedures must be, according to the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the Pergamon Press case, fairness.
The procedures must be fair. As a result of the examination of procedures in the Pergamon Press case, the practice which has been alluded to of making the critical passages available to people for their comment, before publication, has been introduced. To some extent that meets the kind of criticisms which have been made. I do not believe that the speed or the effectiveness of such inquiries would necessarily be improved by the kind of suggestions which have been made for perhaps fuller cross-examination and so on.
In the event, people may feel that the criticism has been harsh. If it has been fair, then obviously that is no bad thing. On balance, even though occasionally there may be criticisms which people feel are unjustified— I accept that it is difficult for them to get redress in such cases — nonetheless, the public interest is served by the kind of system which we have at the moment.
A particular matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in connection with the DTI inspectors. That was the use of the particular powers under the Companies Act to obtain answers to questions from people which could then be used in evidence. He said that this matter had now been taken by Mr. Saunders to the European Court of Human Rights. I wish to be quite clear. The matter has been to the Commission and it has held the application to be partially admissible. It has not yet proceeded to consider it or to report on its merits. Therefore, we do not yet know whether it has found that there has been a breach. After that, the matter will almost certainly go to the Court of Human Rights. The Government believe that the position is in line with the convention and they are prepared to defend the matter. In case there is some doubt about it, at present I stress that the position is as I have stated.
In the course of various remarks, there was a suggestion that jury trials were not really appropriate for matters relating to fraud. That is obviously a question which has been much discussed over the years. As I believe we all know, in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, he recommended that jury trials should not be used in certain of these cases. The arguments against their use have been made by several noble Lords. But there are very powerful arguments in their favour. The Government remain unpersuaded that they should abandon jury trials.
Obviously, there are difficulties in presenting the issues to a jury, but how they present their case is a matter for consideration by the prosecution and the defence. Over recent years the use of graphics and so on
238
has made the presentation more vivid and understandable. But finally, despite what may be said, when one strips down the technicalities, the issue at the heart of any fraud case is whether or not the defendants were acting honestly or dishonestly. Ultimately that is the decision that has to be reached. The Government remain persuaded that that is an issue which is best decided, as it is in all other spheres, not by a judge or judges, however distinguished, but by ordinary members of the public who come to it with fresh minds and who apply their best endeavours to reach a decision on the matter. I believe that that remains the best way. We should be seeking to refine our procedures in order to make the evidence vivid to the jury rather than introducing a novel procedure which would have uncertain effects.
In conclusion, there is no single solution to the question of procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given us a very good example of the kind of inquiry in which he was engaged where the approach which he used was obviously geared to the matter being investigated. Obviously, that would not have been an appropriate way to approach the inquiry into a major tragedy like the King's Cross disaster or into the one with which I am very familiar; namely, the Piper Alpha disaster. There, something very different had to be used.
Whatever form is used, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, the key must be fairness. One has always to consider the appropriate procedure in the circumstances having regard to fairness. For example, I know that in the procedures used in the large disaster inquiries that is something which is very carefully considered. Even if the precise formulation in the Salmon Report is not always used exactly, the principles and the spirit of that report very much guide those who are looking into such matters. They are concerned to make sure that the procedures are fair. In that they have regard for the kind of principles which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, laid down when he carried out investigations some years ago. They have become the guiding star for the setting up of such inquiries. I believe that I can assure noble Lords that these are principles which are all designed to ensure that the issue is resolved, having regard to fairness to all those who have an interest in the inquiry.
As I say, there is no single solution. I do not say that all our inquiry procedures are perfect. Obviously, they are constantly subject to review and improvement. The debate which we have had today has taken a wide-ranging look at these various matters and I have no doubt that the Government and others involved will have found in the debate much valuable material for consideration.
5.27 p.m
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. As I predicted when I opened it, the Motion was drawn in such a way that was bound to attract a variety of special cases and points of view. I welcome those and I am sure that I am not expected to respond to them. The universal theme throughout the debate was that we must look for fairness. There were a number of findings of unfairness in the present system.

239
I was a little disappointed that, apart from the speakers on the Front Benches, we did not hear from noble Lords on the Opposition Benches able to speak on the subject of fairness. It i s personal fairness with which this debate is concerned.
I very much welcome what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I can go along with almost all the points he made as regards the faults in the present system. I reserve judgment on the question of the SEC on the American style. As regards the criticisms which he made about the present system, I believe that they were fully justified. I wish that in my opening speech I had been able to put some of them as well as he did.
There was less acceptance from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, of the weakness in the safeguards that exist. I was somewhat disappointed with his response to that. The noble Lord referred to the Scott Inquiry. In my opening remarks I said that I was not going to make any reference to it. It is not a statutory inquiry. I do not believe that he would expect me to respond now. In saying that we should exercise caution in doing away with the present system, the noble Lord failed to recognise the damage and unfairness which is caused in certain instances under the present system.
Several noble Lords have referred to the question of speed: to the excessive delay in many inquiries and to the damage that has resulted. I was therefore disappointed when my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry suggested that speed and method do not necessarily go hand in hand. Perhaps I got the wrong impression from him that speed was rather more important than the fairness of the outcome. I am sure that that would not be his view. My noble and learned friend is shaking his head. I believe that fairness must come first. Of course, speed is very important, but we want fairness and, subject to that, the maximum speed.
My noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry suggested that the procedure has improved over the years. I wish that that were so. I think that procedure has tended to slacken since the rather rigorous guidelines that we were given in early reports, such as that of the Salmon Commission, to which my noble friend Lord Morris referred.
I wonder whether the balance between public advantage and private rights is correct. I do not think that we in this House should accept a system which can lead to very clear cases of unfairness. I think that the House would be wrong if it were to say that such a system is unfair but we should nevertheless put up with it because it is the best that we can produce or is at least quick. I hope that the procedures will be considered with considerable care to see whether improvements can be made.
I very much endorse the majority of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the many points that have been made by my noble friends. With that, I thank ail those who have participated in the debate and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Car Crime
5.31 p.m
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux rose to call attention to the increase in vehicle thefts and related crimes; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my remarks in this debate, which I believe to be the first of its kind, is to consider what part we in this House can play in reducing vehicle crime in the United Kingdom.
I must declare an interest in that I have served as chairman of the European Secure Vehicle Alliance since its formation in June 1992. The aim of the alliance is, put simply, to seek a reduction of vehicle crime in the United Kingdom and Europe.
The alliance (ESVA) has two related components: first, a registered parliamentary group which enjoys the support of Members of all parties in both Houses, and, secondly, a network which includes manufacturers, insurers, motoring associations, component suppliers, police, the probation service and several other organisations which aim by their combined efforts to reach a shared goal of significantly reducing vehicle crime.
I have had the privilege of meeting Ministers from the Home Office, the Department of Transport, and the Department for Education over the past 18 months and I am encouraged by their interest and support. Furthermore, all those departments, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, have been shown a draft of my speech to encourage input and support in combating this problem.
Although our remit includes road vehicles and we have an awareness of closely related problems associated with the construction and plant industry, I propose to concentrate today on theft of cars.
The situation is very serious: reported crime for the 12 months to June 1993 indicates that vehicle crime, at 28 per cent, is the most reported offence in England and Wales. In round numbers-1 million offences of theft from cars and 600,000 thefts of cars were reported, and the insurance industry paid out over £ 700 million in vehicle crime claims. Actual theft from cars is probably closer to 2.5 million offences per year rather than the reported 1 million and is clearly a serious problem which will be raised later in this debate.
The gravity of the car theft problem in England and Wales is well illustrated by the following two points. First, I refer to the key findings from two recent international crime surveys compiled by two researchers from the Dutch Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. This research, conducted in 20 countries across the world, reveals that England and Wales have the worst record for theft of cars. Furthermore, there is no other crime where we compare so unfavourably. Secondly, professional, as opposed to unplanned, theft of cars is growing rapidly. The Metropolitan Police reported that 36 per cent. of cars stolen in England and Wales in 1991 were not recovered. That indicates a professional crime where the vehicle's identity is changed, it is broken down for parts or it is shipped out of the country. The

241
Metropolitan Police now report that in London over 50 per cent. of cars are not recovered and that vehicle crime is clearly becoming more and more organised.
How and why England and Wales have reached this unhappy state is unknown. It should be noted that theft of vehicles in Northern Ireland, and especially Scotland, appears to be less of a problem. A key point, to which I shall return, is that our information systems are inadequate and deny us all the opportunity to study and correct this situation.
Let us consider what is being and can be done. The Home Office declared 1992 as "Car Crime Prevention Year" and I consider that it has made solid progress. Its campaign slogan, "Car Crime— Together— We Can Crack It", has been taken up by motorists, manufacturers, insurers and police. While that attitude is developing in our communities, I would like to explore how the same winning strategy can be developed within government and its various departments.
When we think of cars, I suggest that we all turn first towards the Department of Transport. The MoT test is currently under review, primarily to review its overall integrity, but I would urge the department to be mindful of the opportunities to incorporate significant vehicle theft detection and prevention initiatives while conducting this review.
The House is probably aware that a car's registration mark (commonly known as the number plate) is not the "identifying or distinctive mark" of a car. There is a unique vehicle identification number (VIN number) which is stamped into the vehicle's chassis. It is also carried on the VIN plate located under the bonnet, and in new cars may also be present, and visible through the windscreen, on the nearside of the dashboard. This number— and, incidentally, the engine serial number — is recorded on the vehicle registration document (more commonly known as the log book).
We propose that all this information is checked at every MoT inspection to ensure that the car is what it is said to be. This would discourage the practice of vehicle ringing. For those of my noble friends who are unfamiliar with the expression "ringing", I should explain that the term was originally used in connection with the antecedent of the car; namely, the horse. A "ringer" was a racehorse that raced under the false identity of a poorer performing animal and won at long odds. In vehicle crime, the criminal normally obtains a badly damaged vehicle, then steals a similar car in good condition and transfers the vehicle identification details from the damaged to the stolen car. The stolen car will then be sold with little risk of detection and is also called a "ringer".
It could be said that it is an imposition to ask motorists to present their vehicle log book when applying for an MoT certificate, but it would also represent a small contribution by every motorist to combating vehicle crime. I would also encourage the Department of Transport in its efforts to tighten up on administrative procedures associated with the MoT to reduce inspection incompetence and outright fraud. The development of a national computer base recording all MoT checks, together with mileage information, would
242
have a dramatic effect on organised crime while also enhancing the quality and perception of the MoT system.
Another review currently being undertaken by the Department of Transport concerns the format and efficacy of the driving test. While this may not at first sight have much relevance to the reduction of vehicle crime, I would suggest that it may well have the greatest potential in enhancing the attitudes of young adults both towards driving safely and towards the avoidance of vehicle crime.
Over 50 per cent. of applications and passes of the current system are achieved by 17 year-olds— and yet no reference whatsoever of this important landmark in a young adult's maturation has ever featured in a debate about the curriculum for 12 to 16 year-olds. The Green Cross Code and cycling awareness schemes feature in the education of our 5– 12 year-old children, but then there is a great void.
I urge the Departments of Transport and Education to work together to see how best they can both reduce vehicle accidents and vehicle crime among young adults, by using as a catalyst for some fresh thinking the proposed changes in the format of the driving test, which were outlined last week. I suggest that we can travel an extra mile in our efforts to meet our objectives of reducing both accidents and vehicle crime.
The House is probably not aware of the fact that over one-third of known vehicle crime offenders are aged 16 or under. Furthermore, no other crime is reported as exhibiting such a high proportion of such young offenders.
This evidence alone suggests that we must aim to build a formal dialogue with all 12– 16 year-olds as to their attitudes to vehicles. A successful attitude to driving, and indeed to life itself, should start to be formed not at 16 years, as suggested last week, but at a much earlier age. Furthermore, our road safety officers across the whole nation, and many other experts in both road safety and crime prevention, are anxious to increase their effectiveness in influencing this vital 12— 16 year-old age group.
It is also clearly going to be a challenge to produce relevant teaching material for young adults. I have read reports of sophisticated video games playing a part in teaching hazard perception. I suggest that we issue a much greater challenge; the development of vehicle simulators which can play a part in the training of all drivers. Teaching methods that are used for today's pilots should be employed to train tomorrow's motorists.
While we are addressing young offenders, I feel that I should also bring to my noble friend's attention some vehicle crime analysis recently completed by Northumbria Probation Service, which works at the forefront in combating vehicle crime. The issue of driving while disqualified (including also driving without insurance) is such that the case load as a result of this offence has increased by a factor of four in the past three years and is now matching the case load for vehicle theft itself.
The downward spiral associated with crime is clearly in evidence and will need to be addressed. The

243
consequences of vehicle crime, and indeed of unsafe driving, must be clearly established in the minds of young people.
The Department of Trade and Industry is also included in this vision of government departments working in partnership — especially as it is the lead department for the motor industry. Programmes are already in place to explore vehicle recycling; the "cradle to grave" approach for the motor car. A significant degree of vehicle crime arises as a result of poor practice associated with vehicle salvage. There is currently no firm requirement for any party to record the "end of life of a vehicle". As a nation we operate an asset register for vehicles with no requirement to remove spent assets. However, the DVLA, which also has a vital role to play in the reduction of vehicle crime, is to be congratulated upon working with the industry in launching a trial "certificate of destruction" initiative. There will be significant benefits to both the environment and vehicle crime reduction if vehicle recycling is approached with both goals firmly in view.
Finally, perhaps I may address some observations to the Home Office. Our studies of successful vehicle crime prevention campaigns around the world— and it has to be said that there are not very many, as it is a most challenging issue — have one common strand: sound management data which illustrate the problem and allow one to measure the outcome of any intervention. As I mentioned earlier, currently we have no capacity within the UK to access the type of information necessary to allow any organisation or group of organisations to make a measured contribution to combating vehicle crime. I am, however, aware of the plans, which were announced in the most general outline last week, for the formation of the National Stolen Vehicle Intelligence Bureau.
It is vital that this information is made available as quickly as possible and I also suggest that such an initiative is undertaken jointly by a number of interested parties and not left to reside under public sector control. The need is great and I understand that private companies already have the capacity to deliver most of, if not all, the necessary information today.
In conclusion, there is unquestionably a need to protect the integrity of markings stamped by manufacturers on to vehicles and their components. Information systems will play a major part in reducing vehicle crime but will depend on the quality of information on record. This information will be based largely on vehicle manufacturer markings and it is vital that these markings are protected. The current situation is that it is permissible for such markings to be erased and not an offence to trade in vehicles or components where markings have been erased or tampered with in some way. While I am not an expert in the drafting of law, I do feel strongly that a small step of the kind needed to protect the markings, implemented effectively, will greatly encourage the manufacturers, the insurers, the police and indeed all those associated with the challenge of reducing vehicle crime.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. I and many other people will read this debate with great interest. I beg to move for Papers.
5.46 p.m
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for having chosen this subject for debate today. It is an increasing and widespread problem. Home Office statistics for 1992, the latest available figures, show that nearly 600,000 cars were stolen and that more than 950,000 were reported as being broken into and having property stolen from them.
If my experience is anything to go by, the figure for the number of cars broken into is on the low side. I am afraid to say that I have been a victim three times during the past six months. On the first occasion, sadly, my golf clubs were stolen from the back of my car. There is an expression of horror on noble Lords' faces, but it was most serious. I reported the matter to the police, who were most attentive. They came round, did their best and made all the right kind of noises. Unfortunately, my clubs were never recovered, but the theft was recorded.
On the second occasion my spare wheel was stolen from underneath my car, which was perhaps even more irritating. The theft was committed in broad daylight in a London street. Naturally, I telephoned the police, who said that if I wanted to report the matter I should go to the station. They said that there did not seem a lot of point, however, because a great deal of that went on and there was not much that they could do about it. From the point of view of insurance, it was not worth my while to report the theft and therefore I did not go to the station
On the third occasion a rear window was broken but fortunately nothing was taken from the car. On that occasion it was not worth reporting the matter. I dare say that other noble Lords have had similar experiences, but if mine is anything to go by, two out of three incidents go unreported.
My noble friend's Motion covers three areas of crime. The first is theft from cars such as I have described. In recent years manufacturers have done a great deal to improve security. They have provided better locks, coded radio cassette players with removable fronts and so forth and, I am glad to say, spare wheels that are less easy to remove. After buying a car only recently, it is slightly irritating to learn that there is now a better part for this.
The motorist has two parts to play. First, it is amazing how many people neglect to lock their cars when they leave them. If they locked their cars, the incidence of theft and stolen cars would decrease considerably. I suppose I should declare an interest. I am a member of the RAC Public Policy Committee and I commend the document which the RAC has produced called Car Crime: How To Avoid It. It gives useful tips for those who wish to avoid these unpleasant experiences.
I also believe that motorists can help themselves by not buying things like radios or spare wheels which they know or suspect may have been stolen. That may well be a pious hope — I suspect it is— but for everything stolen there is presumably a buyer somewhere. If people were a little more careful about what they bought, maybe there would be less incentive for others to steal.
A second main area of anxiety, which is much more serious, is the taking of cars without the consent of the

245
owner, so-called joy riding, or for other criminal purposes. It accounts for some two-thirds of car thefts and, as we know, may have the most horrific results which are all too frequently reported in the newspapers. The Government have recently taken steps and powers to deal with that and one hopes that they will have an effect. I should like to see penalties go even further, with consideration being given to banning young offenders from driving for a long time, perhaps to the age of 30. That would be a serious disincentive to youngsters from indulging in that type of joy riding.
The third main area, which accounts for the other one-third of car thefts, is the more traditional taking away of cars which then have their identities changed and are sold on to unsuspecting or uncaring new owners, increasingly, I believe, abroad. Here there are two measures which the Government and manufacturers could consider taking together to help combat the problem. My noble friend Lord Brougham has already mentioned vehicle identification numbers. Following manufacture, all vehicles are issued with a unique vehicle identification number prior to sale. That number is recorded both by the manufacturer and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The DVLA record contains other relevant details of the vehicle and the keeper and can be accessed by police officers. As such, it provides a valuable means of detecting stolen or incorrectly registered vehicles.
However, vehicle identification numbers are not easily visible. In most cars they are located on a plate fixed in the engine compartment or are stamped into the floor adjacent to the driver's seat. Neither location can be seen from outside the car and both sorts of vehicle identification numbers can and are tampered with by thieves. A visible number etched into the left-hand side of the facia would provide an added deterrent to criminals. It would allow a further critically important check to be made by police seeking to verify the bona fides of the car. It would also have other implications, not only for the detection of car crime but for other criminal use of cars.
I understand that a number of manufacturers are considering the provision of visible numbers. Government encouragement, or the enactment of regulations accompanied by a criminal offence of unlawfully and without reasonable excuse removing, defacing or altering a vehicle identification number, would undoubtedly meet with a positive response from the motoring public.
The other issue is vehicle registration. Of the almost 200,000 vehicles which disappear each year, a substantial number are given a new and false identity and sold on to unsuspecting or uncaring buyers, either in the UK or abroad. An essential step in the process is a ready supply of vehicle registration documents, which we used to know as log books. Many vehicle registration documents are acquired with scrapped vehicles; that is, vehicles which have been damaged beyond economic repair or, in other words, write-offs. While many such vehicles are legitimately transferred, professional thieves can use registration documents to legitimate stolen or rebuilt cars of the same model.
246
Incidentally, my suggestion would also help with the problem of insurance write-offs which I know was raised only a short while ago at Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The practice could be reduced if the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency would de-register a vehicle upon being notified by police and insurers that it was considered a total loss. Any subsequent attempt to use the original registration mark would be detected by inquiry of the DVLA files. A rebuilt vehicle previously notified as a total loss would only be re-registered once inspected and pronounced roadworthy. The inspection could be undertaken by the vehicle inspectorate at the owner's expense or by an approved agency such as a motoring organisation.
Those are two avenues for possible action to combat the growing problem. I commend them to the Government and to motor manufacturers in their appropriate place. However, I should not like to conclude my speech without paying tribute to what the Government, the police and the manufacturers are at present trying to do to tackle the problem. My noble friend referred to the initiative between the Home Office and the vehicle manufacturers to improve safety and security of vehicles. That is important and should be given encouragement. The police forces that have set up stolen vehicle squads— perhaps the best known one is the Metropolitan Police— should also be given every encouragement in their efforts.
This is a serious problem which my noble friend has identified in this afternoon's debate. I hope that we shall all benefit from the suggestions which have been made.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for introducing the debate in such a positive way. I hope that the Government will listen to and read the noble Lord's remarks, take them very much to heart and act on them.
Noble Lords will appreciate that I shall take a slightly different tack. It would not be useful if everyone said the same in the debate so my remarks will be slightly differently angled from the opening remarks so far. This afternoon I wish to talk about crimes related to the subject on the Order Paper and look at some of the causes and suggest actions which might be taken to tackle the causes of the crimes.
I wish to give a list of the crimes. Stealing motor cars, driving without tax, without insurance and without MoT are crimes which are horrendously prevalent, as we have heard. But what is the social impact of those crimes? At one end we can see, particularly, enormous numbers of young men locked up in police cells or prison because they have engaged in the crimes. It is even more serious than that. In Manchester recently, a murder was committed which, we understand, was associated with dealing in MoT certificates. When we realise that that can be the result of such crimes, we must understand and recognise the serious nature of the problem.
To touch on the causes, what has happened over the past few years to make this country almost the car crime country of the world? On the one side, we must recognise that motor cars are an accoutrement of modern living. Young men in particular aspire to own

247
and run motor cars. That is compounded by the lack and cost of public transport. Quite often, the only way to get about is to have a motor car or access to one. However, on the other side is the fact that far too many of our young people are, effectively, part of the underclass which is becoming so recognisable now as a feature of our society. They are young people who do not have a job or who have very poorly paid jobs. They do not necessarily have the resources to buy, maintain, tax and insure motor cars. Yet the pressures of society are on them to do so.
In those circumstances, what can society do about the situation? We should, first, do something about the general problem of the underclass— that is, the under-privileged part of our community— by reducing unemployment and increasing low wages. Moreover, we could reduce the cost of legitimate car ownership for people of limited means. For example, we could consider doing away with the vehicle excise duty, the road tax. There is no reason why the revenue that is raised therefrom should not be raised by an increase in the price of petrol. That would save the motor car owner having to find a chunk of money each year. I accept that for most Members of your Lordships' House, the £ 100 or so that is required every year is almost a flea bite; it is not very significant. However, for someone who is living on unemployment benefit or income support it is an enormous chunk of money to find.
Further, we could encourage car manufacturers to produce low cost, low-powered cars. I say "low-powered" particularly because that would perhaps prevent some of the horrendous accidents that happen with young drivers who drive high-powered cars and who, because of their lack of driving experience, end up either killing them selves or other people or seriously maiming themselves or others.
We could also look at the prospect of reducing the cost of the MoT certificate. I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, about getting more information into the MoT process as a mechanism to counteract theft of motor vehicles and having things like the vehicle identification number recorded by the DVLA.
Similarly, we could look at the encouragement of low cost insurance for young, impecunious car drivers. That could be associated with the low cost, low-powered cars which it is to be hoped motor manufacturers could produce. Alternatively, we could invest significantly in public transport. Over the past few years, we have seen an effective reduction in such investment. Following deregulation, bus transport systems are far too expensive and, indeed, are just not available in large areas. That forces people to need to run and own motor cars— and, usually, they are the poorest people in our society. We put tremendous pressures upon them.
Another area that we could investigate is the provision of car parking and garage facilities, especially for council tenants. It is interesting to note that the council estates which were extensively built both before and after the war, and up until the 1960s, made no provision for the ownership of motor cars. The net result is that those people in such estates who have acquired motor cars end up harking them on the road or even
248
around the corner from where they live. Such vehicles are ready targets for crime associated with motor cars. If there was some government support for the provision of drive-ins and garages so that people would have somewhere to put their cars, that might help reduce the incidence of the kind of crimes about which we are talking.
I have attempted to try to pitch my remarks in the debate at a slightly different angle from other speakers. I hope that the Government will take note of my remarks and that they will act upon them.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I was quite sure about how I was going to start my contribution to this evening's interesting debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux until the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, started to speak. I cannot let his remarks go unchallenged. He said that we must look at the problem against the background of being the country with the most car crime in the world. Well, the noble Lord is wrong; it is not the biggest car crime country in the world. The noble Lord then went on to elaborate on a number of reasons for the situation.
The noble Lord started by talking about the cost of transport and an underclass. He said that we should, somehow or other, make motor cars cheaper to buy, to tax, to insure and to run. Whether or not you can afford to buy, tax or insure a car is totally irrelevant to the stealing from motor vehicles and the stealing of them; and, indeed, the use of a stolen vehicle for another crime. Damn it! Some of the best thieves of motor cars, art, furniture, property and shares are not an underclass by any manner of means.
The noble Lord also said that we must reduce the costs associated with motor cars— for example, the VED, the price of petrol and the £ 100, or so, licence fee. He said that we must also produce low-cost, low-powered cars. However, it is the market-place that demands what the manufacturer makes in terms of motor cycles, pedal cycles or motor cars. I cannot afford to buy a Rolls Royce; indeed, I do not think I could afford to rent one for a day. Therefore, am 1 a member of an underclass? I have bought a motor car which suits my circumstances. There was a day not so many years ago when I could not even afford that and had to rely on what else was available.
The noble Lord is not living in the real world when he talks about the reduction in such costs. Who is going to pay— the taxpayer? The noble Lord? It is a market situation. If you are a thief you are a thief. The circumstances of your background do not excuse your offence. I will not hear from the noble Lord opposite excuses couched in such social terms. I see that the noble Lord wishes to respond. I give way.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am most grateful. I hope that I did not give the impression that I was making excuses. I was trying to tackle the causes of crime. I believe that to be most important. If we do not tackle the causes, we shall get nowhere in resolving the problem.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving that explanation of his

249
speech. I placed a slightly different interpretation on it. This is a timed debate and therefore I must move on. Originally I wished to begin by congratulating the Government. Frequently we read in the press that the Government do not care about the matters that are the subject of my noble friend's Motion. In 1988 the Government set up the police research group of the Crime Prevention Unit within the Home Office police department. In June 1992 Mr. George Houghton produced an interesting paper entitled The Car Theft Index. The paper dealt with the matter of stolen vehicles.
The police research group has pulled together various pieces of information from the Association of British Insurers, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, motoring organisations and other interested groups, and compiled a single document. I hope the police department will continue with this piece of work. This interesting document raises a number of points. It is interesting to note that it is the older cars registered in 1978 and 1979 that are two-and-a-half times more likely to be stolen than modern cars. That indicates to me that cars produced since 1988 and 1989 incorporate more safety and security features than do older cars.
Some noble Lords and others outside your Lordships' Chamber may accuse the motor industry of being a little laggardly in meeting security requirements. Motor car security has become more and more important and in recent years the motor industry has responded to this need. Some 90 per cent. of motor cars produced today contain enhanced security devices. Nearly all of them have electronic central locking, deadlocks and other such features. All these devices aim to make the stealing and removal of a motor car more difficult.
I do not disagree with the remarks of either of my noble friends as regards vehicle identification numbers. I suggest that they are helpful after a vehicle has been recovered. However, I believe we should aim to prevent a car being taken away in the first place whether it is being stolen to order, for fun, to enable someone to get home because he has missed the last bus, to be broken up for spare parts, or to be sold abroad. If we could prevent cars from being taken away by improved vehicle security through the use of immobilisers or other such devices— in another three or four years no car will be produced that does not contain such security devices — car theft would be greatly reduced.
As my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara said, it is the car owner's responsibility to lock his car. However, there are measures that the Government can take to alleviate this problem. The Royal Automobile Club has suggested time and time again that public car parks should be brought into the domain of consumer legislation. Many motor cars, parts from motor cars and objects from motor cars are stolen in public car parks. The Government should introduce a simple piece of legislation imposing certain duties on car park owners. That would involve higher car park charges— I am afraid that that would not please the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell— but it would lead to a net reduction in the
250
incidence of theft of motor cars and theft from motor cars which would result in lower costs for the state, insurance companies and, ultimately, for us as users.
I also wish to refer to the other aspect of the Motion; namely, associated crime such as ram-raiding and physical assault. I understand that the RAC has gone to the assistance of some 44,000 motorists, many of whom were ladies, who were afraid that they were being followed. We hear of cars being used in the furtherance of post office robberies or other such crimes. I believe it is in that area that we can legitimately call upon my noble friend the Minister to assess what the Government can do to make it more difficult for people to commit these crimes. Further, when people are apprehended for committing these crimes, we should ensure that the penalty fits the crime.
Incidentally, my own car was stolen some three years ago. That car has been stolen twice in the past two years. The thieves were apprehended in the car. They had smashed it into a shop window. They failed to appear in court. An order was made for their arrest, but, as I understand it, nothing has happened since. My noble friend Lord Brabazon suggested there should be a disqualification from driving for perhaps 30 years for certain offences. I am sure that my noble friend was trying to ensure that the penalty fitted the crime when he made that suggestion.
I wonder whether the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes the job it has to do with as much energy as it should devote to that task. I also wonder whether magistrates use all the powers which are at their disposal in this area. I believe that these matters give far greater cause for worry than the smashing of car windscreens or the removal of vehicles which will diminish as modern technology advances.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux for bringing this matter before us for debate. It always seems to me that any discussion concerning cars is emotive and in a strange way encourages the participants to show their often surprisingly heated and strong feelings.
I understand that in the boardroom or at partners' meetings any agenda item relating to cars— who should have what type of car, and why— leads to long and boring discussion and can constitute the lengthiest item on the agenda. I fully understand that people consider owning a car to be an important matter but arguments rage about the type of car that is accorded to someone according to his status. I believe that over the years practically everyone has acquired the expectation of owning a car. After a house, a car is probably the most expensive item we ever purchase. Two-car families are becoming increasingly common and often families who have three grown-up children will have five cars sitting outside the house. That can be a source of temptation to those criminally minded individuals who view the theft of vehicles, or of articles inside them, as an easy route to financial gain. Most houses were built before the demand for multi-garages was apparent. Today, with the high cost of land, it is inconceivable that people will

251
ever be able to keep their cars in secure accommodation, as they would any other item of comparable value in their possession.
As a magistrate I hear many cases relating to car crime. I believe that car-related crime accounts for over a quarter of all crime. The statistics show that 10 per cent. of all cars are broken into each year. However, the statistic that always shatters me the most is that 70 per cent. of all car crimes are believed to fund the culprits' drug addiction.
Of the annual total of one and a half million car crimes, nearly one million relate to theft from vehicles, the remainder being the theft of the vehicle itself. That figure has increased dramatically over the years but so, of course, have the number of vehicles on the road. The better news is that the increase appears to be slowing down and the numbers fell in some areas last year. It therefore seems to me that, if we are unable to keep cars in secure conditions, then we must concentrate on another approach.
I applaud the Government's initiative in helping the police to catch the criminals and, when that is done, dealing with the culprits quickly, and also in ensuring that the courts have the necessary powers for effective sentencing. Perhaps the most important initiative is one with which we can all become involved in partnership, by improving methods of crime prevention.
As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, those of us who are fortunate enough to have bought a new car in the past few years have marvelled at the new technology which is included in the purchase price. Alarms, deadlocks and immobilisers are frequently installed. However, the majority of cars on the road are older models and it seems to me that discounts on insurance premiums should be allowed for those who actively take preventive measures. That would be a gesture which would be welcomed and, I believe, cost-effective.
As a woman I particularly welcome the new Secured Car Parks scheme. That voluntary scheme makes awards to those car parks which give security a high priority by the use of such measures as closed circuit TV, improved lighting and better layout. I am convinced that initiatives will develop as technology itself develops. Sadly, criminals always try to be one jump ahead, but I am sure that, although this problem has been an escalating one, we shall see a decline as the culprits find that it is not so easy to break into vehicles and get away before the loss has been detected.
There is as much scope for tackling vehicle crime as any other crime, and technology will obviously be a great aid in the fight. But I feel most strongly that the real battle will only be won by a partnership of manufacturers, insurers, the police and, of paramount importance, the public.
I end by thanking my noble friend for initiating this debate, which in itself helps to give the issue a higher profile.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Brougham for initiating this important debate tonight. I must also compliment him
252
on having the initiative, with Barry Sheerman from the other place, to set up the European Secure Vehicle Alliance two years ago. In that short time it has forced many organisations to attach much greater priority to reducing vehicle crime. I was happy to be one of the initial parliamentary members.
I should like to concentrate tonight on the importance and success of the police and private industry in co-operating together to fight vehicle crime. One police force which has offered a remarkably successful example is Northumbria. Until 1991, Newcastle, and Tyne and Wear in general, had a car theft rate triple the United Kingdom average. The growth of car crime was matched only by the proliferation of security devices. Insurers, the police and the Government struggled to keep up as there was a lack of any universal standard against which to measure products. The Northumbria Police conceived the idea of evaluating and advising the public on security products and they turned the tide of vehicle crime in their area with PACT (Partnership Against Car Theft), which maintains and updates a register of vehicle security equipment. Only those members who fit effective products and systems are included, and they each pay an annual subscription of £ 100. Launched in 1992, the scheme has now merged with Essex Police's Sold Secure Scheme and is in partnership with the Retail Motor Industry Federation, the Master Locksmiths Association and the Car Radio Industry Association. It is supported technically by the Home Office, the police scientific development branch and the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has decided to support the initiative on a national basis. All police forces in England, Wales and Scotland will be covered by the scheme by the end of this year.
Products are tested to an exacting specification and must withstand attack by various means for five minutes. Products meeting the PACT requirements are placed on a computerised database, but 80 per cent. of those submitted for testing fail. As a result of the scheme, Northumbria has already seen vehicle crime fall dramatically. In 1990 thefts of motor vehicles increased by 30 per cent. but in 1992 they were down 5 per cent. and they fell again last year. Thefts from motor vehicles have also been reduced dramatically.
The police and the insurance industry are successfully coming together to find common ground. That is hardly surprising as Norwich Union reckons that the average car theft costs the victim £ 1,700 in lost no claims discount, excess and hire car payments. Even the average policy holder who has never made a claim has seen the cost of premiums double since 1989 to cover other clients' losses.
With police encouragement, insurance companies are offering 25 per cent. reductions to owners who fit an officially approved (for instance, by PACT) alarm or immobiliser. On the other hand, new customers may be refused insurance until they fit one of those devices. Immobilisers are a successful response to car crime and, so far, have the crooks beaten. Because they take hours in a workshop to remove, thieves are put off. German insurers are already placing pressure on manufacturers to fit immobilisers, and that will have a knock-on effect on cars sold across Europe.

253
The Stolen Vehicle Tracking System (Tracker) has received some publicity recently for its success in helping police track down stolen cars quickly, leading to several arrests. The opportunity provided by the Tracker system to attack car crime was recognised by the police in England, Wales and Scotland. In 1992 they agreed to support the implementation of the system throughout Great Britain. That is the first occasion on which all 51 police forces have agreed to work together with a commercial enterprise to tackle a major social problem.
The Metropolitan Police are working closely with manufacturers on the fitting to all models at the production stage of effective deadlocking to prevent entry to vehicles. What Car? magazine's security experts were dismayed to find lamentably old-fashioned locks on three of the latest "hot hatches" they tested last month. That is obviously not good enough, but manufacturers are now getting the message.
The Metropolitan Police are also co-operating with manufacturers on the increased safeguarding of the VIN, to which my noble friend Lord Brougham has already referred. Partnerships such as these are vital for the future if vehicle crime is to be reduced.
6.28 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, mentioned in his opening remarks, against a background of vehicle crime in 1992 accounting for almost 30 per cent. of all reported crime and the fact that every two minutes a vehicle is stolen and every minute a car is broken into in the United Kingdom, today's debate focuses on one of Britain's major social problems. I am delighted that the noble Lord has brought this subject to your Lordships' attention this evening.
I have a similar tale to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. Since I moved to London some eight years ago from South Africa, where they have an equally major problem of car crime, I have on several occasions had my motor car, my scooter and two of my bicycles stolen and my house burgled. I have often asked myself, "What have I done to deserve this?" Many disturbing figures have been mentioned this evening, in addition to the measures that the Government and the police have taken over the years to combat car crime. In my brief contribution to this evening's debate I wish to focus on the measures which are being taken and which will be taken in the future constructively to counter car crime.
Given the magnitude of the problem, it appears that, despite the consistent efforts of the police to tackle car crime, their actions have been largely reactive. Although statutes such as the Theft Act 1968, and more recently the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act of 1992, have laid down the framework for punitive measures against car thieves— more specifically, joy riders and dangerous driving causing injury and damage — the approach to tackling the problem must surely be prevention rather than cure. Certainly the fitting of car alarms, immobilisers, crook-locks, radio safeguards and wheel clamps have assisted in the fight against car theft. But countering all this has been the emergence of scanner and grabber devices which can home in on radio
254
controlled car alarms and central locking systems and unscramble the codes and even unlock the vehicles. I understand that these devices can be legally purchased.
In researching for this evening's debate I also came across the Tracker system which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. This can be installed in motor cars and provide an extremely simple but effective method of recovering stolen vehicles. With the link-up between the motorists' tracker units and the police tracking computers, since their launch in September last year there have been, as the noble Viscount mentioned, a number of major successes in recovering stolen cars. I understand that in the United States some 94 per cent. of all cars fitted with this device are located within two hours of the alarm being raised.
In a Written Answer in another place on the 4th November last year, the Minister confirmed that the Home Office and the police had for some time been encouraging manufacturers to include visible vehicle identification on all cars to improve vehicle security. It is encouraging that 51 per cent. of British-made made cars now have alarms fitted as standard, compared, so I understand, to just 10 per cent. of imported cars— although one might ask how many British cars are being manufactured now.
One of the more ingenious inventions in North Yorkshire has interested the police of late— liquid crystal display number plates which can change to read "stolen" when anyone without the correct pin number starts the car's engine. The police in Greater Manchester have also had much success recently in their trials with the "stinger" device, that being a mat covered in hollow nails about one-and-a-half inches in length which is used to bring joy riders to a rather controlled halt. I understand, however, that unless the mat is pulled away it can have a similar effect on the chasing police car.
Apart from considering the devices used to prevent car theft, it is important when addressing this subject to focus on the reasons for car crime. A recent Home Office research bulletin, No.33 of 1993, looks at the subject of careers in car crime. Perhaps I may mention briefly some of the findings. Out of a sample of 100 convicted car thieves who were interviewed— 98 per cent. of whom were male— most had several years' experience in car theft and nearly half said that they had stolen more than 100 cars. Some 35 among them said that they had stolen more than 500 cars. Most had become involved between the ages of 14 and 15 and nearly always in the company of experienced friends. Among the many reasons given for car theft was the excitement, the "buzz", the thrill of driving at high speeds in high-performance stolen cars, the relieving of boredom, as well as the financial benefits of course. All these were highlighted.
With joy riding accounting for almost two-thirds of stolen cars, this has led to the suggestion that there should be provision for a legal alternative involving comparable excitement and interest such as the provision in certain areas where there is a high rate of car theft of well structured motor projects which challenge offending behaviour and which teach car maintenance and driving skills. Would the Minister

255
comment on what, if any, educational programmes the Government have promoted to tackle the problem in this way?
I shall not deal with the subject of the trade in stolen cars. Suffice it to say that there appears to be a burgeoning market in stolen cars, which go to Spain, Portugal, the Mediterranean, Africa and even Japan. There is also a large market for stolen lorries and spare parts in the third world. Here again I would like to ask the Minister to comment on what control there has been on the trade in second-hand spare parts, as well as scrapyard dealing. Could he also comment on the RAC's recent proposed initiative to ask the Government to divert £ 1 per vehicle from the new 3 per cent. increase in car insurance premiums into a central fund to counter crime? Initiatives of this nature in Michigan in the United States have had remarkable success.
In conclusion I would say that there is clearly no simple solution to the problem, whether through more punitive measures against car thieves or more protective devices in cars. I repeat my belief that we need to focus on preventive rather than curative measures if we want to see a reduction in this major social problem.
6.38 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brougham has brought to us this evening a debate which covers a subject which is very serious. He has done so with his customary enthusiasm and experience because the subject is one which encompasses very broadly the areas of interest which I know he has previously raised in your Lordships' House.
Most of us have seen in our lifetime quite a considerable and remarkable rise in the production of the motor vehicle. Some of the statistics are now quite terrifying. Last year we had a debate, in which I was involved, on the use of diesel engines in motor cars. We were given the statistic that if we took the entire population of motor cars in the whole of the London area and decided to park them on the M.25, we would have to increase the number of lanes to 50. That is a pretty useless statistic, but it does give us some indication of how many motor cars there are just within the London area. Each one of those cars represents an opportunity, or a potential opportunity, for crime.
This debate concerns the sensitive area of motor car security. It is a subject which is fraught with potential minefields. The subject of security has already been mentioned. If, for instance, I wished to buy a set of tools or an electronic device with which to break into a motor car, I could do so quite easily. I would buy a certain magazine. It advertises such equipment for sale. To purchase that equipment I would need no licence and no permission. Not even the Home Office would hinder me since its view is that if I did not actually use the apparatus to break into another person's motor car for criminal purposes, there is no reason in law to prevent me from purchasing and being in possession of it. Let me assure noble Lords that I do not possess such equipment, although I must confess that when my dog
256
locked herself in the car last summer I wished that I possessed such equipment. That equipment is available to all.
The incidence of motor car theft now impinges on all of us. It is now essential to immobilise one's motor car before leaving it even for a matter of minutes. Even so, it can still fall into the hands of a professional car thief. It is important for us to be aware of the new technologies that, first, will prevent access to the car, and, secondly, will enable the police to recover the vehicle. I should like to spend a little more time on the subject of the Tracker system. I have been encouraged in my enthusiasm following a visit to the police stolen vehicles squad in London. I have seen the system in operation, as have other noble Lords. Noble Lords may have noted the Starred Questions by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, during the past year. The so-called Tracker system has been available in this country since September last year. I do not know how many units have been fitted to motor cars. However, since their installation from September of last year, six motor cars fitted with the tracker device have been stolen.
The particular occasion which is worth noting involves the sixth and last vehicle which was stolen. The car was broken into, started up and set off on its journey. The incident was reported on the morning of 26th January this year. A police tracking computer picked up the system's signal at 3.30 in the afternoon and the car's exact location was pinpointed by four o'clock— half an hour later. The car had been driven into a compound in which there were another 25 stolen vehicles including sports cars, high value cars and a JCB back-hoe loader. We have already referred to ram-raiding. We might also remember that a device of that nature is used for removing entire money dispensing systems used by banks. When the police entered the compound, the registration plates, chassis numbers and engine numbers had already been removed from the vehicle. That is an example of the professionalism of such criminals.
If a motor car fitted with the system is lost or stolen, the owner makes two telephone calls. The unit is then activated through the Tracker system. The first call is to the police to report the loss or theft of the vehicle; the second is to the Tracker network. The police then contact the Tracker network. However, the police also interrogate the person who has lost the car. That is very important. If the car were taken under duress, a police crew might be in a difficult position if, for instance, the car was full of armed thugs. Therefore the police need to know the circumstances so that they can adjust their action accordingly.
The unit is activated by the police computer. The police crew follow the unit's signal; the response is created by an inaudible homing signal. The technology has been available in the United States since 1986. The first area in which it was used was Boston, Massachusetts, where car crime has fallen by 41 per cent. since 1986. In the remainder of the United States car crime has risen by 31 per cent. In this country I understand that all the police forces have the equipment. If we consider the experience of the United States over

257
that period,95 per cent. of all vehicles fitted with such a device are usually recovered within 24 hours. The average recovery time is 90 minutes; the best success time to date is seven minutes. A speedy recovery is vital in reducing the damage sustained by the vehicle. Again, the experience of the United States is that the average claim on a stolen car has been in the region of 5,000 dollars. For those vehicles which have been fitted with a tracking device, owing to the speed of finding them, the claim for damage has been reduced to between 500 dollars and 1,000 dollars. Obviously that is a compelling reason for considering discount on insurance.
I suggest to noble Lords that the privilege of owning a motor car brings with it certain responsibilities. They include initially protecting the vehicle against theft. In my remarks today I have dealt almost exclusively with technological aids for the suppression and detection of crime. I am sure that it will not be too long before other systems are available. I am sure that they will be equally as effective, if not more so. However, the most effective method is, of course, for us all to work to create a society in which we have respect for other people's property. A. P. Herbert reminded us in his dissertation, Reasonable Man, which I gather he wrote in 1935, that,
"The Common Law of England has been laboriously built about a mythical figure— the figure of the Reasonable Man".
All I urge is that in our future actions, be they in the use of new technology or in the attitude of our society, we should all act like reasonable men.
6.49 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, for giving me an opportunity to speak in the debate. I start at the point at which many noble Lords will expect me to begin. I refer to theft of motor cycles. I am thankful to count five members of the all-party motor cycle group present in the Chamber. We have, if not a success story, an encouraging story to tell so far as concerns motor cycle theft. I am not trying to get any praise for myself (though of course I shall be thankful if any is forthcoming) when I say that I am chairman of the motor cycle industry theft action group, which was formed some two years ago in response to the appalling state of affairs that existed as regards the theft of motor cycles throughout the United Kingdom. The insurance companies discovered— it took some time for it to register— that they were losing 50p on every £ 1 of premium that they received. Not surprisingly, they had to do something in a hurry. The leading underwriters decided that they would no longer take on any new business and that they would exclude particularly the business of younger riders. That had an effect on the prospects for motor cycle manufacturers' sales in this country. It was quite clear that something had to be done quickly.
We formed the group and brought together round a table all those who were involved in the problem. We did that with some trepidation. In a short time we reached a consensus, an agreement, between the insurers, the police, the manufacturers, the retail outlets and owners' groups. I am happy to say that as a result
258
of some of the action taken by that group motor cycle thefts in this country have gone down in recent times by between 5 and 7 per cent. That reduction has of course something to do with a change in the pattern of ownership of motor cycles. There now are fewer smaller machines on the road. People coming into motor cycling tend to buy the more expensive, bigger machines and take a great deal of care to protect their investment— though it is still not enough.
A tagging system has been introduced for motor cycles using transponders. On a motor cycle the application is quite simple. One adds to the vehicle five chips which can be read by means of a "reader". The readers are in the possession of most of the 51 police authorities in the country. Of course, that does not stop the machine being stolen, although there should be a hologram on the machine to tell thieves that the machine is protected by that technology. It makes it a great deal easier for the police to track down vehicles should they suspect that in some back-street garage, for example, there are suspicious vehicles. A number of arrests have resulted from the use of this technology. We believe that it has had a significant deterrent effect on the theft of motor cycles.
I should also say that some praise is due to local authorities, which have in some instances spent money on installing rings and bars as permanent fixtures to which motor cycles in bays can be chained. That makes them a lot more difficult to steal; a motor cycle is a relatively easy piece of equipment to steal, particularly at night, if it is not fixed to a ring or a lamp-post (which incidentally is illegal) because it can be lifted by three or four able-bodied men into a van.
My work with the theft action group has led me to quite a close relationship with the Metropolitan Police stolen vehicles squad, whose work I have come to admire enormously. They carry out painstaking and prolonged investigations, not only into motor cycle thefts but into the thefts of cars and even of heavy earth-moving equipment and horse-boxes— about which I am quite sure, if she has time, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will talk to us. I was told by the police that they had apprehended a large Caterpillar heavy earth-moving piece of equipment, a digger, which was trundling through in the small hours of the morning on its way to a port— they thought in Ireland. The only reason that they were able to stop it was that the thief had no idea how to turn on the lights. The police said that they were lucky in that instance because the amount of earth-moving equipment that now goes abroad is quite staggering.
The police do the painstaking work. But I am afraid that police morale is quite low. The noble Earl will be aware of that, and perhaps he will be able to reassure us on steps that the Government are taking to increase that morale. It is difficult for the police to get convictions. Often they have substantial evidence; but, either because of loopholes in the law or because the Crown Prosecution Service deems it uneconomical to proceed with the case, thieves are let off. Often when thieves are on bail they continue to offend. We all know that.
The noble Earl and his department have been most helpful in response to suggestions which I have made in

259
recent times, particularly about written-off vehicles and their documentation. I know that the noble Earl's department has urged the DVLA in Swansea to take action to see that the documents do not fall into the hands of criminals who will secure such documents and steal vehicles to match the descriptions on the documents, which was a common practice.
I say to the noble Earl— I have mentioned this point before to his noble friend Lord Mackay— that I am told by the Metropolitan Police that there is an alarming new development. As one would expect, the crooks are agile and flexible in these matters. They see that the returns from using stolen documents here are not as they were; and a great number of write-offs are being imported from abroad. They come through the normal ports of entry, where the Customs and Excise issue the receipt form on payment of duty, which can be quite small. The receipt is then taken to the DVLA, which will then issue new registration documents. That is a very dangerous loophole. I am told that such vehicles are coming in in their thousands.
The main point about this particular practice is that those imported machines, which are technically write-offs, do not go on to the police computer when they are re-registered. The practice now for write-offs is that when the documentation goes back to Swansea and a reconstituted vehicle comes about for whatever reason — it is to be hoped legal— information is then put on to the police computer, which enables the vehicle to be tracked.
I have abbreviated my remarks because the issues have been so well covered by other noble Lords. I should like to touch briefly on what is known in the trade and in government circles as aggravated vehicle taking, or joy riding. That subject stimulated a vigorous reply to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I shall not be so brutal as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I understand what the noble Lord is trying to say; but I disagree with his analysis of the situation. I do not like the term "underclass". If you give a dog a bad name, you will hang him. I believe that is the expression. There are many disenchanted, unmotivated, uneducated and potentially dangerous young people about. They form gangs. Gangs apply a kind of peer group pressure. They are attracted to vehicles and they steal them. There is kudos and status attached to such activity. It gives them an identity. It is quite understandable.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who said that one cannot lose anything by getting such people on to some kind of scheme. There was such a scheme at Deptford, which put young people into workshops to work on cars and to show skills. Showing skills is the key. In many cases that scheme had remarkable effects on those young people. It gave them the feeling that they were worth something. The only problem (I say this in summary) is that once one has a young person who has a conviction for taking a car under the aggravated vehicle taking law, it is almost impossible for that young man— such people are usually
260
under age— when he comes to the age of having a licence to get insurance for his motor car since he has that record.
I should appreciate the noble Earl giving his views on whether it would be worthwhile for at least a pilot scheme undertaken by the insurance companies with the encouragement of government to try to give suitable youngsters who have a record the opportunity to have some insurance, even if it means that it is subsidised insurance. If those youngsters do not get insurance, they will drive without it. That is why, although I agree with almost everything in his interesting speech, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, on one point. To ban someone from driving for 30 years is just no good. That person will drive the cars anyway and not even try to get insurance. That will be a worse menace and possibly fatalities will result. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter.
7 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, we on these Benches are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, not only for the work that he has done in this area but also for providing the House with the opportunity to debate a subject which directly affects something like five and a half million people in this country each year.
The most recent crime survey figures suggest that 14 people out of every 100 are likely to be victims of some form of car theft this year. Among car owners, that figure rises to one in five. Those bare statistics hide a picture which ranges from minor inconvenience and mere irritation through considerable expense and on to real hardship many noble Lords have contributed to those statistics— I hope as victims rather than perpetrators.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the singularly unfortunate noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, I know that I have done so. Some months ago my husband's car was broken into at night on a London street. I lost my fishing bag, which contained a Connemara black fly to which I was devoted, having succeeded in catching my first fish with it. But rather worse, my husband, who is a barrister, lost his wig. I often wonder whether the thief now wears it when he goes fishing and whether the same man is playing golf with the clubs of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as well. Those were minor irritations for me. But for those who rely on a car to get to work, to take their children to school, to get about at all or to transport the necessities of life, it may not be simply a question of inconvenience. If they cannot afford to carry out the necessary repairs or buy a replacement vehicle, it may amount to a personal disaster too.
The cost of car crime in human terms is incalculable, as it is also in economic terms. Quite apart from the policing and law enforcement costs, its scale is reflected in insurance premiums, which in turn affect the price of just about everything that we buy. No government should forget when looking at crime that car crime is serious. It amounts to something approaching 30 per cent. of all reported crime. Nor should they forget that

261
for most people personal experience of crime as its victim comes through being on the receiving end of this type of activity. The way in which a government reacts to car crime plays a significant part in determining the level of confidence that the public have in that government's ability to tackle crime generally. The explosion of car crime in recent years perhaps says more eloquently than I can that a change of policy is needed.
So what is needed and what can in fact be done? A number of noble Lords referred to professional car crime as a type of offence which is growing. Vehicles are stolen to order, stolen to be professionally dismantled and sold off and stolen for ringing operations. Many of us know of examples. I shall not disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. No fewer than six of my immediate neighbours in the country have lost horse boxes in the past six months. One lost two in four weeks. All of them were secured and some were parked in farmyards by houses. Only one went at night. All disappeared without trace. Those people were not youngsters joyriding; they were professional thieves. And that is in just one part of the country.
Noble Lords with experience and expertise have made a number of suggestions. To me, as a layman, three developments in relation to which the Government could encourage investment and take initiatives, possibly through legislation, seem particularly worth while. I speak purely as a layman. First of all, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of manufacturers of new vehicles to fit them with some form of hidden identification which can be read by a police officer with the appropriate decoder. At present, changes can be made without any difficulty whatsoever to number plates and even to vehicle identification numbers. It must be possible to give a new vehicle an identification which cannot be erased and which would enable an accurate check to be made swiftly on its history and ownership.
Secondly, it must surely be possible to devise effective methods of immobilisation which can be fitted as standard straightaway to new cars or to old vehicles which lack such sophisticated systems. The rising number of attempted thefts is perhaps a measure of some success in this area. I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, had to say about it. But far too many vehicles, including new ones, can still be started and driven away in seconds by anyone who is in the know.
Thirdly, I share the feelings of encouragement of a number of noble Lords who have spoken on this matter: the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso talked of tracking devices and the effective way in which experiments in the United States have shown that cars can be recovered very quickly. I know that such devices are expensive and here, as yet, they are a rarity. But, when dealing with car crime, where I understand— perhaps the noble Earl will confirm it— that the detection rate is something under 3 per cent, such devices could surely make a real impact. I hope to hear that some or all of those three developments are matters which not only are receiving
262
attention from the Government and encouragement from a distance, but will receive practical encouragement also, which means money and legislation, where appropriate.
Much more needs to be done— noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, have spoken about this matter— to ensure safer parking areas. In particular, all stations, whether they are railway stations or underground stations would benefit from better lighting, perimeter fencing, attendance when possible, patrols and above all security cameras. My local station at High Wycombe, has been transformed from a place where one could expect the back window of a car to be knocked out and the contents pinched if the vehicle were left overnight to a place where one can have reasonable confidence that one will find the car in one piece, even after several days, as a result of investment of just that kind. But most cars are stolen from streets near people's houses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that it is essential when there is urban redevelopment or new development that consideration should be given to secure parking provision for those who will live in those areas.
Rural areas present even greater difficulties and are suffering increased car crime. In many parts of Exmoor, which I know well, it is no longer considered safe to leave your car unattended while you go walking on the moor. Every summer there are heartbreaking stories of visitors who have done just that and come back to find that the consequences are the unexpected theft or breaking into of their vehicle.
Police patrols cannot provide 24-hour cover. But initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch and the Car Watch schemes which have been set up with great effect in Lincolnshire and Cleveland have shown that they can work. I hope that the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will give some indication of the steps that the Government are prepared to take to give practical encouragement to such schemes and to setting up schemes of that type.
It is perfectly right to say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that a large proportion of car crime involves young people. I agree with the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, in relation to the unhappy inability of many youngsters to respect or appreciate the importance of property which belongs to others.
There is a real need— and this was something said by the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, at the outset of the debate— to educate young people into their responsibilities towards cars and the effects that their driving will have on others. For many bored youngsters on housing estates where stolen cars have become the real menace and spoil the lives of those who live there, there is, in addition, a clear need to provide the sort of schemes about which other noble Lords spoke; schemes which provide an exciting and legitimate application for young people's understandable enthusiasm for cars. Motor projects in particular, as has been demonstrated time and again, when they play some part of a probation order or even when provided for those who are not offenders but are on the fringe of offending, can divert people from committing further offences. In 1991–92

263
the Government provided— according to the figures given in answer to a Question in another place— £ 300,000 through probation supervision grant schemes for that purpose. Perhaps when the noble Earl replies he will indicate that that level of expenditure can be raised and that the Government will give further encouragement to schemes of that nature.
It is not sufficient to tackle crime of this sort merely by dealing with the symptoms with legislation such as the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act nor, unhappily, to disqualify people for longer and longer periods as suggested by the Noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. Experience shows that that simply increases the number of offences of driving while disqualified. This type of crime can be tackled only by co-operation between the public, manufacturers and the Government, and that co-operation must tackle the root causes, which are boredom, lack of respect for the property of others, easy opportunity to steal, poor security and a low rate of detection.
I hope that in what he says in answer to us tonight the noble Earl will give us encouragement that the Government see the matter as a priority. If not, at the very least the quality of life for many people will continue to be adversely affected and, at worst, more youngsters will take cars, go joyriding and tragically kill others in the process.
7.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I entirely agree with the last point of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Those who indulge in what is described as "joyriding"— more appropriately called "deathriding"— cause enormous distress to other people. They are a huge danger to life and to civilians and it is totally indefensible in any way. That is the reason we have taken the action that we have, particularly for those involved in aggravated vehicle taking. It is the most unpleasant form of car crime. It is considered by some to be brave; it is not. It is foolish and dangerous from which only misery can come.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux outlined the scale of the problem of car theft and I shall not repeat the statistics. As usual, a debate of this nature has shown your Lordships to be a fund of information, knowledge, experience and indeed sometimes of sorrow. Everyone has had some experience in this field. I felt sorry for my noble friend Lord Brabazon when he said that he had experienced vehicle crime three times in six months and among other things he lost his golf clubs and his spare wheel. It reminded me of one individual who was more unfortunate even than my noble friend. He decided that car theft was so bad that he would tie the wheel of his car by a chain to a lamp post— as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, reminded us, that is an offence in itself. He thought that that would at least secure his car. When he returned next morning he found the wheel still attached to the lamp post but the remainder of the car gone.
I was sorry also that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, lost her special black fishing fly and her husband's wig. The interesting part was that the noble
264
Baroness did not say which caused her or him the greatest distress. I fancy I know what caused at least the noble Baroness the greatest distress!
I agree with the noble Baroness that the figures given on statistics, although they are alarming in themselves, mask the real misery and distress, apart from the costs, associated with the menace of car crime. But I should like to clarify one point in relation to the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Brougham. He said that the recent international crime survey revealed that England and Wales have the worst record of thefts of cars. That made the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, describe, rather indelicately I thought, the United Kingdom as the "car crime centre of the world".
It is true that England and Wales have the worst record of car thefts. But it is worth remembering, though it does not give us much comfort, that Italy, France and Australia follow us very closely, and that the United States is not far behind. Since the breakdown of the Eastern Bloc, car crime in countries such as Germany has also increased dramatically, although statistics are not yet available to show that. Therefore we should not see car crime as a uniquely English problem, although it is a bad problem.
Victims in England and Wales are more likely than average actually to get their cars back, while recovery rates are much lower in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. That at least is something for which we might feel grateful. Nonetheless, as my noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux pointed out, vehicle crime accounted for a staggering 28 per cent. of all recorded crime in England and Wales in 1992. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that a great deal of our crime prevention activity has been geared towards tackling that specific problem.
There is clear evidence that measures can be taken which can have a significant impact on reducing car crime. The Government have been pursuing those vigorously in recent years. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said how a government approach car crime determines people's attitude to it. I can say that we have concentrated a great deal of effort in that direction.
Obviously the police cannot be left to fight car crime alone. It is something in which everyone, particularly car manufacturers and owners, must play a part. My noble friend Lord Brabazon reminded us that people simply do not lock their cars and therefore it is not surprising when they find them stolen or vandalized. It is the responsibility of everyone to look after their property, inconvenient though that may be.
The Government's main efforts are directed towards reducing the opportunity for car crime by, for instance, encouraging motor manufacturers to improve vehicle security. My noble friend Lord Brabazon was concerned' about visible identification numbers. For some time the Home Office has been encouraging motor manufacturers to introduce visible identification numbers on all new cars. I am glad to say that there has been good progress in that regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a plea for immobilisers to be fitted. The Government and the police have been encouraging motor manufacturers to fit effective immobilisers and by 1992 immobilisers were available as standard or on

265
request at the point of sale on no less than 96 per cent. of United Kingdom produced models and on 75 per cent. of imports.
Efforts are also directed at increasing public awareness of the costs of car crime and encouraging motorists to take appropriate security measures. That is a key part of our car crime prevention campaign. Our efforts are also directed at giving the courts the powers they need, such as in the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 and in the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from five to 10 years. We also encourage local probation services, voluntary groups and others to work to counter motor offending and, of course, we support the police in developing their response to this form of crime as well as to other forms of crime.
As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, there is no one solution. He is correct. Car crime must be tackled from a number of different points of view. I agree with him that it is important not just to tackle car crime but to prevent it as far as we can also.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, the Home Office ran a major national campaign throughout 1992, which we called "Car Crime Prevention Year". This campaign, which featured the imaginative use of hyenas, was continued during 1993, and another "burst" of it is planned again soon. The campaign was designed to demonstrate just what could be done if car owners, the police, motor manufacturers, the insurance industry, motoring organisations and everyone else who is particularly affected by car crime all made a concerted effort to deal with the problem. And it has provided the background against which many local initiatives have been developed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, will feel at least that there is a concerted effort by all people to try to beat this problem.
Evaluation of the results of the campaign, and of the many practical activities which formed an essential part of it, have produced some very encouraging news. Two-thirds of the people surveyed said that they would be more vigilant about car security as a result of the campaign. This has been shown in practice by a 20 per cent. increase in sales of car security equipment during 1992. Because of this new awareness— and because of other Home Office efforts in recent years— more motor manufacturers are now actually building improved security into their cars when they are manufactured. This was a matter to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred. For the first time they are highlighting this in their advertising. Motor manufacturers are to be congratulated on this, although, of course, much more remains to be done.
The Government are doing what they can to help the motor manufacturers in their efforts. For example, a significant new contribution is being made by the Home Office's Police Scientific Development Branch, which is offering motor manufacturers some important practical help by testing the effectiveness of the security systems which they fit on their vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, was concerned about car alarm deactivators. I think that they are sometimes
266
called grabbers and scanners. The Home Office and the police are looking into the availability and effectiveness of these devices in order to assess what additional action may be required. Motor manufacturers and the vehicle security industry are also aware of the capabilities of these devices and are working to improve the security of their products in order to counter the threat which is posed by this new technology.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government are committed to introducing improvements to existing requirements of vehicle security in order to reduce car crime. Proposals are currently being considered in Europe, and the Department of Transport is playing an active role in supporting the development of European security standards for vehicles.
I agreed with my noble friend Lady Seccombe when she said that the insurance industry also has an important part to play in encouraging both manufacturers and motorists to improve vehicle security. This can be done by offering reduced premiums to those who fit effective security to their vehicles. Home Office Ministers have met regularly with representatives of the insurance industry, who are now beginning to take account of the risk of car crime and vehicle security when they set their premiums. I was interested in the remark made by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever. He said that the Norwich Union said that each car theft costs the victim £ 1,700 in the loss of the no-claims bonus. That was an important point to make because so often people think, "Oh well, the insurance will pay". In fact, of course, people lose their no-claims bonus, and the cost of the loss of the vehicle is put on to the general rates which the insurance industry has to charge.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, made a plea that insurers should be encouraged to give people with car crime records some form of insurance. I do not know whether it was subsidised insurance or cheap insurance. He contrasted that with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Brabazon that people ought to get 30 years. No, he did not say that they should get 30 years; he said that they should be disqualified from driving until they were 30 years of age. I can understand my noble friend's enthusiasm for that point of view. I fail totally to understand the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. What he is really suggesting is that people who are the cause and have been the cause of other people's distress, of other people's expenditure and of higher insurance premiums should then get cheap or subsidised insurance to let the poor little dears go and drive again. He said that if we do not allow them to drive, they will go and drive and then break the law. All I can say is that I found that the most astonishing logic coming even from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. But I shall pass over that as being an incident to which I expect the noble Viscount does not appear to attach too much importance.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the noble Earl is very courteous to give way. In the speed with which I had to finish my speech I obviously explained myself very badly. I was suggesting that some young offenders who had gone through a court which had in some way rehabilitated them and who were coming to the age when they could qualify for a driving licence were

267
unable to take up this opportunity because they could not get insurance. I was suggesting that this might be a way of stopping people from driving without insurance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining that further. I do not think that it makes my view alter very much. I find it an astonishing suggestion.
The police have also been encouraged in their efforts, and a number of major initiatives have been launched by them. These include the national Secured Car Parks scheme, to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred; Partnership Against Car Theft in Northumbria, to which my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever referred; and Sold Secure n Essex. As my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever said, these last two— the Partnership Against Car Theft and Sold Secure in Essex — have now been combined and are being developed nationally. I was glad that they had my noble friend's approval. I was also glad that he referred to the success of the Northumbria police, who have worked so hard and enormously successfully in their efforts over car crime.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was concerned about c it parks. He suggested that car park operators should be made liable for compensation for crime in their car parks. Car park operators could not be held liable in many circumstances. There are a number of problems in going down that route. There is still much that car park operators can do voluntarily. We prefer to support them in partnership to make these changes through schemes such as Secured Car Parks rather than to impose regulations on them.
At the beginning, of this month my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office, Mr. Wardle, met major car park operators and other interested bodies to stress the need for improvements in car parks. This is vitally important, because 25 per cent. of car crimes take place in car parks. The Car Crime Prevention Group of the National Board for Crime Prevention has been asked to monitor progress in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned the Michigan car crime prevention initiative. The Car Crime Prevention Group has agreed, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police, to consider how this scheme might be adopted in the United Kingdom.
The Car Crime Prevention Group, which will shortly be expanded to cover motorbikes— that will give the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, great pleasure— as well as commercial lorries, has been developed out of the Car Crime Prevention Advisory Committee. That committee was set up in 1992 to provide a channel for expert advice to the Home. Office.
My noble friend Lord Brougham mentioned that the annual MoT test also presents an ideal opportunity to detect and to deter car crime. He is quite right. It does. This is something which both the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers have discussed with the Department of Transport in the past. As a result, the Department of Transport is looking at how the MoT test could play a more useful role in crime prevention.
My noble friend also thought that the driving test
268
should be used to enhance the attitudes of young adults both towards driving safely and towards avoiding vehicle crime. He mentioned the proposals announced last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Those provide a positive encouragement to improving young people's understanding of car safety and security. The Road Runner proposal, which has been devised by Crime Concern, is also relevant. This is aimed at 15 to 16 year-olds and is designed to teach them basic lessons about safe driving, avoiding accidents and avoiding car crime. Officials from the Department of Transport are currently looking at this initiative.
My noble friend Lord Brougham raised the question of the removal of vehicle identification markings, as did other noble Lords. He argued that it should be an offence to trade in vehicles or components where the numbers have been tampered with. I sympathise with my noble friend's view which, on the face of it, certainly appears to provide some means of tackling the villains in the car trade. There are, though, a number of practical difficulties which attach to it.
The main difficulty is the possibility of criminalising the innocent seller. Those who sell these parts would not necessarily know that numbers had originally been present or that the numbers which had been originally present had been removed. Such an offence might also catch any individual who subsequently sold, in innocence, a "ringed" vehicle which he had previously purchased.
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned the need to regulate the salvage industry. I am not convinced that regulation is the best way to tackle the problem of ringed vehicles. There are other promising means which are being developed. In particular, the DVLA is working with insurers and the police to tighten the vehicle registration process. The salvage industry itself, in the form of the National Salvage Group, is also working to tackle the problem. Their certificate of destruction scheme should help to ensure that vehicle registration documents do not fall into the wrong hands. The whole issue of vehicle documentation and registration is something which the car crime prevention sub-group of the national board, intends to consider at its next meeting.
My noble friend Lord Brougham also raised the issue of a vehicle crime data-base. He has adduced (quite rightly, I think) that the application of information technology to the detection and prevention of vehicle crime is by no means exhausted. There can, though, be no doubt that existing applications already provide a vital aid to the police and to the public in dealing with this type of crime.
One may take, for example, the police national computer's stolen vehicle application. This contains details of around 300,000 vehicles which have been reported as lost or stolen. Fast searches allow vehicles — perhaps a hundred miles or more from the point of theft— to be rapidly identified by the police, and the suspects arrested.
Where a car is being driven in a way which gives grounds for suspicion, but which is not recorded as stolen, the 30 million records in the vehicle owner's file

269
can quickly be searched to determine the name and address of the registered owner. The facilities have led to the rapid solution of many vehicle crimes.
Of course, crime prevention is not just a matter for the police. For a number of years, details of stolen vehicles have been made available to HP Information Plc. Potential purchasers are able to contact HP Information Plc and, for a small fee, can have the vehicle checked to determine whether, among other things, it is recorded as having been stolen. The Government would like to encourage this type of mutually beneficial co-operation between the statutory and private sectors.
If I understand my noble friend Lord Brougham correctly, he is suggesting that information technology should be further utilised to assist with the evaluation of vehicle crime prevention schemes and to provide vehicle crime intelligence. I am sure that information technology has the potential to provide considerable assistance in these areas, but there are other applications, such as Phoenix, the National Criminal Record system, and the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System, which, for the moment, must receive priority in the face of limited public resources.
Both my noble friend Lord Oxfuird and the noble Lord, St. John of Bletso, referred to Tracker. I am glad that they did because it has been very successful. My noble friend Lord Oxfuird did a very good PR job for Tracker this evening in what he said. I heard too of a story of how one individual had his car traced by the police. His car had a tracking system on it. The police went to a house and they were directed towards the garage doors. They knocked on the door of the house and asked the owner if they could have a look in the garage. In the garage was the stolen vehicle. So the system has been a great success.
I hope that the partnership with the private sector will evolve, bear fruit, and that it will allow a more rapid development of vehicle intelligence applications than would have been possible in the public sector alone. There are proposals from the Europe Secure Vehicle Alliance for a joint initiative on vehicle intelligence. That has been discussed by officials from my department and the Police Information Services Board.
I hope from what I have said that your Lordships will see that there is a lot of activity going on in an effort to tackle vehicle crime— and there is much more to which I have not had time to refer. But it is reasonable to say at the end, "So what? What effect is it having?". Recorded car crime rose by 24 per cent. in 1990 and by 18 per cent. in 1991. It increased by only 3 per cent. in 1992. It actually fell in 10 police force areas. So at least that is an achievement and where there is any improvement in crime statistics let us rejoice in that.
Although there was a disappointing increase of 5 per cent. in car crime in the 12-month period to June 1993 — the latest period for which figures are available— this rate is still much less than it has been in previous years. It just goes to show that we cannot let up.
Much has been done, but still more needs to be done. Car crime must remain high on the crime prevention agenda, and we must build on the excellent work which
270
has been carried right across the country in the past few years. As far as the Government are concerned, I can assure your Lordships that car crime prevention will continue to be given a very high priority.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting and useful debate this afternoon covering all aspects of car crime and most aspects of car crime prevention. It seems that we have all had our cars broken into or stolen at some point. There is no doubt that a lot of co-operation is taking place between all parties to combat this problem. I know that this debate will be read by all those in the motor industry and concerned with car crime prevention. I know that my colleagues and I will study the debate with interest.
I wish to thank all noble Lords for their contributions this evening, especially the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Benches. I would especially like to thank my noble friend the Minister who has replied to this debate. I suppose that, after yesterday, it must seem rather like a busman's holiday to him. As he said, car crime is still a big problem; there is a long way to go; and there is a great deal more to be done on the subject. I shall study my noble friend's reply with interest. I was glad to hear of the inter-departmental co-operation which is going on. My noble friend has given us a lot of food for thought. I thank all noble Lords, especially my noble friend the Minister, for his very full reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Immigration Practice
7.37 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the processing of Jamaican visitors who arrived at Gatwick Airport by charter flight on 21st December 1993 was carried out in accordance with accepted standards of civilised immigration practice.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the morning of 21st December last year a chartered plane landed at Gatwick Airport with 326 passengers on board. It had flown from Kingston, Jamaica. It was one of hundreds of planes bringing people to join their friends and families for the Christmas season, yet the treatment of the passengers on this plane was uniquely different and uniquely deplorable, raising issues, I suggest, of the greatest concern over the conduct of immigration policy.
This aircraft was singled out for special treatment as soon as it landed. Forty nationals of the European Union were allowed to disembark but 286 Jamaicans were corralled in their seats, not able to move, for up to two-and-a-half hours. They were gradually disembarked row by row in groups and taken to a cold waiting area known as a gate lounge.
My first question to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is this. Why was it decided to discomfort the passengers in

271
this unusual way? Gatwick is a large airport capable of handling thousands of overseas visitors. They line up and wait their turn to he interviewed, but these passengers were specially targeted and segregated. Why was that? The Minister in another place has assured us that it was not for any reasons of suspected crime. He said that it was for immigration reasons. But if there was no suspicion of crime, what excuse was there to treat people differently from the normal procedures? There can be nothing more discomforting, irritating and, indeed, suspicious than to be kept in your seat for hours after you have already been on a 10-hour flight. The normal procedure is that everybody goes to an immigration officer and is assessed individually— and that is how It should be— not as a member of some suspect and targeted group.
What then happened? According to the figures put out by the Government,57 of the passengers were detained overnight in various detention centres; 28 of them were never released. They were returned by a specially chartered flight on Christmas Day night. A further 39 were stamped with a stamp showing that they had been refused entry, although in fact they were allowed temporary admission and stayed the month with their friends or families. That is a total of 67 refusals of entry, a figure which is unreasonably high and nearly one-fifth of the whole plane— and this is in relation to people who wanted nothing more than to spend a Christmas holiday with their families, their other relatives or their friends.
I have spoken to many of them in Kingston, where I now live and work. I have interviewed many of those who came back. One was a stone mason; one was a bus conductor; one was a small coffee farmer; one was a ward assistant in a hospital. They are people with jobs and roots in Jamaica.
Most of the detainees were taken to Campsfield House in Oxfordshire where they arrived in the early hours of 22nd December. That is a place of detention run by Group 4 Securitas. It has some facilities, it must be recognised. There were television and recreational facilities. But what rankled most was the food. It is not so much that the food was uneatable, which it often is in institutional places, but that the families and friends were not allowed to bring in food to those detainees. Why? If it is necessary to detain people coming in from different parts of the world who may well find our institutional food uneatable, why not let the families bring in food? One man said to me of his experience over the next three days, "I ate only bananas and bread and tea".
However, the nadir of the experiences of this group was yet to come. Late on Christmas Eve, with about 15 minutes' warning, all the Campsfield House detainees were taken away, put into buses and then, after a long drive from Oxfordshire to Sussex, distributed into various police stations around the South of England. The police blocked the motorway behind the coaches to prevent the families from knowing where they were going. They spent Christmas night and the whole of Christmas morning into Christmas evening in a police cell. Of all the indignities which people spoke of to me, this was the worst— to spend Christmas Day, a holy day,
272
in a gaol. One said to me, "I read my Bible to calm my feelings". Being Christmas, the police did their best and some were much praised for their kindness, but there was hardly any food because the facilities were not available.
Finally, late on Christmas Day, the 27 detainees were taken, in handcuffs, under heavy police escort, and led like criminals into a plane which had been specially chartered— no doubt at considerable public expense. I find particularly the history of that last 24 hours an outrage which should never be repeated when we are dealing with visitors to this country who have committed no crime whatsoever.
The explanation so far given by the Minister in another place for putting people in police cells was that some were being disruptive and threatening.1 do not accept that as true. Even if it was true, it was no justification for subjecting all of those who were being detained to the indignity of spending Christmas in a police cell.
What I ask the noble Earl on behalf of the Government is whether he will make— or whether the Government will make — an ex gratia compensation payment, not with any admission about the detention itself but to compensate these Jamaican citizens for the distress and discomfort caused by the manner in which powers of immigration detention were exercised in this particular case. Such a payment might do something to repair the enormous damage which has been done to the good name of the United Kingdom in Jamaica and the Caribbean, as well as to race relations in Britain, which have been yet further strained by another example of official discrimination. The Daily Telegraph was absolutely right in its leader of 28th December 1993 to call this— and I quote— "a race relations fiasco", for which an apology was required at the least.
It has been said in some newspapers that many of those who were admitted on this charter flight did not return on the return flight and that this somehow shows the initial action to be justified. That is not so. Those who were admitted were allowed not one month but six months. Knowing Jamaicans, I am not in the least surprised that if you are given six months you are going to use six months, even if it will cost more to return. I understand that in only a handful of cases has there been any breach of the conditions under which people were admitted.
This experience of these visitors raises wider issues about freedom of movement and the practice and implementation of immigration policy. This was a low-price charter of a kind much used and much enjoyed by British and European citizens. There are certain to be more in these days of rapid jet travel. There will be more from the Caribbean because Jamaican and Caribbean people, as much as ours, love to travel. What is to happen? Are different rules to apply to charter flights from Jamaica and the Caribbean? The organisers of this particular charter flight are fearful. One carrier has already told them that it will expect passengers to have entry clearance before they go on a plane, thereby imposing a kind of back-door visa requirement, which, incidentally, if implemented, would put great strain upon the staff of the British High Commission.

273
I suggest that some reassurance is needed from the Government. Can the noble Earl first assure the House that no visa requirement is to be introduced for Jamaicans and other citizens of the English-speaking Caribbean? Can he also say that the carrying companies are not at risk of penalty if they carry Jamaican nationals who have a proper passport and other documents but do not have entry clearance, which is at present the norm? My understanding of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act is that an airline should not be subject to any penalty in those circumstances, but, as I have indicated, there is a lot of anxiety.
Without such assurances there will be grave cause for concern about this incident. There is already. The impression which has been created, which I hope that the Minister will do something to dispel, is that this was a deliberate action, designed to deter holiday flights of this kind. I hope that we can be assured that it was not.
On a wider level, this is another story of incompetence, or worse, by the immigration service. Last year Jamaicans were deeply shocked by the death of Mrs. Joy Gardner in the course of being detained for deportation. That case is now under investigation and I say nothing about it. There are many other cases of alleged abuse. There seems to be no effective channel of complaint. After vigorous debate in this House, the right of appeal was withdrawn in recent legislation. But the withdrawal of the right of appeal must not mean that immigration officers have untrammelled and unchallengeable powers, because if they do they will be exercising those powers in a discriminatory and racist way.
An independent monitor was recently appointed. However, I understand that she has no power to receive individual complaints. Is there any complaints procedure for those who are aggrieved by the actions of the immigration service? The relatives of the detainees were told that there was but that no forms were available. If there is a channel of complaint, who is responsible for dealing with it?
My view is that an important precedent for dealing with complaints against those with official powers was set by the establishment of the Police Complaints Authority. That authority has a certain independence and efficacy. Its decisions are capable of causing changes in police practice. Immigration officers also have powers of detention and removal. They can make decisions which affect the individual drastically. Will consideration at least be given to the setting up of an immigration complaints authority? Without some channel of appeal or complaint the wretched events such as those that I have described are likely to recur. They are likely to continue to cause bitterness to those affected by them directly and indirectly. They are likely to do damage to Britain's international reputation. They are likely to cause deep frustration, which always arises when a wrong is done and no remedy is available. I look forward with the greatest interest to hearing the noble Earl's reply to the Question which I have tabled on the Order Paper.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gifford for raising this matter tonight. I hope that the Government will treat it seriously, because it is extremely serious. Every country has a right to immigration control, to say which people shall enter its shores, to say what qualifications they shall have and how entry shall be made. But people have a right to be treated with dignity.
There are in this country a large number of British citizens of Jamaican descent. They have a right to be visited by their friends and families. It is particularly important that that should be possible during periods such as Christmas. That is a festive season when families want to be together. They have a right to be assured that their families and friends will be treated with dignity and respect.
What we heard from my noble friend Lord Gifford and what we have read in the press indicates that the people who came from Jamaica in December in order to spend Christmas with their families and friends were not treated as they should have been according to international law. They were not treated with the respect that they had a right to expect.
That is the point that I want the Government to recognise seriously. Just as there are a large number of British citizens of Jamaican descent living here, there have always been a large number of important British people living in Jamaica. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, now lives in Jamaica, as did Lord Beaverbrook and Ian Fleming. We have always had distinguished British people living in Jamaica. Neither the Minister nor the British people would have liked their families to be treated in the way in which those Jamaican people were treated last December. That is what I mean when I say that the Government must give the matter serious consideration. I do not know the reasons for the behaviour that took place. However, I know that it is not the way to behave and that if it continues we may sow only seeds of discord.
When I chaired the commission which investigated the riots in Bermuda, I said that I wanted the report to be written in this country. Bermuda is a small place and I did not want to be writing a report there. I insisted that we must come to this country to write the report. One of the members of the commission was most reluctant. He began by refusing on the grounds that he is a businessman and when he comes here to do business he is always badly treated when he arrives. I assured him that he would be treated well; that we would all have VIP treatment and that he would not even see the immigration officer because someone else would do that for him. I have mentioned that incident previously in this House because it illustrates what goes on. I believe that we must take the matter more seriously.
I oppose the removal of the right to appeal because it was introduced as a result of complaints made years ago. A study of the figures will reveal that a large number of the appeals were successful. That meant that there were a lot of occasions on which the immigration officers had made mistakes. That is a digression because on this occasion there is no question of making

275
mistakes; it was obviously a decided policy and a method of approach. That is extremely worrying because, if we go down that road, we shall create a great deal of trouble.
I do not wish to repeat myself but I wish to emphasise that the British people would not have been happy if British citizens visiting Jamaica had been treated in this way. Therefore, one cannot expect the people of Jamaica to be happy about the way in which their fellow citizens were treated when they visited Britain. I do not know what excuse or explanation the Home Office will give. However, the purpose of my plea is that it should take the matter seriously and resolve that this kind of thing will never happen again. It is a road to disaster and I hope that the Government will recognise that fact. I do not wish to say any more, except that I hope that when the Minister replies, he will be able to assure us that the Government have got the message.
8 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sure that the House will forgive me for rising to speak in the gap in the list of speakers, bearing in mind that the previous debate finished earlier than planned and that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester is unable to contribute to it.
I feel that I halve to add my voice in support of the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Pitt. I have to place on record my shame at being a citizen of a country with a government like ours that treated those visitors to our country in such a shameful way. I contrast: the treatment of that planeload of visitors from Jamaica with the welcome that I received when I visited the Caribbean last summer with a party of parliamentarians. The welcome we received was friendly, supportive, helpful and educational from my point of view and I learnt a lot about the Caribbean, its peoples and governments. I cannot find the words to express my sense of shame at the difference between the way I was treated by the people in the Caribbean and their governments and the way that our Government treated those visitors from Jamaica.
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, for providing us with an opportunity to try to seek some answers from the Government about this matter which have so far not been forthcoming.
Many of us saw what were disturbing and distressing pictures on our television screens over the recent Christmas period. It is not easy, even after the passage of nearly two months, to forget the shock, despair and sheer frustration of many of those who had been interviewed at that time. They were in the main people who had gone along to Gatwick Airport to meet their friends and relatives who had travelled to this country simply to spend Christmas with them in their homes, only to find that the: r visitors had to spend Christmas in detention centres, police cells or even in one case Pentonville prison.
I assumed, as I suspect did many who saw those reports, that there must be more to this than met the eye.
276
I thought at the time that the immigration officers must have had some kind of advance information, some tip-off. The nature and the scale of the operation suggested a link with crime, and serious crime at that. I assumed that in due course all that would become clear and the public would learn the full reasons for what seemed to be callous and even inhumane treatment being handed out in our name and apparently to a large number of bona fide visitors to this country. I understand that no one has been charged with any offence whatsoever arising out of the matter.
So far, despite paying lip service to the philosophy of open government, no proper explanation has yet been received from the Home Office to justify what was done to those who travelled on that charter flight arriving at Gatwick on 21st December. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has already set out in graphic detail the catalogue of events and frankly disgraceful treatment that was meted out to those passengers. I only add in amplification of the details some of the relatively minor insults which he omitted to mention: little or no information given at any time to those who were waiting to meet the people; those taken to the police cells on Christmas Eve in Sussex, many of them, permitted only one telephone call, as if they were people who had been placed in the cells under arrest. At the end of the day, as we have heard, with a master stroke of timing, on Christmas Day 27 people were sent back to Jamaica with a security guard escort on a flight which was specially chartered by the Home Office.
A number of questions are raised by those events, and I hope that the noble Earl— to whom unfortunately unpleasant tasks seem regularly to fall— will be able to deal with some of them. First, senior immigration officers subsequently told the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants that this was not a criminal investigation but concerned only immigration issues. Is that correct?
Secondly, the original Home Office line was that this was a normal, routine immigration operation. Would the noble Earl be able to tell the House whether any special arrangements were made in advance for the reception of the flight and, if so, what arrangements and why were they made?
Thirdly, why was it necessary to detain some 30 people in custody for periods which ranged from 24 hours up to four days when, at the end of that time, it was not considered necessary to remove them on that charter flight on Christmas Day? On what basis were the 27 who were flown home selected? What did the operation cost? Will the Government give an assurance that those whose passports were marked with the refusal of entry will not face additional difficulty in obtaining future visas to come to this country? What compensation will the Government offer to those who suffered? Last and by no means least, what apology, if any, has been made to those people who were wrongly detained?
This sorry episode of gross discourtesy to visitors to this country is, I am afraid, something which was foreshadowed in the debates here in' your Lordships' House during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act in 1993. Section 10 of the Act

277
removed the right of appeal against the refusal of both entry clearance and leave to enter from visitors, students, intending students, those planning to stay for a shorter time than six months and from their dependants. A number of noble Lords in the House expressed deep reservations at that time. Before the Act came into force, one in four of those appeals had succeeded.
Not only does it offend against natural justice to deprive an individual of any right of appeal whatsoever against an administrative decision to refuse entry— a decision which is likely to be based on a cursory interview by a hard-pressed official— but also where such an official knows that there is no review possible, such decisions are increasingly likely to be arbitrary and increasingly likely to result in a refusal when the official knows that he cannot effectively be challenged later.
The incident leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I cannot believe that our relations with Jamaica have suffered other than great harm. What an insult to the Jamaican community in this country !
The figures which indicate that one in five Bangladeshis and Ghanaians and one in 67 Jamaicans are refused entry as visitors, as opposed to one in 2,014 United States citizens lead regrettably to the conclusion that assumptions about a visitor's intentions to leave are made more on the basis of race than on individual case assessment.
We on these Benches accept that there is a need for immigration controls. We accept that it is right that those who are not genuine visitors must be screened and filtered. However, blanket action such as that now under discussion affecting, as it clearly did on this occasion, large numbers of genuine visitors— decent people— who had simply been looking forward to spending Christmas with friends and relatives in a country which used to be regarded as the head of a Commonwealth family, does nothing but harm to our relationship not just with Jamaica but also with all other black and third world countries.
In the light of what happened here at Christmas 1993 and since the Act to which I referred became law, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that the Government are giving careful consideration, first, to publishing guidelines for immigration officers so that — it is to be hoped— such behaviour cannot occur again; and, secondly, to reinstating some form of right of appeal against the refusal of entry clearance and leave to enter for visitors. If the noble Earl can do both those things and also say "Sorry", then some good will have come out of the miserable outrage of that charter flight, which shames this country.
8.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, many questions have been asked this evening which I shall try my best to answer. If I may say so, it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, back here again. We do not see him now quite as much as we used to. Nevertheless, he has not lost his unique touch of making some pretty inflammatory speeches and succeeding in getting and then distorting the real picture. After all, the noble Lord
278
said that the treatment given to those people was uniquely different and deplorable: they were corralled in their seats and specially targeted. He described the whole exercise as a race-relations fiasco and said that it was a deliberate action to deter such holiday flights. That is very extravagant language. I hope that I shall be able to explain to the noble Lord that that really was not the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said that the incident was an insult to the Jamaican community in this country. She then made the astonishing remark that it seemed that refusing entry was made more on the basis of race than individual case assessment. I am bound to say that I do not find that to be a very worthy observation from the noble Baroness. However, I shall try to deal with it.
I turn now to the facts. A charter flight arrived at Gatwick from Kingston, Jamaica, on 21st December of last year. I should make it clear that the flight was not one of the regular scheduled flights to Gatwick; it was a charter flight. There are not many charter flights from Kingston, but scheduled flights from there are normally handled without any difficulty. In this case, the airline (UK Leisure) approached the Immigration Service and inquired whether arrangements could be made for the flight's pre-clearance in Jamaica. There are no standing arrangements for the Immigration Service to send officials out to Jamaica in order to clear flights in advance. In any event, there would have been insufficient notice for those concerned to set up such an exercise.
On 15th December, just a week earlier, a similar charter flight from Kingston operated by another company had arrived at Gatwick. About 100 passengers required full interview and over 30 had been refused entry. Therefore, the Immigration Service came to the conclusion that rather more of the passengers on board this flight might require a detailed interview than would have been the case on a regular scheduled service.
Arrangements were made for the disembarkation and reception of passengers from that flight so that, if the need arose, a potentially large number of interviews could be conducted quickly and in an orderly way. A gate lounge was provided — to which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, took exception, although I do not see why — where passengers could sit while they waited for their interview. Extra immigration officers were on duty to try to process the applicants more quickly.
Every passenger was individually interviewed by an immigration officer. Every decision to refuse entry was, in accordance with immigration rules, authorised by a chief immigration officer or inspector. No one was refused entry simply because he happened to have arrived on that flight. That is not the way in which we operate immigration control; nor was it done in any way, as the noble Baroness suggested, on the basis of race.
It may be of some assistance if I explain what actually took place once the aircraft arrived at Gatwick. The aircraft arrived about four hours late with 326 people on board. It should have arrived at 6.30 in the morning. It did not arrive until 10.30 a.m. There was an industrial dispute by the handling agents which meant

279
that passengers did not begin to disembark from the aircraft until about 11 o'clock in the morning. It also resulted in the baggage not reaching the baggage hall until between 12.45 and 1.30 in the afternoon. Therefore, no passenger from the flight was able to clear the airport until one o'clock at the earliest. Those events are significant because, as it turned out, there was insufficient time to complete all the interviews on the day of arrival.
About 100 Jamaican citizens were cleared through the control after only a brief interview. The remainder waited in the lounge until they could be further interviewed when decisions were taken on their application for entry. Priority was given to passengers, who were accompanied by children, and to anyone who appeared to be elderly or infirm. The Immigration Service provided refreshments for all passengers. The lounge also contained a number of telephones, which enabled passengers to make telephone calls.
The Immigration Service set up a telephone enquiry point, some 40 minutes after the first disembarkation, so that the relatives and friends of those who were on the flight and who were making inquiries about them could benefit from such a service. An enquiry point was also set up on the concourse for the benefit of friends and relatives who wished to check whether a passenger was being held for immigration enquiries. Therefore, a great deal was done to accommodate those people on that occasion.
At the end of the first day, out of the 326 passengers,202 had been cleared and admitted into the United Kingdom,35 had been refused entry, and 89 others still required further examination.
Out of those who were either refused entry or were required for further examination,57 passengers were held overnight because the Immigration Service was not satisfied in each case that the person would comply with conditions of temporary admission. Most of those who were detained were taken to Campsfield House. The remainder were given temporary admission to stay with their relatives or friends. At the end of the second day,29 people remained in detention, all of whom had been refused entry to the United Kingdom and 27 of them were later returned to Jamaica by a specially chartered aircraft.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked about the cost to the United Kingdom of the charter flight. The answer is that it was $ 126,765, including the cost of the in-flight escorts but excluding the cost of in-country escorts, which has yet to be finalised.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that the real outrage was that people were taken to police stations, which he erroneously called gaols. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said that people should be treated with dignity. I do not disagree with him; they should be. However, I can tell the House why it happened. Some of those who were detained at Campsfield were starting to behave in a disruptive and threatening way both to the staff and to the other people who were being detained. It was considered by the local Immigration Service managers at Campsfield that to leave the Jamaicans there would create a serious risk of violence if they we re to be held over the Christmas
280
period. That is why arrangements were made to transfer those who were detained at Campsfield, which is in Oxfordshire, in police cells in Sussex until their departure. A flight was found which could take them from Gatwick to Kingston on 25th December.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how many is meant by "some" and why, if only some, were all so badly treated?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, they were not all badly treated. Campsfield House was a new place. Many of the immigration officers who were responsible said that the conditions were such that there was likely to be a serious risk of violence if some action was not taken. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, can shake his head as much as he likes. All I can tell him is that the information I have received— needless to say I have checked this fairly thoroughly— suggests that violence was likely to break out and the immigration authorities were not prepared to accept that risk.
The 25th December flight departed at 9.40 in the evening with 27 detainees on board. One other detainee, who had been transferred from Campsfield House earlier because of his disruptive behaviour, was removed under escort on 27th December.
All those who were denied entry were refused for immigration reasons. In the vast majority of cases this was because the immigration officer was not satisfied that the passenger was a genuine visitor who would return to Jamaica at the end of his holiday. In some cases passengers had apparently tried to conceal a previous refusal of entry clearance by obtaining new passports. In a few cases, the passenger was apparently coming for settlement but the individual had come without the mandatory entry clearance which it was his responsibility to obtain.
We have estimated that about 100 visitors who might have been expected to leave on the return leg did not do so. We have, of course, made it quite plain that those accepted as visitors from the incoming flight but who did not leave on the return leg are not necessarily here unlawfully. People can and do change their mind about the time they will stay. Many will no doubt leave on other flights. But I think it fair to say that, given the indications on arrival that so many intended to leave on 17th January, fewer than we might have expected actually left on the return flight.
Campsfield House, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, took such exception, was only recently opened and those passengers from the Jamaican flight who were detained there were the first to occupy some of the newly refurbished accommodation there. A range of meals, some 20 dishes in all, were made available to them. Some of those detained did not wish to eat food which was not Caribbean food. A special order was, therefore, placed for Caribbean food and, by the morning of the 24th December, six different Caribbean meals were on offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that what rankled most was that relatives or friends were not permitted to take food to those detained at Campsfield. This was not, in fact, the case. Specific authority was given by the Immigration Service for relatives and friends to bring

281
food in if they so wished, subject only to the overriding conditions of security and hygiene. Visiting hours were extended so that as many friends and relatives as possible could visit those who were held. That provision accords with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that the detainees should be treated with dignity.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, suggested that the abolition of appeal rights for visitors under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act has led to a change in the Government's policy towards visitors. The Bill was debated at some length both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Instructions to immigration officers since the Act was passed about the criteria to be applied for all visitors, including those from Jamaica, remain exactly the same as they were before. There has been no change of policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised the question of a complaints procedure. Complaints about the conduct of an immigration officer can be made to the complaints section of the Immigration and Nationality Department. The recently appointed Complaints Audit Committee is responsible for monitoring complaints procedures. The committee reports annually to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Genuine visitors from all countries are welcome. Most of those who come here continue to pass through our controls quickly. Indeed, there are frequent scheduled flights into Gatwick from Jamaica, which are normally cleared without any difficulty. The Government have no plans to introduce a compulsory visa requirement for Jamaican citizens in order to travel to the United Kingdom. However, it is in the interests of anyone who wishes to establish in advance whether he or she is eligible for admission to the United Kingdom to apply to the British High Commission for an entry clearance.
282
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked whether an assurance can be given that carriers will not be penalised in the event that they arrive in the United Kingdom with passengers from Jamaica who may not have entry clearance. Carriers would not be liable to a charge under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 provided that all Jamaican passengers who do not have entry clearance are properly documented.
Our immigration policy is firm but fair. All passengers who seek entry to the United Kingdom have to be dealt with on their individual merits. Those who do not satisfy the immigration officer that they are genuine visitors who will return home at the end of their stay will be refused entry. This does though represent only a small minority of people. In 1992 some 26,000 Jamaicans came here. Only some 400 were refused entry and removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked whether the Government would give some form of compensation to these people. When a decision has been made to detain a person under the immigration Act it is the normal practice to arrange for his or her removal as quickly as possible. The period of detention is therefore kept to a minimum. This principle was followed in the case of those who were detained from this flight. The action which was taken by the Immigration Service was lawful and the question of compensation does not therefore arise.
I have attempted to cover the incident in some detail. I am satisfied that the procedures were applied in accordance with normal immigration practice. There was nothing irregular in the way in which the flight was handled. Each case was treated on its merits and considerable effort was made to ensure that the large number of people on that flight would be dealt with as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight o'clock.