HL Deb 21 June 1994 vol 556 cc179-204

3.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—( Earl Ferrers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Schedule 9[Minor Amendments]:

Earl Ferrers

I beg to move that the proceedings of yesterday in respect of Amendments Nos. 171BA to 171F be vacated.

Last night the Committee got itself into something of a procedural confusion over Amendment No. 171BA with the result that the Minutes of Proceedings record that the Question on the amendment was not decided. Since it is not procedurally possible when considering a Bill to leave a Question undecided and then to proceed to consider further amendments, I am advised that these proceedings should be vacated. If my Motion is agreed to, the Committee will then proceed to consider Amendments Nos. 171BA to 171F again, including Amendment No. 171BB which stands in my name. The ninth Marshalled List has been issued on that basis.

Moved, That the proceedings of yesterday in respect of Amendments Nos. 171BA to 171F be vacated.—(Earl Ferrers.)

Lord Richard

I rise not only in relation to this somewhat technical procedural Motion about last night's muddle but also to say to the Committee one or two things about the state of this Bill. I say at the outset that I do not do so in any spirit of banter, so that Ministers are aware of that.

As I understand the position, at about a quarter-to three this morning the Committee was counted out. It was counted out after a request had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that further consideration of the Bill should be adjourned.

On 20th May my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip wrote to the Government Chief Whip in these terms: My colleagues have asked me to tell you that, in their view, it is not in the best interests of the House—nor is it acceptable—to plan a timetable whereby the business goes beyond 11.00 pm as it frequently does at this time of year. We are therefore asking you to note that if the business goes beyond 11.00 pm, then Labour Peers and the official Opposition"— my noble friend said with great constraint— will take a dim view of this". Our view of the matter has got dimmer and dimmer as the weeks have passed.

On 8th June, the morning after another debacle on this Bill, my noble friend wrote to the Government Chief Whip saying: Unless the House faces up to the realities, we will continue to debate important issues at a wholly inappropriate time and this should not be tolerated. The Government must find more time in which to debate, sensibly, important matters". Yesterday, in proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we spent a large part of the day debating matters sexual. For some reason the Government decided that that should be part of the Bill. I am not sure how or why it should be, but there it is. We then moved on to tobacco advertising, which apparently continued until about a quarter-past midnight last night. Following the debate on tobacco advertising, we then moved on to other important matters on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill until the Committee was understandably counted out at a quarter-to three this morning. This is no way for us to conduct our business.

I am fortified in that view not only by what has happened on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill but also by the fact that we are about to embark on the Committee stages of two other lengthy and very important Bills—the deregulation Bill, which is an enormous document and is bound to require detailed examination, and the Scottish local government Bill. If I was looking at the range of legislative measures coming before this Chamber and was asked to pick out one which would take up more time than the others it would probably be the Scottish local government Bill. The ramifications of that legislative minefield would be fairly high on the list. Therefore, we shall find ourselves in positions of extreme and increasing difficulty between now and the end of the Session.

We suggested to the Government that discussions should take place through the usual channels to see whether this problem could be dealt with. We suggested that perhaps Fridays should be utilised, recognising that if the Government want their business they will have to face up to the difficulties of using Fridays for legislation and therefore for voting.

Whatever we do about the problem, I am quite convinced—and I hope that the Committee is with me on this—that it is not right that we should debate issues of this importance at the hours and in the way that we have discussed them on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

I am not sure whether that means that I am in favour of what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said. I probably am in favour because at least it would clear up one procedural muddle in relation to this Bill.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I very much agree with everything that has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. I too should like to say a few words about what happened last night. I apologise to those who have come here this afternoon assuming that they would be discussing the Coal Industry Bill at this time.

Well after midnight a number of us warned the Government, through the usual channels, that we were opposed to yet another late night Sitting on this Bill because major issues relating to the criminal law and the liberty of the subject were involved. We were told that the Government intended to proceed with the Bill however late we sat. They did so, despite the fact that they did not bother to keep a quorum in the Chamber. Eventually, about 12 hours ago, a Division was called and 14 Members of this Chamber went into the government Lobby, less than half the number necessary to maintain a quorum. As a result the Sitting was adjourned.

When complaints have been made about the manner in which this huge Bill has been handled in this House, we have been told by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that if we all spoke a little less there would not be a problem.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am not sure that those who say, "Hear, hear", were necessarily present last evening when some of us were attending to our parliamentary duties and they were not.

We are a revising Chamber. We have a duty to scrutinise in detail government legislation. A number of us, on all sides of the Chamber, take that responsibility extremely seriously. I believe that no one scrutinising our proceedings on this Bill can possibly argue that there has been deliberate time wasting. Quite the reverse. On many important issues, if anything, there has been inadequate debate taking place between a handful of people in a deserted Chamber.

The problem with this Bill has been not only its length—more than 150 clauses—but its Long Title, which comprises approximately 450 words. In the 20 years that I have been a Member of this House I have never seen a government Bill with a Long Title approaching that length, covering such an immensely wide range of issues. It seems to me that almost any amendment on any issue falls within the Long Title of this Bill. That was not a decision of this Chamber, it was a decision made by Ministers. I believe that that is why the problem has arisen.

I hope that the Government will learn from this experience. First, there should be genuine consultation between the usual channels on matters of this type. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already referred to that. Secondly, it is quite wrong to ask the House to sit into the early hours of the morning discussing matters of this degree of gravity.

I well remember when I was in the Home Office the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, complaining that the House was sitting far too long when considering a Bill dealing with criminal justice issues. As a result of that pressure from the noble and learned Lord—before 11p.m.—the Government decided to suspend proceedings on the Bill on that occasion.

I very much hope that the Government will be far more sensible in relation to matters of this degree of importance which they bring before the House.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham)

I believe that noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber are keen to see our proceedings conducted in good order and at a reasonable hour. That goes as much for my noble friends and myself as for Members on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches and those on all sides of your Lordships" Chamber.

As my noble friend Lord Ferrers explained last night in response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, the arrangements for discussing the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill were agreed through the usual channels. When it appeared that some time would be required to debate the amendments relating to the age of consent, it was again agreed through the usual channels to provide an extra day for that series of debates and for the amendments thereafter. As noble Lords know, the Committee utilised the opportunity yesterday to the full with a range of debates on questions of sex and sexual offences which I gather extended to some eight hours in all, followed by debates on the Armed Forces, tobacco advertising, and so on. Clearly in such circumstances any lengthy debates early on in the day will disadvantage those with later amendments.

Of course there is always tension between noble Lords who wish to debate important issues and their recognition of the ability of the Government to achieve their business. Those are matters which the usual channels constantly attempt to resolve. In a broader setting, those are also matters relevant to the consideration of the group on the sittings of the House which I have established.

I can assure the Chamber that I have heard and will consider further the points raised today. I hope that the Chamber will, for its part, recognise that yesterday's proceedings were somewhat exceptional both in their form and content. In the circumstances perhaps the best course now is to consider the remaining amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill printed on the Marshalled List.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Minor Amendments]:

Lord Harris of Greenwichmoved Amendment No. 171BA:

Page 159, line 45, leave out paragraph 35.

The noble Lord said: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to our proceedings because he and I will have the opportunity of going over the arguments yet again, endeavouring, no doubt, to persuade one another of their quality.

The amendment deals with the question of curfew orders. As I said in the early hours of this morning, this part of the schedule which I seek to amend relates to a power given to the Secretary of State to introduce curfew orders when, as the schedule provides, arrangements for monitoring the offender's whereabouts are available in the area".

As I indicated last night, that refers to electronic tagging.

As I explained, when we discussed exactly the same issue during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, I did not oppose the idea in principle on the first occasion that the matter was raised. I took the view that those of us who argued that too many people were kept in custody should not oppose any idea put forward by the Government to avoid people being held unnecessarily in custody, so long as it had been carefully considered. However, as I explained to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the more I considered the issue, the more sceptical I became.

The last Home Office experiment which dealt with the question of remand prisoners involved three courts: Tower Bridge, Tyneside and Nottingham. The Home Office hoped that there would be 150 tags. In fact there were only a third of that figure. Precisely 49 individuals were involved, one being tagged twice. Of those individuals, 29 either breached their home arrest conditions or were charged with further offences. In all there were 217 violations—more than four for every person tagged—and 159 equipment failures, or more than three for every person tagged.

In the debate in 1991, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was leading for the Opposition on Home Office issues. He gave a summary of what had happened in a number of the cases. In Tyneside a defendant was about to be tagged but escaped by jumping out of the dock before the anklet could be fitted to him. Another absconded to the South East of England losing his tag on the way. In London, two young men from Scotland were tagged, with a condition of residence applied. They went on the run and gave a television interview while doing so. Another man with 17 previous convictions was tagged. According to probation officers, he had 28 violations before he was brought back to the courts. The Committee can judge for itself the attitude of the police in having to deal with issues of that kind.

In the light of that experience, the Home Office evaluation report—I quoted from it in the early hours of this morning; the Chamber is rather fuller now than it was then—uses remarkably restrained language to describe the situation. It states: Magistrates and judges did not seem to have much confidence in the applicability of electronic monitoring as an alternative to a remand in custody and commented on the difficulties of finding suitable candidates for it. They were willing to countenance a trial with a limited timespan, but if monitoring were to be introduced on any national basis then much greater confidence in the system on the part of both of these groups would be vital".

In the light of that statement, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate told us that the situation had been transformed. He assured us that manufacturers had dramatically improved the quality of their tagging devices. That is not altogether surprising because some lucrative contracts are involved with regard to those devices. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate indicated last night that there had been dramatic improvement. As I recall, he indicated that the new generation of tagging devices would not fail if they were submerged in water when an offender wearing one of the devices got into a bath. That does not seem to me to give us a great deal of reassurance about the quality of the devices.

On the basis of the abject failure of that experimental system, I still find it extremely difficult to understand why the Government are now proceeding to include the provision in the Bill.

The noble and learned Lord was asked by my noble friend Lord Tordoff to give some clearer indication of the improvement in these devices. He was unable to do so. He indicated that he would write to my noble friend. If the Government wish to gain the assent of Parliament to this part of the Bill, they really have to do a great deal better than that. Significant sums of public money have already been spent on the idea. So far the experiment has been a failure. This afternoon we want some indication as to why the Government believe that it is right to proceed further in that direction. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

In view of the earlier strictures on the length of time that we ought to devote to matters in the Bill, I shall not wrap up what I have to say. I merely say that the description which the noble Lord has given exactly fits the expectation of the Home Office when the idea of tagging was first advanced 10 years ago. In that case, the Committee will wish to be reassured on two matters by my noble and learned friend: first, that dramatic advances not only are achievable but have been achieved; and, secondly, that, it being a permissive power, it will not be brought into effect until such advances have been achieved.

3.30 p.m

Baroness Faithfull

I wish to ask my noble and learned friend two questions. First, I believe that the system started in America. I visit that country every year and I understand from the people whom I see there that it has not proved very successful. Is that so? Secondly, how is it decided which men should be tagged? I have dealt with two men who gave their mother"s address as where they would be but they never went there. They slept in the streets, moving on every so often, and they felt that they could never be found. What is the system for deciding which man should go where and for arranging that he stays where he says he will?

Baroness David

My name is on the amendment and I wish briefly to support it. The enormous costs of the earlier project are alarming. The trials cost £700,000 for 50 people, £14,000 per monitored defendant. That may decrease, but even so it is a large sum, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say something about it. A further point is that the families of those who are tagged find it difficult, and that should be brought into consideration.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry):

As the Committee has heard, some of us were privileged to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he raised the matter in the early hours of this morning. More Members of the Committee have been able to hear him this afternoon and, unfortunately, the Committee will also have to hear me on the matter. Nonetheless, if I may return to what I said early this morning, the position is that under the existing Criminal Justice Act 1991 provision is made—and Parliament made the provision after due debate—for the use of curfew orders as a form of sentence. The position is that that form of sentence is already provided for in the statute. However, as the noble Lord graphically illustrated, when the matter was tried on a previous occasion certain problems arose. First, on that occasion the context was of bail rather than use of the system as a sentence. More particularly, there were problems relating to the technology.

Because of the awareness that there were problems and that problems may yet be experienced in the system's use, the Government have thought it right that the provision for such a sentence should not be introduced on a blanket scale throughout England and Wales for one group. It is rather that due provision should be made to allow the system to be tested on an area basis. Paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 makes that provision: A court shall not make a curfew order unless the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements for monitoring the offender's whereabouts are available in the area". In other words, it will be necessary for the appropriate machinery to be set up in an area before a court has the power to make that kind of curfew order.

As I said last night, it is envisaged that the system should be tried out initially in three different areas, chosen for their characteristics, in order that the test in the selected areas should be representative, so far as possible, of the kind of conditions which will be encountered throughout the country. For example, Manchester is one of the areas which has been chosen as a city with a high density of population and, in particular, it has architectural characteristics since it has a large number of high-rise buildings. The next place which has been chosen is Reading, again because it has a high density of population. But on this occasion, in contrast with Manchester, on the whole it has low-rise buildings. In that area there is a certain amount of radio interference and it was therefore thought proper to test the system there. Finally, the other area chosen was Norfolk because it is a rural area and, as many Members of the Committee will know, Norfolk is flat. That characteristic seemed to be suitable for the test. It is thought that experiments carried out in those areas will provide a suitable test for the system.

Since it was last tried out, there has been a considerable development in technology. The system has been tried in America, where I am informed that 200,000 offenders have been tagged and the technology has been found to work. It has also been used in Canada, Australia and Singapore. That means that there is now considerable experience with the technology and it has been developed by companies in response to the fact that there has been a demand for it in various countries.

I cannot give the exact technical details of the way the system has been improved. However, I understand that, for example, since 1989 the signal strength has been improved, as has the aerial construction on the device. That has resulted in keeping radio interference to a minimum. In the devices the radio transmitters have been reduced in both size and weight since the previous experiment. Also the technology has been advanced in such a way that it is now much more difficult for people to tamper with the devices without being detected. For example, it will now be more apparent when any attempt is made to get into the device or to remove the radio transmitter from the person"s wrist or ankle, or when any attempt is made to duplicate or copy the radio signals, or when there is any loss of power. In all those ways, as I understand it, the system has been greatly improved. For that reason, the Government believe that it is correct to envisage using the system now.

My noble friend Lady Faithfull asks on whom the device will be used. Of course, that is not a matter for the Government but for the courts. It is a sentence at the disposal of and available to the courts. Precisely on whom they will use it is a matter for them and not a matter which the Government can or would seek to dictate.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he had no objection in principle to the legislation. The Committee may think likewise that, if the system can be used as a sentence, particularly on people who might otherwise be kept in custody, surely it is a useful addition to the armoury at the disposal of and available to the courts. Obviously, the cost per unit, the use of the system, and so on, will depend upon exactly how much use the courts make of it. It is correct to say that little use was made on the previous occasion. But that was when the technology was not successful and when it was also within the range of disposals in connection with bail. We are now moving on to a different system and applying it in a different context; namely, that of sentence.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that we had to remember the effect on families. But many families would prefer to have the member of the family at home with them with the transmitter attached rather than having that person away in custody. One has to think of the matter in that context. I believe that, having in the past approved the existence of this provision in the Criminal Justice Act, Members of the Committee will think that this particular provision in paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 is indeed a suitable way forward and a suitable way to take the first step in this particular matter.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

The noble and learned Lord has indicated correctly—and indeed has repeated —the point that I made at the beginning of this brief debate. I indicated in 1991 that I had not been opposed in principle to the idea of some form of evaluation experiment. That is true. But subsequently I formed the view that the experiment had been a failure. I reminded the Committee only a few moments ago of what the Home Office's own evaluation report had said about this project. We are talking about public expenditure for each of the "tagees", if we may so describe them, of between £10,000 and £14,000 a time. What the experiment indicated was that the process had not worked.

The noble and learned Lord said that that applied only to people on bail. That is true. But if it failed—as demonstrably it did so far as those on bail were concerned—why are we now invited to extend it without any clear evidence that it has worked?

The problem with this whole idea has been that it was the view of a particular junior Minister then in the Home Office that this was an excellent way forward. I have no idea of the motivation of the Government in putting forward this proposal at the moment. All I can say is that all the evidence so far has demonstrated that tagging has not worked. It has, as the noble and learned Lord said, been introduced in the United States. But in many of the jurisdictions where it has been so introduced it has been applied to offenders who in the British situation would not even remotely have been held in custody. The Florida case which I cited last evening was just such a case. I looked at the criminal antecedent of those who had been charged in Florida. I find it almost inconceivable that more than 5 per cent. would even remotely have been held in custody in this country. I can see no case whatever for proceeding further with this idea without far more information being made available. That being so, I invite the Committee to come to a conclusion on this matter.

3.43 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 171BA) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 169.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Ackner, L. Castle of Blackburn, B.
Addington, L. Chapple, L.
Airedale, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Annan, L. Clinton-Davis, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Banks, L. David, B. [Teller.]
Barnett, L. Desai, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Donoughue, L.
Bottomley, L. Dormand of Easington, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Ezra, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Faithfull, B.
Carter, L. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Gallacher, L. Nathan, L.
Geraint, L. Nicol, B.
Gladwyn, L. Parry, L.
Glenamara, L. Peston, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Rea, L.
Gregson, L. Redesdale, L.
Grey, E. Richard, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.] Rochester, L.
Haskel, L. Sainsbury, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Scanlon, L.
Howell, L. Seear, B.
Hughes, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Jay, L. Serota, B.
Jeger, B. Shaughnessy, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Shepherd, L.
Kennet, L. Stallard, L.
Kilbracken, L. Stedman, B.
Kirkhill, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Strabolgi, L.
Lockwood, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Mallalieu, B. Tenby, V.
Mason of Barnsley, L. Tordoff, L.
Mayhew, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. White, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L. Wigoder, L.
Molloy, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Monkswell, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Dixon-Smith, L.
Addison, V. Eden of Winton, L.
Ailesbury, M. Effingham, E.
Ailsa, M. Elibank, L.
Aldington, L. Ellenborough, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Elton, L.
Alport, L. Erroll of Hale, L.
Annaly, L. Fanshawe of Richmond, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Ferrers, E.
Arran, E. Finsberg, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Flather, B.
Astor, V. Forester, L.
Balfour, E. Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Barber, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Bathurst, E. Gainford, L.
Bellwin, L. Gisborough, L.
Blatch, B. Goschen, V.
Blyth, L. Gray of Contin, L.
Boardman, L. Gray, L.
Borthwick, L. Greenway, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Gridley, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Hailsham of Saint Maryleborne, L.
Braybrooke, L. Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Bridgeman, V. Harding of Petherton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Burton, L. Harlech, L.
Butterworth, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Buxton of Alsa, L. Harrowby, E.
Cadman, L. Harvington, L.
Caldecote, V. Hayhoe, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Hayter, L.
Carnock, L. Henley, L.
Carr of Hadley, L. Hesketh, L.
Cayzer, L. Holderness, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Hood, V.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Hooper, B.
Chesham, L. Hothfield, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Howe, E.
Clark of Kempston, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Colnbrook, L. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. King of Wartnaby, L.
Courtown, E. Kinnaird, L.
Cranborne, V. Knutsford, V.
Crathorne, L. Laing of Dunphail, L.
Cross, V. Liverpool, E
Cumberlege, B. Long, V.
Davidson, V. Lyell, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. Lytton, E.
Demon of Wakefield, B. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Renton, L.
Manchester, D. Renwick, L.
Mancroft, L. Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Marsh, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L. Sandford, L.
Merrivale, L. Savile, L.
Mersey, V. Seccombe, B.
Middleton, L. Sharples, B.
Milverton, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Monson, L. Slim, V.
Mottistone, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Mountevans, L. St. Davids, V.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. St. John of Fawsley, L.
Munster, E. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Stewartby, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L. Strange, B.
Nelson of Stafford, L. Strathcarron, L.
Nelson, E. Strathclyde, L.
Newall, L. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]
Norrie, L.
Northbourne, L. Sudeley, L.
Northesk, E. Swansea, L.
O'Brien of Lothbury, L. Swinfen, L.
Orkney, E. Teviot, L.
Orr-Ewing, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Oxfuird, V. Trumpington, B.
Peel, E. Tugendhat, L.
Perry of Southwark, B. Ullswater, V.[Teller.]
Peyton of Yeovil, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Polwarth, L. Vivian, L.
Pym, L. Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Sea1.]
Quinton, L. Wedgwood, L.
Rankeillour, L. Wynford, L.
Rees, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.53 p.m.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 171BB:

Page 161, line 50, at end insert:

("Discretionary life prisoners

—(1) In section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (duty to release discretionary life prisoners after they have served the relevant part of their sentence and the Parole Board has directed their release)—

(a) in subsection (6), for the words after "sentence" there shall be substituted the following words—

—

(a)account shall be taken of any corresponding relevant period; but

(b) no account shall be taken of any time during which the prisoner was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison act 1952 ("the 1952 Act")."; and

(b) after that subsection, there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(6A) In subsection (6) (a) above, "corresponding relevant period" means the period corresponding to the period by which a determinate sentence of imprisonment imposed on the offender would fall to be reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (reduction of sentences to take account of police detention or remands in custody).".

(2) In paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 12 to that Act (application of early release provisions of the Act to existing life prisoners), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph, preceded by the word "and"—

"(c) in section 34 of this Act, paragraph (a) of subsection (6) and subsection (6A) were omitted.".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment allows remand time to be taken into account when calculating the relevant part of a discretionary life sentence. Remand time counts towards determinate sentences and in practice was always taken into account in calculating tariffs in discretionary life sentence cases before the introduction of the new statutory arrange-ments governing those sentences in 1992.

The statutory arrangements which were introduced at that time failed to include provision for that established practice to continue. It is desirable that it should continue and this amendment puts the matter right by providing for it to continue. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 171BC not moved.]

[Amendments Nos. 171C to 17IE had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 171F:

Page 162, line 42, leave out paragraph 44.

The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the power introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for the courts to bind over parents to ensure that their children comply with community sentences. The paragraph in Schedule 9 that this amendment seeks to delete states that: Where the court has passed on the relevant minor a community sentence (within the meaning of section 6 above) it may include in the recognisance a provision that the minor's parent or guardian ensure that the minor complies with the requirements of that sentence".

That is a variation on the power which was introduced under the 1991 Bill. In fact, the power was not used until November 1992. Therefore there has been neatly two years' experience of the provision in action. The Magistrates' Association, which was opposed to the provision in the first place, has been keeping records of the use of the power. It is still profoundly dissatisfied with the provision.

In practice, in the past year about 800 binding over orders were issued by magistrates' courts but they were issued by a small minority of courts. Most magistrates' courts decided not to use the power at all, for reasons with which I agree and shall set out in a moment. Therefore a small minority of magistrates' courts use the power quite extensively and, as the records show, use the binding over provision very heavily against single parents.

I suggest that this provision is harmful rather than helpful in the control of young offenders. The evidence since 1992 has confirmed it. The same objections apply to the presently proposed version as applied to the originally proposed version. There are three reasons for rejecting the paragraph.

First, a binding order could unfairly punish parents who genuinely but unsuccessfully try to improve their children's behaviour. Parents are often at their wits' end to know how to control their children and prevent them from offending. Financial penalties will hardly encourage them to do that. It is difficult to see any evidence that financial penalties have in fact helped them to do better.

Secondly, when parents are penalised for something which the child has done, it is bound to raise tension between the parents and the children. There must be resentment on the part of the parents and a feeling, perhaps of guilt in some cases, on the child's part. Certainly there is a diminution in the relationship between the parents and the children. That must put the children concerned at risk.

The third reason is financial. The binding over orders are for up to £1,000. Many of them will be against families which are struggling to survive financially. Therefore the sufferers will be not just the parent who is forced under the binding over order but, for example, the other children in the family. The whole economic health of the family will suffer. That economic health is one of the components in preventing child crime.

Above all, what is most important is that binding over the parents to secure the compliance of the child with a community order distorts the message of responsibility which a sentence of that kind is intended to give. It is particularly unhelpful that it should be thought that children can discharge their responsibilities by the fact that that responsibility has been taken over by the parents.

To continue and amend a provision which has proved to be unsatisfactory is the wrong way forward in dealing with juvenile offenders. Surely the right way, as has been successfully tried, is supervised activity programmes which have been extended and in recent years quite properly funded by central government. They take children away from crime by involving them in constructive programmes rather than introducing this unnecessary and divisive method of control —the binding over of parents in sums of money to try to ensure that the children complete their community orders. I beg to move.

4 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull

I rise to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as one who has had to deal with children on whom community orders have been made. It is difficult to categorise human situations. But one may be dealing with children who come from homes where a bad relationship exists between the child and the parents. It may be said that that is the fault of the parents; nevertheless, the relationship is a bad one and could be made worse if the parents have to pay out £1,000 on their child's misdemeanours. There are then the parents who really care for their children. Unfortunately, the children have taken up with the wrong set and, much to the parents' distress and dismay, they find themselves unable to control the children. There are also the extremely unhappy families—I am sure many Members of the Committee will have read John Masefield's poem, "The Widow in the bye street", whose child was in deep trouble and she could not help or control the child due to her circumstances.

Those of us dealing with these children—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton will support me in this —understand that part of the community service order is to try to help not only the child but also the parents. In many cases it is possible to effect a reconciliation. Support and help over a long period are given to the parents as well as the children in the hope that ultimately one will reunite them in a positive and helpful relationship. But, if the parents are to be fined, I can assure the Committee that there will be no possibility of building a good healthy relationship between the parents and the children. I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his amendment.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Members of the Committee will no doubt agree that it is desirable that community sentences should be as effective as possible. Clearly the Committee will want, where possible, children to be made the subject of such sentences. It is important that any such sentence should be effective. As many Members of the Committee will know, the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place undertook a substantial inquiry last year into juvenile offenders. In its report it urged the Government to look at what further steps could be taken to strengthen the duties which can be placed upon the parents of juvenile offenders. That committee comprised Members from all sides of the House in the other place including Members of the Opposition. This matter therefore is one way of responding to that perceived need.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave the Committee certain figures in relation to binding-over orders. The latest figures from the Home Office indicate that in 1993 there were around 2,000 cases. I accept that on any view that is still a small percentage—4 per cent.—of the cases in the youth court. I accept that binding over is being used selectively. I should have thought that that is what Members of the Committee would expect and would think desirable. But the whole point of binding over in this case is to reinforce the effectiveness of a community service sentence. It is not in any sense intended to distort the effect of a community sentence; it is merely to reinforce it. After all, the duty which remains is the duty of the minor to comply with the requirements of the sentence. That is made quite clear in the provision which the Committee is considering. All it does is provide an encouragement, a stimulus to the parents to ensure, so far as they can, that the minor complies with the requirements of the sentence.

It is desirable that children comply with the requirement of sentences. I am sure that the Committee agrees with that. Therefore anything that can be done to increase the likelihood that the child will comply is surely desirable. It will not be necessary in all cases and nobody is suggesting that. But if the court thinks that in a specific case the binding over of the parent may be an effective way to help to ensure that the minor complies with the community sentence, then that seems to the Government to be a power which the court should have open to it. That is not to say that it will be used in all cases. There is no question of it being compulsory; it is merely a power which will be available to the courts. We believe that giving the court that power, which it can use with discrimination in appropriate cases, is a useful measure.

There is no question of creating undesirable tension between the parents and the children. Any tension that exists may be a constructive tension if it leads to the children complying with the sentences. Of course the financial circumstances of the parents will be something that the court will take into account in considering whether to bind over and, if so, in what amount. The whole circumstances of any failure of the child to comply with the sentence will be considered by the court in examining the whole question of binding over.

It appears to the Government to be a useful measure; one which reinforces the community sentence and one which we commend to the Committee.

Lord Elton

Before my noble and learned friend sits down, perhaps he will allow me to make an observation and ask a question. My noble friend Lady Faithfull pointed out that families differ greatly; my noble and learned friend pointed out that courts will be sensitive to the differences, and that is what we all hope. However, they can only be sensitive if they are seized of the state of the families at the moment.

My noble and learned friend may be aware that at the beginning of these procedures we discussed a group of amendments which included one which was not moved last night because we had already spoken to it concerning pre-sentence reports. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will take on board that anxieties about the way in which courts respond to the very sensitive issues which he is now considering will be coloured by the likelihood that the pre-sentence reports will be up-to-date in what may be quite fast-moving situations.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the procedure was used disproportionately in the case of single parents. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help the Committee as to whether that is so. If it is, how far is it so, and is it because such children are more likely to offend, or does it have anything to do with the composition of attendance at the centres?

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

In response to my noble friend Lord Elton, it will always be important that courts should proceed on the basis of what they regard as the proper and most up-to-date information that they need for any particular disposal.

As regards the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, I do not have the statistics to indicate whether the figures of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are reflected in those of the Home Office. I do not know whether we have any analysis of the figures on that basis, and therefore I am not able to respond further.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I believe that the key to the reply of the Lord Advocate is the word "selective". If the power was used selectively but equally across the country in all magistrates' courts we might be less antagonistic to it. If it meant that magistrates agreed to the possibility of using this power but were doing so with great discretion in 4 per cent. of cases, as he said, I do not believe that there would be any objection. However, my understanding, based upon what the Magistrates' Association has said, is that that is not the case and that power is being used extensively and not so selectively by a relatively small number of magistrates' courts. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate has any information on that point to help the Committee. It is apparent from his facial gestures that he does not have such information.

Because the Magistrates' Association is not satisfied with this situation, because it appears that a very large number of magistrates do not feel that this is an appropriate power and because it may be being used excessively by a small number of magistrates' courts, we are still not satisfied. However, it is not a matter on which I wish to test the opinion of the Committee. I will consult and consider whether to come back to the point at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 171G:

Page 162, line 48, at end insert:

("Confiscation orders in terrorist-related activities cases: variation of sentences

In Section 48 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (postponed confiscation orders etc.), after subsection (3B) there shall be inserted the following subsection— (3C) Where the court has sentenced the defendant under subsection (2) or (3) above during the specified period it may, after the end of that period, vary the sentence by imposing a fine or making any such order as is mentioned in subsection (5) (b) or (c) below so long as it does so within a period corresponding to that allowed by Section 49(2) or (3) of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (time allowed for varying a sentence) but beginning with the end of the specified period.".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This matter has already been debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 171GA:

Page 163, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert:

(".—(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Section 2(1) (offences to which the Act applies), after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—

"(f) any conspiracy to commit any of those offences;

(g) any incitement of another to commit any of those offences.".

(3) In Section 6 (interpretation)—

(a)after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) For the purposes of this Act, where it is alleged or there is an accusation that an offence of conspiracy or incitement of another to commit an offence mentioned in Section 2(1) (a) to (d) has been committed, the person against whom the substantive offence is alleged to have been intended to be committed shall be regarded as the person against whom the conspiracy or incitement is alleged to have been committed.

In this subsection, "the substantive offence" means the offence to which the alleged conspiracy or incitement related."; and

(b) in subsection (3), after the words "references in" there shall be inserted the words "subsection (2A) and in".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This matter has already been debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Consequential Amendments]:

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 171H to 172ZF:

Page 163, line 17, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases

In Section 2 of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (bail for persons released from custody under habeas corpus while awaiting trial), after the words "brought as aforesaid shall" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").

Page 163, line 28, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 56(3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (powers of courts remitting young offenders to youth court), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

Page 163, line 28, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide or rape cases.

In Section 37(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (power of High Court to grant bail on case stated or application for certiorari)—

  1. (a) in paragraph (b), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,"; and
  2. (b)in paragraph (d), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").

Page 164, line 6, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 4(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (power of High Court to grant bail to persons appealing to the House of Lords), after the words "Divisional Court shall" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").

Page 165, line 30, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 8(2) (a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (powers of Court of Appeal on retrial), after the words "custody or" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

Page 165, line 30, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 11(5) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (powers of Court of Appeal on quashing interim hospital order), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

Page 165, line 30, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 16(3) (b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (powers of Court of Appeal on allowing an appeal against a finding that a person is under a disability), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

Page 165, line 32, after ("19") insert ("(1)")

Page 165, line 34, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 36 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (power of Court of Appeal to grant bail on appeal by defendant), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 171H to 172ZF are all consequential upon Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. Accordingly, I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 172A:

Page 166, line 28, at end insert:

("Payment of damages by Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

In Section 14(5) of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (payment by Police Authority of damages awarded against persons serving with the Royal Ulster Constabulary), for the words "Section 19" there shall be substituted the words "Section 133 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".")

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 172A has already been debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 172B to 173ZA:

Page 168, line 8, at end insert:

("Bait: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 29(4) (b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (person under 18 remitted to youth court for trial), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

Page 168, line 8, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases

In Section 37(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (committal to Crown Court for sentence), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

Page 168, line 12, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide or rape cases.

In Section 113(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (power of magistrates' court to grant bail on appeal to Crown Court or by way of case stated), after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

Page 169, line 17, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases.

In Section 51(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (power of court to remit or release on bail detained person), after the words "above or" there shall be inserted the words ", subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".")

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 172B to 173ZA all relate to the matter of bail and to Clause 40 standing part of the Bill. I beg to move those amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 173A:

Page 169, line 17, at end insert:

("Video recordings,

—(1) The Video Recordings Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In Section 13, after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection— (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

>(3) For Section 15 there shall be substituted the following section—

"Time limit for prosecutions.

15.—(1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be brought after the expiry of the period of three years beginning with the date of the commission of the offence or one year beginning with the date of its discovery by the prosecutor, whichever is earlier.

(2)In Scotland, the reference in subsection (1) above to the date of discovery by the prosecutor shall be construed as a reference to the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Lord Advocate to warrant proceedings came to his knowledge.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

  1. (a) a certificate signed by the Lord Advocate or on his behalf and stating the date on which evidence came to his knowledge shall be conclusive evidence of that fact;
  2. (b) a certificate purporting to be signed as mentioned in paragraph (a) above shall be presumed to be so signed unless the contrary is proved; and
  3. (c) a prosecution shall be deemed to be brought on the date on which a warrant to apprehend or to cite the accused is granted provided that the warrant is executed without undue delay.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This matter has already been debated. I beg to move.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 175A:

Page 171, line 19, at end insert:

("( ) In Article 5(2), after sub-paragraph (a), for the word "and" there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"(aa) a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under Article 5 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (application for dismissal of charge where a case of fraud has been transferred from a magistrates' court to the Crown Court under Article 3 of that Order; and")

Page 171, line 19, at end insert:

("( ) In Article 5, after paragraph 3, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(3A) This Article applies in relation to officers of customs and excise as it applies in relation to constables." ")

Page 171, line 21, at end insert:

("( ) In Article 6(2), after sub-paragraph (a), for the word "and" there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"(aa) a judge, in deciding whether to grant an application made by the accused under Article 5 of the Criminal Justice (Serious Fraud) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (application for dismissal of charge where a case of fraud has been transferred from a magistrates' court to the Crown Court under Article 3 of that Order; and")

Page 171, line 21, at end insert:

("() In Article 6, after paragraph 2, there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(2A) This Article applies in relation to officers of customs and excise as it applies in relation to constables." ")

The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been debated. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 175B and 175C not moved. ]

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 175CA and 175CB:

Page 174, line 26, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases

In Section 40(3) (b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (committal for sentence of offender convicted of offence during currency of original sentence), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "subject to Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,".").

Page 174, line 35, at end insert:

("Bail: exclusion in homicide and rape cases

In Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (procedure on notice of transfer in certain cases involving children), in paragraph 2(1), after the word "1976" where it occurs first there shall be inserted the words ", Section 24 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994".")

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move these amendments, which have already been debated.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Repeals]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 175D:

Page 175, line 20, at end insert:

("1925c.86. Criminal Justice Act Section 13(3).
1925 Section 49(2).").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 175D I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 175E to 175K. These amendments repeal the existing statutes and result from the new transfer for trial procedures in Clause 40 and Schedule 4. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 175DA to 175DB not moved. ]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 175E and 175F:

Page 175, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert:

("Section 7. In Section 36(1), the definition of "committal proceedings".")

Page 175, line 44, at end insert:

("1968 c. 19. Criminal Appeal Act 1968. In Schedule 2, paragraph 1, the words from "or to any" to "before the original trial".")

The noble Earl said: Both these amendments were taken with Amendment No. 175D. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 175FA:

Page 176, line 5, at end insert:

("1969c. 63 Police Act 1969 Sections 1 and 3, 6 and 7
1970 c. 9 (N.I.). Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. Sections 19 and 20.")

The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 154BB. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 175G to 175K:

Page 176, line 5, at end insert:

("1972c.71. Criminal Justice Act 1972 In Section 46(1), the following words—
"Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";
"which respectively allow";
"committal proceedings and in other";
"and Section 106 of the said Act of 1980";
"which punish the making or'; "102 or";
", as the case may be". Section 46(2).")

Page 176, line 27, column 3, at end insert:

("In Section 97(1), the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or".")

Page 177, line 5, at end insert:

("1987C.38. Criminal Justice Act 1987 In Schedule 2, paragraphs 10 and 11.").

Page 177, line 7, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 32A(10).")

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 175G to 175K were spoken to with Amendment No. 175D. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 175L:

Page 177, line 10, column 3, at end insert ("Section 52(2).")

The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with the earlier amendment, Amendment No. 170DA, on child witnesses. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 177A:

Page 177, line 46, at end insert:

("1993 c. 24. Video Recordings Act 1993. Section 3.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 142C. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 178 to 178ZA not moved.]

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 149 to 151 agreed to.

Clause 152 [Short title, commencement and extent]:

[Amendment No. 178ZB not moved. ]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 178ZC:

Page 121, line 18, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("the authority making the order")

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment relating to the arrangements in Clause 152 for bringing the provisions of the Bill into force once it achieves Royal Assent. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 178ZCA:

Page 121, line 23, at end insert ("(Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had)").

The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 142C. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the side headings are not part of the Bill, is it usual for them to be inserted in amendments? I see that there are a number of examples of this.

Earl Ferrers

I think that the answer is yes. They have to be.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 178ZCB had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]

[Amendments Nos. 178ZCC to 178ZE not moved.]

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 178ZEA:

Page 121, line 24, after ("147,") insert ("(Touting for hire car services),").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 169ZE. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 178ZEB:

Page 121, line 24, after ("151") insert (", paragraph (Discretionary life prisoners) of Schedule 9")

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment was taken with Amendment No. 171BB. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 178ZF and 178A not moved.]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 178B:

Page 121, line 39, after ("78(3) to (5)") insert ("(Video recordings: increase in penalties), (Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be held.)").

The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 142C. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 179:

Page 121, line 39, after ("133,") insert ("138,")

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which is required to put it beyond doubt that Clause 138 applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 179A not moved. ]

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 179AA:

Page 121, line 40, after ("144,") insert ("(Access to computer material by constables and other enforcement officers)").

The noble Earl said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 166A. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 179B:

Page 122, line 5, after ("(7),") insert ("82,")

The noble Earl said: Clause 82 relates solely to Scotland. This amendment simply ensures that that is reflected in the extent provisions in Clause 152.I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for investigating the extent provisions. Clause 152 is quite the most complicated I have ever read in my whole life. I am grateful that, as a result of this amendment, Clause 83 now extends to Scotland. Perhaps I may take the liberty of asking my noble friend whether, when and if the Bill becomes an Act, a simplified explanation can be given to those persons in parts of the United Kingdom other than England and Wales as to exactly which clauses extend to Scotland and which do not.

I should like to point out that another amendment is very necessary. On page 121, line 40, there is reference to Clause 142(2), (3) and (6). I think that the phrase "and (6)" needs to be left out of the Bill because subsection (14) on page 122 clearly states that Clause 142(6) extends to Northern Ireland only. Those are the kind of points that this extremely complicated clause needs to explain, and explain to the ordinary layman who has to obey the law at the end of the day.

Earl Ferrers

I do not think my noble friend should worry too much if he finds that this is the most complicated measure he has ever seen in his life. Periodically, we all come up against that kind of problem. I agree with him that the parliamentary language used in the Bill is not readily absorbable by, as he put it, the ordinary layman. I take note of what he has said. My noble friend referred to the fact that Clause 142(6) extends to Northern Ireland only and wondered whether that is correctly written in the Bill and whether it should be something different. I have no reason to believe that my noble friend is right but I shall certainly ensure that the position in the Bill is correct. I shall consider what my noble friend has said over these matters.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.

In the Title:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi)

Before calling Amendment No. 180, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 180A.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 180:

Line 1, leave out from ("to") to end of long title and insert ("amend and strengthen the law relating to criminal justice and public order.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment substitutes the words, amend and strengthen the law relating to criminal justice and public order",

to replace the Long Title, about which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, had such fun earlier in the day, which runs on for more than a page. It seems to me that its only merit is that it is likely to get into the Guinness Book of Records.

The amendment, in the form that I venture to lay before the Committee, is in the style which formerly obtained—a short Long Title—which gave the general objective of the measure. That gave courts a great advantage of construction when they came to consider disputed interpretations of the provision and frequently (quite often at any rate) it was conclusive. When I wrote to the noble Earl about this I gave him the reference to the leading textbook where the cases are collected.

The change in practice came to my notice in a measure that the noble Earl will remember—the Maintenance Enforcement Act 1991. That was in the new form with a very long Long Title for a very short measure. An amendment was made at a very late stage to the schedule of minor and consequential provisions. That having been done, the Long Title, which in its modern form has to mention all the components of the measure in question, was in turn solemnly amended.

That was so inconvenient and absurd that I ventured to draw the matter to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who has a general supervision over the statute book. He did not refer me to his advisory committee —the precursor of the present one—but offered to speak to the parliamentary draftsman. I had an interview with Sir Henry de Waal who was then the chief parliamentary draftsman. He agreed that the former style was useful and the present style served no useful purpose at all, not even as a catalogue of the contents which are set out in the table of clauses which become the table of sections. They are printed with each successive stage of a Bill in each House and also in the paperback edition of the Act. They also appear in the index of the hardback edition so that they are entirely redundant. The Long Title in its present form is entirely redundant.

As I said, the chief parliamentary counsel agreed that the former style was useful; the present style was useless and obviously expensive. But he said that parliamentary counsel could do nothing because they were required to draft in that way by the Public Bill officers. Accordingly, I trotted off to the Public Bill Office who agreed with everything parliamentary counsel had said, but said that they themselves could do nothing because they were compelled to enjoin that style of drafting by the Procedure Committees of both Houses. Accordingly, I then put in a memorandum to our Procedure Committee. The Committee will not be surprised that I was then referred back to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on statute law reform which was exactly where I started. The Committee may remember the Second Circle of Dante's Inferno where the lovers, still clasped in each other's arms, are swirled round in a whirlwind. That is how I felt—perhaps a whirlpool sucking me down, would be more appropriate.

In drafting the amendment in the old style, it struck me that it was almost impossible to find some generic term that would cover every single clause in this enormous ragbag of a Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. But that can be taken care of—and is taken care of —in the traditional way by using the word "amend". As regards "strengthen", I went to the speech of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary when he declared the purpose of the Bill. It seemed to me that the word "strengthen" was right. If the noble Earl is favourable to this amendment it may be that he will wish to consider the actual terms of the Title with his officials and with the draftsman. I beg to move.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Wigoder

In principle I entirely support the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am sure that the Committee is grateful to him for raising this matter in the way that he has. I hope that he will forgive me if I remain profoundly critical of his drafting. His proposed wording that the object of the Bill is to, amend and strengthen the law relating to criminal justice omits to refer to the fact that many noble Lords believe that a number of provisions in this Bill will in fact substantially weaken the law relating to criminal justice. I have particularly in mind the clauses relating to the right of silence and to corroboration which in my view, and that of many others, will inevitably lead to more innocent people being convicted and to more miscarriages of justice.

In those circumstances I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the first conjunction in his proposed form of Title should be replaced by the disjunctive and that the Bill can be more accurately described as a Bill to "amend and weaken the law relating to criminal justice".

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I always pay great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, says, but I confess that I shall be very surprised if the Government come up with a solution for a Bill to amend and weaken the law relating to criminal justice and public order.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Unusually, I find myself out of sympathy with this amendment. The purpose of a precise Long Title is to discourage people from hanging amendments on different subjects on the Bill as though it were a Christmas tree. It has not worked this time—perhaps the Long Title is not precise enough —but a Long Title of the kind which the noble and learned Lord proposes would make it even easier.

In your Lordships' House there is not a procedural sanction against amending the Long Title, but amendment is discouraged. Amendment would mean that ultimately all Bills could cover all subjects. I hope that the Government will not give way on this issue.

Earl Ferrers

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not want the Government to give way and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, does. So I suppose that whatever the Government do someone will say that it is wrong.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Earl Ferrers

I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He is trying to make the Long Title simpler. He took us in a fascinating circuitous travel around the various departments and commissions to which he was directed in his search for brevity only to land up where he started. That sometimes happens to all of us, but I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord should have had that experience. However, whatever whirlpool he landed in, it did not suck the noble and learned Lord down because he has been in as good a form as ever after the experience.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, watches these matters carefully. He has taken every opportunity to blame the Government for the long Long Title and to say how stupid the Government are to have such a Long Title. I was therefore surprised that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, suggested a Short Title, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for once in his life remained fixed in his seat. I should have thought that he would warm to the noble and learned Lord—

A Noble Lord

Don't encourage him!

Earl Ferrers

No, I shall not encourage him. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, never needs any encouragement. I was merely remarking on another remarkable example of the noble Lord's behaviour. The noble Lord was taken aback by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who mischievously considers that the Bill does not strengthen the law on criminal justice. That is an absurdity. The noble Lord knows that and I shall not comment any more on it.

I shall simply say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The views of parliamentary counsel have been sought and I have been advised that, despite the noble and learned Lord's impeccable reputation on matters constitutional, his amendment is technically defective because it would not encompass all the many and various clauses of the Bill. I shall take the matter away, however, and do my best to ensure that a simpler Long Title is produced either on Report or at Third Reading to cover the noble and learned Lord's anxieties, although it may not be quite as brief as the noble and learned Lord requires. But if I produce such a shorter Long Title, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will approve of it. I hope also that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will approve of it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will realise that this Bill, like all government Bills, does nothing other than strengthen the law. It does not weaken it.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

I am sorry that I have created an occasion whereby the noble Earl has reproached me for being silent on this matter. In fact, I spoke on the subject of the Long Title an hour-and-a-half ago, and even on this occasion it did not seem appropriate to make a second speech on the same subject within the period of an hour-and-a-half. That is why I remained silent.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale

I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and gratefully accept his overture. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. I am surprised that the noble Earl said that, in its present form, the amendment does not cover all the provisions of the Bill. I should have thought that the word "amend" covers everything that is not covered by the word "strengthen".

As for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, trying to turn the noble Earl against me—most ignobly —his point was that the present form of the Long Title is calculated to inhibit freedom of amendment and debate. He may well be right that that is the objective, but it is absolutely unnecessary. So far as your Lordships' House is concerned, we get on very well with the guidance of the Public Bill Office and the Leader of the House as to what falls fairly within the compass of a measure. So far as the other place is concerned, the point is even stronger because there the Speaker has the power of selection of amendments and will not choose any amendment, even one appearing on the Order Paper, which is not within the general compass of the Bill.

There is only one other thing to be said in relation to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which is that I am reverting to a former style which worked perfectly well, as far as I know, without any procedural difficulties.

It would be ungenerous not to respond to the noble Earl and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 180A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 181 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.