Lords Sitting of 25 October 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 Portsmouth.

Lord Blaker
The Right Honourable Sir Peter Allan Renshaw Blaker, KCMG, having been created Baron Blaker, of Blackpool in the County of Lancashire and of Lindfield in the County of West Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell and the Lord Howe of Aberavon.

"Estonia" and Ferry Standards
2.48 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which of the categories referred to in paragraph 6 of the Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994 would have applied to the "Estonia" if that ship had come within the scope of those regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, preliminary inquiries have revealed that the "Estonia" had a two compartment standard of subdivision and an A/Amex of just over 95 per cent.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. First, will he tell the House for how long the ship would have been able to operate under the regulations referred to without being modified to full modern safety standards? Secondly, the Royal Institution of Naval Architects issued a statement following the "Herald of Free Enterprise" disaster warning that such ships were highly vulnerable in a damaged state. The institution recently having issued a further statement, will the noble Viscount now urge his right honourable friend to take steps to ensure that those ships cannot operate after the end of 1995 unless they have been modified to the latest safety standards?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, had the "Estonia" come within the scope of the UK regulations, which it did not, it would have been required to comply by 1st December 2004 with the requirements of the Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) (No. 2) Regulations 1994 as they relate to damaged ability standards. I believe that the United Kingdom has been in the forefront in pushing for strict regulations. We are doing everything that we can. We shall be taking forward further research on survivability and stability of ro-ro ferries.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House what progress the Government have made in
436
seeking to persuade the International Maritime Organisation that formal safety assessment is the right principle upon which to base ship safety regulation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I mentioned, the United Kingdom has taken a leading role in pushing for higher standards. Indeed, we did not accept the standards which the IMO put forward. We brokered our own agreement with our European partners in order to bring forward the higher standard we preferred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the "Estonia" have qualified under the regulations to which the noble Viscount referred? He stated that because it did not come under those regulations, he did not know whether that was so. Surely he knows now.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is not what I said. I said that had the ship come under the regulations, the date referred to in 2004 would have been the required date.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, would the ship have qualified?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the reason the ship did not qualify was that there was a special agreement brokered and negotiated by ourselves with our European partners concerning vessels operating to and from the United Kingdom. The "Estonia" was not such a vessel.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, when one hears of a disaster such as that relating to the "Estonia" one naturally thinks of the "Herald of Free Enterprise". At the inquiry into the "Herald of Free Enterprise" it was believed that a system failure caused the problem; that is, the inadequacies of the drill for closing the doors. Are we now sure of that fact? Does that belief not shield the fact that, as well as inadequacies in that respect, there may have been more important inadequacies of design, a factor we have certainly discovered with the "Estonia"? Is the department looking at all of those factors?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. We have put great emphasis on improving the operating regime. Since the "Herald of Free Enterprise" tragedy, we have introduced a safety operation regime which requires, for example, that ro-ro ferries are fitted with doors-closed lights, TV monitoring of the doors and a positive reporting system which informs the master that the doors are closed. I have every conviction that the inquiry into the "Estonia" tragedy will look at every aspect of its operation and construction.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my company owns P&O European Ferries and I am chairman of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company? Is the Minister further aware that our ships have been passed by the Marine Safety Agency and that, as the biggest British ferry company, we are totally committed to supporting any safety work which has been carried out? Does the Minister agree that it is important that precipitous action is not taken until we are aware of what happened to the

437
"Estonia"? At the moment there is a purely preliminary report and as yet it is not known under what operational standards the ship operated.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's assurance of co-operation which is of great value to the Marine Safety Agency. I agree that we must put this terrible tragedy in the context of the millions of passenger journeys that are travelled in safety. We shall take fully into account the findings of the inquiry when it is completed and the findings are published.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, we fully appreciate that a new type of ro-ro ferry might well have to be designed in the longer term. At the same time I should point out that travel by ferry is, by and large, seven times safer than travelling in a motor car. Will the Minister agree that priority should be given to the maintenance of the highest standards of operation and crewing? Moreover, particular attention should be paid to the efficiency of current methods of evacuation of water from car decks, systems which are designed at present to cope with water from a sprinkler system in the case of a fire.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that operating standards are of crucial importance. We have learnt great lessons from the "Herald of Free Enterprise" and we continue to put forward an operating regime which is of the highest standard and which examines the very issues which the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister take my question on board? It is very simple: if the standards of construction which apply to our own ships had been applied to the "Estonia", would the ship have passed them?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not possible for me to answer that question. The "Estonia" was not operating to or from the United Kingdom. It was operating on an entirely separate route. It is, therefore, certainly not possible for me now to make any pronouncements on the fitness or otherwise of the "Estonia" before the relevant authorities have examined the report of the inquiry.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is it not clear that any through-deck ship is inherently more unsafe than the traditional type of vessel with compartments? Are the Government addressing their attention to that matter as well as to the safety of the opening of the ship at the bow? May I inquire whether that is the Government's policy?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are examining every aspect of the operation, design and construction of roll on-roll off ferries. We believe that when they are properly operated and maintained they are safe, with that strong proviso. A great deal of research has gone into the design of the ships. We are co-operating with the International Maritime Organisation on that research.

Vehicle Noise: Offences
2.56 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions there were during 1993 for excessive exhaust noise emitted by (a) motor cars; (b) motor cycles; and (c) commercial vehicles; and how many convictions resulted.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not possible to give the detailed statistics requested but I am able to give provisional figures for all vehicle noise offences in England and Wales for 1993. They were: 7,857 prosecutions and 5,352 convictions.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will he agree with me that the British public are becoming increasingly frustrated with the noise emitted by motor cycles whose owners have been tampering with their exhausts, removing them altogether or maintaining them badly? Would it not help if the Government were to give a stronger lead to the enforcement of existing regulations, let alone the new ones coming from Brussels, in order that the machines may be taken off the road and have their silencers improved? Finally, will my noble friend agree that unless the rules are enforced it brings the whole law into disrepute?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that the Government take the issue of vehicle exhaust and other noise extremely seriously. We recognise that many members of the public have anxiety about perhaps a small number of especially noisy motor cycles. That is why we have brought forward regulations to control the construction of replacement silencers. We have also addressed the issue of noise from new machines. I agree with my noble friend that enforcement is equally important.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when motor cycles leave the factory they are commendably quiet? In many cases, they are quieter than a motor car. It is a very small minority of motor cyclists who tamper with the exhaust or sometimes fit a replacement exhaust because they cannot afford the high cost of replacing the original exhaust system. Will my noble friend agree that it is quite wrong to tar all motor cyclists with the same brush?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on that point. The issue of tampering is important, the problem is largely caused by a small number of irresponsible motor cyclists who have perhaps fitted

439
racing-type silencers or have tampered with the original device. That is why the enforcement of the law on the issue by police is extremely important.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that if this is a matter of a very small minority, that small minority get about to a quite remarkable extent?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the advantage of riding a motor cycle is being able to get about quickly.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in my experience, the motor cyclists who "get about" all seem to try to get about between midnight and 2 a.m. I have had experience of the problem. One night, in a street in Glasgow I spoke to a passing policeman and suggested to him that he could radio to another officer on patrol, who could catch the lad involved before he got home; and that was done. Does the Minister accept that is a way to deal with the problem? It is nearly always at night that one hears the really excessive noise. Does the Minister agree that such patrols on the part of the police would very soon make motor cyclists riding on particular routes realise that what they were doing was not worth the candle?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that enforcement is not exactly straightforward. It is a matter for the police, who have to make an operational decision. There are of course difficulties with measuring noise; but I agree that the small minority of those riding motor cycles which have very loud exhausts can be spotted. Perhaps the motor cycles have had holes drilled in the exhausts or have the wrong type of silencer fitted. That is why we have brought forward regulations and measures to make the job of the police easier; namely, by requiring a particular marking on silencers that have been approved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the emissions from exhausts are far more dangerous than the noise? What steps are the Government taking to control emissions?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the issue of gas emissions from exhausts is an extremely serious one. I would also say that his question is different from the one that we are considering. We are taking a number of measures to address this important issue.

School Bullying
3.1 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further steps they have taken to reduce school bullying.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government continue to give priority to action against bullying. In July we released a public information film on the theme "Don't Suffer in Silence", which has been shown extensively on television. On 29th September we published an anti-bullying pack which makes clear the importance of
440
the "whole school" approach to bullying. I am pleased to say that demand for the pack has been high: over 17,000 schools in England have already applied for a copy, and we expect many more to do so.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the 6,000 schools that have not applied for this excellent advice pack are probably the schools that are failing to tackle the very serious problem of bullying? Will the Government ensure that every school receives a copy of the pack; and will they use their powers to issue a directive to all schools to set up an anti-bullying policy and investigate all complaints?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the essence of the "whole school" approach is that it is a policy adopted by every part of the school by consent because it wishes to do so. It would not be in line with that approach—which has been shown by research to be the best approach—if we were to force the advice pack on schools. Schools have to want it. Ofsted has clear instructions to monitor the ways in which schools are acting to prevent bullying. I am sure that that incentive will be enough to make sure that schools take the issue seriously.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I admire Her Majesty's Government's initiative in this area. However, is my noble friend aware that, in my day, victims of bullying were identified and strategic alliances were formed; they then, in concert, knocked seven bells out of the bulliers, and the whole problem of bullying mysteriously disappeared?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, I am not aware of any such thing. Certainly my experience and that of many others is that bullying was rampant in our day and was not dealt with at all successfully.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has one of the anti-bullying packs been sent to Gordonstoun School?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, all independent schools have been informed that the pack has been issued; and it is open to them to buy it.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister agree that local education authorities can play a very important part in supporting state schools in overcoming the problem? Can he assure the House that adequate resources are made available for this vital task? Can he tell the House how many local authorities have applied for such assistance and how many grants for it have been made?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, dealing with bullying is not primarily a question of resources. It is mostly a question of attitudes. There may be occasions when additional resources are required. If a school has put in place an all-school anti-bullying policy and needs further resources, and makes the reasons clear in its application, I am sure that it will be considered sympathetically.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the problem that one has to get over is somehow to encourage those who are bullied either to let their parents know and then for the parents to have the

441
courage to go to the school and see the head; or else for that boy or girl to have the courage to go to a member of staff to say that he or she is being bullied? Is that not one of the great hurdles besides anything else in tackling this problem?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. In order for it to be worth while for a child to complain to anyone about bullying, that child has to know that his complaint will be taken seriously and will be dealt with properly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that a bully is essentially a coward? And would it not be wise for the Government to give that aspect of the matter some attention with a view to creating a climate of opinion which discourages bullying by pointing out how cowardly it is?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, quoting Nigel Molesworth: "Everyone says stand up to bulies and they will run away but do not believe them. A lot of them stand still and then where are you eh? i will tell you you are in the duck pond and it is joly freezing"!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have no real quarrel with the Government, and that I think they have handled the issue rather well? Some people take bullying rather frivolously. The Minister does not. It is a very serious problem, causes very deep unhappiness, and in some cases suicide. That cannot be solved by clever comments about "knocking seven bells" out of people. The Minister is quite right to take this matter very seriously. But is he aware that it is wrong to wait for the consent of all schools, because those schools which neglect bullying and allow it to flourish are the very schools upon which the Government should lean and bring pressure to bear to do something about the problem?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful for the noble Lord's support, and to the many other people in organisations who help to deal with bullying in schools. But to deal with bad schools by trying to compel them to have anti-bullying policies would be to go down a road that is contrary to best practice. We shall do our best to make sure that they do so through the Ofsted system of inspections. We believe that to be the best way of approaching the matter.

Dr. Jawad Hashim: Legal Aid
3.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why legal aid was given to Dr. Jawad Hashim when charged with large scale frauds; who took the decision to grant legal aid in this case; and what was the total cost to public funds.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, Dr. Jawad Hashim was granted legal aid for civil proceedings. Decisions on the grant, discharge and revocation of civil legal aid certificates
442
are delegated by regulation to an area director of the Legal Aid Board. Assessments of applicants' means are carried out by the legal aid assessment office of the Benefits Agency. The London area office has been dealing with the Hashim case. The total costs claimed in this case to date amount to £4.1 million, of which £2.8 million has been paid. I am considering what changes might need to be made to the legal aid scheme in the light of this and other cases, and I expect to issue a consultation paper shortly seeking views on some specific proposals.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting Answer. However, is it not a really appalling thing that the British taxpayer should have had to find this very large sum of money to finance the operation of this very rich man? Can my noble and learned friend assure the House that, thanks to what he has said, this kind of thing will not happen again?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the precise circumstances of Dr. Hashim are a matter on which I am not able to give comment. As my noble friend knows, the details submitted in connection with a legal aid application are protected as to their confidentiality by the statutory provisions. However, I emphasise that the rules which govern entitlement to civil legal aid are the same for everyone. Those rules are applied by the Benefits Agency. But it may well be that, in the light of cases such as this one, it is right to consider changing the rules. The Law Society has made some proposals, as have some others. I have sought to consider them and, as I said, I hope shortly to issue a consultation paper on specific proposals. No proposals in this area are without a degree of difficulty. I believe that it would be right to have some opportunity for discussion of them before any decision is taken about amending the rules.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor recognise that many in this House are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for exposing these apparent problems? Does he understand that there is deep public disquiet about the donation of public money to those who are not British nationals for the resolution of their private disputes, particularly when the countries from which they originate have no reciprocity by way of benefit for British subjects in their jurisdictions? Is he aware that there is serious concern about the inadequate checking of true financial resources and about the grossly insufficient attempts to recover substantial sums of public money from those who are the beneficial owners of very considerable assets?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am aware of concerns on matters of this kind. However, it is important to try to deal with such concerns through practical proposals. It has been a principle of the legal aid scheme since its inception that legal aid is to be granted in relation to cases in our courts. Up to now, it has not been a principle to distinguish between litigants on the ground of nationality. I am not sure whether the

443
noble Lord was suggesting that that would be a good principle to incorporate in the legal aid scheme now for the first time.
The checking of assets is a matter concerning which the Benefits Agency has certain skills. I seek to learn from the experience of some recent cases whether or not there may be scope for improving that aspect. As to the recovery of costs, as the noble Lord knows, in so far as cases are successful in recovering money for the applicant, the Legal Aid Board has a first charge on that recovery for recoupment of the public funds involved in the grant of legal aid in the first place.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that although the Legal Aid Board is completely independent, it is regulated by rules and regulations set out by Parliament? Surely the regulations must be at fault when the situation of rich people, who ostensibly have no assets but whose family have massive assets, is not taken into account when the Legal Aid Board decides whether or not legal aid is to be given? Clearly, it is scandalous that the British taxpayer should pay over £4 million to a man who, apart from not being a national of this country, has a high standard of living while many people who have applied for legal aid are denied it for various reasons.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend referred to a man with no assets and then described him as wealthy. For me, the problem is that the regulations have to apply to the man and those members of his family, particularly his wife, covered by the regulations. The question of what should be covered in regulations is the matter about which I propose to consult. Obviously, it is necessary that funds which are taken into account in this connection should be funds on which the person would be entitled to draw in relation to defraying the cost of his litigation. I am very open to any practical suggestions that can be made to ensure that legal aid is given to those who need it. That is the object of the scheme and the regulations made under the scheme. Certainly, I am very anxious to consider any improvements that can be made to the regulations to make them even more effective in achieving that aim.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will recall that he has already told me in a parliamentary Answer that in this case leading counsel for the defendant has already been paid £671,000 with more claims to come. Has the noble and learned Lord received any reports or suggestions from the Bar Council about how those fees might be curbed and what part counsel are prepared to play in resolving the matter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that the Bar Council has proposals which seek to deal with these matters. One of the proposals relates to regulations which we have been preparing in draft for some time and which I hope to be able to lay quite shortly in relation to the number of counsel that should be instructed. The Bar Council has made other proposals which might well have a beneficial effect, particularly
444
in relation to the type of opinion that is furnished to the; Legal Aid Board in regard to the merits of a claim for which legal aid support is sought by the applicant.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, when consideration is given to the amendment of the rules, as assuredly it must be-it is a total scandal -can my noble and learned friend give an assurance that each and every one of the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will receive serious attention, because those were the very questions, including the issue of nationality, which I would have put myself?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, such a coincidence would surely make me consider the matter even more carefully. But the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question is certainly sufficient for me to give it serious consideration. Questions of that type have been in my consideration and the consultation paper will attempt to deal with them. However, I am particularly concerned about the idea of distinguishing between people before the courts in this country on the basis of nationality. I had not thought to make that kind of distinction. No doubt it will be for consideration and certainly it will be open to consultees during the consultation to raise that point. For myself, I thought that the principles of legal aid established long ago did not allow for that particular consideration to play a determining part.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say what are the provisions for the repayment of legal aid by a recipient of that aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are a number of provisions. For example, if it turns out that the information on which legal aid was granted is not correct-if the information was false-there are consequences in respect of repayment. There is also an important point which is not always understood; namely, that the legal aid fund has first call on any assets recovered or preserved as a result of the action for payment of outstanding fees previously covered by legal aid. That is a very important aspect when the applicant is successful. I believe that those are the principal systems for recovery. There is machinery for the recovery of contributions when for any reason contributions are unpaid. However, I took it that my noble friend was referring in particular to the recovery of costs which are not covered by contributions.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the conduct of public life.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]

  Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Wednesday 2nd November next and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid.
  That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session;
  That the proceedings on such Bill in the next session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
  That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present session;
  That in the case of any Bill against which there is any petition outstanding—

  (i) any such petition which has been presented (if not withdrawn) stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in the next session;

  (ii) any minutes of evidence taken before a select committee on the Bill during the present session stand referred to any select committee on the Bill in the next session;

  (iii) no petitioners be heard before any select committee on the Bill in the next session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the present session or deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 109(b);

  (iv) Private Business Standing Order 110 have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  3.22 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments
  [The page and line refer to Bill (47) as first printed by the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page 2, line 16, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  1A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A. For the convenience of the House I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 21, 188 and 189 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 2A to 5A, 7A and 8A, 10A to 18A, 21A, and 188A and 189A.
  This is the first of three issues on which another place has chosen to disagree with this House without offering an amendment in lieu. We shall, of course, be turning to look at the other two issues—the provision of gypsy sites and criminal injuries compensation—later this afternoon.
  It is worth recording at this stage the considerable impact that your Lordships have had on the Bill and how much agreement there is between both Houses. Many amendments were proposed by Members on all Benches and accepted by this House, and other amendments were proposed by the Government in response to anxieties expressed on all sides of this House. In another place all but three were either accepted in whole or modified in such a way as to address the principal concerns of your Lordships. Therefore this House can be well satisfied that it has lived up to its reputation as a revising Chamber. Subjects which were amended to take account of your Lordships' concerns include imputations on character, the right of silence, juries, child evidence, public order, classification of videos, sexual offences, homosexual acts in the Armed Forces, confidential information, closed circuit television, ticket touting and probation. That adds up to a substantial list of areas where your Lordships have had an influence.
  I should like to record my thanks to those noble Lords who have been in correspondence or who have met with me and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary during the Recess to discuss issues relating to the Bill. I certainly found it most helpful. However, it is in the wider context that those issues on which the House of Commons disagreed with your Lordships should be viewed. On each of those issues your Lordships' amendments invited colleagues in another place to reconsider their original stance. After full consideration by the Government and full debate in another place, it was decided that the amendments should not be accepted.
  I now turn to your Lordships' amendments to the Government's proposals concerning secure training orders. The Government believe that all of those awarded the secure training order should serve the secure part of the order in the new secure training centres. That is also the view of another place, as is made clear in the reasons which they have given. The arguments on each side have been rehearsed many times and are well known to your Lordships. It is, perhaps, important to make it clear that courts will continue to enjoy a great deal of flexibility in sentencing persistent juvenile offenders. We have always made it clear that the secure training orders will be introduced in addition to the existing powers of the courts, to deal with a specific group of offenders for whom those existing powers are not effective. The full range of the existing court powers will remain, as will local authorities' powers, to place children in secure accommodation. None of those options will be lost. The secure training order makes an extra provision available to the courts; it gives the courts the powers they need to deal with young offenders.
  There is deep public concern about the problem of persistent young offenders, concern which the Government share and which, I know, many of your Lordships share also. Much of that concern is based on the fact that a relatively small but significant number of young persistent offenders are not responding positively to the range of measures available to the courts. The Government's proposals will not only give communities a respite from those offenders but will also provide the offenders with high quality education and training to tackle their offending behaviour in a secure training centre.
  The Government have listened and I think allayed some of your Lordships' fears and concerns. Another place, at your Lordships' invitation, reconsidered the issue of where a secure training order should be served. The other place decided that a court should always order a youngster subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  I hope that your Lordships will accept that careful consideration and, indeed, reconsideration has been given to the amendment and accordingly I commend to your Lordships' House the Motion not to accept Amendment No. 1.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, I deeply regret the advice given by my noble friend the Minister to this House, though I realise of course that she is doing no more than her absolute duty in giving that advice, given the fact that the other place considered the matter again and came to the decision which it did. However, I fear that experience will prove the Home Secretary's advice to the other place, which the other place accepted, to be misguided when we see the order executed in practice.
  Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships for me to state my position at the outset. I am sorry that
  448
  what I shall say will disappoint many of those who supported my amendment at Committee stage. But having discussed the matter at length on two occasions, personally with the Home Secretary during the Recess— I am grateful to him for finding the time for that—and also having exchanged long letters with him about it, I am convinced that he will not change the advice that he will wish to give to the other place. Moreover, having listened last week to the whole of the debate in the other place I am convinced also that the other place will not change its mind unless the Home Secretary gives different advice. Therefore it seems to me of no value to ask Members of another place, who have already thought again once, to think again for a second time; indeed, I feel that constitutional damage may be done by that rather than good.
  Regretfully I came to that decision and that is the reason I did not table an amendment to the Motion, and also why I shall not vote against the Government should there be a Division at the end of the debate; but nor shall I vote for them. I shall therefore abstain if there is a Division. I feel so strongly that the Home Secretary is wrong in the advice that he gave that I wish to place on record—though I assure your Lordships briefly—my main reasons for that view.
  There are two strictly practical reasons. The first concerns the refusal to allow children sentenced to this order to be kept in custody in any place other than one of the new centres, when they are created. In my view that will inevitably lead to fewer children receiving the sentence. Children who should receive it will not receive it because local courts, particularly in areas far removed from one of the centres, will not feel it right to sentence children to serve sentences so far away from home. The first practical effect, therefore, is that fewer children who should be treated will not be treated and that is a serious practical objection.
  Secondly, we must face the fact that if we are to depend entirely and only on the use of the new centres, nothing can be done until they are built and made operational. That seems to me to mean a delay of at least one year and more likely two years before the new sentence can operate at all. That need not have been the case if use of local accommodation could have been contemplated on some basis or another even for a trial period or in certain types of case. So there are these two great practical objections to the line which the Government have taken and which the other place has taken on the Government's advice.
  Perhaps I may also give some reasons of more fundamental penal policy. The Home Secretary's case, which I have heard him make in public as well as in private, is that we are dealing here with a relatively small, discrete group of tearaway children who need a special tailor-made treatment and who can only be dealt with successfully by such a special tailor-made treatment. One could question, although I shall not take your Lordships' time today, whether he is right in his

  449
  diagnosis of this being a discrete, definable group. I suspect that there are as many different types as there are numbers of children behaving in this way. I do not think that they can be grouped but I shall put that on one side.
  Let us assume that it is right. Supposing they do need custom-built institutions created specifically for the purpose and that they must have this tailor-made, custom-built treatment. What is it to be? We have not been told. I have before me a splendid document. It is called Invitation to Tender and deals with tendering procedures for the establishment of these new institutions. It sets out splendid objectives. One could criticise here and there; but, by and large, I think that they are fairly splendid objectives. But they are objectives, not methods. There is no indication as to what the methods will be for achieving these objectives other than that they are to be in five special new centres, each holding up to, but not more than, 50 young children. When I asked the Home Secretary—I was delighted when he told me this: I am not giving away any confidences because I know that he has said this publicly as well as to me privately—whether the treatment will be precisely the same in all five centres, he said, "No, each successful tenderer, provided he is seeking these objectives, will be able to develop his own methods of achieving those objectives". Excellent; they are not going to be five standard centres, all doing the same. So we shall have, within the strict limits of working in these institutional centres, some experiment; and my goodness, experiment is needed!
  However, if there is to be experiment in treatment within the different centres and if there is not to be a uniform tailor-made treatment in the centres, on what possible grounds is it right to rule out experiment with locally organised secure treatment as well? We are not going to have this uniform tailor-made treatment. If there is to be experiment, it ought to be a wider experiment. That must be the case if we want effective results from the way we are trying to deal with this problem. We ought to recognise that none of us— certainly not I—has a real clue as to what will bring these tearaway persistent offenders into normal living in the community. Whatever we do, it will be an extremely difficult task. We are bound to meet enormous disappointments. We are bound, I suspect, to meet a high degree of recidivism after this treatment. If that is so, we must be able to experiment and to compare. I think it is a shame and a great mistake to limit the experiment to within national institutions and not to bring in local experiment as well.
  Moreover, and finally, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to another aspect. The last half of the sentence proposed is to be served locally. Therefore, we start off by breaking the local bonds by sending these recalcitrant children away from home and away from all their home influences and then we bring them back, at which point we shall have to re-establish those bonds. That may be worth while in the case of long sentences where one could have this special treatment for, say, a year and one could try to change, as I heard it put in another place, the souls of some of these recalcitrant children.
  450
  But I cannot believe that that could be done in three months. The shortest sentence is six months. Break the bonds for three months and bring them back for only three months, when a large part of the time will be spent re-establishing the local bonds. I should have hoped that the Government would at least have compromised to the extent of allowing the shorter sentences to be served locally or allowing local treatment in a case where a court was situated 100 miles or more away from the nearest centre.
  I could go on but I must not go on. However, I want to put on record why, on the severely practical ground of relieving the public of this ghastly menace which they are suffering, the Government are making a big practical mistake in insisting on this monopoly for operating what I believe is a hopeful new sentence. It is a great pity that we should be reducing the chances of this important new sentence operating successfully for the safety of the public.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will have listened with respect to the thoughtful and honourable speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley. We know how strongly he feels about this matter and we know how effectively he spoke and argued on the matter when it came before your Lordships in the summer. I start by saying, as the noble Lord did, that I do not believe that this is an issue on which we should seek to contradict the Commons in the conclusions to which they have come, although I say that with the same degree—indeed perhaps in some ways a greater degree—of regret as that which he expressed. That is the judgment I make about what view we on these Benches should take. It is not in any way an expression of agreement or sympathy with the view that another place took on this matter. It is a much wider principle to which I adhere, which is the principle of the primacy of the elected Chamber. However, when we look at the reasons—the so-called reasons—which have been given to us by another place we realise the extent to which the consideration it has given to the matter is inadequate. These are not reasons at all. They are simply assertions.
  The reason says:
  "Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre".
  It does not even start to say why. It just says, "That is what we believe. You had better like it or lump it". Indeed, it is worse than an assertion. Since it is repeated on 20 occasions, it becomes a mere asseveration. The reason why there is no reason in the Commons reaction to our amendment is extremely clear. They cannot admit—and perhaps we were chary of saying too openly when we considered the matter before—that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, would have driven a coach and horses through the secure training order provision.
  We know, although no one dares quite say so, that very few magistrates, given the choice, would choose to send a child to a secure training centre perhaps many hundreds of miles away from their home in a regime which cannot, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, explained, even be defined as it is up to the tendering procedures

  451
  of those who are putting in for the privatised contract. No, my Lords, everyone knows that, given the choice, magistrates would much rather send a child to local authority secure accommodation, and everyone knows in their heart that if the Government had only observed the promises they gave some years ago to provide the funds for an increase in the number of local authority secure places then; would have been no need for this provision. In other words, what we are faced with is not a penal judgment of the Home Secretary. What is being made is purely a political judgment.
  Even as a political judgment it is deeply defective. What is the effect of the Commons rejecting the amendment? The effect is that nothing will happen for three years. If our amendment had been passed there would have been secure training orders; all the provisions which the Government had wished to make for more concentrated attention on the problem of young tearaways aged between 12 years and 14 years would have come into effect very much more quickly. By the way, I am not going to pay any attention to anybody who says, as a radio interviewer said to me recently, that it is our fault that the implementation of this Bill has been delayed until October. That was because the Government wanted the House of Commons to rise before Tony Blair was elected leader of the Labour Party. If they had wanted to, the Government could have perfectly well dealt with our amendments in July. The Bill could have returned here and it could have become law before the end of July.
  So, from every point of view, from the deep reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, on penal and political grounds, the Commons rejection of our amendments is deeply regrettable. As I say, it is only because of our more profound and wide-ranging constitutional beliefs that we do not invite your Lordships to divide on the matter.
  Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words in rather a different sense. Of course I respect and admire the constitutional point taken by my noble friend Lord Carr and repeated in slightly different. words by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. It would be wrong for this House to enter into a constitutional battle with the Commons on this particular issue. I feel sure that the House will be wise for one reason or another—there will be argument in what follows—not to dissent from the Commons refusal to accept the amendment which was passed here.
  It will also be remembered that, with great diffidence and in the face of very powerful and highly respected opinions of noble friends and Members on the opposite side of the House, during the debate in your Lordships' House I took a somewhat different view of the merits of the amendment which was subsequently passed although I voted against it.
  I am now addressing the merits of the case and not the constitutional issue. We have to bear in mind that what is proposed in this part of the Bill is a new form of custodial sentence and treatment applicable on the order of a court to a limited group of offenders—I shall call them "persistent offenders" for the sake of
  452
  compendiousness. Two things can be said. First, almost everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Carr and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, could be said as an argument against this experiment, because experiment it is and a novel one.
  It can be said that it is not desirable partly because of some of the grounds which have been put forward and partly because there will be a number of places too far removed from the special centres for the treatment to be fairly applicable at all. So be it: it will be an experimental treatment and at first it will be limited to a few places. If I were sitting on a bench either as a judge or magistrate and it was said that this measure would be for a comparatively short time and that someone would be sent 250 miles, or whatever, from home, I would simply make the ordinary order which is still applicable to deal with persistent offenders under existing law. Therefore, it is basically an argument against the experiment.
  The other factor we need to bear in mind is this. The Bill has been very carefully and rightly drafted for the court to make the order for a secure training order and a new form of custodial treatment in pursuance of its discretion as a sentencing body. It is obviously true that if that is to be so the actual exercise of the treatment, like any other form of custodial penal treatment, must be under the control of the statutory limits which are set but, like any other form of custodial sentence, it is still part of the ordinary right for penal treatment in custody which is the responsibility of the Home Secretary under the authority of Parliament.
  The idea of making a half-way house between the new form of very highly specialised treatment and the distance from home which may make it totally unsuitable is a muddled idea about the real purpose of what is proposed in Part I of the Bill. I can well understand someone voting against Part I of the Bill on the basis that it is far too imprecise and ineffective and probably unequal in its application to different parts of the country. However, I cannot understand the idea that one can set up a great deal of argument basically designed against the penal treatment and saying that the provision should not be for the Home Secretary, as is every other form of custodial treatment. That is the only way to make the matter accountable to Parliament.
  Therefore I suggest that not only is the constitutional point the correct argument, which I highly respect, coming from my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite, but that there is a powerful argument in favour of the merits of the Home Secretary's original policy which has commended itself to the Commons.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as my name was attached to the original amendments perhaps I shall be allowed to make a brief comment. I do not regard the amendments as being in any way muddled. I am sorry to say that I find this rather a sad occasion. It is especially unfortunate that discussion of the amendments made by your Lordships has been coloured by widespread ignorance and misapprehension of what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, actually proposed. I refer in particular to suggestions which were repeated to me only today;

  453
  namely, that it would mean the children being sent to children's homes from which it would be easy to abscond or even to be sent on safari.
  I do not want to go over all the ground again, but it bears repeating that, on the contrary, it would mean the courts being given power for the first time and, where suitable, to send children directly to secure units which are indeed secure and have an excellent record of preventing escapes. There are units, too, where, with the resources of the local education authority, it is possible to provide a high standard of education, as I have seen for myself. It is a standard which, I believe, the new centres will find hard to match.
  The point has been taken that it would also mean that in an appropriate case the child could be detained near his or her family, doctor and social worker. That would not always necessarily be appropriate. It might be suitable to get a child well away from his family. But where it was suitable it would greatly help in the important arrangements for aftercare, to which the noble Lord referred. It is quite extraordinary that the Government are prepared to move murderers to Northern Ireland so that they can be near their families but condemn children from Wales, say, to be detained miles from home where family visits at best will be very hard to manage.
  It is also claimed that these are children for whom everything has been tried and it has all failed, but one has only to glance in the Bill to know that the entry qualifications fall a long way short of any such requirement. The Government do not regard this as an experiment in the general sense, as I understand it, but think that the new centres will be such remarkable institutions and will provide such a high calibre regime of education and training that they will at last achieve the results of rehabilitation and reform which have eluded all the other attempts that have been made over the years. The details may still be a bit hazy, but at last it seems to the Government that they are about to win the glittering prize for which so many have contested for so long and hitherto always in vain.
  That is one view, but another view that is held by quite a lot of people is that, even for children, detention in a prison-like institution is an expensive way of making bad offenders worse and that by sending children to a prison environment at an early age the courts (now with no alternative open to them) will be starting children off in a criminal culture with every opportunity to learn new tricks from their fellows and with the likelihood, it is feared, of a criminal career to follow. Time will show which of those views is right.
  I respect the decision which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, reached today and I much admired his dignified speech. However, speaking for myself, I still have to hear any argument which comes near to persuading me that the noble Lord's amendment was mistaken.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has just said. I believe that it is accepted by all of us (in whatever part of the House we may sit) that a number of children who have repeatedly
  454
  committed significant offences require to be detained in secure accommodation. That is common ground. Indeed, the case of a number of us against the Government is that for far too long they have chosen to ignore the problem despite the fact that concern has been expressed repeatedly by the courts.
  The Government have allowed the number of places in local authority secure accommodation to decline below the level it had reached before the present Government came into office, as was demonstrated in a number of Written Answers given in this House. I shall take as an example what has happened in the London Borough of Wandsworth, the local authority that we are told that we must admire because of its record. Wandsworth closed all its units of secure accommodation, thus contributing to a significant rise in the number of burglaries and other offences committed by young people who could not, as a result of Wandsworth's policy, be detained in secure accommodation in that local authority area. Now, having ignored the anxieties expressed by many magistrates, the police and by many in Parliament, the Government have introduced proposals which have been opposed by the majority of those who have expert knowledge in the area.
  Faced with that situation, the noble Lord, Lord Carr, speaking on the basis of his substantial experience as a former Home Secretary, came forward with a sensible and balanced amendment. It did not alter the Government's proposed new sentence of secure training orders in any way. It merely allowed a court at its discretion to direct that the requirement of the secure training order could be carried out in the secure accommodation provided by the local authorities, which is now belatedly being increased.
  The Government have, as we all know, used their majority in the House of Commons to reject that modest proposal, just as they have rejected a number of other amendments carried against them in this House, many of which were supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House who possess a lifetime's experience of criminal justice policy. I thought that that was most regrettable.
  But worse has been the remarkable language used by Ministers to attack this House for fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said a few moments ago that the House has lived up to its reputation as a revising Chamber. That is what the noble Baroness said today, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer used remarkably different language when he appeared on a television programme with Sir David Frost on 25th September. Referring to this Bill, the Chancellor said that the Government and Mr. Howard had been opposed all the way not only by sections of the press and the opposition parties, but also—I quote his words from the transcript which I have obtained—by,
  "the rather limp-wristed establishment in the House of Lords who blocked his Criminal Justice Bill".
  That is presumably how the present Government see this House —as a "limp-wristed establishment". Those are interesting words to use, and I remind the Government that that "limp-wristed establishment" included a

  455
  substantial number of the noble Baroness's noble friends as well as seven noble and learned Lords who are either present or past Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
  That was the language of abuse that was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards this House when we were merely fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities. I find that an interesting commentary on the Government's attitude. They appear to resent any expression of opinion by this House which does not coincide with the opinion held by Ministers. However, at the same time, they attack those who advocate any change in the composition of this House. If we are indeed a "limp-wristed establishment", why do Ministers insist that the composition of this House should remain precisely as it is today? No doubt the noble Baroness will be able to assist us.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, as the first of your Lordships to put his name to the amendment that was tabled by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, perhaps I might raise my limp wrist for a moment in defence of his position.
  There are two questions before the House at the moment. The first is constitutional and can be dealt with swiftly although not entirely as noble Lords have so far suggested. I entirely agree that it would not be proper to test for the second time the opinion of the other place in exactly the same terms as we tested it before, but we need not have been in this position. Indeed, had I not been forced to spend the past four days in hospital, it is a position that I should have striven to avoid because we could have offered an amendment in lieu of that proposed. However, that opportunity has passed us. I therefore agree with my noble friend that we should not now seek to resist the proposal although we may disagree with the terms in which it has been put.
  During my four days of enforced inactivity, I spent some time wondering how I might sugar the pill of accepting a policy decision with which I am profoundly uncomfortable. It seemed to me that it would be possible to be comforted on the grounds that the Government have shown that they are absolutely convinced and confident that the new sentence (and the means of administering it) will work, but we have not heard their grounds for saying that, which is perhaps why we do not share their confidence.
  I therefore spent my time preparing 10 questions to ask my noble friend the Minister, of all of which I have given her notice and which I hope she will be able to answer in terms which show that that confidence is indeed well founded. The proposal is for a secure regime for groups of 40 children aged 12 to 14 whose time, we are told, will be fully allocated to education with emphasis being placed on training as a separate issue. My first question is: may we please have a definition of "training" as distinct from "education", of its component parts and of how its achievement will be assessed?
  The first problem facing the people in charge of these institutions will be one of control. That can be achieved, in part, by the use of rewards and punishments. Can we be told what rewards and punishments will be available to the contractors' staff? These children will be among the most difficult in the land to teach. Each of them will
  456
  have defeated every teacher in whose hands he or she has been placed before being sentenced. May we know, as my third question, how it is proposed to ensure that the contractors recruit only staff of the outstanding calibre needed for this challenging work and retain them in it?
  Fourthly, what will be the numerical ratios between the children and staff generally, and between children and security, administrative, education and training staff severally? Fifthly, will those criteria be set by the department universally for all STCs—I understand from my noble friend Lord Carr that they will not—or will they be negotiated in the bidding process? If the latter, what assurance have we that the Home Office will give sufficient weight to those items in relation to straight financial considerations? I have not given my noble friend notice of this small sub-question, but if there are to be different criteria may we know what the minimum criteria will be throughout?
  My next question is, with the current steady and regrettable rise in female offending at all ages, will my noble friend tell us whether all the STCs or only some will be equipped to deal with the minority of female children to be expected? The experiment will in any case be costly. My noble and learned friend is speaking contrapuntally, and I find it difficult to keep my thread which will be shorter if it is not interrupted.
  The crucial point about the success of this experiment, as it is universally accepted to be, is: will it be possible to take children out of the community and out of their schools, in so far as they are in them, put them through the process and reintroduce them to the schools and the societies from which they have been taken in a way in which they can adapt successfully to an orderly life, and pick up their educational threads at the point which the school to which they are reintroduced has reached in its curriculum?
  My next question is: how will the contractor be apprised of the educational and other achievements, if any, of these children, and how will the contractor be enabled to ensure that such children are returned to mainstream education, whether or not through an offsite unit, at the point the rest of the community in the school has reached? If that does not happen, this will not work. What similar arrangements will be made to secure continuity with the social work and probation services?
  That was the ninth question, your Lordships will be relieved to hear.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure that I am encouraged by that noise, but I shall nevertheless ask my tenth question which is a crucial one: what overall system will there be for the appraisal of the performance of the STCs in terms of the effect they have on children as well as financially, and to disseminate best practice, and how will their findings be publicised? 1 have heard mutters of, "beside the point". It is not beside the point.
  Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it is wholly.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, it is not beside the point. Whether that rejection is made sitting or standing, it is

  457
  not beside the point. We are talking about 200 children of the age of 12 —the height of that Dispatch Box— annually for the next 10 years; the well-being of 2,000 children depends upon this experiment being properly thought through and properly launched. Your Lordships have a duty to see that it is if we are to stand aside, as I still hope that I may be able to do, and have undertaken to do—I hope that we may all be able to stand aside— when the Question is put.
  Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, two weeks ago while sitting in court, my colleague and I decided that a defendant should go to prison. I was in the chair and had to announce that decision with, of course, the reasons. I cannot tell your Lordships how much I hate having to do that. My heart thumps as I am aware of the enormity of our action in depriving someone of his liberty. I know that many of my colleagues feel the same, but I know also that that is the responsibility we accept when we are appointed. I mention that because I am anxious to allay thoughts that I might be seen as heartless and thoughtless.
  I feel that this stage of the Bill is not the time to rehearse old arguments but to augment those arguments with new facts. Since we last debated the matter in your Lordships' House, there have been further examples of mayhem caused by some of these persistent young criminals. For example, there has been much publicity over the case of a boy who, having been placed in local authority care, brought chaos to a holiday park where he was enjoying a break with his social workers. At last the "safari holiday boy" who has already been referred to, having reached an age when he can be named, has been sentenced for the crimes that he has committed since his holiday abroad.
  We delude ourselves if we do not listen to the majority view of the public in these matters. People are fed up with their lives being disrupted by the comparatively few hardened young offenders who bring such misery to their communities. Members of another place are being told constantly by their constituents that something must be done. Your Lordships' decision has been reversed, and I believe that we would show a total lack of awareness and judgment if we did not support that decision.
  Last week, a taxi driver told me his view of the House of Lords. "You see," he said, "I believe that it is the conscience of the nation". We must not abuse such trust. Young people who cannot and do not learn in any other way should not be allowed to terrorise the lives of a few vulnerable and elderly people, particularly, but also decent and law-abiding people who want to live a peaceful life.
  I cannot sit down without expressing again my revulsion over the use of local authority secure accommodation for these delinquents. I just cannot understand how anyone, however well intentioned, can believe that it is right to place these young hooligans among vulnerable young people, many of whom have
  458
  committed no crime, but are in need of care and protection. I believe that it is criminal to do so. I urge your Lordships to support the Commons amendment.
  Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. On 16th May, I moved an amendment in your Lordships' House that there should not be secure training units. Many people have written to me to say that they have read the reports in Hansard. They felt that the argument was won but that the vote was lost, perhaps on constitutional grounds.
  On 5th July, I supported my noble friend Lord Carr. Like him and some other noble Lords on this side of the House, on the grounds of consistency and professional integrity, I shall not vote against Her Majesty's Government today when the Question is put to the House.
  I wish to make just two points. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that this was a new form of treatment and a new form of custodial sentence. It is no different from the old approved school system. The approved schools were closed in 1962. The research of the Home Office, the Dartington Research Unit, and many criminology departments show this to be so. I have looked also at the specifications of the new units. They are no different from the old approved schools that we had way back in 1962.
  Perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for giving me so much of her time and for discussing this whole question with me. Perhaps I may ask one question of which I have given her notice and to which I do not expect an answer today. Is there any possibility of the Home Office funding voluntary organisations which provide education, discipline and a structure to some of the most delinquent, disturbed and disruptive children referred to them by local authorities? I cite the Caldecott Community and the homes of the Charterhouse group, the Hesley group in the North of England and other voluntary homes. Many of these homes and schools, which give a sound service, are having to close down as local authorities are unable to pay the fees. Such homes and schools have staff with experience of such children who come from fragmented families known to social services. The social services are helping to support and assist those families.
  As my noble friend the Minister is well aware, under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 local authority social services departments can place a child in a local authority secure place. If the child needs to be held for longer than 72 hours the local authority can apply to the magistrates at the youth court to hold the child in a secure unit run by a local authority. After assessment, some such children may need longer terms in residential homes, of which there are many. It is intended that over five years £30 million will be spent on secure training units. Surely the Home Office can be asked to support some of the voluntary homes. That would help and would provide a secure service, good discipline and trained staff in a difficult area. Will the Minister tell the House where the trained staff for the secure units will come from?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, reference was made to a constitutional principle, most notably by the

  459
  noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I do not dissent from that. However, there is another constitutional principle for which I contend. It is that it is best always not to seek to limit the discretion of the sentencing tribunal. I believe that the underpinning of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, is entirely directed to that proposition. If magistrates, who have a whole body of knowledge and an informed view when dealing with children as young as 12, believe that the children whom they sentence can appropriately be dealt with at least for part of the sentence in local authority secure accommodation, why on earth do the Government, with their whipped majority, seek to take away that discretion from the judiciary? That is an important constitutional principle.
  I have only one question to ask. With my limited education, I cannot stretch to 10. Is it correct that there will be no secure training centre in the whole of the Principality of Wales? If so it is undoubted that local magistrates will be exceptionally reluctant to impose appropriate sentences, dragging children from community, social worker, parents and home 250 or 300 miles away. The proposal simply will not work and no one to whom I have spoken with any knowledge of dealing with the problems of such disturbed children believes that it will.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton asked a number of specific questions and I am grateful to him for giving me notice. I shall attempt to answer them because they touched on many of the points raised by other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Carr. We are talking about the new system of secure training centres. Many of the questions have centred on the modus operandi of how they are to be run as opposed to whether they will be run. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have respected the constitutional position that perhaps we should not resist the Government's proposal.
  My noble friend is rightly concerned about the education and training which juveniles will receive in secure training centres and during the second half of the secure training order which is served in the community. For each juvenile received in a secure training centre an
  individual plan will be drawn up setting out his or her needs for education and training. That might include training in social skills or anger management or, in the case of older juveniles, vocational skills such as computing; never forgetting not to neglect basic skills.
  In drawing up the plan, the secure training centre will be expected to make every effort to obtain information about the youngster's previous educational experience through court reports prepared by social workers and the schools themselves and details of the educational record from the trainee's local education authority.
  In implementing the plan, my noble friend is right to emphasise the need to recruit staff of a high calibre. It will be for the provider of the secure training centre to recruit the necessary staff and to ensure their retention. I am baffled by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that, for some reason I know not, secure training units run by local authorities can provide
  460
  quality training but the secure units cannot. There is no evidence to support that view. Many skilled and appropriate people are sufficiently professional to provide the service.
  As part of the invitation to tender a schedule has been produced which gives advice on staff selection, training, qualification and certification. It also includes guidance issued by the Department for Education in respect of teachers. It is expected that the staff of the secure training centre will be multi-disciplinary with the appropriate qualifications necessary for their respective professions. It will be for potential providers to satisfy the Home Office that their proposed staffing arrangements are appropriate and acceptable.
  As regards the ratio of staff to trainees, that will be a matter for potential providers to decide in the formulation of their bids to the Home Office. The number of staff required will be determined by the type of regime proposed. I can reassure my noble friends that the number and type of staff proposed will need to satisfy the Home Office requirements set out in the operational specification and the rules for the secure training centres. Education will need to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in line as far as possible with the national curriculum.
  As regards rewards and punishment, the service provider will be required to provide a just and fair system which recognises and takes account of the legitimate rights and expectations of both trainees and staff and to propose a system of rules, incentives and sanctions which will be published, explained and understood by staff and trainees. The system should reward good behaviour by allowing trainees progressively more privileges and the chance to exercise control over aspects of their lives in the secure training centres. That should be accompanied by a counselling and informal warning system which supports and enforces the environment of good order and discipline.
  As your Lordships know, the secure training centres will be subject to inspection by both the social services inspectorate and the Department of Health, which will look at the general regime, and by Ofsted, the educational inspectorate, which will concentrate on the educational components. The reports of the inspections will be published. I believe that that goes a long way to allay some of your Lordships' fears.
  My noble friend has also drawn attention to the importance of continuity between the secure part of the secure training order and return to the community. The person who will be responsible for supervision after release will be appointed as early as possible during the secure part of the sentence, will become involved at an early stage in developing the trainee's individual training plan and will also take part in a continuing review and assessment process in order to give the best possible chance of successfully reintegrating the trainee into the community on release.
  One of the objectives of the educational part of the training plan will be to enable reintegration of the trainee into mainstream education on his or her return to the community. Successful reintegration will also be the main aim of the second part of the sentence. This

  461
  does not describe an institution which in any way compares with the old Borstals or institutions referred to in the debate.
  As your Lordships know, supervision can be undertaken by a local authority social worker, probation officer or any other person designated by the Home Secretary. The cost of supervision will be directly reimbursed to whichever organisation provides supervision by the Home Office. Each secure training unit will be required to provide accommodation for female trainees. Under the terms of the operational specification for a secure training centre female trainees must be located in sleeping accommodation which is physically separate from that of male trainees. The service providers will also have to take into account the possible need for female trainees to undertake education and training separately from male trainees and make provision for such a situation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked about provision in Wales. My understanding is that on current plans, it is not intended that there should be a secure training centre in Wales.
  I believe that there is a feeling in the House that somehow social services provision is more cost effective; but it is worth recording for the purposes of the debate that it costs between £1,700 and £3,000 per week for local authority social services provision. While cost will be a consideration, the quality of the regime to be provided will be a serious consideration when bids are submitted to run the centres. Therefore, I am able to assure and reassure my noble friend that that must be a very real consideration.
  I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for her remarks. I undertake and put on record that I shall write to her in detail on the points that she raised. Should any noble Lord wish to see a copy of that reply, I shall place it in the Library.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to cost. Will she assure us that when the bids are submitted, it will not always be the lowest bidder who secures the contract?
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point but I have just said that the quality of the provision, which is part of the tendering process, will be given very serious consideration, alongside costs. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, described the measure as limiting the discretion of the courts. We are adding to the discretion of the courts. This is an added facility.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham was right to say that there is no guarantee that this will work. However, it is a very real and genuine attempt to address the incidence of young persistent offenders. The centres will provide programmes dedicated to the rehabilitation of such children with the objective of getting them back into mainstream education and the community. After the full consideration that has been given to this issue, I invite the House to support the Government, and I
  462
  recommend to your Lordships that the House do not insist on the amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENTS
  2 Page 2, line 18, at end insert:
  ("(2A) Where a court makes a secure training order under subsection (1) above it may specify that the period of detention shall be in secure accommodation; and where it does so the court shall designate the local authority by whom or on whose behalf the secure accommodation is to be provided.
  (2B) The local authority designated by the court under subsection (2A) above shall be—

  (a) in the case of an offender who is being looked after by a local authority, that authority; and

  (b) in any other case, the local authority in whose area it appears to the court that the offender resides or the offence or one of the offences in respect of which the secure training order has been made was committed.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  2A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  3 Page 2, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) below")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  3A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention.
  4 Page 2, line 24, at end insert:
  ("(4A) While any secure training order in respect of which a court has made such a specification as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above is in force, a relevant court may, on the application of the designated local authority, and if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so, order that the remainder of the period of detention shall be replaced by—

  (a) a period during which the offender shall be required to live in other local authority accommodation provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority;

  (b) a period of supervision; or

  (c) a period of detention in a secure training centre.

  (4B) While any secure training order in respect of which a court has not made such a specification as is mentioned in subsection (2A) above is in force, a relevant court may, on the application of the director of the secure training centre, and if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so, order that the remainder of the period of detention shall be replaced by—

  (a) a period of detention in secure accommodation provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority;

  (b) a period during which the offender shall be required to live in other local authority accommodation provided by or on behalf of the designated local authority; or

  (c) a period of supervision.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  4A Because the Commons consider that a court should always

  463
  order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention.
  5 Page 3, line 9, at end insert (";
  "local authority", "voluntary organisation" and "registered childrens' home" have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
  "local authority accommodation" means accommodation provided by a local authority or on its behalf by voluntary organisations or persons carrying on a registered childrens' home with whom the local authority has made arrangements for its provision;
  "relevant court" means-

  (a) a youth court acting for the petty sessions area in which the secure accommodation or, as the case may be, secure training centre, is situated; or

  (b) a youth court acting for the same petty sessions area as the court which made the secure training order; and

  "secure accommodation" means local authority accommodation which is provided in a community home, a voluntary home or a registered childrens' home for the purpose of restricting liberty, and is approved for that purpose by the Secretary of State")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  5A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention..
  7 Clause 2, Page 3, line 18, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  7A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  8 Page 3, line 26, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("the place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  8A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  10 Page 3, line 31, leave out ("in the secure training centre")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  10A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  11 Page 3, line 33, leave out ("such a place") and insert ("the place to which he is committed under paragraph (a) above")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  11A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  12 Page 3, line 42, leave out ("a secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  12A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  13 Page 3, line 47, leave out ("in the secure training centre")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  13A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  14 Page 4, line 6, leave out ("the secure training centre") and insert ("his place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  14A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be. detained in a secure training centre.
  15 Page 4, line 13, at end insert (";
  "place of detention" means the secure training centre, secure accommodation or other local authority accommodation in which a court has ordered the offender to be detained for the time being; and
  "secure accommodation" and "local authority accommodation" have the same meaning as in section 1 above.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  15A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  16 Clause 3, Page 4, line 14, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  16A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  17 Clause 4, Page 5, line 17, leave out ("secure training centre") and insert ("place of detention")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  17A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.
  18 Page 5, line 36, at end insert:
  ("( ) In this section, "place of detention" has the same meaning as in section 2 above.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  18A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  21 Clause 8, Page 7, line 15, after ("by") insert ("section 1 of this Act,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  21A Because the Commons consider that a court should always
  order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre for the whole period of his detention..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 18 and 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 5A, 7A and 8A, 10A to 18A and 21A en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 18 and 21 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 2A to 5A, 7A and 8A, 10A to 18A and 21A en bloc.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Conduct of Public Life
  4.23 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the conduct of public life. The Statement is as follows:
  "Madam Speaker, with permission, I shall make a Statement on the conduct of public life, and put some proposals before the House. Before I do so, I shall refer to the report which I asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake on allegations of impropriety against named individuals that had been made by Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed.
  "I have now received Sir Robin Butler's report and am publishing it in full in a Written Answer this afternoon. Before turning to wider matters, I should like to draw on that report. Perhaps it would be best if I quoted paragraph two of Sir Robin's report to me. It reads as follows:
  'In reporting those allegations the informant said that Mr Al Fayed wanted a meeting with the Prime Minister, principally because of Mr Al Fayed's wish to have the DTI Inspectors' Report on the takeover of the House of Fraser revised or withdrawn. He had made a number of allegations against Government Ministers and was contemplating passing them to others'.
  "Sir Robin then sets out my reply. He records that I replied that it would be impossible for me to see Mr. Al Fayed in these circumstances. If Ministers had been guilty of wrong-doing—as Mr. Al Fayed alleged—I was not going to make any sort of deal, regardless of the cost to the Government's reputation. I said that I would consider how to proceed, and suggested that, in the meantime, my informant should make no response to Mr. Al Fayed.
  "I said that I was not prepared to enter into discussions with Mr. Al Fayed on any of these issues. However, it was clear to me that I would need to establish whether there was any substance in the allegations. If there was, it was unlikely that they would remain private. Nor was it right that they should.
  "Upon the substance of the allegations, the House now knows that my honourable friend for Beaconsfield has resigned from the Government.
  466
  "My honourable friend, the Member for Tatton, has vigorously rejected, both orally and in writing, the allegations of impropriety made against him and is taking legal action. Sir Robin's report makes clear that he has found no evidence which controverts my honourable friend's assurances on these matters.
  "I have however to tell the House that since Sir Robin completed his report, other unconnected allegations, which were not the subject of his investigations, have been made against my honourable friend. I must consider whether the combined impact of these allegations disables my honourable friend from carrying out his responsibilities as Minister for Corporate Affairs. I believe they do and my honourable friend agrees and has resigned from the Government.
  "On the other allegations put to me, Sir Robin found that they are either demonstrably false or, so far as he has been able to establish after careful inquiry, are entirely unsubstantiated as well as being denied by the Ministers concerned.
  "I now turn to wider issues. It is important that the public have confidence in our system of public administration, our methods of making public appointments, the conduct of people in authority, and the financial and commercial activities of public figures.
  "It has always been the wish of this House that British Government, Parliament and administration should be entirely free of malpractice. I am determined to ensure it is.
  "In the present atmosphere there is public disquiet about standards in public life and I have concluded that action is imperative. I have listened carefully and have reflected upon the points raised by right honourable and honourable gentlemen in all parts of this House in framing my recommendations. I have decided to establish a body with the following terms of reference:
  'To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life'.
  "For these purposes, public office should include: Ministers, civil servants and advisers; Members of Parliament and UK Members of the European Parliament; members and senior officers of all non-departmental public bodies, and of NHS bodies; non-Ministerial office holders; members and other senior officers of other bodies discharging publicly-funded functions; and elected members and senior officers of local authorities. This is a wide-ranging list and is intended to be so.
  "I have considered the nature of the body to be established. A Royal Commission tends to be cumbersome and would probably take too long. A committee composed solely of Privy Counsellors might be seen as too narrowly drawn, A Speaker's Conference traditionally only deals with electoral law. And a formal board of inquiry or judicial inquiry tends to carry out specific investigations rather than considering broader issues and making

  467
  recommendations to the Government. Arguments can be made for any of those bodies but I believe that a better way ahead exists.
  "The body needs to be able to respond quickly and to be sufficiently flexible to deal with the wide range of issues that I have outlined.
  "I have decided therefore to establish standing machinery to examine the conduct of public life and to make recommendations on how best to ensure that standards of propriety are upheld. It will contain prominent individuals who have practical experience of Parliament and public life but also others with expertise and knowledge of our principal institutions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has accepted my invitation to chair the committee.
  "I have invited the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party to nominate a member of the committee, and I shall announce the full membership shortly. I hope that the committee will be able to produce at least a first report covering the main areas of current concern within six months—and then stay in being as a standing body to advise the government of the day.
  "It will be open to the committee to take evidence in public, though it could also invite evidence in writing, or in private, and would probably wish to deliberate in private. But the committee itself must determine that. Naturally, I would expect Ministers and Members of Parliament to give evidence to the committee if requested to do so; but I should make clear that the purpose of the body is not to replace the House's own machinery, which is the proper way to consider issues affecting individual Members of this House.
  "The new body will advise on general procedures, including procedures governing public appointments, rather than investigate individual cases. When the committee has reported I will publish its report, I hope in full, lay it before the House, and take appropriate action upon it. Recommendations affecting Members and procedures of this House will of course be for the House itself to decide.
  "I hope that I have made it clear that I am determined to ensure that this is a wide-ranging review of the safeguards of standards of public office.
  "It is vital that the system is seen and recognised to be beyond criticism. I shall naturally make available to the committee Questions of Procedure for Ministers and any other documentation concerning the proprieties in Government that they may seek.
  "This country has an international reputation for the integrity and honour of its public institutions. That reputation must be maintained and be seen to be maintained.
  "I hope that the Standing Committee I have announced today will enjoy the support of this House and reassure the people of this country about our determination to maintain high standards of conduct in public life".
  468
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  4.33 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just repeated a most sombre Statement. I am bound to say that my first reaction to the Statement is that it is about time. Up until recently, the Government apparently did not recognise that the problem even existed. However, we are now told that it is so bad that a major committee has to be established to inquire into all such facets of public life.
  I have some questions to ask on the detail of the committee which I shall put to the Minister in a moment. However, I should like to say, first, that it is perfectly true to say that the country needs reassurance; indeed, I do not believe that any of us can have any doubt about that fact. I hope that the committee will go a long way towards providing that reassurance. But it will only do so if its deliberations are, on the whole, in public and the people know what the committee is doing.
  Obviously there will be occasions when evidence will have to be taken in private. I accept that fact. However, the bias so far as concerns the committee should be for the evidence to be taken and tested in public and for as much of the committee's work as possible to be conducted in public and not in private. Indeed, much too much has been going on in private in this Administration.
  I turn now to my questions on the detail of the committee. First, is the committee to have powers of subpoena, both in relation to individuals and to papers? If it does not, it would seem to me that its powers of investigation will be severely limited. Secondly, can I take it from the Statement that individual cases affecting Members of the House of Commons will continue to be investigated by the Privileges Committee of that House rather than by the new Standing Committee? Further, does that apply in the case of Mr. Hamilton? I have to point out that, three days ago, the Prime Minister did not seem to think that it was necessary for Mr. Hamilton to leave his Administration. However, today, apparently, the Prime Minister does believe that he should do so; and, indeed, Mr. Hamilton has done so.
  I do not know quite what has changed, except for that rather elliptical phrase that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House used about some additional matters coming to light which, on reflection, Mr. Hamilton felt made it impossible for him to continue in the Government. I believe that the country is entitled to know the nature of those additional matters. Either it was a massive misjudgment on the part of the Prime Minister three or four days ago, or there is something about which we are unaware and about which, with respect, we should know.
  I turn now to the scope of the inquiry and the matters that it is to investigate. Page 6 of the Statement refers to,
  "Members of Parliament and UK Members of the European Parliament".
  I take it that Members of this House are Members of Parliament for the purpose of this committee's investigations. In that case, I also take it that, if one of the matters that is to be investigated—and it clearly is—

  469
  is whether the Register of Members' Interests in another place is doing the job it should be doing, then the issue of whether there should be a register of interests for Members of this House is another matter which is now on the table before the committee.
  In conclusion, I have to say—and it is a reflection rather than a question—what a mess. What a reflection after 15 years of the Administration of the party opposite that they now have to announce that there has to be a major cleansing operation of such magnitude. So far as we are concerned, if the Augean stables need to be cleansed, so be it; we will help with the hoses.
  However, the Government will not be able—indeed, we will not let them and neither will the country—to evade their responsibility for the fact that the stables have to be cleansed at all. The dirt has accumulated not within the past six months but slowly over a long period of time. However, despite warnings given to them, the Government have done absolutely nothing about it. I hope that the committee will restore public confidence in the honour and honesty of our institutions. My goodness, that is sorely needed under this Government.
  Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we also are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. We welcome the establishment of the Standing Committee of inquiry and its scope and level. First, the fact that the Government have taken that grave step indicates that they recognise the dangerous undermining of public confidence which the drip, drip, drip of a series of scandals—some perhaps petty, some of them even squalid —has caused; in other words, its accumulative effect which has been extremely damaging and which points to some underlying malaise.
  Secondly, I turn to the composition of the committee. We accept the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, as a distinguished judge who is to chair the committee. We note that there will be one member nominated by each of the three parties. However, the Government also reserve the right to appoint an unspecified number of other members. Will the Government consult as to the nature of those other members so as to ensure that the overall shape of the committee commands cross-party and widespread confidence? One of the difficulties which forms part of the background to the problems that we face at present is that the Government have a record of showing inadequate regard for anything except Conservative opinion in their appointments policy. It is important that that is not repeated in the composition of this committee.
  Thirdly, will the committee have the right to recommend legislation? Surely its continuing function, which is specifically referred to in the Statement which states that it will advise the Government, should also be to advise and reassure Parliament and the public.
  I turn now to the report of Sir Robin Butler, whom we all like and respect. However, I must express grave reservations as to whether sitting in even superficial— and this appears to have been rather superficial— judgment on Ministers is a suitable role, from his own point of view, for the Cabinet Secretary. He should not be turned into a cross between the Lord Chief Justice
  470
  and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The behaviour of Ministers is a matter for the head of the Government and not for the head of the Civil Service. It is also undesirable that officials should be too closely involved in the political process. That is another unsatisfactory aspect of the way we live now.
  The report itself does not seem very reassuring. It exonerated Mr. Hamilton, on his own ipse dixit. That exoneration appears to have stood for a few hours, or at most a few days. If the committee, rightly, is to concern itself with general policy and not with individual cases, it is important that individual cases should be properly investigated. It should not be the position that someone against whom charges are made should only have to wait until the next scandal comes along in a few weeks and hope that his particular problem will be buried. That has happened in the past to some extent.
  I welcome the establishment of the committee and the fact that the Government are at last taking this grave matter seriously; but I should welcome replies and assurances from the noble Viscount on the points that I have raised.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins, for the general welcome which they have given to the committee. In particular, I am grateful for the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, gave to the idea that the committee should concern itself with general principles.
  So far as concerns the individuals who have been named, a number of avenues are open. In your Lordships' House we are always careful about commenting on House of Commons matters. However, a number of committees, not merely the Privileges Committee but also the Committee on Members' Interests, can concern themselves with individual matters affecting Members of the House of Commons. If matters of graver import are brought before any other authorities, it is open to the authorities to take the appropriate action. Naturally enough, Ministers are not exempted, any more than any other subjects of Her Majesty.
  The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that it was about time. I remind the noble Lord that as soon as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister heard about allegations concerning members of Her Majesty's Government he immediately referred the matter to the Cabinet Secretary. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that the Cabinet Secretary is not a cross between a judge and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Indeed, he is not. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the Cabinet Secretary is an entirely appropriate individual to conduct a preliminary investigation and to advise my right honourable friend on the appropriate action which might result from that inquiry.
  Inevitably, there was little time to go into the details of those allegations. However, it was perfectly clear to my right honourable friend that there were matters which needed attention. As soon as the Cabinet Secretary's conclusions were made available to my right honourable friend—and three weeks was a remarkably short time in view of the complexity of the matters

  471
  under consideration—he acted in the way which has been made clear to both Houses of Parliament this afternoon.
  The noble Lards asked a number of specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked whether the committee would sit in public. I have to say to the noble Lord that that is something which we would very much like to leave to the committee. However, the noble Lord is right to say that openness in matters of this kind is desirable if there is no good reason for that not to be the case. While I cannot speak for the committee, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, will read what the noble Lord said.
  The noble Lord also asked whether individuals could be subpoenaed. As yet, that is not settled. However, I shall make sure that the noble Lord's suggestion is brought to the attention of my right honourable friends. The only gloss which I would put upon my answer is that it is important that the committee should be given sufficient powers to carry out its job adequately. The noble Lord's suggestion will be taken urgently into account.
  The noble Lord, Lord Richard, wondered in particular whether individuals would be examined by the other place. The other place already has extensive powers to summon individuals. It is for the other place to exercise those powers, and it is not for the Government to circumscribe them in any way.
  The noble Lord, Lord Richard, also asked whether Peers would come within the scope of the committee's activities. So far as I am aware, your Lordships are Members of Parliament. I therefore have to conclude that your Lordships are indeed within the scope of the investigations of the committee. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish it to be any other way.
  I turn now to the question of a register of Peers' interests. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggests that I should look behind me. I am perfectly certain that behind me there was nothing but a row of nodding heads when I made that remark! I detect from the reaction of the Opposition Front Bench that that must have been so.
  Over the years the question of a register of interests for Members of your Lordships' House has become something of an old chestnut. Many of my predecessors, and indeed predecessors of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, have examined the question and rejected it for various reasons. I shall not go into those reasons now. All I shall say to the noble Lord is that in view of the current climate, it is clearly right that that question should be examined again. I should certainly be extremely happy, if it were the wish of your Lordships, for the matter to be raised at the next meeting of the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House and a report to be produced in due course for discussion by your Lordships.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, talked about the composition of the committee. I agree with the noble Lord that the composition of the committee is extremely important. It is right that not only Parliament but the public should feel that the composition of the committee is of such a nature that it will satisfy the high standards of investigation which both Parliament and the public have every right to expect. I hope that the noble Lord,
  472
  Lord Jenkins, will not be disappointed, in particular since his right honourable friend will be consulted on its composition.
  The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also asked me whether the committee would have the right to recommend legislation. The scope of the committee's remit is deliberately extremely broad. It necessarily follows that its recommendations will probably be very broad, too. It would be entirely open to the committee to recommend legislation if it so desired. Of course, it would then be for the Government of the day to consider whether such legislation should be introduced. However, we would be the last to suggest that the committee should have no right to make such a recommendation.
  If I may, I wish to conclude by saying this. I apologise for having taken so long to answer the points made by both noble Lords. It is a matter of supreme importance to Parliament and the public of this country that they should have confidence in the institutions of public life and of government. I have to say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is a shining example of honesty in public life. It is also extremely important that the administration over which he presides—the public administration, the local administration, and all the machinery of government of our country—in an age of supremely rapid change should not succumb to the pressures of today and should uphold the highest standards which the history of this country insists should obtain in our public life.
  4.52 p.m.
  Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, if the statements contained within the earliest part of the Statement are accurate—I am sure that they are—then it was a most improper proposal for Mr. Al Fayed to make. I hope that the noble Viscount will convey to the Prime Minister that anyone knowing him would not have expected him, or I hope any of his predecessors, to have made any other response.
  However, I wish that the Statement had contained what I believe to be absolutely true: that in the hysteria which has accompanied this matter in recent weeks the overwhelming number of Members of Parliament in another place understand perfectly well what is seemly behaviour in their dealings with other bodies and institutions. I do not believe that we should allow that possibility to go unchallenged in view of some of the statements made in the press today. I hope that that point will be made clear.
  I wish to raise one point. The Government have chosen to cover a wide-ranging area. There is no doubt that there has been disquiet. I believe that it is the arrogance shown in their pursuit of patronage in relation to appointments to other bodies which has aroused much of that disquiet. I trust that the new commission will be able to make recommendations which will avoid such arrogance in future.
  However, the commission does not cover one area. I refer to the infestation of our public life by the lobbyists who surround us in Parliament today. Perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. I do not see the issue referred to in the Statement. Will the committee be able to investigate the methods of work, the power and the

  473
  influence of lobbyists in their activities in seeking to secure the interests of their clients or their members? I do not wish this House to become a monastic institution. It would be quite wrong for us to be cut off from every outside influence. I believe that people who have outside interests bring valuable experience to the House. But I believe that the activities of the lobbyists are extremely suspect. Will the committee be able to investigate those activities?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for a number of the points he made. First, he recognises that outside experience is valuable to Members of Parliament. Perhaps your Lordships' House is the greatest shining example of that. It is perhaps the greatest collection of people with much outside experience of any legislative chamber anywhere. We all know how much your Lordships' House benefits from that experience.
  I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his instant recognition of the impropriety of Mr. Mohammed Al Fayed's suggestion. I shall say no more on that matter.
  I am grateful too for what the noble Lord said about the vast majority of Members of Parliament both in this House and another place. The noble Lord spent many years in another place; I spent very few. However, it is one of the great sadnesses of such moments—whether it is the atmosphere of 1994, Maundy Gregory, or other periods of scandal in history—that the overwhelming majority of honourable public servants are besmirched by the activities of a few. That is why it is important that we make sure that those few do not flourish, and cannot be allowed to flourish. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said.
  With regard to his other two questions, the issue of patronage is clearly within the remit of the committee. So far as concerns lobbyists, the committee has a wide remit to investigate any activities or individuals who influence the conduct of public life. It seems to me that lobbyists come firmly within that definition.
  Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to pass on to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister my feeling of pleasure—I believe that it is shared by many noble Lords —at the establishment of this committee with these terms of reference. It seems to me exactly the right type of committee because it can act speedily and, with the composition that we have heard discussed already, will command public confidence. I believe that it will be able to make recommendations soon. That, unfortunately, is very necessary at present. The current atmosphere in which allegations of all kinds, about all sorts of people, are being flung about almost daily, and avidly pursued by television, radio and press, whether or not there is any factor which substantiates the allegations, is extremely damaging to our democracy.
  I hope that the committee will be able to re-establish our belief that our form of democracy is the best that there is.
  I ask my noble friend to pass on one point. In any recommendations which the committee makes, I hope that it will not seek so to circumscribe those who hold
  474
  any form of public office that they become totally removed from ordinary life. One of the charges that can be made against the "professional politician" is that he does not understand about ordinary people. If suggestions are made that anyone in public life should refuse to have any contact with ordinary people, that charge will be able to be maintained; and that will be a disaster. Therefore I hope that the committee will not make such a recommendation.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall of course pass on to my right honourable friend the messages that my noble friend asks me to do. I am glad that my noble friend likes the remit for the committee to act with speed and to report rapidly. I am also delighted to find that he supports the view of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about the importance of outside experience in our public life. It is a message which I am sure will go out loud and clear and will be all the stronger because it comes from both sides of the House.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Viscount two questions. First, will the committee be able to examine the financing of political parties and the relationship between people who contribute to political parties and the political parties themselves? Secondly, the approaches made by Mr. Al Fayed were at least improper and perhaps illegal. Is any action being taken to refer the matter either to the police or to the Director of Public Prosecutions?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that there will be a general remit for the committee to examine the propriety and conduct of public life and that the specific financing of political parties at the moment will not be included within the remit of the committee. In addition, if there is sufficient evidence for any criminal prosecution to be taken on any allegation arising from investigations, whether by the Cabinet Secretary or the committee itself, it will be up to the proper authorities to refer it to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, as someone who has spent some time in local government, I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on the Statement repeated by the noble Viscount to the House. I am certain that all political parties involved in local government and all chief officers of local government will welcome the committee.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for what he said. I know that his experience of local government is extremely long and I shall ensure that the message he gives is transmitted to my right honourable friend.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as regards honour, it is reasonable to assume that, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said, in this country we have a much higher standard than other countries. That is perhaps why we are so upset when our standards lapse from the perfection that we demand. After all, it is only relatively recently that our standards of public life have increased to the present heights.

  475
  Having said that, there is a slight difficulty about the way in which we are going. If we make too many individual rules on honour as opposed to leaving it to people's sense of honour—hoping that they have one— we will possibly encourage a certain legalism in what is right and wrong. That must be avoided at all costs. Will the committee bear that in mind? Otherwise, my right honourable friend must be congratulated on being both right and honourable.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That has always been one of the arguments advanced in this House against the institution of a register of Members' interests. I have already said that I would be happy for it to be discussed in the proper quarter. Of course, I agree with my noble friend Lord Onslow; I am sure that people who are involved in public life in this country have a fair degree of Grecian taste but a little more obvious Roman virtue would be more than welcome.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount about the financing of political parties. Given that he referred to the need to investigate improper influences, is he aware of the many allegations which have been made in that area? Does it not seem odd that the issue will apparently be excluded from the committee's work, even if the committee wishes to look into it? Will the noble Viscount consider whether, if the committee indicates that it would like to look into the matter—all the more so because, as I understand it, it will be a permanent committee—the Government will agree to allow it to do so?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that there are already arrangements in place to examine such matters. Those arrangements, particularly in relation to donations by individuals to political parties and any possible subsequent rewards for those donations that might be available, are already the subject of considerable scrutiny.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, can my noble friend tell me whether the membership of the committee will include someone who properly understands the working of local government? I feel that it will be important, in looking at local government matters, that that understanding exists in the committee.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take careful note of the advice which my noble friend has given. I fully understand the force of what she said and will draw my right honourable friend's attention to it.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, will the noble Viscount agree that it would be most unfortunate if a convention or rule were to be introduced which obliged Ministers to resign the moment an unsubstantiated allegation of misconduct was made against them in the press? If that
  476
  were to happen, government of this country—whatever the political complexion of the Government—would become impossible.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point which is incontrovertible and I wholly agree with it.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question on a matter referred to in passing by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. The remit of the committee is wide, it has a wide umbrella, and rightly so. We all know, however, that Ministers, Members of Parliament, lobbyists and anyone else are like dumb mutes unless what they say or do is expanded by the newspapers and all the various forms of the media. If the media misuse their powers, they are more dangerous to our standards and belief in our integrity than anything else. Will they come under the remit of the committee so that we can see that the matter is properly protected all the way through?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He will be aware that I have already described that the committee will have a wide remit. If it wishes to investigate the effects of the media upon public life, it would be open to it to propose to do so.
  In addition, I should say to my noble friend that a considerable amount of work has been conducted, sometimes by Members of your Lordships' House, examining the position of the media. However, if we control the media too much there is a strong risk that it will become easier for interested parties to cover up much of the kind of allegations that have been made. We must always be aware of the importance in any parliamentary democracy of a free press.
  Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I right or wrong in thinking that any suggestion that there should be a power to subpoena witnesses would require primary legislation? I should like to know the answer to that, simply as a matter of information.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have to confess to my noble and learned friend that I do not know the answer. I hoped that he would be one of the people to whom I could turn for advice on the subject! However, since he cannot tell me the answer, I recognise that I should be able to answer it. I apologise for not being able to do so; I shall write to him on the subject with an opinion which he might be able to confirm or deny. I shall put the letter in the Library of the House.
  Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be good enough to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition as to what were the additional matters which caused Mr. Hamilton's position to become untenable and which were not known three days ago?
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, that is an entirely legitimate question from the noble Baroness. If she will forgive me, it is a little early for me to do that, for me to reveal all, for the very reasons that the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross Benches gave. It is important that when allegations are made, it is in such a way that

  477
  they do not encourage baseless rumour, but at the same time, it is important that when they are made, it is in such a way as not to prejudice anything that may subsequently be judged.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, that is a most incredible answer. The additional allegations are raised by the noble Lord, not by this side. As I understood it, the part of the Statement which dealt with Mr. Hamilton's position made reference to additional matters which caused his position to be so eroded that he resigned. If that is what the Government say, we are surely entitled to ask what those matters are. I do not think that that is unfair. It is certainly not illegitimate.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I never said that it was illegitimate. I said that it was a perfectly legitimate question. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to correct that misapprehension. It is of course an entirely legitimate question. It is a specific allegation, and such allegations are susceptible to investigation by other bodies, and they will be so.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  5.10 p.m.
  Consideration of Commons amendments and reasons resumed.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  79 Clause 75, page 60, line 24, at end insert:
  ("( ) This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 152.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  79A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  79B Lord Avebury to move, That this House do insist on their Amendment 79, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do insist on their Amendment No. 79 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carr, I deeply regret that after the consideration that has been given to the amendment moved on Report by my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley, the Government finally came down on the side of removing it from the Bill for what seemed to me to be totally inadequate reasons. I shall explain why in a few minutes.
  By way of preface, perhaps I may also say that it was unfortunate that the Government took the whole of the Summer Recess to reach a decision on this matter, only revealing it to those concerned at the very last moment and giving them no opportunity of making any further representations as they might have wished to do. As a result, the local authority associations, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Municipal Authorities and all the non-governmental organisations which had expressed opinions on this matter in Committee and at Report stage, and organisations
  478
  representing the gypsies themselves, were effectively deprived of making proper comment on the reasons given by the Government for disagreeing with your Lordships' amendments. Otherwise, I believe that they would have wished to make such representations and would have amplified the few remarks that I shall make on the subject.
  I did wonder whether it was a tactical decision on the part of the Government not to reveal the decision that they had made until the last moment so as to get the party conferences out of the way and to present as small a front as possible to criticism. There was nothing in the decision as it was finally revealed which could have taken them so long to make up their minds. There was nothing in the arguments of the Minister, Mr. Jones, in another place on 19th October which had not been rehearsed before the Recess. Nor did the Minister betray the slightest hint of having looked at the arguments that were deployed at some length in proceedings in this House and in subsequent correspondence.
  He began by stating, baldly and inaccurately, as Ministers have done all the way along:
  "The 1968 Act has failed".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/94; col. 372.]
  It is not the Act that has failed but the Government's political will to make it work.
  Let us consider the position in January 1994. According to the Government's figures, the number of pitches then on local authority sites amounted to 5,951 and on private sites, 3,271. The total number of caravans occupied by gypsies at that time was 13,060. So there was a shortfall of 3,838, about the same as it had been four years previously. The combined efforts of local authorities and private developers were only just keeping pace with the growth in the gypsy population although the figures for July 1994, which I have just seen, indicate quite a big improvement on the figures for the year earlier. There was a decrease in that year of 620 in the number of unauthorised encampments. It could be that we were excluding local authorities from providing any sites just at the moment when they were starting to get into their stride.
  In recent years the Government began to realise that, even with the incentive of a 100 per cent. grant, some local authorities were never going to meet their obligations under the 1968 Act without being prodded— a fact which had been obvious ever since the Act came into force. Yet directions under Section 9 had been given to only four authorities. Where directions have been given, they appear to have been partially effective.
  For example, in West Glamorgan a direction was given requiring the authority to provide 60 pitches in 1986. So far, 43 of them have been completed. In Hertfordshire—the worst case—directions were given in 1988 to provide 110 additional pitches. I am afraid that the authority was successful in providing only 35. As I said in Committee, one of the effects of this legislation will be that two further sites, to bring the number up to the 110 which the local authority would have provided in due course, are now to disappear from the plans.
  In Surrey, directions were given in 1989 to provide for an extra 190 caravans. So far, 48 have been provided for, but there are plans for another 144 pitches, which

  479
  would have been implemented in due course. Again, the result of the legislation is to cross the extra sites off the list of those that would ultimately have been provided. In Avon, directions were given in 1990 for 80 additional caravans to be provided for. Of those, 76 have so far been completed.
  On the whole, the figures show that directions under Section 9 of the Act were effective, and if the Government had wanted the Act to work they could have issued further directions to other local authorities which had not done their job. On the other hand, they could have accepted the recommendation made by Cripps some years ago that government and local authorities should get together and agree a programme with target dates for the whole country. I believe, however, that the Government wanted the Act to fail. Their Tory fundamentalist ideology would never have allowed them to consider a national plan or central co-ordination of proposals by local authorities to ensure proper sharing between them of the responsibility for the provision of sites.
  The Government were not even prepared to look at plans which the local authorities were already making to see whether completion of all the sites that were on the drawing board would have achieved a balance between the number of gypsy caravans nationally and the number of pitches which would have been on offer. Mr. Jones asserted, manifestly wrongly, that to delay repeal of the 1968 Act,
  "would simply add to the problem".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/94; col. 373.]
  I should like the Minister who is replying to the debate to tell the House how fewer local authority sites—which is the result of this legislation—will add to the problem. Clearly, the bigger the shortage of pitches, the greater the number of unauthorised encampments will be. For perhaps two years the schemes already in the pipeline will continue to be implemented. So there will be little change in the total provision in the near future. After that, with no new council plans coming forward, there is likely to be a shortfall of about 200 pitches a year, which would have been provided by local authorities. That estimate is based on the number which have been provided by local authorities over the past four years. It is probably on the low side. As I said, from the July 1994 figures it looks as though there will be some acceleration.
  I mentioned the example of Surrey where there are now 144 unauthorised caravans and where county proposals for future sites would have met that need in toto. But as the chairman of the county's gypsy sub-committee told me—I quote from a letter that she wrote—
  "enactment of the — Bill — will seriously affect the achievement of that aim".
  Mr. Jones said that local authorities have failed. He says:
  "We cannot simply turn round and say that they are likely to succeed if they have another five years".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/94; col. 373.]
  So the Act has failed and the local authorities have failed. But, according to him, the local authorities are entirely blameless. Undoubtedly some local authorities
  480
  have done less than they might have done and some would have benefited from the pressure that a Section 9 direction would have exerted on them. But it is a plain fact, which the Government cannot possibly deny, that fewer sites will be provided over the next 10 years as a result of the provisions of the Bill. There is no structural fault in the original legislation, but there is a whopping great structural fault in the Government's logic.
  Again, the Minister said:
  "The sites are plainly not being delivered on a large enough scale under the present arrangements and satisfactory provision is more likely in the future".
  I ask the Government whether we are in agreement that the rate of provision of sites has been too low. If the provision of sites has only just kept pace with the growth of the gypsy population, do we therefore need to increase the rate at which sites are brought into use? That is how I understand Mr. Jones's remarks in the other place.
  How can satisfactory provision be more likely when one removes from the scene the local authorities which have been responsible for providing two thirds of the accommodation which is available on authorised sites as at today? It is true that private operators have been making an increased contribution in recent years and that has to be welcomed. Over the past four years the number of additional pitches on private sites has been about the same as on council sites. It means as a matter of simple arithmetic that private operators would have to double their output to make up for the loss of local authority provision once the sites in the pipeline had been completed. But the Minister said that he wants to do more than that. He wants them to deal with the backlog as well. So the private site operators have to more than double the contribution that they have made in recent years.
  Do the Government believe that Circular 1/94 is likely to stimulate private site operators and owner occupiers to that extent and that local authorities will more than double the number of planning permissions that they award as a result of the circular? Have they indeed made any estimate at all of the increase in private site provision that is likely to result from the circular? They have been very careful to avoid mentioning any figures up to now. I believe that they do not have the faintest idea of what the outcome is likely to be.
  According to Mr. Tom Lee, the secretary of the Romany Guild, only one of its members has obtained planning permission since the circular—namely, Mr. Dunn of Maidstone—and even he faces an appeal against the award. Mr. Charles Smith of the Gypsy Council points out that Basildon Council is withholding the renewal of site licences for gypsies on private land pending the determination of new policies, presumably to take account of the circular and the repeal of the 1968 Act. So the immediate result in the local authority area of Basildon is to create uncertainty which never existed in the past about private sites.
  With regard to tolerated sites, we have just had the draft circular issued by the Department of the Environment. That leaves matters substantially as they are. The Secretaries of State say that where gypsies are unlawfully camped on council land, are not causing a

  481
  great nuisance and have no alternative authorised accommodation to go to, the authorities should continue to tolerate their presence temporarily. So in Kent, for instance, according to the survey of 1994, there were 64 tolerated caravans accounting for some 10 per cent. of the total of 693 in the county. But in the opinion of Mr. Bill Forrester, the chairman of ACERT, toleration is very much a short term expedient and not a substitute for authorised sites where proper facilities can be provided, and regulations observed which will minimise the causes of friction with any nearby occupiers.
  Do the Government agree with me that no increase at all can be expected in the rate of provision of private sites until the local authorities have revised their plans in accordance with the circular? If so, do they agree that the average time to incorporate the advice of the circular in the structure plans is roughly 18 months?
  If, on the other hand, the Government believe that the local authorities may be inclined to grant planning applications more readily now—for example, in consequence of the advice given in paragraph 21 of the circular—is there any evidence to that effect from the 9 months since the circular was issued, notwithstanding the experience of Mr. Lee and Mr. Smith that I quoted? Have they any idea how many pitches have been included in successful planning applications over that period and how that compares with the corresponding period of 1993? Or do they agree that what they are doing is a leap in the dark?
  In a letter to Mr. Andrew Hunter MP, the Minister Mr. Jones said that the result, if my noble kinsman's amendment were to be accepted, would be that:
  "the Department would be required, for at least five years, to continue to enforce the existing mandatory system of local authority site provision, and to support further site provision with 100% grants".
  I should be very happy if the 100 per cent. grants were to continue, but I see nothing about that in the amendment. I feel that the Minister was badly advised and has unintentionally misled Mr. Hunter and I am not sure how many other Members of another place in making that assertion in his letter. I should be glad if the Minister who is to reply will confirm that Mr. Jones was wrong to put that in his letter.
  Mr. Jones's letter continues with two arguments that I have not heard before at any stage of our lengthy discussions. He writes:
  "The amendments would thoroughly undermine our policy of encouraging private site provision, and would maintain a system of site provision that is long overdue for reform".
  In what possible manner, pray, could the temporary continuation of a role for the local authorities undermine the private operators? The gypsies will continue to buy land and apply for planning permission, just as they have always done in the past; and local authorities will continue to grant planning permission to private applicants based on planning considerations, as they have always done in the past. If they did not observe the injunction of paragraph 21 of the circular, that private applications are not to be refused on the grounds that public provision in the area is adequate, or that alternative accommodation is available on the
  482
  authority's own sites, there would be grounds for the applicant to appeal. So, in my submission, private site provision is entirely independent of anything done by the local authorities. I challenge the Minister to disagree with that proposition.
  The system of site provision in the 1968 Act was not long overdue for reform. It was long overdue for implementation and the Government had the means to do it if they had wished. That has been the message of every single NGO, including religious bodies such as the Quakers and those concerned with the interests of children, mothers, gypsy organisations and of all the local authority associations. On a previous occasion in this House it was also the view of a substantial majority of your Lordships and presumably it remains so, despite the strong arm methods of the Whips. The Government stand alone in their monolithic and invincible resistance to all the arguments of reason and humanity. They have forgotten the dictum of a former Prime Minister and great leader of the Conservative Party, Lord Salisbury, who said 100 years ago:
  "By a democracy I do not mean a society in which seven men may make six men do as they please".
  I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do insist on their Amendment No. 79, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.—(Lord Avebury.)
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I understand from the Clerks that it is correct for me to say something now rather than after the Minister. I do not intend to repeat the case put forward in favour of the amendment. Your Lordships discussed the matter fully during the passage of the Bill. However, I am sorry that the Government instructed the Commons to reject your Lordships' amendment—a decision which both I and your Lordships believe will result in unauthorised and illegal encampments remaining—as, under the Government's plan, there will be nowhere to re-site the travellers. Indeed, the guidelines mentioned by my noble kinsman recently issued by the Department of the Environment, encourage local authorities to tolerate such unauthorised and illegal encampments.
  The Government decided to ignore your Lordships' views, which were supported by all the local authority councils, the Church and Save the Children Fund. But— and it is an important "but"—we are first and foremost a revising Chamber. I believe your Lordships performed that role in this case carefully and conscientiously. But your Lordships should now accede to the will of the Commons and do so gracefully. We win some; this one we lost.
  I conclude by saying that, having moved the cross-party amendment, I thank all noble Lords for their support, particularly my fellow Conservative Back-Benchers. It is never as easy as it looks to defy the Whip. But despite what The Times wrote last Thursday, all Conservative Chief Whips—even my noble kinsman Lord Denham—always allowed their Back-Benchers on this side of the House to vote according to our consciences. When I became a Member of your Lordships' House over 20 years ago I was told

  483
  that I should not hesitate or be frightened to do so. I hope sincerely that when the House is reformed and I and others are no longer here to keep our Front Bench happy, that will still be the case; otherwise this House will become a sycophantic mirror image of the Commons.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Stanley whom I supported on this matter throughout the various stages of the Bill. I entirely agree that this is not the time nor the subject matter on which to insist that another place accept our amendment. I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind.
  I believe that the Government have a good Bill in many parts. I do not pretend for one moment that it is perfect in all respects; and indeed there are areas where unfortunately some pigeons may come home to roost. Nevertheless, we have done our stuff as a revising Chamber on all these matters. We asked Members of another place to think again. They have thought again and, apart from airing our views, we should not "take on" another place.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am reluctant to follow the noble Viscount because I disagree profoundly with him regarding the quality of the Bill as a whole. In many ways the Bill, most of which we have not the opportunity of debating today—and some will say thank goodness!—is an extremely bad Bill, particularly Part V with which we are concerned. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, whose speech I much admired, to agree with me about other parts of Part V.
  The issue of gypsy caravan sites and the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is, for obvious and admirable reasons, close to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He set out far better than I could the reasons why he continues to support the provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, introduced into the Bill to enable that Act to continue for another five years.
  I read the debate: in the Commons carefully. I read the Minister's speech and the speeches of the two Conservative Back-Benchers who took part and I was deeply unimpressed by the arguments against our amendment. If Ministers can describe what they are doing in regard to the provision of sites for gypsies as a "reform", then they can only be described as using the word "reform" in an Orwellian sense. This is not reform; it is the abolition of opportunities which have existed— we must agree that they were never adequately used and nobody denies that the Caravan Sites Act has been patchy in its success—but which are not being replaced under the new legislation by any effective alternative provision. Therefore, unless the Minister has something remarkable and new to say to me and to the House this evening on the merits of the argument, I would wish strongly to support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
  I am in no way convinced that the Government put forward an adequate case to take out our amendment. However, the position to which I referred in regard to Amendment No. 1 still holds good. I believe in the primacy of the elected Chamber and, as the matter was fairly considered in another place, it would not be proper
  484
  for us to seek to overturn what has already been proposed. That is not to say that that applies to every single occasion and it may not apply to every single occasion today. But unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, this is not a matter on which my colleagues and I on the Front Bench wish to go into the Lobbies with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What my colleagues on the Back-Benches choose to do is entirely a matter for them.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend will seek the opinion of the House, and it would be presumptuous of me to make any suggestion in that regard. But with your Lordships' permission, I should like to mention a number of matters that affect that judgment.
  Your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber; but it is also a constitutional watchdog. On this issue we are confronted with the way in which we treat a tiny and vulnerable ethnic minority—the gypsies. They are people who have faced hardship, adversity and discrimination in many countries. I remember the great saying of Hugh Gaitskell many years ago that the litmus test of a civilised society is the way in which it treats ethnic minorities.
  The effect of the Government's instruction in another place is certain to lead to international condemnation by the UN human rights committee for failure to comply properly with the obligations imposed on this country by Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since, under our system of government in a parliamentary democracy, there is no other way in which your Lordships can consider the matter, I apologise for taking a few moments to explain what I mean.
  Article 26 of the international covenant guarantees equal protection of the law and equality before the law without discrimination. It has been consistently interpreted by the quasi-judicial body, the human rights committee, as requiring positive protection and affirmative action for ethnic minority groups. The effect of the Government's instruction in another place will be to dismantle an important means of affirmative action or positive protection by local authorities in giving site provision to gypsies.
  Last year, when the Irish Government's report on their compliance with the international covenant was considered by the human rights committee, the human rights committee complimented Ireland on the positive steps it had taken to give greater protection to gypsies. It also urged that further steps should be taken. Our Government in this country are due to report to the human rights committee this month on our compliance with the covenant and next spring the human rights committee will have to consider our record. What is said and done in this House and in another place is certain to lead to argument, criticism and, in my humble opinion, condemnation if we leave the matter to stand as it is. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister can indicate in reply whether the United Kingdom Government have considered the effect on their obligations under Article 26 of the covenant of repealing the protection in the 1968 Act, whether their report to the human rights

  485
  committee will contain a summary of what has happened during the passage of this legislation, whether they will provide copies of the parliamentary debates and whether they have obtained any further advice on the international dimension of the problem.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, I want briefly to underline a point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury. In this case it is not only a question of our acting as a revising Chamber and putting forward an improvement to the proposed legislation. In this case the law which was previously passed has been flouted by local authorities which have not provided the sites which they were required to provide. Is your Lordships' House really happy to go along with supporting people who are quite blatant lawbreakers in this regard?
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley moved a cross-party amendment at the Report stage which was carried against the Government. Therefore, I am particularly grateful to him and to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret for speaking in the way that they did this evening. I understand completely the strength of my noble friend's feelings and I hope that my remarks will go some way to allay some of his fears.
  Clause 75 would repeal the provisions in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 which place a duty on local authorities to provide sites for gypsy caravans. It would also repeal the Secretary of State's powers to designate local authority areas and to direct local authorities to provide sites. At the same time the Secretary of State's power to pay grant for the construction of sites would be repealed.
  The amendments which this House agreed at Report stage would delay that commencement for at least another five years, until at least 1st July 1999. Even then the repeals would only be brought in piecemeal by means of commencement orders. In some areas that would mean the provisions of the 1968 Act lingering on for years. To add to that, the onerous and unwieldy nature of the affirmative resolution procedure required for each order would place an intolerable burden on the parliamentary timetable. We believe too that such orders would be hybrid.
  I know that the amendments were the expression of a genuine concern which this House felt at the time— noble Lords have expressed that feeling again today— for those gypsies who might be disadvantaged by bringing the current system of local authority site provision to an end. The Government have thought long and hard about the matter over the summer. I cannot accept the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about delaying it until the last possible moment, and I shall explain why. We have had in mind the undertaking in the 1992 Conservative election manifesto to reduce the nuisance of illegal camping by reviewing the 1968 Act, and we have considered what advice we should give to local authorities about using their new powers in a responsible and humane way. Our view remains, however, that the current legislation requires extensive reform and that local authorities generally, and not just those in the so-called designated
  486
  areas, should have a quick and effective means of dealing with the nuisance of illegal camping, which can strike anywhere.
  I know that these provisions have been debated at great length both in this House and in another place, with each House having the opportunity to express its views on the Government's proposals. When the Commons divided on these amendments last week they were rejected with a solid majority of 39. The fact is that despite the hours of debate which have been devoted to this clause we must conclude that the existing policy enshrined in the 1968 Act has not fulfilled its objective of providing sites for all gypsies. The time has come for a new approach. Illegal camping has not been reduced. The level of unauthorised camping has hardly changed in the past 13 years despite more than £87 million having been spent on local authority sites alone. Communities still suffer from the nuisance of illegal camping, and gypsies remain without homes.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may be surprised to hear from me that the 1968 Act has achieved a measure of success. I do not deny that. There are well over 300 local authority sites providing accommodation for 46 per cent. of gypsy caravans. That is a far cry from the pre-1968 Act days when only 10 per cent. of gypsy caravans had a legal site. But, more importantly, what is different now is that some 24 per cent. of gypsy caravans are on authorised sites on privately-owned land, often belonging to gypsies themselves. Furthermore, there is a substantial number of gypsies who have bought land on which they have sited caravans but do not yet have planning permission. Private provision has increased by 136 per cent. since 1981, twice the rate of council site provision.
  The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quoted figures about the provision of local authority sites and said that the number was not sufficient. I have to agree, but it would not be right to draw an inference from one year's figures alone. The net increase in 1993 was only 47 pitches on local authority sites. The noble Lord also accused the Government of failure to enforce the Act by giving directions. The direction power is one of last resort. The Government have provided 100 per cent. grants since 1978 and have encouraged local authorities in a number of ways; for example, on monitoring of performance. I believe that in almost every instance local authorities have acted in good faith.
  Private provision is, I believe, the pointer to the future. There is a desire among many gypsies to take charge of their own arrangements for accommodation. Our planning guidance, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—Circular 1/94 issued in January of this year—aims to promote that process by putting gypsies in the same position as other developers under the planning system. Local authorities are advised to include policies in their development plans to meet the accommodation needs of gypsies and to offer practical help and advice to gypsies making planning applications. We are determined to see that the planning system works fairly for gypsies both now and when the local plans are adopted.

  487
  During the debates in this House I have been struck by the concern expressed by noble Lords for the plight of those gypsies who may genuinely find themselves without a legal site to go to and who might therefore fall foul of the new power in Clause 72 of the Bill. That concern was expressed again this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The noble Lord asked me whether we had considered Section 26 of the international convention on human rights. The Government have considered their human rights obligations and do not believe that our proposals infringe international law. So much so that Ministers in both Houses, responding to the anxieties also outlined by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have given a commitment that the Government will issue advice to local authorities recommending a policy of toleration towards gypsies on unauthorised sites.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley may have seen the circular which has been provided. It will advise local authorities that they should not use their powers to evict gypsies needlessly. I believe that he said that they would continue the siting of these gypsies on illegal sites. However, in those cases where gypsies are causing no great nuisance the local authorities should exercise tolerance. Local authorities should also look at ways in which they can minimise any nuisance or hazard to public health, and that of the gypsies, which the site may cause. We go on to advise that in the longer term authorities should try to identify emergency stopping places in areas close to the gypsies' transit routes where they could camp for a short period.
  I know that another particular anxiety among noble Lords and others has been the effect which the nomadic life has on the welfare and education of gypsy children. I believe that that has been recognised from the very beginning on both sides as a persistent problem which the Government have addressed in various ways, and the local authorities; have done so as well, and which they will continue to address. Local authorities have their part to play and our advice will draw to their attention the need to take into account their statutory responsibilities towards these families under the Children Act, the Housing Act and the Education Act.
  The Department of the Environment has already consulted about this advice in a draft circular issued in September which many of your Lordships may have seen. We are currently considering the responses which we have received, not only from gypsies' own representative organisations, but also bodies such as Save the Children Fund and the Maternity Alliance. These latter bodies are particularly concerned about the health and welfare of families with young children. Both have said that they welcome our advice, which the Save the Children Fund say "goes a long way to addressing our concerns". The Maternity Alliance remark on the "generally sympathetic tone and approach of the circular".
  Local authorities have much experience in dealing with the problems that can arise when gypsies have nowhere to go. We consider that local authorities are in the best position to judge the nature of any encampment and whether eviction is warranted for the good of the community as a whole. But the draft circular makes it
  488
  clear that gypsies—that is, the traditional and genuine nomadic people—should be treated tolerantly. At the same time we believe that it is in the public interest that private land should be better protected against unlawful intrusion by trespassers, and we have given local authorities a quick and effective power to tackle unauthorised camping where necessary.
  I believe that it would fly in the face of reason and experience to continue with a system which can only produce ever diminishing returns. There has been a duty on local authorities to provide sites for some 24 years, and for the last 16 of those gypsy site grant has been available, too. And yet the job has still not been completed. For the past two years—since we announced our proposals to reform the 1968 Act—one might well have expected local authorities to deluge the Secretary of State with applications for grant for sites. That has just not happened, and I see no evidence that another five years of the current regime would result in accelerated activity on the part of local authorities. It is time to look to another solution to the problem, building on what has been achieved so far but recognising the very different situation that faces gypsies and local communities today than when the 1968 Act was drafted. In 1968 only 10 per cent. of gypsies were on authorised sites. Today that figure is nearer 70 per cent. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government chose to look at that legislation—now nearly a quarter of a century old—to see if the statutory foundation for our policy on gypsy site provision was still valid.
  For these reasons, I commend Clause 75 in its original form to the House and not as amended by your Lordships at Report stage. I therefore ask the House to vote against the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, if he intends to press it.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to say that that is a grossly unsatisfactory reply. I do not believe that the Minister has listened to a word that I said. I am reinforced in that opinion because I notice that he did not depart from his brief for the whole of the 10 minutes or so that he was addressing your Lordships. I asked him a number of specific questions and he did not have the courtesy to reply to one of them.
  I asked him whether he thought that more or fewer sites were going to be provided as a result of the insistence by the Government on removing the amendment. The noble Viscount did not answer that or any of the detailed questions on numbers which I put to him. I suggest that is because he knows the truth; namely, that removing local authorities from the equation is going to result in fewer rather than more sites being provided for gypsies and more gypsies having to camp on unauthorised sites which is what the Government say they are trying to avoid.
  He gives local authorities the power to move the gypsies on, but he knows perfectly well that that simply shoves them over the border into somebody else's area for them to pick up the pieces, which was the procedure before the 1968 Act came into force. The Government have no reply to the question why it does not use Section 9 directions. The Minister ignored that totally in his remarks. I asked him why only three local authorities

  489
  had been the subject of directions and why, as the experience was that local authorities which had been the subject of Section 9 directions had accelerated the provision of sites in their areas, they did not use the same mechanism in other areas.
  The Minister has no reply to any of the arguments put, including those of my noble friends, that the Government were abdicating all responsibility by failing to comply not only with Section 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but also with their obligations under the Copenhagen declaration of the CFCE which imposes a positive and affirmative duty on governments to take action in support of the preservation of the rights of minorities. The Government failed at the Warsaw seminar of the CFCE on gypsies to make any comment at all. They kept their heads down in the hope that nobody would notice what was happening in your Lordships' House although I sent a copy of the Official Report of the Committee stage. The Government probably hope that nothing will be said about their policy on gypsies at the present human dimension review meeting which is taking place in Budapest where the performance of states and their obligations under the Copenhagen declaration of 1990 is being examined. I shall make sure that somebody else raises the matter if the Government do not wish to present their policy on gypsies at that meeting.
  We are not now talking about the circular on which the Minister spent some time, although I agree that it contains some good things. The issue is whether or not we insist on the amendment which retains the duty of local authorities to provide sites for gypsies. That is a plain question which your Lordships now have to decide. I do not accept the arguments which have been put forward about the constitutional issue. I know that there is a particular argument which appeals to the Opposition; namely, that they will soon be in government and they will have to face the Conservatives on the opposite side of the House who may play the same trick on them. That is the reason and it has nothing to do with principle or the constitution.
  As far as I am concerned this is a matter of principle. I believe that the rights of gypsies need to be safeguarded and that your Lordships' House is the only body to which they can look to safeguard their position in the country which they have enjoyed for the past 17 years. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to insist on the amendment.
  5.59 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 208.

  Division No.1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Birk, B.

  Airedale, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Avebury, L. [Teller.]

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Bath, M.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  490

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Meston, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

  Monson, L.

  Elis-Thomas, L.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Falkender, B.

  Mulley, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Portsmouth, Bp.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Rea, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Grey, E.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Russell, E.

  Seear, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Jeger, B

  Shepherd, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Kagan, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

  Taylor Blackburn, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Longford, E.

  Tope, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Varley, L.

  Mason of Bamsley, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Whaddon, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Coleridge, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Colnbrook, L.

  Aldenham, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Aldington, L.

  Cox, B.

  Alexander of Weedon, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

  Annaly, L.

  Cross, V.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Arran, E. [Teller.]

  Davidson, V.

  Ashboume, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Denham, L.

  Astor, V.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Devonshire, D.

  Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

  Digby, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Blake, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Blaker, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Blatch, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Elles, B.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Fairhaven, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Flather, B.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Burton, L.

  Gibson-Watt, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Goold, L.

  Camden, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hacking, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Hambleden, V.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Cayzer, L.

  Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Harrowby, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Harvington, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Henley, L.

  491

  Hives, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Pender, L.

  Hood, V.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Pike, B.

  Howe, E.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Huntly, M.

  Poole, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Porter of Luddenham, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Pym, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Rees, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Renton, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Rippon of Hexham, L.

  Kirnberley, E.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Kindersley, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Knutsford, V.

  Sandford, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Savile, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Seccombe, B.

  Leigh, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Lindsay, E.

  Sharples, B.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Lucas, L.

  St. Davids, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Chancellor.]

  Strange, B.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

  Mancroft, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Manton, L.

  Stiathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Suffield, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Swinfen, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Tebbit, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Trumpington, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Tryon, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ullswater, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Vestey, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Vivian, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Watkinson, V.

  Northesk, E.

  Waverley, V.

  Onslow, E.

  Wharton, B.

  Oppaaheim-Barnes, B.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Orkney, E.

  Wise, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Yarborough, E.

  Palmer, L.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
  6.11 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  79 Page 60, line 24, at end insert:
  ("( ) This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 152.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  79A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relate;; to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 79 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 79A.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
  Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had
  (".—(1) After section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Criteria for suitability to which special regard to be had.
  4A.—(1) The designated authority shall, in making any determination as to the suitability of a video work, have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with—

  (a) criminal behaviour;

  (b) illegal drugs;

  (c) violent behaviour or incidents;

  (d) horrific behaviour or incidents; or

  (e) human sexual activity.

  (2) For the purposes of this section—
  "potential viewer" means any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video work in question if a classification certificate or a classification certificate of a particular description were issued;
  "suitability" means suitability for the issue of a classification certificate or suitability for the issue of a certificate of a particular description;
  "violent behaviour" includes any act inflicting or likely to result in the infliction of injury;
  and any behaviour or activity referred to in subsection (1) (a) to (e) above shall be taken to include behaviour or activity likely to stimulate or encourage it.".
  (2) In section 7(2) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (contents of classification certificates), in paragraph (a), after the words "viewing by children", there shall be inserted the words "or young children".")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  82A Line 3, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections'.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82A to Lords Amendment No. 82.
  When the matter of some sort of review of previous video classification decisions was raised in this House at earlier stages of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated that there would be practical difficulties in the establishment and operation of such a scheme. However, in response to the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere, we have engaged in very helpful discussions with the director of the British Board of Film Classification and bodies representing trading standards officers. What has emerged is a system of review which is likely to be applied in a small number of cases and which, therefore, will be unlikely to be subject to the

  493
  same practical difficulties as would be unavoidable in any wider approach. But the Government have decided that it is right to do something, and I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a measured and practical response to what is undoubtedly a real concern.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82A to Lords Amendment No. 82.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
  Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had.
  (".—(1) After section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Criteria for suitability to which special regard to be had.
  4A.—(1) The designated authority shall, in making any determination as to the suitability of a video work, have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with—

  (a) criminal behaviour;

  (b) illegal drugs;

  (c) violent behaviour or incidents;

  (d) horrific behaviour or incidents; or

  (e) human sexual activity.

  (2) For the purposes of this section—
  "potential viewer" means any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video work in question if a classification certificate or a classification certificate of a particular description were issued;
  "suitability" means suitability for the issue of a classification certificate or suitability for the issue of a certificate of a particular description;
  "violent behaviour" includes any act inflicting or likely to result in the infliction of injury; and any behaviour or activity referred to in subsection (1) (a) to (e) above shall be taken to include behaviour or activity likely to stimulate or encourage it.".
  (2) In section 7(2) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (contents of classification certificates), in paragraph (a), after the words "viewing by children", there shall be inserted the words "or young children".")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  82B After Clause 82, line 28, at end insert;
  'Review of determinations as to suitability.
  4B.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision enabling the designated authority to review any determination made by them, before the coming into force of section 4A of this Act, as to the suitability of a video work.
  (2) The order may in particular provide—

  (a) for the authority's power of review to be exercisable in relation to such determinations as the authority think fit;

  (b) for the authority to determine, on any review, whether, if they were then determining the suitability of the video work to which the determination under review relates, they—

  (i) would issue a classification certificate, or

  494

  (ii) would issue a different classification certificate;

  (c) for the cancellation of a classification certificate, where they determine that they would not issue a classification certificate;

  (d) for the cancellation of a classification certificate and issue of a new classification certificate, where they determine that they would issue a different classification certificate;

  (e) for any such cancellation or issue not to take effect until the end of such period as may be determined in accordance with the order;

  (f) for such persons as may appear to the authority to fall within a specified category of person to be notified of any such cancellation or issue in such manner as may be specified;

  (g) for treating a classification certificate, in relation to any act or omission occurring after its cancellation, as if it had not been issued;

  (h)for specified provisions of this Act to apply to determinations made on a review subject to such modifications (if any) as may be specified;

  (i) for specified regulations made under section 8 of this Act to apply to a video work in respect of which a new classification certificate has been issued subject to such modifications (if any) as may be specified.

  (3) In subsection (2) above "specified" means specified by an order made under this section.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall not make any order under this section unless he is satisfied that adequate arrangements will be made for an appeal against determinations made by the designated authority on a review.
  (5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (6) In this section "suitability" has the same meaning as in section 4A of this Act.'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82B to Lords Amendment No. 82.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82B to Lords Amendment No. 82.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  122 After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
  ("Male rape and buggery
  Male rape and buggery

  .— (1) Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (offence of buggery) shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (1), after the words "another person" there shall be inserted the words "otherwise than in lawful circumstances".

  (3) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  "(1A) An act of buggery takes place in lawful circumstances if it takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of eighteen.

  (1B) An act of buggery by a man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place—

  495

  (a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or

  (b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.".")

  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  122A After Clause 133, line 6, leave out 'lawful circumstances' and insert 'the circumstances described in subsection (1A) below'.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122A to Lords Amendment No. 122.
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 122B, 122C and 122D. These are all minor technical amendments. The main purpose of these technical amendments is to improve the wording of Amendment No. 122 to avoid any suggestion that rape in private might somehow be lawful. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 122A to Lords Amendment No. 122.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  122 After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
  ("Male rape and buggery
  Male rape and buggery

  .— (1) Section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (offence of buggery) shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (1), after the words "another person" there shall be inserted the words "otherwise than in lawful circumstances".

  (3) After subsection (1), there shall be inserted the fallowing subsections—

  "(1A) An act of buggery takes place in lawful circumstances if it takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of eighteen.

  (1B) An act of buggery by a man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place—

  (a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or

  (b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.".")

  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments:
  122B After Clause 133, line 9, leave out 'An act of buggery takes place in lawful circumstances if it' and insert 'The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) are that the act of buggery'.
  122C After Clause 133, line 12, leave out 'a' and insert 'one'.
  22D After Clause 133, line 16, after 'otherwise' insert:
  '(1C) In any proceedings against a person for buggery with another person it shall be for the prosecutor to prove that the act of buggery took place otherwise than in private or that one of the parties to it had not attained the age of eighteen.'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 122B, 122C and 122D.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 122B, 122C and 122D.— (Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  6.15 p.m.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  125 Before Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
  ("Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  (". In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

  (a) in subsection (2), for the words after "any provision" there shall be substituted the words "brought into force under subsection (1) above,"; and

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

  "(2A) Sections 108 to 117 above and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is passed.".")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  125B Lord Ackner to move, That this House do not insist on their amendment 125, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu:
  Insert the following new Clause—
  ("Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation: Commencement and Modification of 1988 Act

  .—(1) Section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

  (2) For subsections (3) and (4) there shall be substituted—

  "(3) No later than 12 months after the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 the Secretary of State shall by regulations made by Statutory Instrument make provision for the coming into force of sections 108 to 117 of and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act.
  (3A) Regulations made under subsection (3) above may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in the light of current circumstances to modify the provisions contained in those sections or Schedules.
  (3B) No regulations shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (3C) Before the Secretary of State makes regulations under subsection (3) above he shall consult such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate, and shall lay before Parliament the results of the consultation.".").
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 125B in lieu thereof. With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to my Motion No. 175B, although I am sorry to have to say that there is a printer's error on the Marshalled List which needs correcting because the word "not" was omitted from Amendment No. 175B, the first line of which should read:
  "that this House do not insist",
  rather than "insist".

  497
  My amendment in lieu relates to the much debated question of the compensation for victims of serious crime. The amendment in lieu is designed to provide the Government with all their legitimate anxieties properly satisfied, but before coming to the actual terms of the amendment in lieu, perhaps I may first explain, or remind the House briefly, as to why an amendment is required at all.
  Your Lordships will no doubt remember that it was over 30 years ago that the first criminal injuries compensation system came into existence. Successive governments have continued it in force right up until today. The basis of the compensation was a simple enough one. It was that the victim recovered that which he would have received if he had successfully sued the criminal. With some alterations, one major one that has to be kept in mind is that, so far as concerns loss of income or wages, there was a cap which is one-and-a-half times the national average wage.
  The common law measure of damages, as it has been referred to, is a fundamental tenet of justice, because it matches the compensation to the individual's circumstances. The amendment is designed to maintain that system in existence. The scheme started life as a non-statutory scheme. The payments were ex gratia. That matter continued without any form of criticism for some 15 years until the Pearson Commission on civil liability and the assessment of damages reported. It reported its agreement to that basis of compensation, but said that it should be put on a statutory basis. The reason for that, quite simply, was that large sums of money were being paid out and it was considered appropriate that there should be parliamentary control over such funds, and that could be achieved only if the scheme was put on a statutory basis.
  The Government, within months of the Pearson Commission so recommending, agreed to the recommendation, both as to the scheme being put on a statutory basis and continuing on the basis of common law damages—the ordinary method of compensation. But, although they agreed to that in 1979, it was not until 1988 that they actually implemented their promise, and the Government themselves in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 made extensive provision to put the scheme on a statutory basis. There are in fact some 16 pages to be found in the Queen's Printers' copy of the Act, dealing solely and wholly with compensation of victims of crime.
  The obligation to put the matter on a statutory basis was not brought into force immediately because it was discovered that there was an unprecedented rise in claims. Such was the backlog that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who much regrets his inability to be present today as a result of a recent hip operation, asked that the implementation be delayed for the moment until the backlog could be coped with. Instead of the scheme being implemented in 1988 or 1989 it was agreed that it should be streamlined.
  Suddenly, on 23rd November 1992 the Secretary of State, in a Written Answer to a parliamentary Question, gave notice that the Government intended to introduced a new tariff-based scheme to compensate victims of
  498
  violent crime. Without prior consultation the Government produced in December 1993 a White Paper entitled Compensating victims of violent crime: Changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which set out their plans in more detail. The tariff system was said by the Government to provide "a better service to victims". Under the heading "Need for change", paragraph 9 of the White Paper states:
  "Against that background"—
  that is a reference to the need for greater speed and consistency of decision—
  "the Government concluded last year that a scheme based on common law damages was inherently incapable of delivering the standard of service claimants should now reasonably expect. That is a service which produces awards reasonably quickly and in an understandable and predictable manner. Accordingly, the Government decided to introduce a new scheme based on a tariff or scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity."
  The nature of the tariff scheme was simply that some 25 different categories of injuries were considered and a lump sum provided for each. No longer was there to be awarded loss of wages, compensation to cover the costs of medical services or special expenses such as adapting a house or dwelling to accommodate a particularly disabled person.
  Your Lordships probably know that under the common law basis for damages, a figure is provided for loss of amenities, pain and suffering. The figure is within a bracket worked out over the years and brought up to date in accordance with inflationary tendencies. It compensates the victim merely for the particular injury and the loss of amenities and the pain and suffering. It has been subjected to recent criticism that it is too low, the top figure allowed for the most injured person being about £125,000. The major part of the awards for serious injuries relates to the loss of wages, medical expenses and other such matters.
  Perhaps I may indicate how the award may be made up. Earlier this year there was a case involving a man in his mid-40s who had been paralysed from the neck down. He received an award which involved £72,000 for loss of earnings (that is £6,000 per year on the basis of 12 years' purchase), a sum for future medical and care costs and support of £726,000 (that is based on a 15-year period), and a sum for alternations to his house, special care, special transport and so forth of £255,000. None of those items would be provided now to a person thus injured.
  The tariff scheme pays no regard to the difference in age of the people injured, their sex or their way of life. Many examples have been given to your Lordships indicating how the seriously injured person will receive but a fraction of what has previously been obtained.
  The justification for the amendment to stop the implementation of the tariff scheme was initially that it would work gross unfairness. It would mean that those who suffered the most serious injuries would in future receive but a fraction of what they had previously obtained. Examples were given to your Lordships showing cases in which, under the tariff scheme, people would receive one-tenth or even less of what they achieve now. It operates not only in relation to the people who are most seriously injured but also to those

  499
  whose injuries have the most disabling consequences. They are those whose injuries are not, on the face of it, all that significant: under the tariff system they will achieve £10,000 or £20,000 but they will in fact lose large sums in loss of income, expenditure on medical treatment and the like.
  There is a third category of people who will be seriously affected—the dependent relatives of those who are killed as a result of criminal activities. Under the Fatal Accidents Act, which is followed in the ordinary claim and under the criminal compensation scheme, a dependant receives compensation on the basis of his dependency on the: person who had been killed. In criminal compensation cases, that was capped on the basis that the loss of wages had to be calculated as not exceeding one-and-a-half times the national average. It meant that in many cases a dependent widow would receive a six-figure sum for loss of dependency. Under the tariff scheme she will receive £10,000 plus funeral expenses. Therefore, as a result of the tariff scheme, dependent relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter are placed in a desperate situation.
  The first justification for the amendment was that the scheme was grossly unfair and that therefore it should not replace the system that had been in existence for the past 30 years. That system followed the well-acknowledged common law basis of taking each individual and compensating that individual in relation to the consequences upon him or her of the injury.
  The second justification for the amendment was, as I have indicated, that the Government had piloted through the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in particular 16 pages of provisions which made the non-statutory scheme statutory. Now, as I have indicated by giving an outline of the history, without consulting Parliament and without going back to Parliament to ask Parliament to legislate to change the position, the Government seek to exercise by executive action their prerogative powers and say, "We will not bring into force that which Parliament decided should be brought into force. We will bring into force, without consultation, something entirely different and in fact quite contrary to the whole of the common law basis." That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, as an abuse of Parliament. The same observation was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I referred to it as a serious affront to Parliament. My noble and learned friend Lord Bridge expressed the matter succinctly in a short intervention when he said:
  "It seems to me that there is one overriding principle upon which the amendment depends—and that is that the basis of the scheme should be one that is prescribed by law and approved by Parliament and not one that is decreed by ministerial discretion"— [Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1842.]
  That was a matter which appealed very firmly to your Lordships, in particular when the White Paper said that the Government would take a convenient moment to bring in the necessary legislation to countervail what was in the 1988 Act. As has been pointed out frequently, a convenient moment was the Criminal Justice Bill which the Government refused to use for, I submit, the obvious reason; namely, the unfairness of the proposed scheme.
  500
  The last justification put forward was that the costs were spiralling out of control. That was not something referred to in the White Paper. In the White Paper the proposal was put forward on the basis that it would improve the situation from the point of view of the victim. A devastating reply to that suggestion was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in our debates. He pointed out that in 1988, when the Act was passed, the average award in 1993–94 prices was £3,486. This year, it is £3,778. If one goes back to 1965, at current prices the average award was £3,455.I notice that in the debate in the Commons, the Minister no longer made that point.
  I turn now to the amendment in lieu which is before the House. The Government's anxiety was that if our amendment was implemented, we should have achieved a situation in which a scheme which was fine 30 years ago and which should be altered now would become set in stone. We have sought to deal with that situation and also with the cost argument quite simply by providing the Government with what is a Henry VIII clause.
  The amendment in lieu reads:
  "No later than 12 months after the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act",
  there should be brought into force by statutory instrument the provisions of the 1988 Act. But subsections (3A), (3B) and (3C) read:
  "Regulations made under subsection (3) above may make such provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in the light of current circumstances to modify the provisions contained in those sections or Schedules.
  (3B) No regulations shall be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (3C) Before the Secretary of State makes regulations under subsection (3) above he shall consult such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate, and shall lay before Parliament the results of the consultation".
  All that we suggest should take place is that the scheme should be placed on a statutory basis. As the Minister said in the House last week that he will choose a suitable legislative opportunity to put his own tariff scheme on a statutory basis, that should cause him no anxiety.
  The amendment in lieu gives the Minister all the discretion necessary to modify the present scheme in the light of current circumstances as he considers necessary or expedient. The only other obligation is that he should do what he should have done long ago; that is, consult the appropriate people and publish the results of his consultation. Therefore, I put forward the amendment in lieu as an indication of a wholly flexible approach, making generous concessions to the Minister, and giving him all the power that he could reasonably require. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 125A, but propose Amendment No. 125B in lieu thereof.— (Lord Ackner.)
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has deployed his argument with commendable skill and great conviction. However, at

  501
  this stage of the parliamentary process, are we really concerned with the merits of the argument in support of the amendment in lieu?
  Is it not the case that, if only to seek to ensure that a Bill which, taken by and large, was much welcomed by your Lordships should not be lost for this Session of Parliament ahead of the gracious Speech, many noble Lords on a Division may wish to support the Government or abstain? That is the reality of the situation.
  Apart from the merits, towards the end of the Session there is—and I have made inquiries to this effect—no hope whatever of compromise and no prospect whatever that another place may think again. Although the procedure of the House allows—there is nothing improper in it—circumvention of the claim to privilege of another place by this amendment offered in lieu, to offer it to another place in this situation could only savour of confrontation which would impose an unacceptable strain upon the traditional comity between the Houses.
  There is yet another reason. The massive manifestations of public disorder supposedly generated by the Bill leave a sense of shock, horror and revulsion. I have been informed today by the Snow Hill police that on Saturday those manifestations are due to take place again around the precincts of the Temple. We have closed our doors. Is it not perhaps of no little importance that the will of the elected Chamber—and it is the will of the elected Chamber we are considering today— should be accepted and be seen to be accepted to uphold the authority of Parliament?
  The essential question has been accurately and fairly expressed by the noble and learned Lord. The issue is quite simple. Should we continue to operate under the existing regime, for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, or under the regime proposed by the Government? I see that the noble and learned Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am much obliged. That is not the proposal at all. I have put forward a careful amendment in lieu which, if looked at, will indicate with total clarity that it is not a proposal to continue the existing system; it is a proposal to give the Government all the discretion that they could desire to change the existing system and to introduce into it, if they so desire, their much-loved tariff approach.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. However, it is by no means so simple and straightforward. Indeed, if the noble and learned Lord consults Hansard, he will no doubt agree with me. The point is that the proposed amendment in lieu is not acceptable to government, and will not be accepted by them however it is put; for example, if it is put in the way that I outlined or in the manner put forward by the noble and learned Lord. The reality of the situation is that, if we accept the amendment, we move into a system of sterile confrontation. It is as simple as that.
  502
  I have to say that when the Lords amendment to which the Commons disagreed was moved in this House by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow (who has been chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board since 1989) he made a moderate, authoritative speech in support of the amendment. He fairly conceded that substantial improvements could and should be made to the existing regime. Moreover, he sought discussions to that end with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and would continue to seek them if the amendment were carried.
  My noble friend's reservations and objections were expressed in a firm, lucid and wholly courteous manner which, for me, was utterly convincing. I voted on that occasion in support of the amendment and against the Government. However, on this occasion, I shall support the Government because it seems to me that it is now wholly apparent that the Government will not entertain discussions to modify the existing regime and that they are committed, albeit for financial considerations, to implement the regime which they propose.
  The amendment offered in lieu could not induce the Government to think again. As I suggested, it could be seen as but a sterile exercise of confrontation. If it were persisted in, the only effect would be to postpone Royal Assent to a good Bill beyond this Session. There would be no point in offering the amendment in lieu to another place, unless your Lordships were minded to persist and that, perhaps, would be pointless.
  I invite your Lordships to support the Government on the Bill and to reject the amendment proposed in lieu, not on the merits of the argument as to whether the amendment should or should not be carried but on the practical realities of the situation; namely, that to do so would be wholly pointless.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in a perverse sort of way I am rather glad to follow that extraordinary speech. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, started and finished his speech by saying that we should not be concerned with the merits of the argument. But what are we as a revising Chamber if we are not always concerned with the merits of the argument?
  After a curious interlude during which the noble Lord appeared to think that it was relevant to our debates this evening to point out that there were some people who might be tempted to demonstrate anywhere near the Temple (and I notice that that is a much more serious problem to him than demonstrations in Parliament Square; but that is his problem), the noble Lord went on to say not that it would be wrong for us to disagree with the House of Commons—oh no: his phrase was that the amendment would not be "acceptable to government". Indeed, I wrote it down.
  What sort of a revising Chamber are we if our concern is not with the view of Parliament (of which we are a part) but with government? I suggest to your Lordships that those two doctrines which have been expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of

  503
  Alloway, should be totally repugnant to the House and that we should very deliberately decide to put them on one side and ignore them for the purpose of this debate.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made, as always, a detailed, passionate, well-informed and lucid speech. I neither could nor wish to repeat the arguments on the merits of the case. However, that is quite different from saying that the merits of the case are not relevant; I am simply saying that I do not wish to detain your Lordships with the merits of the case because they have already been so adequately expressed.
  However, I should like briefly to talk about the position in which we find ourselves when considering Commons reasons in response to our amendments. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on a statutory basis. It said quite explicitly that the basis upon which compensation for criminal injuries should be calculated and be comparable to that for civil injuries. That was written into the legislation but not immediately brought into force because, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, "Please don't do it yet; we can't keep up". However, the principle always was that the criminal injuries compensation scheme should be on a statutory basis.
  The opportunity was then taken by the noble and learned Lord and others, with our support, to enforce that statutory basis in the context of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. Members of the other place have now said that they do not wish that to be enforced and that they are proposing to remove that statutory basis for criminal injuries compensation from the Bill. In doing so, they are acting on the advice of the House authorities. Indeed, I quote from Mr. Deputy Speaker who said on 20th October in another place that,
  "Lords amendment No. 125 raises questions of common privilege because the legal position under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which activates the statutory scheme by order, is proposed to be changed so that the scheme comes directly into force".
  That is not quite correct; it would come into force after six months. However, that is a minor point. The Deputy Speaker continued to say:
  "An option to spend money is replaced by an obligation".— [Official Report, Commons, 20/10/94; col. 452.]
  That was the advice of the Commons authorities.
  In his amendment, the noble and learned Lord answers that advice 100 per cent. Under the amendment, an option to spend money is not replaced by an obligation: the principle that criminal injuries compensation should be statutory is maintained—and I believe that your Lordships will wish to support that aim—but the financial responsibility of the Government and of the Home Secretary is retained in the subsequent subsections. On that basis, I believe that to support the amendment and to send it back to the Commons would be the correct thing for a thoughtful and responsible revising Chamber to do. Therefore, I invite your Lordships to support the amendment.
  Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I too may briefly express sympathy with the purport of the amendment. I do so as one who took part in the
  504
  initial debate which we had in this House as long ago as last February, when a considerable number of your Lordships expressed the gravest misgivings about the Government's proposals.
  I have three reasons, which I shall give briefly. From the time of the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Pearson, the view has been expressed, and subsequently accepted by Parliament, that sums which are spent under the criminal injuries compensation scheme should no longer be spent under the royal prerogative without accountability to Parliament but should be part of a statutory scheme. I wonder whether there is one of your Lordships who would not endorse that approach on constitutional grounds.
  Secondly, I share the concern that where Parliament (in 1988) has enacted with much care a specific form of scheme mirroring the common law and provided that it shall subsequently be brought into force by Statutory Instrument, it is regrettable if instead the Government seek to bring into force a non-statutory scheme while leaving the provisions enacting the statutory scheme on the statute book. I believe that if there are to be changes, and I accept that there may well be a sensible case for changes, these should be made by modification to the statute.
  One of the attractions for me of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is that it would give the Government the opportunity, in consultation, to decide whether to propose modifications. If they did so, those modifications would have statutory effect. I believe that that is the right constitutional way of proceeding, but I also believe that it is the responsible way of meeting the very considerable misgivings that so many, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, have expressed in regard to the amendment.
  Now I come to the merits, because I believe that they are relevant. Let us reflect that we are concerned here with the victims of crime. We are concerned with a group for which our own Government and our own Home Secretary have expressed great concern. Unfortunately, I believe that the scheme runs contrary to that concern. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Ackner, it would not only mean that victims of crime were treated less generously; it would mean that they were treated less fairly, and not in accordance with the principles which the common law has laid down over generations, to the approval of the public, and which have been accepted in successive legislation as the proper basis for accepting damages.
  After all, we as a society seek to redress wrongs. Your Lordships will recollect that we do this in the case of those who have been wrongly convicted of crime. We provide that they should receive compensation for their loss of liberty. Those who assess that compensation, as I understand it, take into account what the common law might award by damages for loss of liberty. If those damages included loss of earnings, I suspect that that is susceptible of being included in such an award. There has recently been somewhat of a populist outcry against the size of award to which that could lead. I do not join in that outcry, because I believe that those making the awards are acting in accordance with the law. But I find

  505
  it puzzling that we propose to apply a different and lesser standard to victims of crime. I find the anomaly a striking one. I believe it to be totally unfair that there should be no possibility of compensation for loss of earnings.
  I ask the Government to take this opportunity for a rethink. I believe that when the implications of their scheme become known, and when it hits hard the widow of a police officer killed in the course of duty, the Government, who will have to take responsibility for this, will reflect on their stance.
  There is only one reason why I might hesitate to vote in favour of the amendment; namely, if my noble friend the Minister were to satisfy me that the constitutional arguments were irresistible. I have heard nothing from my noble friend Lord Campbell that even persuades me remotely in that direction. However, of one thing I am sure. The demonstrations against the Bill, which I suspect we all find ugly, are irrelevant. The responsibility for considering the Bill soberly lies within Parliament, and at the moment it lies with us in this House.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I agree very largely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. In particular, I agree with what has been said about the constitutional position, which seems to me to be unanswerable.
  I am not enamoured with the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My objection all along to the course pursued by the Home Secretary was that he was acting unconstitutionally, in addition to the respect which the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, indicated. He has taken a power in the 1988 Act which gives him discretion when to bring the provisions into force. He reads that as a discretion not to bring the provisions into force at all but, on the contrary, to bring in a totally inconsistent scheme. I ventured to describe that rudely at an earlier stage of the Bill as cocking a snook at Parliament. That is what it is.
  It has been said a number of times in your Lordships' House today that we are a revising Chamber. That is true. However, that does not mean merely a Chamber making suggestions which the Government are able to brush aside, and that we shall then run away with our tail between our legs. We are a revising Chamber and not a suggesting Chamber.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the common plea of privilege and read out what the Deputy Speaker said. That is a subject which we should approach delicately. We recognise normally that the other place can assert its privilege without giving reasons. Oddly enough, on this occasion the reasons were contained in the passage which was read by the noble Lord,Lord McIntosh.
  The decision of the Home Secretary has been challenged in a judicial review. In the first instance, the Government were upheld, but that decision was subject to appeal. If the Court of Appeal holds that the Government have misconceived their power in its
  506
  judicial review, there is no question of a contrast between a discretionary scheme and an obligatory scheme. That whole basis falls.
  One of the great advantages of my noble and learned friend's amendment is that it is not the same as the one which your Lordships endorsed at an earlier stage. It gives the Government and the other place an opportunity to consider the whole matter and, particularly, in the light of the fact that an appeal is pending.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I do not know how he knows that because we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I suspect that he is right, but that is not the end of the matter. It does not follow that if your Lordships were to carry my noble and learned friend's amendment this Bill would be lost to the Session. There is plenty of time for agreement. There is plenty of time for compromise. I very much hope that your Lordships will endorse the amendment of my noble and learned friend.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, speaking about the constitution, as a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House I wondered whether the words on my writ of summons were true. I wondered about the point of this House as a revising Chamber and as a constitutional watchdog. After such wise and powerful speeches I wish briefly to address the constitutional issue and the merits.
  On the constitutional issue, in 1988 the three estates of the realm—both Houses, with Royal Assent— decided that there should be a statutory scheme based on common law principles. That decision remains on the statute book. However, as noble Lords know, it has not been brought into effect by successive Secretaries of State. There has been no attempt by the present Government to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament to repeal that scheme. Instead, prerogative power is to be used to flout the intention of Parliament as expressed in the 1988 Act by introducing a different scheme—one not based on common law principles.
  I suggest that, far from doing constitutional damage, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, enables the British constitution to be protected against a misuse of executive power. That seems to me to be one of those rare cases where we shall be justified in taking that step.
  The question then arises as to whether privilege attaches in a way that would cause conflict between both Houses. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, does not in any way trespass upon the privileges and powers of another place. It requires the Home Secretary to bring the 1988 scheme into force within 12 months after the passing of this Bill, but it confers wide discretionary powers on him to modify those provisions subject to the approval by each House of the necessary regulations.
  If the House agrees to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, the nature and extent of the charges on public funds will be for the Secretary of State and

  507
  ultimately for another place to decide. Why then is it an important step for your Lordships' House to take? I suggest that there are two reasons. The first—I hope that my language is not too strong for the House—is to avoid an affront to democracy. That is what is involved in the conduct that has taken place so far. It is an affront to democracy when a Minister, without seeking parliamentary approval, frustrates the will of Parliament as expressed in the 1988 Act. The second reason is to avoid manifest unfairness and injustice to the most serious victims of crime.
  In a previous debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave many examples. I wish to mention two injustices that would be caused. The examples relate to those who, if the tariff scheme had been in operation, would have had their compensation savagely cut. The first example relates to a brain injury case. It is not disputed that it is an accurate example. The victim required continuous care day and night. The total award was over £500,000 of which future care accounted for £234,000. Under the Home Secretary's scheme he would receive only £40,000.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave the example of the quite distinct category of families of victims of murder and manslaughter. Again, the facts are not disputed. He cited a case in 1993 involving a woman of 38 who saw her husband die following a stabbing at the front door of their home. She was married with two children aged six and four. She suffered the deepest distress as a result of that traumatic experience. She received general damages of £17,500 and £120,000 for loss of dependency, a total award of £137,000. Under the new scheme she would receive the stock figure of £10,000 by reason of the death of her husband, and £7,500 for her condition, making a total of £17,500 and funeral expenses. As the noble and learned Lord said at the time, such cases illustrate that the innocent families of manslaughter and murder victims whose financial security was previously provided for by dependency awards, will receive nothing for the future.
  I respectfully submit that the justice of the case requires your Lordships, unusually, to exercise your powers in supporting the amendment. The Home Secretary's main argument for resisting the will of Parliament is that that would cost too much. I suggest that such a view is not consistent with giving priority to the most serious victims of violent crime. Nor can it be said to be in accordance with the will of the other place which has not been asked to repeal the 1988 Act. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, provides a flexible and fair solution which, I suggest, accords with the will of Parliament as expressed in statutory form.
  7 p.m.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, anyone who has sought to help victims knows that it is not an easy matter. In many cases, for reasons of self respect, victims are not always ready to come forward. It will always be a technical question of how best they can be helped. Other amendments have been suggested, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, comes before us
  508
  with special knowledge and authority. I am pleased to support his amendment, as indeed my noble friend has done.
  I have found, as many others may have found, that if one supports criminals and does what one can to improve the penal system people ask, "What are you doing for the victim?" People have been asking me that since 1955 when I spoke in a debate on prisons in this House. Such a view is not always expressed by the unintelligent. I spoke in a debate in this House on penal matters recently. One of the most distinguished speakers in the House demanded why I had said nothing about the victims. In fact, I had said quite a bit about victims, but he was so confident that I would not mention them that he had prepared his speech along those lines. There is always the assumption that if one favours one side one does not favour the other.
  The Government in a sense expressed such a view about a year ago. Without wishing to quote at length from the speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference last year, they left the strong impression that they would be tougher on criminals and more helpful to victims. They have sought to be tougher on criminals in the provisions of this Act. Whether matters will work out in the long run as they hope, I cannot say.
  However, victims of crimes have not been helped. I do not think that anyone denies that the Bill is damaging to victims. No one believes that the provision is on balance favourable to victims. I put it bluntly. The Government's actions are in total contradiction to the indications, the prejudices, of a year ago at the Conservative Party Conference. I am these days a mild speaker. The other day I was called a sweet old gentleman. Therefore I shall say nothing nasty. I content myself with the thought that the attitude of the Government to victims in the past year is one of intolerable humbug.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, on the merits of the matter, I agreed with my noble friend Lord Carlisle when the Bill was before us previously. On the merits, I cannot deny that I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. But however great the merits, above all we must consider our constitutional position. We have the undoubted right, indeed, sometimes the duty, to ask another place to think again. But we should be very careful before exercising a further right which exists to ask them to think again and again. If we were to do so on this amendment, I see no reason why we should not on other amendments, too.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, spoke of the will of Parliament and an affront to democracy. It. seems to have been overlooked in some of the speeches made by

  509
  noble Lords that the majority of members in another place—rightly or wrongly and exercising their right— voted against the amendment when it came to them.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me. Members in another place did not vote against this amendment, they voted against another amendment to which this is an amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful for that correction. They voted against the amendment—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me intervening again, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, they did so having been told that it was an issue of privilege.
  Lord Renton: Yes, indeed, my Lords. They were right to be told and right to bear in mind that it is an issue of House of Commons privilege. That has merely anticipated the next point that I was going to make.
  I turn to the amendment to the amendment—if I may accurately describe it in that way. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, suggests is that we should now ask Members of another place to give power to the Government to introduce a statutory instrument enabling them to fulfil the wishes that many of us have about the improvement of the criminal injuries compensation. It is a statutory instrument which would require an affirmative resolution of both Houses and do so on a matter of House of Commons privilege. That seems to me to be a constitutional paradox. Speaking for myself, I am not prepared to be a party to it.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he is aware that it is clearly set out in the Companion at page 121 that:
  "the Lords need not anticipate what view the Commons may take of any Lords amendments with respect to Commons financial privilege".
  On page 122 it states that the Lords,
  "may offer amendments in lieu of amendments which have been disagreed to by the Commons on the grounds of privilege".
  It does not seem to me that there is anything remotely unconstitutional in what we are doing.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for reminding us of that. However, it does not overcome the problem that we have that if we ask Members of another place to think a second time, there is a danger of our having a constitutional conflict with another place and of our using the powers that we have under the constitution to an unreasonable extent.
  I must say that at this stage of a Session, we should think very carefully before we place ourselves—and perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to finish the sentence—in that position. I do not think we should do so.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he said that we were asking another
  510
  place to think again about the amendment. We are not. We are asking them to think for the first time about a new amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, quite frankly, we are asking them to think a second time because the amendment to the amendment now proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is merely another way of achieving the same purpose. We cannot get round that, however laudable the purpose was and is perhaps still considered to be. I am in favour of the merits.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, whenever at this stage of a Bill I hear supporters of the Government concentrating exclusively on constitutional objections, I begin to wonder whether they are quite confident of the merits of their case. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that the Government would never agree to such an amendment. When I hear that, I am tempted to the Gilbertian reply: "What, never?"
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a point about asking the other place to think again and again. My noble friend Lady Seear has already given one answer to that. This is a different amendment, designed to meet the objection made by another place. I shall make a second answer to it. When the original amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was carried, I was in the Chamber. I went out to have a cup of coffee after the Division; before I had finished my coffee, it was on the ticker tape that the Home Secretary intended to reverse the amendment. I know that some of us can think very quickly. Those thoughts are not always fit for print. What the Home Secretary could not do in that time was to read the reasons of a Chamber in which there is considerable legal experience. I believe that the Home Secretary deserves a chance to think at greater leisure.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first perhaps I may say to the whole House that I regard this amendment as a real amendment and I believe that the House is entirely free to take a view about it and I shall answer it in that vein.
  The practical effect of the amendment is nevertheless, as my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway said, very little different from Amendment No. 125 which the noble and learned Lord now proposes that the new clause should replace. Both amendments would require the Government to abandon the tariff scheme and to bring into force the scheme set out in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. That would have to be done within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, rather than within six months, as proposed previously.
  Of course, I accept that the facility for modification has been introduced and I shall refer to the limitations of that in a moment. The arguments for and against the amendment have been well rehearsed on several occasions in both Houses of Parliament and elsewhere, I am afraid that there is little fresh I can say on the subject. I firmly believe that the Government's objections to the amendment are compelling and that they bear repetition here today.

  511
  Briefly, we think that the old scheme was too slow, too complex, too uncertain for victims and too expensive. The new tariff scheme is simpler, easier for victims to understand, easier and cheaper to administer and victims will get their money more quickly and with less fuss. It is also a great deal less expensive for the taxpayer—an important consideration for which we make no apology.
  As the House knows, the old scheme was based on common law damages and, as such, provided no mechanism for controlling costs which were escalating alarmingly quickly. In 1973–74, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board paid out £4 million in compensation. In 1983 it paid out £33 million. Ten years on, it paid out over £165 million. That is not just due to increases in the number of applications. Over the past 10 years the average award has increased by some 5 per cent. a year more than inflation, practically doubling in real terms since 1979. Without reform, by 2000 to 2001 the cost of the old common law damages scheme would have exceeded £500 million a year. The cumulative cost to the taxpayer would have been £2.5 billion.
  It is not right to expect the taxpayer to fund the scheme on that scale. Let me emphasise that our scheme is by far the most generous in the world and seems likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. We pay out far more compensation than all the other European countries added together—and more last year than the whole of the United States. Indeed, it is worth recording that Great Britain pays over 36 per cent. of all compensation paid throughout the whole world.
  May I remind your Lordships of the rationale for the tariff scheme. We are no longer aiming to provide finely judged "compensation" in the same way as before; that is, in the sense of trying, in some way, to put the victim back in the position he would have been in had the attack not taken place. Our White Paper published last December pointed out that there is no "right" sum of money which can achieve that. Instead, the tariff scheme provides a lump sum payment in tangible recognition of society's concern for the blameless victim of violent crime.
  But while we have changed the basis of assessing compensation, the basic rules for eligibility have been left much as before. Thus anyone who might have expected an award under the old scheme should get an award under the tariff scheme. And they should get it more quickly.
  The latest amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, purports to give the Secretary of State some flexibility by enabling him to modify the 1988 scheme when laying the regulations that would bring it into force. But that flexibility is illusory. A power to modify is merely a power to make minor changes at the margin, not a power to make changes of substance to the basic terms and conditions of the 1988 scheme. The practical effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendment would therefore be to lock us into an outmoded, complex scheme based on common law damages which would retain all the worst features of the scheme we sought to remedy in our new tariff scheme. It would be slow, overly bureaucratic and even more obscure and difficult for the typical victim to understand
  512
  than the non-statutory scheme just superseded. And we would lose the ability to predict and control costs that the tariff scheme confers. That is not acceptable.
  It was neither necessary nor appropriate to use this Bill to repeal the redundant criminal injuries compensation scheme provisions of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. The repeal would not have come into effect until after the tariff scheme had started on 1st April. Our White Paper, as I have said, made it clear that the time for repeal would be when the tariff scheme was made; statutory, and we have made clear —and again, today, I made it clear—that our intention is to give statutory force to the tariff scheme once we are sure it is working as well as it can.
  This Bill is not the right vehicle to make the tariff scheme statutory—it has already started—nor is the time; right. The tariff scheme is quite different from that envisaged in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act. We could not therefore, even if it were appropriate, make the tariff scheme statutory by bringing those provisions into force, even with a power to modify them—whatever the courts might ultimately hold that imprecise word to mean. As I indicated, it is our aim to make sure that the tariff scheme is working properly and effectively, to make any refinements necessary in the light of experience, and then to give it statutory force.
  I explained that we could no longer afford to retain a common law damages scheme under which costs have been increasing so rapidly and in a way that cannot be controlled. The only real mechanisms for controlling costs under the 1988 scheme are to exclude certain classes or groups of people from the scheme, for example, those with occupational benefit schemes, or, rather more reasonably perhaps, to raise the lower limit below which no award is payable, or to reduce the multiplier used to calculate loss of earning, or both of those things.
  The lower limit would have to be raised by a considerable amount even to deliver quite modest savings. Working on estimated figures for the current year, 1994–95, doubling the lower limit from £1,000 to £2,000 would cut the compensation bill by 20 per cent. Yet it would cut the number of successful claimants by 45 per cent. That would mean that some 20,000 victims who might have expected to get an award this year would no longer do so. Raising the lower limit to £4,000 would cut the compensation bill by 40 per cent., saving about £75 million on £175 million—but only at the expense of reducing the number of successful claimants by a further 13,000. That would leave only about 10,000 victims getting any award at all. It would definitely not be welcomed by Victim Support, which favours giving awards to more victims by reducing the lower limit, not raising it.
  The amendment also requires my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consult such persons and organisations as he considers appropriate before making the regulations which would bring the statutory scheme into effect. There has been extensive consultation. Since announcing our intention to change the scheme in November 1992 we have received representations and comment from just about every person or organisation that has an interest in criminal

  513
  injuries compensation, including Members of both Houses of Parliament. People have set out their respective, and often conflicting, views. We have already thought long and hard about many of the ideas that have been put forward. But none of them, apart from the tariff scheme itself, gets to grips with the need to bring costs under control with simplified, easily understood and easily administered arrangements that get awards to victims quickly.
  Virtually everyone would have got an award under the former scheme. Those people should get an award under the tariff scheme. Sixty per cent. of those beneficiaries will get as much money or more than they would have received under the superseded scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to review the tariff bands every three years.
  We have made clear previously that the terms of the tariff scheme are not immutable. If we can refine or improve the tariff scheme in the light of experience, we will. Once we are sure that it is working as effectively as it should, we shall give it statutory effect at the first suitable opportunity.
  The Government have been accused of acting unlawfully and unconstitutionally by bringing in the tariff scheme by executive action while unimplemented provisions to the 1988 Criminal Justice Act remain on the statute book. The Government's action, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, reminded us, was challenged by judicial review. In a judgment on 23rd May, the High Court ruled that the Government had not acted illegally, improperly or irrationally. An appeal against the decision was heard throughout yesterday and today. I understand that judgment has been reserved. I am sure that noble Lords will agree and understand that, until a final judgment has been delivered by the court, it would not be right for me, or indeed anyone else, to say anything further about the propriety of the Government's action.
  Much was said about the most seriously affected victims. Tariff award is not the only source of state aid for many victims. Generous long-term help is also available from the National Health Service, the Department of Social Security and indeed local social services. Many victims also have occupational benefit schemes or insurance arrangements.
  The make-up of the tariff award is based on 20,000 awards made by the CICB. Each tariff award can be said to include an element of each of the heads of damage payable under the old scheme. But the elements are no longer separately quantified.
  The effect of the new clause—this important point was very well made by my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Alloway—does not give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary unfettered discretion to change the 1988 scheme. Indeed, I suspect that some noble and learned Lords who have spoken in this debate would take a very dim view of my right honourable friend inviting this House to use secondary legislation to modify, seriously and quite substantially, primary legislation. It commits him to a
  514
  common law damages scheme and therefore a minor modification would not make a great deal of difference to anything other than bringing in the original scheme.
  The matter was debated in another place on two separate occasions. On each occasion a substantial majority voted against reinstatement of the old scheme. The amendment asks the House to reinstate, albeit by secondary legislation, the old scheme. I therefore ask your Lordships to respect the wishes of another place. While I accept that noble Lords have the right to do otherwise, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a number of short points. First, on the question of merits, on 16th June, some four months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said:
  "I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies he will consider four points in particular: the manifest injustice of the tariff scheme; its absence of any flexibility; the manifest abuse of Executive power which has ensued; and the fact that various justifications that have been advanced by the Home Office have been demonstrated to be manifestly misconceived".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1842.]
  Not one of those items has been replied to today. The noble Lord, like myself, awaits the answers to those questions.
  With regard to finance, which has been much in the forefront of the Government's defence, it is significant that it was never suggested in the White Paper as the basis. It has never been part of the consultation process. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who dealt with this matter in great detail, said in terms:
  "The now accepted principal ground of saving money — proceeds on a false basis and is supported by statistics which, to say the least, are wholly misleading and by assumptions about future expenditure which I believe to be unjustified".—[Official Report, 16/6/94; col. 1833]
  Reference was made to £500 million in four to five years' time. The present bill is £165 million. It is difficult to follow the basis on which it will accelerate. It may be that the Home Secretary has reached the pessimistic view that perhaps prison does not work. That is about the only explanation that one can follow. There is no form of justification given for that projected figure.
  The next matter that I wish to raise is the reference to the powers given under the amendment in lieu. Let me first make the point that this is not an amendment of an amendment. It is an amendment in lieu. It is self-contained. It does not jog back to the previous amendment. But the power which is given to the Secretary of State is that he
  "may make such provision [in the scheme] as [he] considers necessary or expedient in the light of current circumstances to modify the provisions contained in those sections or Schedules".
  I respectfully submit that that is an unlimited power to modify. The anxiety of the Minister that she is in a straitjacket is wholly unjustified.
  What is common ground throughout this entire debate—it has never been disputed—is that the savings are to be made at the expense of those who

  515
  can least afford it. The savings are to be made by slashing the compensation to those most grievously injured, those whose injury has caused the greatest effect upon their standard and mode of living and finally the dependants of those who have been murdered or the subject of manslaughter. It is difficult to follow how on earth the Government can say: "We save money on a scheme for compensating the victims of crime by making savings from the compensation for those victims who have suffered the most."
  Finally, on the constitutional point, it is no use hiding behind the judicial review proceedings. The judicial review proceedings are devoted to an entirely different issue. The issue is whether the Government have acted unlawfully. The complaint made in this House is that they have acted unconstitutionally. They have abused their parliamentary powers.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I think that it is presumptuous of the noble and learned Lord, if I may be so bold, to suggest that the Government have or this House has abused their powers. A court has heard the case once and at this moment judgment is reserved on the appeal. Therefore I feel that it would be quite wrong to presume guilt in the absence of a proper judgment.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not make my point clear. I thought that I had made it clear. The issue before the court is whether the Government have acted unlawfully; that is, beyond their powers, ultra vires. The issue that is debated here is whether the Government have acted unconstitutionally; which is not to exceed their powers but to abuse them and to abuse them by the simple process of conducting legislation in 1988 which provided in terms for a scheme to be made statutory and then, without returning to Parliament, to exercise executive power and do precisely the contrary to that which Parliament had laid down in 1988 at the suit of the Government. That, as everybody else in this Chamber has said, is an affront to Parliament. It is in that context that I use the phrase.
  I was finally about to say that, if we are a revising Chamber which has any form of independence and we do not ask the Government to think once more about their unconstitutional behaviour, it is very difficult to know in what circumstances one can ever ask them to think again. I commend the Motion.
  7.36 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 152.

  Division No.2

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L. [Teller.]

  Jeger, B.

  Addington, L.

  Kilmarnock, L.

  Airedale, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Bancroft, L.

  Longford, E.

  Barnett, L.

  Macaulay of Bragar, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Beloff, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Bottomley, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Bridge of Harwich, L. [Teller.]

  Meston, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Milne, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Monson, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mulley, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Darcy(de Knayth), B.

  Ogmore, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Peston, L.

  Desai, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Rea, L.

  Ennals, L.

  Richard, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Russell, E.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Seear, B.

  Gallacher, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Shannon, E.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Grey, E.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Taylor Blackburn, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Tope, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Walpole, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Warnock, B.

  Hughes, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  White, B.

  Inchyra, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Jacques, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Aldington, L.

  Bruntisfield. L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Burnham, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Burton, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Arran, E. [Teller.]

  Cadman, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Astor, V.

  Camden, M.

  Balfour, E.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Barber, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Blake, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Blaker, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Blyth, L.

  Chelmsford, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  517

  Coleridge, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Courtown, E.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Mottistone, L.

  Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Mountevans, L.

  Cross, V.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Denham, L.

  Munster, E.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Digby, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Dormer, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Downshire, M.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Parkinson, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Elles, B.

  Peel, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Pender, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Prior, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Goold, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Rees, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Renton, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Rodney, L.

  Harnbleden, V.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Harvington, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Henley L.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Hives, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Stockton, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Howe, E.

  Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

  Inglewood, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Tebbit, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Teviot, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Chancellor.]

  Vinson, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Whitelaw, V.

  Mersey, V.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Wynford, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Young, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
  7.44 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 125A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 125A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  125 Before Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
  ("Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  (" . In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

  (a) in subsection (2), for the words after "any provision" there shall be substituted the words "brought into force under subsection (1) above,"; and

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

  "(2A) Sections 108 to 117 above and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is passed.".")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  125A Because the Amendment involves charges on public funds and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  131 After Clause 136, insert the following new clause:
  ("Confidential financial information
  Offence of selling confidential financial information

  .— (1) It is an offence for a person ("the seller") to sell or offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of another person if—

  (a) the seller knows that the information has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception; and

  (b) the information is intended to be disclosed without the consent of such other person.

  (2) An advertisement or circular indicating that information of that description is or may be for sale is an offer to sell within the meaning of subsection (1).

  (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine or both;

  (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  131A Because the Commons consider it appropriate to make amendments to amendment No. 150 made by the Lords in lieu of this amendment..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 131 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 131A. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F, to Lords Amendment No. 150 and to Amendment No. 163, to which the Commons disagreed for their reason numbered 163A.
  The views of this House on the procuring and selling of confidential financial information have had a telling impact. As your Lordships will recall, it was in response to concerns expressed here that the Government brought forward an amendment at Report stage dealing with the procurement of data in contravention of the Data Protection Act. This amendment was accepted by another place. The House of Commons also considered the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord,

  519
  Lord Brightman, and approved by your Lordships' House, seeking to prohibit the advertising and sale of improperly obtained confidential financial information.
  The Commons decided that they cannot agree with that amendment in the form in which it passed through your Lordships' House. But the Commons accepted the principal concern underlying it, by agreeing to government Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F. The new amendments go a long way to meeting the spirit of the original proposal. The amendments cover all personal information covered by the Data Protection Act, not just financial information, and to that extent they actually go further than the amendment approved earlier by your Lordships' House.
  I hope that the House will feel able to support these amendments as an acceptable way forward both for those concerned about the freedom of press as well as for those concerned about the privacy of the individual. They are offered in that spirit.
  My noble friend Lord Alexander, who had to leave the Chamber a few minutes ago, wished me to record his satisfaction with the Government's action. But I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for the helpful and positive spirit in which he engaged in discussions with us about the force and effect of his amendment. He brought to our attention a matter on which it is clear many of your Lordships feel strongly. I commend the Motion to the House that your Lordships should not insist on Amendment No. 131, but should instead agree to Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 131, to which the Commons disagreed for their reason numbered 131A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  Lord Brightman: My Lords, as I moved Amendment No. 131 at Report stage, perhaps I can add a brief word. Put shortly, Amendment No. 131, which the other place rejected, penalised the sale of confidential financial information whether or not computer held. Amendment No. 150C, introduced by the Government in the other place last Thursday, penalises the sale of confidential information of all types, provided it is computer held or a copy of computer-held material.
  In my opinion it would be preferable to have retained both amendments, which is what the Opposition sought but failed to achieve in the other place. However, in all the circumstances it would plainly be wrong for me to ask your Lordships to insist on Amendment No. 131. I would accordingly invite your Lordships to be satisfied, as I am, for the time being, with Amendment No. 150C and the accompanying amendments. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for allowing me to talk to her and to discuss the wording of her amendment at the drafting stage and for taking on board in her amendment much of the spirit of my amendment.
  Lord Inchyra: My Lords, until the end of September I was Secretary General of the British Bankers Association and at times worked quite closely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, on his amendment. I also had the pleasure of meeting the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to discuss the government
  520
  amendment. Although the noble Baroness has already reported the great pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, for this amendment, I should like on behalf of the banking community as a whole to say how warmly this amendment is welcomed and how much the interest and co-operation of both the noble Baroness, her predecessor, the noble Earl, and their officials have been appreciated.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may simply say, because I do not often say it, that on this occasion I wholly agree with the Government. I believe that the position that we are now in as approved by the other place strikes the proper balance between the right to free expression and the right to personal privacy. I very much hope that the same principles will apply to any future White Paper or legislation that the Government may have in mind on free speech and privacy.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is not a party matter. It is an issue on which we had a free vote. I voted with the Government last time against the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I am very disappointed to see the extent to which it has been widened by the removal of his original restriction to financial information. I fear that the restriction to computer-held information will still lead to a very considerable breach in civil liberty and in freedom of expression and I very much fear that this matter has not been adequately thought out and that it is one to which we shall have to return later on. However, as the noble and learned Lord, the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, are all agreed, it is clear that I shall not get any further by pursuing my opposition.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  146 Clause 143, page 115, line 35, after ("him"") insert ("; and section 16(1) (c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (costs on dismissal) shall apply accordingly reading the reference to the dismissal of the information as a reference to the discharge of the person arrested.":,')
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following consequential amendment to the Bill:
  146A Page 115, line 49, after 'Wales' insert '; and section 16(1) (c) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (costs on dismissal) shall apply accordingly reading the reference to the dismissal of the information as a reference to the discharge of the prisoner'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 146A to Lords Amendment No. 146. This amendment is necessary to extend the provisions of Amendment No. 146 which ensures that in extradition proceedings magistrates retain the power which they would otherwise lose by virtue of the abolition of committal proceedings to award costs if they decide to discharge the person sought. However, it applies to Commonwealth countries and those countries which are signatories of the European Convention on Extradition and does not cover countries covered by Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989, with whom we have separate

  521
  treaties; for example, the United States. Amendment No. 146A is therefore a minor and consequential amendment proposed to rectify the omission. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their consequential amendment to the Bill numbered 146A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  150 After Clause 145, insert the following new clause:
  ("Obtaining computer-held information
  Procuring disclosure of computer-held personal information

  .— (1) In section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1984 (prohibitions in relation to personal data, including its disclosure), after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(6) A person who procures the disclosure to him of personal data the disclosure of which to him is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above knowing or having reason to believe that the disclosure constitutes such a contravention shall be guilty of an offence.".

  (2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1) above—

  (a) in subsection (5) of that section, after the word "other" there shall be inserted the word "foregoing"; and

  (b) in section 28 (exemptions: crime and taxation), in subsection (3)—

  (i) after the word "contravening" there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of section 5(2) (d) procuring the contravention of; and

  (ii) after the words "to make" there shall be inserted the words "or (in the case of section 5(2) (d)) to procure".")

  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments:
  150A Line 4, leave out 'its'.
  150B Line 5, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'
  150C Line 10, at end insert:
  '(7) A person who sells personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured the disclosure of the data to him.
  (8) A person who offers to sell personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured or subsequently procures the disclosure of the data to him
  (9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, an advertisement indicating that personal data are or may be for sale is an offer to sell the data.
  (10) For the purposes of subsections (7) and (8) above, "selling", or "offering to sell", in relation to personal data, includes selling, or offering to sell, information extracted from the data.
  (11) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (6),(7) or (8) above, whether a disclosure is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above, section 34(6) (d) below shall be disregarded."'
  150D Line 16, leave out 'word "contravening"' and insert 'words "section 26(3) (a) above'".
  150E Line 17, leave out from 'words' to 'and' in line 18 and insert '"or for an offence under section 5(6) above";'.
  150F Line 20, leave out '5(2) (d)' and insert '5(6)'..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F and to Lords Amendment No. 150.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 150A to 150F and to Lords Amendment No. 150.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  154 Clause 147, page 120, line 6 at end insert:
  ("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the provisions of this section so that they apply to any sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale.")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment:
  154A Line 3, leave out from 'instrument' to 'sporting' in line 4 and insert 'apply this section, with such modifications as he thinks fit, to such sporting event or category of
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154A to Lords Amendment No. 154. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C. The purpose of the Government's amendment is to make clear that the order-making power tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and added to the Bill at Third Reading can be extended if public order and public safety considerations apply to a class of sport—for example, rugby union, rugby league or cricket—or to a particular sporting event or events—for example, Wimbledon or test matches. We have also made some minor technical amendments but those do not materially alter the effect of the Lords amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 154A to Lords Amendment No. 154.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  154 Clause 147, page 120, line 6 at end insert:
  ("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the provisions of this section so that they apply to any sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale.")
  The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments:
  154B Line 4, after 'sale' insert 'as he thinks fit'
  154C Line 4, at end insert:
  '(7) An order under subsection (6) above may provide that—

  (a) a certificate (a "ticket sale certificate") signed by a duly authorised officer certifying that 6,000 or more tickets were issued for sale for a sporting event is conclusive evidence of that fact;

  (b) an officer is duly authorised if he is authorised in writing to sign a ticket sale certificate by the home club or the organisers of the sporting event: and

  (c) a document purporting to be a ticket sale certificate shall be received in evidence and deemed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.

  (8) Where an order has been made under subsection (6) above, this section also applies, with any modifications made by the order, to any part of the sporting event specified or

  523
  described in the order, provided that 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale for the day on which that part of the event takes place.'.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree wilh the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C to Lords Amendment No. 154.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154B and 154C to Lords Amendment No. 1'54.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motions Nos. 157B and 160B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  157 Clause 152, page 121, line 12, after ("section") insert ("75 and")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  157A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  160 Clause 152, page 121, line 23, leave out ("75") and insert ("74, 75(1) so far as it repeals sections 10 to 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  160A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this Amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 157 and 160 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 157A and 160A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 157 and 160 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 157A and 160A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  163 Clause 152, page 121, line 24, after ("VIII") insert ("(Offence of selling confidential financial information)")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  163A Because the Commons consider it appropriate to make amendments to Amendment No. 150 made by the Lords in lieu of this amendment.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 163 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 163 A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 163 to which the Commons disagreed for their reason numbered 163A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 169B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  169 Clause 152, page 121, line 25, at end insert:
  ("(4A) Subject to subsection (4) above, section 75 shall
  524
  come into force in relation to the area of any local authority on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, provided that the day appointed shall not be before 1st July 1999; and the last such order may bring into force the repeals of sections 6 to 9 and the definition in section 16 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and of section 70 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
  (4B) No order under subsection (4A) above shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  169A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 169 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 169A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 169 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 169A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  175 Clause 152, page 121, line 36, after ("77,") insert ("(Criminal injuries compensation),")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  175A Because the amendment involves charges on public funds and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 175 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 175 A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 175 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 175A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 175B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  188 Schedule 1, page 123, line 18, after ("centre,") insert ("secure accommodation,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  188A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  189 Page 124, line 38. at end insert (";
  "secure accommodation" has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act, and includes any other place to which an offender may have been committed or transferred under section 2 of this Act;")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  189A Because the Commons consider that a court should always order an offender subject to a secure training order to be detained in a secure training centre..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 188A and 189A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 188A and 189A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  [Motion No. 315B, 316B and 335B not moved.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  315 Schedule 11, page 175, line 45, column 3, leave out ("12") and insert ("9")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  315A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  316 Page 175, line 45, column 3, at end insert:
  ("Sections 10 to 12,")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  316A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  335 Page 177, line 49, after ("1968") insert ("except sections 6 to 9 and in section 16, in")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  335A Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate for the repeal of the provisions to which this amendment made by the Lords relates to come into force later than the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill is passed or for those repeals to come into force piecemeal..
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 315, 316 and 335 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 315A, 316A and 335A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 315, 316 and 335 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 315A, 316A and 335A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  University of London Bill
  Returned from the Commons with the amendment agreed to.

  Sheffield Assay Office Bill
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House.
  That the Promoters of the Sheffield Assay Office Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session, the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders to the House.

  River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
  That the Promoters of the River Calder (Welbeck Site) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
  That the Promoters of the Malvern Hills Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill, together with any minutes of evidence taken before the Committee on the Bill, shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing order 126 relating to Private Business;
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders—
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

  Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill
  A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
  That the Promoters of the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to the date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the

  529
  next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
  House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.