Lords Sitting of 23 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

War Crimes Act 1991: Cost
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the cost to public funds of the administration of the War Crimes Act 1991.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, costs to the end of the last financial year were £5.2 million.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that that is a shocking waste of taxpayers' money which could have been better expended, for example, on improving war widows' pensions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on a number of occasions Parliament has determined that these cases should be pursued. As long as that is done the money must be available for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to carry out their work.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that were there only one person guilty of these foul war crimes it is right that he should be brought to justice and the money expended?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that they were terrible crimes. The principle which underpins the Act of Parliament is that there should not be a time-bar on searching out criminals, particularly murderers.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that although it appears from the Official Report of the other place of 12th January that the funding of this unit is to end on 31st March the investigations are going to continue just the same?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true that specific funding for the unit will end on 31st March, but as long as there is a possibility of evidence being made available then those cases will be pursued.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, am I right in believing that since the passing of the Act no proceedings have emerged into a trial?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is true. Perhaps I may bring the arithmetic up to date. Out of 369 cases investigated by the Metropolitan Police crimes unit, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute in 239 cases, in 112 instances the subject having died.
1246
Eighteen investigations remain with the police and the CPS is considering whether seven cases, with their evidence, should be prosecuted in court.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1989 the Hetherington-Chalmers inquiry reported three key cases with a realistic prospect of conviction? Is she further aware that on 11th March last year the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wrote to me saying that one of those cases had been abandoned through lack of evidence and that a second case had been abandoned because the suspect had died? As regards the third case, on which this entire edifice is based, can the Minister say whether that case too has been abandoned? If not, can the Minister say whether a realistic prospect of a conviction in that case remains?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not able to give a definitive answer about the specific case mentioned by the noble Lord. I shall write to him. It may well be that it is one of the seven cases under consideration at the moment. It must be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and the recommendations made by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Attorney-General as to whether a case should be pursued. It must then be a matter for the courts to determine whether the evidence can be sustained.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as regards the 18 remaining cases, can the Minister say what are the ages of the eldest and youngest person under investigation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the eldest is 83 years of age and the youngest 67 or 68.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend say how long these investigations are going to be allowed to continue?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as long as necessary.

Cheeses: EC Directive
3.12 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they regard the future of the British cheese making industry, and in particular small cheesemakers, as secure in view of European legislation which forbids the sale of cheese containing listeria.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the EC directive in question allows member states to grant traditional products an exemption from the listeria standard. The Government will be taking full advantage of this. For non-traditional cheeses, guidance to environmental health officers will make it clear that enforcement action should be based on risk assessment and public health judgments, not on end product testing

1247
alone. The Government are confident that British cheesemakers, irrespective of size, will not be adversely affected by the new rules.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply which may come as some solace to our larger cheesemakers. However, will my noble friend the Minister agree to meet the representatives of our cheesemakers, particularly the Association of Specialist Cheesemakers, so that there is a clear understanding of the nature of the derogation which is being applied for and that any information required from the cheesemakers to support the application can be made available in good time?
As regards my noble friend's point about environmental health officers operating this directive in an appropriate way, can my noble friend therefore give the House an assurance that those officers will not behave in future as they are behaving at the moment in Clydesdale against Mr. Humphrey Errington and his Lanark Blue cheese, whom they are happily planning to put out of business tomorrow even though that cheese has never caused the slightest tummy-ache to anyone?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend asks a number of questions and I believe that I can reassure him on all of them. Cheesemakers and other processors with a throughput of less than 300,000 litres of milk per year are eligible for a derogation from the requirements of the directive in respect of buildings and equipment. More generally, we have already consulted all sides of the dairy industry, including the small cheesemakers, on our proposals for implementing the directive. There is recognition that the Ministry has made every effort to interpret the directive in a way which minimises the burden on small businesses.
There will be a code of practice under the Food Safety Act 1990 for use by local authorities. There will also be guidelines to ADAS who are responsible for registration and inspection. Drafts of these documents were circulated as part of the public consultation on our implementing regulations during the autumn. In addition, a large number of environmental health officers will have attended Department of Health and MAFF training seminars on the regulations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not rather disquieting that British cheesemakers, who have been making some of these cheeses for hundreds of years, should now find themselves subject to a derogation from Brussels before they can carry on making those cheeses? Will British cheesemakers be able to invent new cheeses in the future without begging permission from Brussels? Should not that be a matter for subsidiarity, and, if not, why not?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the measure is perhaps not as earth shattering as the noble Lord likes to suggest. The directive is needed essentially to harmonise milk hygiene standards throughout the Community. That is a laudable objective. It is essentially a single market measure. As to new cheeses, our approach will be that if a new cheese comes forward for registration we shall take that forward immediately to the Commission and
1248
seek to have it registered as a traditional product. Our approach throughout this exercise has been to assemble as extensive a list as possible of traditional cheeses. We believe that that is the right way forward so as to minimise any possible uncertainty within the industry.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, what is or are listeria? What is their relevance to public health?
Earl Howe: My Lords, listeria is a bacterium which occurs in a wide variety of environmental situations. It can cause severe illness in certain vulnerable groups of people, including pregnant women and the elderly. However, the incidence of listeria as a condition is rare. There are only a few dozen cases a year. On the other hand, when it does occur it can be serious, and it is something that needs special attention in the context of milk hygiene.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, when this new cheese is taken to the Commission, is the permission to be granted only in relation to health considerations and not whether it likes the taste, the smell, the colour or anything else? It is simply a matter of health. Is that correct?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the question that was put to me I took to mean that if a new cheese were invented, that manufacturer could seek to have it registered as a traditional product if a traditional process were involved. The cheese would then be added to the list of traditional products which we are seeking to have agreed with the Commission. But that does not negate the need to be aware of the hygiene of the cheese process itself. Of course, that will be an abiding concern for the manufacturer and the environmental health officer, as appropriate.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am confused. If a cheese is new, how can it be traditional?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it would be registered as a traditional cheese if a traditional process were involved, which is very often the case with new cheeses. They often follow a traditional cheese making process.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I know that cheese is a very exciting subject and that we are all very fond of it, but I wonder whether it is not the turn of the Cross-Benches.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the French implement this legislation as assiduously as we do?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the legislation will be implemented universally across the Community, subject to any derogations that might apply. The directive provides for Commission inspectors to be appointed to make on-the-spot checks on establishments in member states to ensure uniform application of the directive throughout the European Community.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister explain why, in Council, the United Kingdom

1249
assented to a ridiculous intervention in what is not a significant matter here? In fact, most of us are getting cheesed off with an intervention on this scale, which is so ridiculous that it ought to have been laughed out when it was first brought to the Council of Ministers.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the United Kingdom voted in favour of the directive because we knew that the implications for our cheese industry would be next to none. The procedures followed by environmental officers and the cheese manufacturers themselves will remain almost exactly the same. Our intention is that common sense shall prevail.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the directive states:
"Member States may, in so far as certain requirements of this Directive are likely to affect the manufacture of milk-based products with traditional characteristics, be authorised to grant individual or general derogation from Article 7A(I) to (4)"?
If that is the case, will my noble friend give me an undertaking that the Government will ask for a general derogation and not a particular derogation for particular cheeses, but that if it is for particular cheeses it will be set in stone and not alterable?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are required to submit a list of the cheeses which we believe should be counted as traditional. The list is now being compiled and if any noble Lord knows of a cheese which he believes should be on the list my colleagues in the Ministry will be interested to hear. My noble friend must recognise that life does not stand still. New cheeses are invented and they will need to be separately considered as and when the time comes.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has confirmed that listeriosis is a most unpleasant disease. Is it correct that if a case of listeriosis were to result from the consumption of cheese the manufacturer would be caught by the due diligence requirements in the Food Safety Act? If so, what is all the fuss about the European directive?
Earl Howe: My Lords, at present that is the case, although the European directive will not apply to cheese at the retail level; it applies only to cheese at the manufacturing level. The essential provisions will remain exactly the same. That is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we do not believe that there will be any substantive difference in the way that cheesemakers must behave in the United Kingdom.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that listeria is far more likely to be a danger in soft rather than hard cheeses? Should we not have a European directive suggesting that the French should get rid of their 172 soft cheeses in favour of the old-fashioned, superior and much better Cheddar?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend is that, as regards the majority of your Lordships and others, that would be a severe case of hard cheese! The noble Lord is essentially correct as regards his substantive point. While listeria can occur in any type of cheese, the chief medical officer has recommended
1250
that certain groups of people, including pregnant mothers, should avoid soft cheeses in view of the slightly higher risk involved.

Cyprus: Dispute
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What international action is in hand to end the economic blockade of Armenia by Turkey and the occupation of northern Cyprus by the armed forces of Turkey.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we expect all blockades that have resulted from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be lifted as part of an overall peace settlement. In the meantime, we have urged all countries in the region at least to allow the transit of humanitarian aid. The UN Secretary-General is continuing his good offices mission, which is designed to secure a peaceful, just and lasting settlement to the Cyprus dispute. We actively support his efforts and joined in securing UN Security Council Resolution 789, which called for reductions in the number of Turkish troops in northern Cyprus.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, in particular the first part. Does he agree that NATO is brought into disrepute as an alliance of democratic countries when one of its members is in long-term breach of international law as regards its neighbouring states and the civil liberty of its own population?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we believe that it is of the greatest importance that all countries abide by the norms of civilised international behaviour. It is an important element of our policy to ensure that this occurs. NATO's role is the collective defence of its member states and the preservation of peace in Europe, in which it has been most successful.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, has the United Nations attempted to bring representatives of both Governments to a neutral place in order thoroughly to examine the situation? As a result of reading about events and visiting these places, it appears that both countries would welcome an invitation although they are not prepared to invite one another. That is a role that the United Nations should fulfil and perhaps Her Majesty's Government should urge it so to do.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is referring to northern Cyprus. The United Nations has a long involvement in the difficult problems facing Cyprus. We believe that it is doing everything that can possibly be done to bring the relevant parties together.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Turkey's six-year blockade of Armenia has caused great suffering, especially during the winter months when for days Yerevan has no electricity and temperatures are minus 20 degrees, with all that that means for old people and children as well as causing

1251
devastation to the economy? Will my noble friend give an assurance that Turkey's current request to participate in the peace-keeping process and to send military personnel for the peace-keeping forces in the conflict with Karabakh is outrageous and will receive no sympathetic consideration until the blockade is lifted?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right in describing the terrible domestic conditions in Armenia. We believe that the right way forward in trying to resolve the outstanding and considerable difficulties is through the offices of the OSCE, in particular the Minsk group, which was a British initiative and is currently co-chaired by the Swedes and the Russians. We would welcome any genuine efforts that bring about the cessation of hostilities, followed up by a political settlement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make absolutely clear to the Turkish Government that until they observe the standards of human rights that have been laid down by the United Nations, and until they appreciate the importance of accepting UN resolutions on Cyprus, there can be no question of them being allowed to join the European Union or any trade association connected therewith?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained in an earlier answer, we believe that it is important that the proper norms of civilised international behaviour are observed. The Government have on numerous occasions drawn to the attention of the Turkish authorities our concerns about human rights abuses and other problems in that country. Nevertheless, we are anxious to try to bring forward changes that will put an end to such evils. We believe that the best way of doing so is to work with the people in public life in Turkey who want to see those changes. We do not wish to isolate them and merely give benefit to those who wish for the continuation of oppressive behaviour.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hylton is right about Armenia. However, as regards Cyprus, does the Minister agree that the overwhelming majority of the present population of northern Cyprus wants the Turkish Army to stay, in exactly the same way as, for example, the great majority of the present population of the Sudetenland want the Czech Army to stay and the great majority of the present population of Haifa and Jaffa want the Israeli Army to stay?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that the people of Cyprus would like to see lasting peace in their country. In order to achieve that, we must proceed through the arrangements which the United Nations has in place and with which it is trying to proceed. We supported the United Nations Security Council Resolution 789 of 1992 which called for a reduction in the level of foreign troops and we reiterated that position at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus in 1993.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House any further information about the talks on
1252
confidence-building measures which have resulted in at least two meetings between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash? Has there been any progress along the lines suggested by, for example, the Council of Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as my noble friend explained, there have been talks between the Turkish Cypriots and the Cyprus Government on a number of matters, including the confidence-building measures. While progress has been made, no progress has been made overall. We are urging the parties, as is the United Nations, to have further talks in an endeavour to take matters forward.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if the Turkish Government do not bring to an end within six months that blockade which is causing so much suffering in Armenia, is there not a strong case for expelling them from NATO?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are anxious to resolve the problems in Armenia. That would not necessarily be achieved satisfactorily by taking a legalistic view of the problems.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, as the country is a co-signatory, along with Armenia and Turkey, to the Helsinki Final Act, Clause 6 of which says that the signatories will not attempt to coerce each other by any means—economic or otherwise—could not the Government take more positive action over that blockade of Armenia? We should remember that 24th April of this year will mark the 80th anniversary of the slaughter in 1915 of one and a half million Armenians as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained earlier, we believe that the best way to solve the problems of Armenia is through the OSCE-Minsk initiative.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, while I accept the dangers of isolating those in favour of democracy and human rights in Turkey, will the Minister tell the House whether pressures have been brought to bear, and if so, what effect they have had on the Turkish Government in the context of negotiations with the European Union over a customs union with Turkey?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have frequently drawn those matters to the attention of the Turkish authorities, most recently at the Quint meeting in London at the beginning of this month.

Private Clegg
3.32 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have authorised the initiation of procedures intended to secure the discharge of Private Clegg from the Army.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, Private Clegg's commanding officer was bound to do so under

1253
Queen's Regulations. It does not automatically follow, however, that that will lead to Private Clegg being discharged from the Army.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but will he explain why he was not guided by the precedent of Private Thain who, in very similar circumstances, was convicted of murder a number of years ago? When the similar case came before Ministers at that time, they directed that he should not be discharged.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that the cases are different and I do not think that it is necessarily helpful to make comparisons between the case of Private Clegg and the case of Private Thain. Each case is individual and must be treated as such. I know that my noble friend is more familiar with the case of Private Thain than I am because he was involved at the time, but it is evident from my researches that the Army chain of command considered, as did my noble friend, the case of Private Thain's discharge under Queen's Regulations. But that case was determined to be so exceptional that he was retained in the Army.
I repeat what I said in answer to my noble friend's first Question. It does not automatically follow that merely initiating the proceedings will lead to Private Clegg being discharged from the Army.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as a matter of information, will the noble Lord give the House an idea of precisely what those procedures are and at what point Ministers can intervene to influence them one way or another, regardless of whether or not it is the affair of Private Clegg?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it goes through the entire Army structure and the case is considered with the utmost care at a number of different levels. The important point is that ultimately it comes to the Army Board which has discretion to decide in the end whether Private Clegg is discharged or retained. I assure the noble Lord that the Army Board is chaired by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does not the behaviour of the Parachute Regiment, both at the time of the Clegg incident in trying to obstruct the course of justice and in its members exulting in their canteen over the loss of civilian lives, make that regiment totally unsuitable for duties in support of the civil power? Will the Government make sure that that regiment's postings are adjusted accordingly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that that is relevant. Also, it is a rather disgraceful slur on an honourable and fine regiment.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Henley: My Lords, nor do I believe that that is relevant to the case of Private Clegg. The individual facts of that case should be considered purely in relation to him.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, reverting to the Question on the Order Paper, will my noble friend say whether or not Ministerial approval was given before that procedure was initiated?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that Ministers were informed, but under Queen's Regulations it is a matter for the commanding officer. I could write to my noble friend and specify the relevant paragraphs of the Queen's Regulations. It is a matter for the commanding officer of that unit to initiate the appropriate proceedings.
Lord Richard: My Lords, does Private Clegg have the opportunity to make representations as regards staying in the Army?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that Private Clegg does have those opportunities and will be encouraged to make the appropriate representations either by himself or through his representatives at the appropriate time.

Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill is an important part of my ongoing programme for family law reform. This Bill makes provision for the reform of the various discretionary remedies which exist in family law in order to deal with two distinct, but inseparable problems: providing protection for one member of a family against molestation or violence by another and regulating the occupation of the family home where the relationship has broken down, whether temporarily or permanently. The Bill provides for a single consistent set of remedies—"non-molestation orders" and "occupation orders"—which will be available in all courts having jurisdiction in family matters.
In past times consideration of domestic violence was often marginal, even though any sort of violence in the home can have a devastating effect on family life. I am concerned to ensure that the civil law in this area gives as much support as possible to the victims of domestic violence, in partnership with the criminal law.
The present Bill is the result of recommendations made in the Law Commission Report entitled Domestic Violence and Occupation of the Family Home (Law Corn. No. 207) which was published in May 1992. The report was widely welcomed. The Bill gives effect to almost all of its recommendations. In addition, the Home Affairs Select Committee published a report on domestic violence in March 1993 which generally supported the Law Commission's proposals.
It is clear that the current statutory framework in this area is unsatisfactory. Past enactments have dealt with particular situations or strengthened the powers of specified courts. That has led to criticisms that the

1255
current system is piecemeal, complex and confusing, with different categories of applicant having to apply to different courts for different remedies, whether under the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976, the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 or the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983.
The Law Commission saw the aims of this Bill as threefold. The first was to remove the gaps, anomalies and inconsistencies in the existing remedies, with a view to synthesising them, so far as possible, into a clear, simple and comprehensive code. Secondly, it thought it obviously important that any reform should not reduce the current level of protection. Indeed, this Bill improves that protection. Thirdly, it thought it desirable to avoid increasing hostilities between the adults involved, so far as that was compatible with providing proper and effective protection, both for adults and for children. I must say that the Government agree with those objectives and believe that they have been achieved in the current Bill.
The Bill repeals and replaces the whole of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 and the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983, together with relevant parts of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978. Much of the existing law in the area is, however, re-enacted in the current Bill. In addition, the existing law has been strengthened in a number of ways.
Eligibility to apply for the remedies in the Bill is based on the concept of persons who are "associated" with one another by way of certain family or domestic connections or are parties to the same family proceedings. The Bill considerably widens the categories of persons" who may apply for orders. The new list consists of: current and former spouses and cohabitants; persons who live or have lived in the same household, otherwise than merely by reason of one of them being the other's employee, tenant, lodger or boarder; certain close relatives; parents of a child or persons who have or have had parental responsibility for that child; and parties to the same family proceedings.
The Bill also provides that any child who is living with or might reasonably be expected to live with either party to the proceedings is protected, together with any child in relation to whom an order under the Adoption Act 1976 or the Children Act 1989 is in question in the proceedings and any other child whose interests the court considers relevant.
As I mentioned earlier, the two types of order which will be available are non-molestation orders, prohibiting particular behaviour or molestation generally and occupation orders with a variety of possible terms, either declaratory or regulatory. The current power to exclude the respondent from the home or a defined area around it has been retained.
Clauses 7, 9 and 10 of the Bill deal with the court's power to make occupation orders. Applicants for occupation orders fall into two categories, those who are entitled to occupy the home by virtue of a legal or beneficial estate or interest or a contractual or statutory
1256
right, including rights of occupation in the matrimonial home (referred to in the Bill as "matrimonial home rights") and those who are not.
In addition, the Bill will strengthen the enforcement powers held by the courts. For example, where there has been violence or threatened violence, the court will be required to attach a power of arrest to any specified provisions of an order in favour of any eligible applicant, unless, in all the circumstances, it is satisfied that the applicant or any child will be adequately protected without such a power.
In the case of ex-parte orders, the court will not be under any obligation to attach a power of arrest, but it will be able to do so in cases where there has been actual or threatened violence, provided that it is also satisfied that there is a risk of significant harm to the applicant or a child if the power is not attached immediately.
The Bill also gives the High Court and county courts the power to remand and to issue arrest warrants. The High Court and county courts are also given the power to remand for medical examinations and report. In addition, those courts will be able to make an order under Section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983 remanding for medical reports a person arrested under a power of arrest or an arrest warrant where there is reason to suspect that he is suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment.
It will still be possible for the court to make emergency ex-parte orders where it would be just and convenient. However, before doing so, the court will need to have regard to all the circumstances including certain factors set out specifically in the Bill.
The Bill makes amendments to the Children Act 1989 to enable the court to make an ouster order for the protection of children when making an emergency protection or interim care order. That will permit the removal of a suspected abuser from the home instead of having to remove the child. I very much hope that the provision will be used to give further protection to children in appropriate cases.
The Bill extends to cohabitants the power to transfer tenancies, at present contained in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1983. It also provides for the court, if appropriate, to order the payment of compensation by the transferee to the transferor, when it makes an order for the transfer of a tenancy. In deciding whether to exercise both those powers, the court must again have regard in particular to certain criteria set out expressly in the Bill.
I mentioned earlier that the Government are not seeking to implement every recommendation contained in the Law Commission's report. The recommendation that the police should have the power to pursue civil remedies on behalf of an aggrieved party was rejected because it would have involved a novel extension of police powers from a criminal function to a civil function. It would have required the police to decide whether to seek an order on the basis of brief contact with the parties, amounting to no more than a snapshot of a particular incident. In addition, it would have imposed significant and unaccustomed responsibilities upon the police for which the service has neither the resources nor the requisite expertise.

1257
The other significant policy departure from the recommendations of the Law Commission concerns the categories of people entitled to apply for orders. The categories proposed by the Law Commission of: persons who had at any time agreed to marry each other; and persons who have or have had a sexual relationship with each other were rejected, because the persons within them may not have the same domestic link as those in the other categories. In some cases, the relationship might have been brief and the parties would never have lived together. There might also be problems for the courts of definition and proof, which would not apply to the other categories. If that happened, it would undermine the principle that domestic violence remedies should be able to be obtained swiftly in emergencies. Of course, that does not mean that there would not be other remedies available to such people; but it means that the simplified form of procedure available under the Bill would not be available to them for the reasons that I have given.
I believe that the Bill will make a considerable contribution to the interests of victims of domestic violence. I also believe that it is uncontroversial in party political terms. We all appreciate the damage which can be inflicted by perpetrators on victims and on their families. I commend the Bill to the Special Public Bill Committee as a candidate for the non-controversial Bill procedure. Indeed, I have had some discussion in that respect. I believe that it is appropriate that that should be done.
I hope that noble Lords will feel that what I have said today illustrates my belief that the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill provides a firm a comprehensive foundation for the reform of the civil remedies for domestic violence. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House for Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, your Lordships will wish me to express our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord both for introducing the Bill and for his clarity and succinctness in doing so. There is a text which I was encouraged to recite in my youth, "Ask and ye shall receive". Some months ago a number of us were concerned with the wasteful logjam of unimplemented reports from the Law Commission. We asked the Government to explore ways of channelling them on to the statute book. Our reasoning was not that the proposals are simply technical and unconnected with policy. Indeed, there is no point in recommending law reform unless some objective can be secured and the reform has some impact on practical living. Nor did we suggest that the proposals were necessarily wholly uncontroversial. Any proposal of practical importance is likely to admit of some differences of view, although it may not entail a major policy clash.
We have sought to point out what we know from experience; namely, that Law Commission reports are based on careful research, wide consultation and clear thinking.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Archer of Sandwell: When the issue reaches your Lordships' House it will have been crystallised, the irrelevancies largely eliminated and the discussion focused. The Bill before the House today is a worthy example.
I should say at once that I am somewhat prejudiced. On these Benches, we see the Law Commission as a continuing tribute to the wisdom of a great Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, in the Labour Government of 1964, implementing a proposal of the Society of Labour Lawyers. We will do our best to assist any initiative to make straight the way of Law Commission reports on to the statute book.
The Government have responded to our overtures. We appreciate the support of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in implementing these proposals. It is common ground, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, that this Bill is ideally suited to the procedures of a Special Public Bill Committee, where questions of detail—important detail, but not amounting to major disagreements on policy—may be resolved with all the necessary expert assistance and without delaying business on the Floor of your Lordships' House. We are grateful for the initiative of the noble and learned Lord. May it be the first of many!
Perhaps your Lordships will permit me a personal reminiscence. It is a matter of pleasure to me that the first such Bill in which I participate should be on this subject. When the late Baroness Summerskill introduced the Bill which became the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, she invited me to conduct the Bill through another place. We enjoyed valuable and appreciated support from the Lord Chancellor's Department. Ever since I have regarded domestic law reform as a subject which combines practical issues with an intellectual challenge. This, for me, is something of a sentimental journey.
I place on record also the appreciation on these Benches of the help we have received from experienced practitioners through the Law Society, the Society of Labour Lawyers, and Relate. The Bill, as the noble and learned Lord said, very largely implements the recommendations of the Law Commission report. I would be surprised if there were any widespread opposition to considering together the two related subjects of domestic violence and the problems that arise where two or more individuals cease to share accommodation.
Nor do I believe that many will query the case for rationalising the different jurisdictions and the piecemeal remedies and plugging the loopholes. I venture only a caution, to myself more than to anyone else. The matters with which we are dealing touch on some of the most deeply felt and most emotive factors promoting human happiness or human tragedy. Even the most rationally constructed legislation is dependent upon the sensitivity and the understanding of those who are called upon to apply it. We are fortunate in having in place judges, welfare officers, police domestic violence units and practitioners who have demonstrated their capacity in this field.

1259
This is not the occasion to embark on an examination of changes in family structures or the advantages and dangers of a strong extended family. Nor are we likely, I suspect, to profit today from a debate as to how far the problems are exacerbated by the housing situation, the funding problems of local authorities, the scarcity of day nurseries, and the strained resources of the police. But if we isolate these provisions wholly from real life, legal logic is in danger of becoming an arid exercise.
Our differences are likely to focus, substantially, I suspect, although not exclusively, on the two respects in which the Bill departs from the recommendations of the Law Commission, which were pointed out by the noble and learned Lord. One of the most welcome effects of the Bill is to extend beyond spouses and cohabitees the right to apply for non-molestation orders with powers of arrest. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, those who may apply are the associated persons defined in Clause 2. However, the Bill excludes from the definition two categories recommended in the report. It excludes persons who have agreed to marry, and persons who have had a mutual sexual relationship. The very helpful departmental memorandum which we received gives two reasons. Those were repeated, I believe, by the noble and learned Lord. First, it is said that it may be difficult for a court to establish whether persons fall into the categories. I must say I find that surprising. Courts have been deciding whether people have agreed to marry since long before the case of Bardell v. Pickwick, and they have been deciding whether parties have had a sexual relationship since before the establishment of the divorce court in 1857.
The second reason is that the categories may not be in such a vulnerable position as other categories. I have discussed the matter with experienced practitioners in the field. They say that often it is precisely those in these situations, where the hopes of one party are frustrated at the outset, where passions are least restrained. They also say that intervention at this early stage may head off more serious problems later. We await with interest the discussion of that issue in Committee.
Conversely, the Law Society has expressed some anxiety as to whether the Law Commission's definition of associated persons is sufficiently embracing. It does not appear to include the new partner of someone who has broken off a relationship with a former partner and who may be threatened by the former partner or indeed vice versa. It is not wholly clear whether categories (c) and (d) in Clause 2 are intended to include children. At what age and under what conditions is a child entitled to apply for protection? Nor is it explicitly stated whether categories (b) and (c) are intended to include homosexual or lesbian partners. If, when he replies, the noble and learned Lord can shed light on those matters we would be grateful. If he would prefer to reflect on them, we shall fully understand.
The other respect in which the Bill departs from the Law Commission proposals is in withholding from the police the right to apply on behalf of a victim for a civil remedy. The Law Commission proposed in Clause 17 of its draft Bill that a police constable would be empowered to apply for an occupation order or a non
1260
molestation order if he or she had attended at the incident, had reasonable cause to believe that the victim had been subjected to molestation and, having ascertained the wishes of the victim, considered that it was appropriate to apply—that is, the victim's wishes are relevant but not conclusive.
The Home Affairs Select Committee in its third report reached a different conclusion. It seems to have been persuaded largely by the view that the role of the police should, as the committee expressed it, be,
"cut back to its core functions rather than extended further".
I understand the concern that the police service is desperately constrained in respect of resources. Anyone who has discussed the position with a senior police officer will be persuaded of that. But I have two difficulties with the committee's view.
First, I am not sure what is meant by the core functions of the police. If the suggestion is—as the noble and learned Lord rather implied a few moments ago—that there is something inherent in policing which requires enforcement of the criminal law but takes no account of the civil law, that seems to me an artificial distinction. The police are already empowered under Section 46 of the Children Act 1989 to apply for an emergency protection order in respect of a child, despite the fact that the ultimate responsibility lies with the local authority.
The second implication of the Select Committee's reasoning —the imposition of an unacceptable burden on police resources—also puzzles me because the presupposition is that the police will already be involved. One hopes that the case is being handled by a trained and experienced officer from a domestic violence unit. He or she is not likely to require legal advice or representation whereas, if the victim is left to pursue a private remedy, there may well be implications for the Legal Aid Fund.
I appreciate that there are other considerations. Some of the organisations concerned with the protection of women who gave evidence to the Select Committee expressed reservations. Those reservations are not shared by the practitioners with whom I have discussed the matter. They are concerned regularly with the protection of women and, I emphasise, have nothing to gain by expressing that view. They will see work they would normally be doing carried out by the police.
I accept that it is not a simple question. I understand the anxieties that some women may feel about having decisions taken out of their hands. I do not seek today to express a conclusion. That, indeed, is the purpose of the new Committee procedure. There are a number of matters in the Bill which invite further consideration.
I do not believe that the Law Commission would claim that any of its reports precludes further discussion. But what we have provides a solid basis of information and consultation on which discussion can be carried forward. We congratulate the noble and learned Lord on initiating that process.
4 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we too are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his introduction of the Bill and also for arranging for some of us to be provided with the very helpful Notes on Clauses.
It is conventional on these occasions to pay tribute to the Law Commission, whose report is the basis of the Bill. On this particular occasion it should be said that the Law Commission's report is of a particularly high standard, revealing extensive research and a very thorough consideration of all the issues. The resulting Bill, which rationalises and extends the scope of the law, should be welcomed on all sides.
The Law Commission's proposals have had the broad support of the professionals who are familiar with the practical operation of the existing law. In particular, the Family Law Bar Association and the Law Society have supported the proposals, with only a few reservations. It is entirely appropriate that the Bill should have the benefit of the scrutiny and analysis of a Special Public Bill Committee.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the law has developed piecemeal, with the legislation of the 1960s to protect deserted wives and that of the 1970s to protect battered women. More recently, the Court of Appeal has been prepared to recognise the need for protection from harassment, which does not fit neatly into existing categories of tort. It is certainly now time for a coherent and more comprehensive piece of legislation, drawing on the strengths of the existing law, and the existing procedure, and removing weaknesses. The Bill should achieve that, reducing the need for further testing of the limits of the inherent jurisdiction of the courts.
I do not wish to take up time going through the various clauses of the Bill in detail. It is surely right that the class of applicants for orders for protection should be extended, at least so far as this Bill provides. The decree absolute of divorce will not prove to be the jurisdictional problem which it has in many recent reported and unreported cases. The powers of the Bill can also be used to protect elderly relatives and in those difficult cases involving aggressive young adult children of the family. The Law Commission expressed the problems of that type of case particularly well in paragraph 3.17 of its report, in which it stated:
"When problems arise in close family relationships, the strength of emotions involved can cause unique reactions which may at times be irrational or obsessive. Whilst these reactions may most commonly arise between spouses and cohabitants, they can also occur in many other close relationships which give rise to similar stresses and strains and in which the people concerned will often continue to be involved with one another. The object of the law should be to provide a framework to enable people in this situation to continue their relationship in a civilised fashion".
Paragraph 3.19 states:
"the proximity of the parties often gives unique opportunities for molestation and abuse to continue; the heightened emotions of all concerned give rise to a particular need for sensitivity and flexibility in the law".
As the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Archer, indicated, the Bill does not extend to the question of the obsessive discarded fiancé or boyfriend. I join in hoping that the opportunity may be taken in Committee to reconsider the Law Commission's
1262
recommendations in that respect. The argument that there may be difficulty for the court in extending the category of applicants to such people is not particularly convincing.
Clauses 7 and 9 of the Bill provide new criteria for what practitioners are likely to continue to call "ouster" orders. The Bill is surely right to take the focus away from proof of misconduct and replace it with a more pragmatic focus on the need for housing and protection and on the balance of harm as between the adults and children who may be involved. However, I mention in passing that those new criteria may mean that the yardstick for legal aid, in particular for ex parte applications, may need to be reconsidered.
I particularly welcome Clause 12, which will enable the court to deal with the practicalities of the financial position after the order takes effect. It may be worth considering whether the court's powers could be exercised even if the application is refused or if it is adjourned. Clause 12 also allows the court to regulate the use of furniture and contents in the home. Perhaps that also can be extended to prohibit damage and misuse. All too often one finds that an evicted spouse or partner commits petty acts of vandalism as he or she leaves, to cause expense and annoyance to the other.
I also welcome the improved grounds for attaching a power of arrest contained in Clause 15. The power of arrest allows for breaches to be dealt with more swiftly and more summarily than separately initiated committal proceedings. I hope that that improvement in the operation of the power of arrest reflects a much greater willingness of the police to become involved in cases of domestic violence.
Clause 16 derives from recommendations of the Council of Circuit Judges and allows for remands in custody for medical reports. That will involve restrictions on the liberty of someone who has not yet been found to be in contempt of the court. I hope that it is a power which will be used sparingly, and only where serious mental illness is suspected. Again, perhaps this is a matter that we shall need to look at in Committee.
I have no doubt that the amendments to the Children Act will prove of value in protecting children from abusers or suspected abusers in the home. It allows the court in certain circumstances to do what social workers may have tried but failed to do. Your Lordships may have noted the concerns of the NSPCC in this respect. I shall not trespass on ground which I suspect will be covered shortly by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and possibly others. Again, it may be a matter for consideration in Committee.
Clause 21 is the only other clause to which I wish to draw attention. Perhaps this is a matter of concern to practitioners only. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can indicate what may be expected in the orders which he will promulgate in due course under Clause 21(3), (4) and (5). It surely must be hoped that there will be the maximum jurisdictional flexibility in this area.

1263
In one of the landmark decisions on this area of the law, Davis v. Johnson, which was decided by your Lordships' House judicially a number of years ago, the late Lord Salmon described the 1976 Act as providing:
"much needed first aid to married and unmarried women".
In the same case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said that:
"Homelessless can be as great a threat as physical violence to the security of a woman (or a man) and her children".
It is to be hoped that the Bill will improve the quantity and quality of first aid available and will reduce the threat of homelessness; that it will reduce some of the pressure on underfunded women's refuges and will minimise the exposure of children to violence in their homes. Only in that way can we hope to reduce domestic violence occurring in one generation after another.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill in principle. I very much welcome its elegant introduction by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. We in this House will always associate my noble and learned friend with the far seeing Children Act 1989, and indeed subsequent Acts, all devoted to improving the lot and welfare of children. As with that Act, my advice on this Bill is from the NSPCC which also welcomes the opportunity afforded by the Bill to keep possible abusers from the family home.
As your Lordships will be aware, children are affected by violence in three ways: by high levels of tension in the family; by witnessing violence by one parent upon another; and as direct victims of domestic violence. Children subjected to those kinds of tension and violence are themselves more likely to behave similarly when they later have families of their own than are parents with more stable beginnings. Therefore, protecting children from abuse can present a long term as well as a short term benefit.
With its duties under the Children Act, the NSPCC is particularly well placed to contribute to the present Bill. Its concerns about the Bill—I hope that we shall be able to explore them at later stages, and a special Public Bill Committee might seem appropriate—are as follows. First, clarification is required as to whether the exclusion of an alleged abuser is an additional or an alternative measure to the removal of a child. Secondly, clarification is also required about the conditions to be met for the granting of an exclusion order, and about the protection of a child should the parent with care subsequently withdraw consent. Thirdly, I shall be seeking assurance that all victims of abuse receive the protection services they need. The Bill could result in placing too much onus upon the non-abusing parent to protect the child, without adequate protection and support services. Fourthly, will children be adequately protected outside the family home? The Bill seems to concentrate on protection only in the family home which could be a "place under siege".
Those are some matters for study during the passage of the Bill which require particular attention. Others may come to light as we debate the Bill. I trust that this
1264
important Bill will have a speedy but thorough passage through this House and another place so that it may be enacted as soon as practicable.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for his clear introduction to the Bill and for having supplied me with Notes on Clauses. There has generally been a warm welcome for the Bill from every quarter. The need for it has long been recognised. Domestic violence is a serious and widespread problem resulting in more than half a million assaults on women annually and affecting 750,000 children who are growing up in an atmosphere of violence. The overwhelming need of the women concerned, and of their children, is for personal protection and safe housing; and the Bill deals with these problems.
The existing civil remedies in this area of domestic law have been the source of much complaint. They are complex, confusing and lack integration, as paragraph 1.2 of the report states. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, described the statutory provisions as,
"a hotchpot of enactments of limited scope passed into law to meet specific situations or to strengthen the powers of specified courts. The sooner the range, scope and effect of these powers are rationalised into a coherent and comprehensive body of statute law, the better".
He said that in 1984; it is now 1995. In 1992 we had the Law Commission Report No. 207, following on the earlier report, No. 113, on which there was consultation, and it is the draft Bill appearing in the 1992 report which is before us with very few changes. But I shall wish to comment on the few changes that there are and to ask a few questions, as did my noble and learned friend.
First, I must say that it is altogether satisfactory that the jurisdiction of the courts will operate in the same way as under the Children Act 1989. One of the great advantages of that Act and the rules made under it is that they introduce a basically unified system for dealing with family matters relating to children which applied throughout all the courts. The different levels of court will have the same powers save that the magistrates' court will have some more limited powers than county courts and the High Court in relation to occupation orders. And it will be possible to transfer cases to a different level of court where this is necessary because of the complexity of the case and/or the need to hear the application with others affecting the parties in different courts. This is seen as being consistent with the eventual introduction of a family court for which many of us have been asking for a very long time. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will support me in this. These arrangements should make it very much easier for those needing to go to law; and, I hope, also cheaper.
Regarding Clause 2, first, it is, of course, absolutely right that cohabitees should have exactly the same rights as married people. We must be realistic. More and more people are choosing to live together, not married. It would be grossly unfair, in particular to their children, to treat them in any way differently. I should like to ask a few questions. Can the noble and learned Lord tell me whether Clause 2(b) applies to homosexuals and

1265
lesbians? My noble and learned friend asked that too. I was going to ask why Clause 2(e) and Clause 2(f) of the draft Bill were left out. I know that the noble and learned Lord has given a response to that. It might be a matter that needs to be pursued in Committee.
Would it be possible to cover new partners who are sometimes harassed by their partner's former partner? In particular, would it be possible to permit children of sufficient age and understanding who are in need of protection to apply for a non-molestation order? I know that some commentators on the Bill thought that the commission was mistaken in choosing to adopt such a cumbrous definition of entitled persons and in failing to recommend that an order should be obtainable by anyone who can prove a proper need for the law's protection. I am not convinced that that would fit into this family homes Bill.
Regarding occupation orders, the Law Commission in paragraph 4.24 identified two possible sets of criteria for making occupation orders, one based on a "balance of hardship" test, and the other on the paramountcy of children's interests. These are discussed, and the commissioners obviously did not find it easy to strike the right balance. Their recommendation, adopted in the Bill, is a middle course. I would be interested to hear the arguments against making the children's interests paramount, which was the guiding principle of the Children Act. I hope that we can have an answer on that.
Non-molestation orders may be made for the protection of any relative of the respondent or of any person associated with him or her. "Relative" includes son, daughter, stepson and stepdaughter. "Associated person" includes anyone living or having lived in the same household otherwise than merely as an employee, tenant, lodger or boarder. This could, it seems, include the "stepchild" of a new unmarried partner of the child's parent. In considering whether to make an order, the court must have regard to the need to secure the whole safety and well being of any relevant child and may include in the order a provision prohibiting the respondent from molesting any relevant child. It appears therefore that children feature both as objects of the court's concern whose welfare must be considered when an adult applies for an order, and (in the guise of relatives or associated persons) as people who may apply in their own right for a non-molestation order. Could I ask whether that is a correct interpretation of Clause 13 and whether it really does enable children (defined as anyone under 18 in the Bill) to apply in their own right for an order?
The Bill is silent on how the court will ascertain the child's interests. It makes no provision for the court to call for welfare reports and does not require the court to take account of the child's own wishes and feelings. I hope that something can be done about that in Committee.
As regards exclusion requirements and ouster orders, the recommendations in the commission's report appear to be well thought out and to have been faithfully reproduced in the Bill. Could I ask whether children will be adequately protected outside the family home? The Bill seems to cover the non-abusing parent and child only in the home—I think that the noble Lord, Lord
1266
Mottistone, made that point—and not the parent and child elsewhere. What would be the noble and learned Lord's attitude to the court being given power to attach an exclusion requirement to an interim supervision order, as well as to an interim care order?
What seems to have aroused most criticism of the Bill is the leaving out of Clause 17 of the draft Bill which gave the police powers to apply for civil remedies on behalf of the victim of violence or molestation. I am not certain that it is right to have left that out. Bringing and enforcing civil proceedings will remain too onerous for many women faced with the most frightening and potentially harmful threats to their safety and to their children's safety. It seems to me that the commission considered the matter, all the pros and cons, carefully in paragraphs 5.18 to 5.23 and I myself was convinced by its arguments. No doubt we shall come back to that in Committee. I know that the noble and learned Lord did give an answer to this when he spoke.
However, as I said at the beginning, there is a warm welcome to this very necessary Bill. The Home Affairs Committee report on domestic violence in 1993 emphasised this need. The Bill greatly simplifies the law and strengthens procedure and should make life easier for many women and children. I support the noble and learned Lord's notice for a Special Public Bill Committee to be set up and I hope that the new procedure agreed by your Lordships, that the Committee stage of non-controversial Bills can be taken off the Floor of the House, will mean that more Law Commission Bills will be able to come forward and be dealt with quickly in this way. I support all that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer said in his speech on that.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, with others I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for introducing the Bill. It seems particularly appropriate that he should do so since he introduced the Children Act 1989. I wish to take up points made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I speak from the point of view of the British Association of Social Workers, with particular reference to child sexual abuse.
I dealt with such cases, often having to visit the home and remove the mother and child or persuade them to be removed from their home because the man had the tenancy of the house. In doing so, one created a double problem for the child. First, the child suffered the alleged abuse; then it had to be removed from the place it knew—from the rooms in which it lived and its usual habitat—and, in many cases, go to another school. Therefore, one very much welcomes the Bill.
I wish to ask many of the questions which the noble Baroness, Lady David, asked. How will the child be protected in its own right? An extraordinary thing happens. Where a child admits to suffering child sexual abuse, or alleges that its father, the co-habitee or the man living with its mother has abused it, often that child incurs the deep displeasure of the mother, the relatives or brothers and sisters. The child suffers again.

1267
I ask my noble and learned friend to elucidate on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady David. How will the child be heard in his or her own right, by whom and through what channels? When dealing with such cases I have found that to be one of the most difficult problems. In the local authority where I worked I was fortunate because two flats were available to me for use at any time. Therefore, I could often persuade the mother to move into the flat with the children. But that is not the case now and most local authorities do not have accommodation other than a women's refuge. Very often, when the child accuses a parent of abuse the mother is resentful of the child. Therefore, I ask the same questions as the noble Baroness: how will the child be heard in his or her own right, by which court, under which law and with what results?
4.25 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I refuse to be the only speaker in the debate who does not pay tribute to the Law Commission and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, I pay my humble tribute and follow it with a few brief observations.
The noble and learned Lord rightly described existing legislation dealing with such matters as, "piecemeal, complex and confusing". We therefore owe a debt to the noble and learned Lord and to the Law Commission for legislation which does away with those three bad attributes. There is now one comprehensive Bill before us dealing with such matters, involving multiple legislation in its terms and provisions. I thank the noble and learned Lord for doing one thing, if no other—producing a comprehensive Bill dealing with violence in the home, if I may use that shorthand.
I am able to say that the family law committee of the Law Society warmly approves of the Bill. As a loyal and devoted member of the society, I cannot think of a superior tribute from any person or body. The measure is generally approved.
I wish to make one or two observations. Where this House plays its part in putting a Bill on the statute book, all too often one forgets the practical aspects of carrying the provisions and the spirit of the Bill into effect. I hope that when the Bill is enacted there will be a continued emphasis on the need to encourage inter-agency co-operation in ensuring that the Bill's provisions are carried out with a unified effort on behalf of the family.
I also wish to emphasise what has already been said. One of the advantages of the Bill and the Children Act is that we brought a criticism constructively to the problem of our existing courts going into matters involving the married status, divorced status, custody of the children, welfare of the children and, in many cases, dealing with those matters in separate courts without even the co-operation of those who adjudicate in other courts upon precisely the same family. One of the advantages of the Bill is, again, that we ensure that the Children Act procedure, which has been very successful so far as I can tell, is followed in the Bill in the sense
1268
that a matter can be transferred from one court to another court which has been dealing with it and is more suitable for doing so.
I return to the plea that was made by earlier speakers. Does this not point to the need, so often emphasised in this House, for a family court? Have we not reached the stage when the noble and learned Lord, in replying to this debate, can say, "I am now near it. We have advanced by stages and my next plan to deal with matrimonial affairs and with the matters relating to children within the marriage is the family court"? If he does come out with that utterance, he will deserve a tribute not only from all Members of this House who have spoken for this Bill, but from the country as a whole.
4.30p m
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, my comments will be quite brief. I want to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I put my name down on the list of speakers at a very late stage, but he still managed to get the notes to me this morning. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, covered some of the information that I had received from the NSPCC. My knowledge of the real problems is based on my experience as a magistrate in the courts in Birmingham. As a magistrate, there is nothing more harrowing than to listen in great detail to the suffering that goes on in different people's homes. It is almost beyond imagination. Perhaps what we need to do—to follow the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—is to see the family as a whole. These days that implies the health of that family, employment within it and the whole care of it. It is not for us to try to fit a jigsaw together when we do not have all the pieces.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, just said, one would like to see other inter-agencies working together. This morning I attended a meeting in London to discuss the Rowntree Commission's report on children. The people there represented so many children's organisations that my mind boggled at the large number of organisations dealing with all the various aspects that relate to children. There is a need for them to work together, practically as well as intellectually. Those are two different approaches. The intellectual approach is necessary but one has to be able to put it into practice.
Finally, how do we define a family home? Before I became an MP I was chairman of a housing authority in Birmingham. Cases were sent to us from the courts and we had to make a decision as to who would live in the property. It was very difficult. All the tenancies were joint tenancies, so they were in the name "Mr. and Mrs.". To have a "family home" one had to turn out one or other party. That caused great difficulties and it took a long time for the committee to reach a decision. It was felt that the family home should be a new home, unknown to the father; and the father would then be moved into other accommodation. Because he was very often then a single person, he would be moved into a one-bedroom flat. That might not be the ideal solution, but there has been a stipulation that the children should be adequately protected outside the family home.

1269
If that policy were continued, would the "family home" be somewhere where the man could not even darken the door because it was not the family home any more? It is a moot point. I am not sufficiently au fait with the law to answer it. If that policy changes, I would ask the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to look at the definition of a family home, given that what I have described takes place in the City of Birmingham.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may slip into the gap to say only one or two sentences which are intended to reinforce and support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I know that this view commands the assent of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I refer to the increasing desirability of a family court to deal with all of these problems. There is before this House at the moment a Private Member's Bill dealing with family mediation in Scotland. In the view of those of us who have been concerned with the problem, the family court could well encompass the whole process of mediation, conciliation and counselling as a preliminary step. I hope that we shall not for a moment lose sight of the desirability of a comprehensive scheme of family courts.
4.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the degree of warmth in the welcome that this Bill has received. I certainly join very heartily in the tributes that have been paid to the work of the Law Commission, and also to my predecessor in this office, Lord Gardiner, who was the moving spirit in the legislation that set up the Law Commissions both here and in Scotland. Since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, went into a little sentiment, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I spent some happy times as a law commissioner. I was trying to give practical effect to my belief in the organisations that he set up.
I am also glad to be able to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, in promoting a Bill about the matrimonial home. If I do it as well as he promoted his Bill, I shall be extremely happy.
Perhaps I may say a word about the family court. I believe that we have one. There are, of course, questions relating to what the family court should do in all circumstances. I hope to address matters such as mediation which arise out of the Green Paper that I produced some time ago in relation to the grounds for divorce. Work on that is proceeding as fast as the nature of the problem permits.
I am also very conscious of the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others, that there is a need for inter-agency co-operation. That is perhaps true right across the field with which we are concerned. There are state agencies in these fields, and there are also many voluntary agencies.
I believe that it is extremely important to build on the tremendous amount of expertise and effort that comes from the voluntary organisations in this field. Many serve with a sense of real commitment as their primary
1270
reason for being in those organisations. It is very necessary to do what one can to co-ordinate these matters. I am busily engaged on trying to see what arrangements can be made in respect of mediation. As noble Lords will know, there is more than one organisation in that field. If there is any question of trying to extend my operations in that area, a degree of co-operation is a necessary basis for further progress.
The Children Act—particularly with its jurisdictional provisions—in effect set up a family court, because it allowed these proceedings to be taken either in the family proceedings court at the magistrates' level or in the county court, presided over by judges who have made special studies, and, finally, the Family Division. The result is that at every level one gets the necessary family jurisdiction.
As I said earlier, it does not necessarily mean that everything that everybody wants should be available in a family court. An example would be mediation. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he held office, commissioned some research on mediation. One of the conclusions drawn by that Newcastle study was that, on the whole, court annexed mediation probably gave not quite such good results as non-court annexed mediation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is dealing with a most important point. Does he feel that a magistrates' court in essence is a suitable court to be called a family court when, as a rule, a magistrates' court deals with criminal affairs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wish to answer that question very emphatically. I believe that the family proceedings court at the magistrates' level is an extremely effective way of dealing with family matters. That was one of the issues that we discussed when the Children Bill was before this House. I knew that more than one of your Lordships believed that a family court had to be based at least at the county court level. I did not share that view. I believe that in many matters, particularly those concerned with children, the law books and technical knowledge of the law, although helpful, have only limited value. I feel that the practical decisions about where a child should live and so on are just as well taken by the magistrates.
Since the noble Lord has intervened, I shall take this opportunity to say how well in my view, generally speaking —I do not express an opinion on particular cases—the magistrates have responded to the challenge of the family proceedings court. Many of them have devoted many hours of their time, without remuneration of any kind and sometimes at considerable financial loss—because of the nature of the financial loss provisions that we are able to operate—in training to deal with such cases. I believe that my colleagues in the Family Division of the High Court and also those in the county court would wish to join in that tribute. That is not to say that every decision that every magistrates' court has taken in these matters is perfect. There are not many courts—short of the infallibility of this House—which can claim better than that.

1271
I have been distracted somewhat from the main matter of seeking to answer one or two questions that have been raised in relation to this Bill. So far as concerns the precise extent of the definitions, it is very much a matter for the Special Public Bill Committee looking at the evidence as a whole. Perhaps I should say—again, I digress slightly from the main subject—that I believe that in that procedure we now have a very good method of dealing with these matters.
Hitherto, there has been a feeling that Law Commission reports could go through Parliament rather quickly. But although the Law Commission has studied the matter very carefully, there are often quite substantial points of importance left. The trick has been to find a way to deal with them without unduly taking up time in the ordinary legislative process of your Lordships' House. The Special Public Bill Committee has proved to be a very good way of proceeding. This is the second Bill in this Session that will be committed to such a procedure. I feel that that is extremely good. Perhaps I should take this opportunity, as I see my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman in his place, to say how grateful I am that he took the chair both for that previous Bill and the one last year. Presiding over a new procedure, he has shown us all how to deal with the matter with fairness, thoroughness and reasonable expedition.
I accept the problems that have been mentioned in relation to the precise extent of the power to apply. I do not say that the courts cannot deal with matters such as those raised in the type of title that I have sought to set aside. I am looking for a very summary procedure. Therefore, anything that requires any prolonged investigation into the title of the person to raise it does not seem to me to be so suitable for that. I want to have a thoroughly good procedure which works quickly—that is necessary—in the vast majority of cases. To try to refine it and broaden it too far may damage the very objects that are being pursued.
With regard to protection outside the family home—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal—that is primarily concerned with domestic violence; that is to say, violence in the home and the family home itself. The extent to which one can reasonably provide protection outside the home is a matter of some question. As I said in my opening speech, there is the possibility of protection for an area around the family home on the lines that presently exist and it is proposed that that should continue. But there is a grave question as to whether that protection can be moved to any place under this kind of legislation. Your Lordships would be wise to guard against trying to catch everything in legislation of this kind, which needs to be well focused in order to be reasonably comprehensible and reasonably comprehensive.
Important questions were raised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the child. A child could come under the applicant section of the Bill. So far, I have not sought to lay down very clear indications of how the child might be consulted while the child is not an applicant itself. That
1272
perhaps is a matter that we should look at. I am inclined to give the court as free a way as possible to proceed. My noble friend and other noble Lords who are very familiar with this area will know that obtaining a welfare report can sometimes create a good deal of delay, for obvious reasons. I am anxious to have a procedure that is as speedy as possible in the circumstances. That is a matter to which we might give particular attention.
There is also the matter of new partners harassed by former partners. A link between them is created by the partner in common. No doubt that is a problem. Again, one must be careful in considering how far one should go.
I indicated in my opening remarks the principal reasons for not implementing the view taken by the Law Commission that the police should have power to initiate civil proceedings. I was asked what I regard as the core work of the police. Perhaps I should not attempt an inclusive definition. It is a grave question in general whether it is an appropriate matter for the police to raise civil proceedings. I know that in relation to certain proceedings under the Children Act, where a child is found in an emergency situation, the police, as the authority finding the child, will have power to apply for an emergency protection order. But that is an exceptional situation. There is a question of whether it is wise to involve the police generally in civil proceedings.
The precise scope of who are cohabitants is a matter that we can look at. Some provisions will include cohabitants of the same sex because sometimes it is necessary that protection of this sort be available to them.
The other matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, in relation to the new home is of considerable importance. My impression is that the Bill is aimed primarily at trying to protect the family unit within the old home, and that one of the possible ways of doing that is the ouster of the violent member of the family from that home. That is something we discussed in the Children Bill proceedings and I am glad to be able to get that far because it is an important change.
We may wish to discuss in Committee a number of matters in detail in the light of evidence, but I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time without going further into this matter. It is with a great deal of confidence therefore that I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 1995
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order provides for the relaxation of certain of the controls on the facilities and amenities permitted in licensed betting

1273
offices under the powers contained in Section 1 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1984. The order represents the first change to betting office facilities made in some 10 years since the powers were introduced although they were used in 1986 to expand the text which could be used on shop fronts. Associated changes in the controls on window displays will be made by means of new regulations to be made shortly. The order has been approved in another place.
The main changes which the order seeks to make concern the abolition of the controls on televisions and a limited extension of the range of light refreshments available in betting shops. They have been the subject of extensive public consultation.
The order repeals the current controls which limit the size of television screens in betting offices to 30 inches and which prevent televisions being positioned where they are visible from outside the premises. Ten years ago television screens were new to betting offices, and the rules introduced at that time on their size and usage were conservative since no one was sure of the likely impact of their introduction. A decade later the controls seem unnecessarily restrictive, given the wide-ranging changes in the availability of television, video and cable in the home. Nowadays, it is impossible to envisage a betting office without television coverage of all forms of racing.
In reviewing the controls, we decided that it was preferable to abolish the size restriction completely and allow the betting industry the freedom to adopt the dimensions of television screens which were suitable for the size and location of premises.
The changes also remove the requirement that televisions are not visible from the street. Most people nowadays have reasonable access to television and many decide to video sporting events when they are not able to see them. We decided that it was preferable to do away with this unnecessary restriction completely, thereby putting betting offices on a par with other high street premises such as television rental shops. Our view is that these changes can be made without substantially eroding the principle that betting offices should provide reasonable facilities for punters in the course of their betting activities and should not be regarded as places of general entertainment.
The controls also provide for an extension of the very limited range of refreshments which betting offices can currently supply. Ten years ago the view was taken that punters should only be able to have a narrow range of snacks such as crisps and biscuits. We now consider that the range of light refreshments should be extended to include items such as prepackaged sandwiches and prepackaged snacks. Such refreshments should not, however, constitute a full restaurant meal. It is also an important principle that such refreshments have to be sold and cannot be offered as free inducements to customers to go into premises and bet. I reassure your Lordships that we have no intention of changing the controls on licensing which prevent betting offices selling alcoholic beverages or being used as places where alcoholic drinks can be consumed.
The changes represent modest deregulation for the betting industry without undermining the social basis of the controls. They will benefit consumers by providing them with a more pleasant environment in which to place their bets and will remove the straitjacket of somewhat petty and unnecessary controls for the industry. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd January be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose I have a perverse qualification in that I was trying to remember whether or not I had ever been inside a betting shop and I do not believe I have. However, having had this whole matter brought to my attention and realising the restrictions that exist in regard to what can happen in betting shops, it seems to me that the whole situation is ludicrous.
It is ludicrous that the restrictions should exist in the first place. The modest changes proposed in the order, although we shall not oppose them, seem to me to go only a short distance. It is impossible to imagine why we maintain the restrictions at all. Of course it is right not to restrict the size of a television set nor indeed the angle at which it stands and from where it should be viewed. I am reminded of what Ernest Hemingway said to Scott Fitzgerald, which perhaps I should not quote in your Lordships' House on that subject. He was not referring to television sets!
As to the restrictions on snacks and meals, the change in the order seems minimal. Why should not there be restaurant meals served in a betting shop provided that the hygiene regulations required of restaurant kitchens are applied to betting shops as well? In other words, why should not people who want to bet—I do not want to bet but I have nothing against those who do—enjoy themselves in a pleasant atmosphere? I do not oppose the regulations but I hope that at some stage we will come to our senses and not stick these puritanical restrictions on people who want to amuse themselves in a relatively innocent way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 3) Order 1995
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in accordance with Section 67(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may, from time to time, revise the whole or any part of a code of practice issued under that Act.
The codes of practice regulate police procedures in the investigation of crime and also the rights and safeguards of suspects. Therefore they represent an important part of the criminal process. Breaches of the

1275
codes may lead to evidence being rendered inadmissible in court, and may be grounds for disciplinary proceedings against police officers.
If the codes are to be effective they must reflect developments in law and policy. Since their inception, it has been Parliament's intention to keep them under review. They have been revised once before in 1991.
The present revision is prompted by the need to take account of recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which reported in July 1993; by provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and difficulties and anomalies in the codes which have been identified since they were last revised.
Under Section 67 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, before any code is amended, the Home Secretary must publish a draft and consider comments made upon it. A consultation draft was published last August and sent to some 800 organisations and individuals in the legal professions, the police, the social services, voluntary groups and local authorities. Three months were allowed for comments to be submitted. We received comments and suggestions from about 60 organisations. I understand that there is no organisation which has not had a suggestion included in the final text. This has been a genuine exercise in professional and public consultation and there is no doubt that the draft is better for it. Despite that, we have discovered one or two small mistakes and I would draw your Lordships' attention to the short corrigendum which has been circulated with the codes.
The codes are now well known to the police and the legal profession. Our approach, therefore, in amending them has been to leave the present paragraph numbering undisturbed wherever possible. That is why some paragraph numbers are sub-numbered. Paragraphs which have been changed are sidelined. I shall explain to your Lordships the most significant areas of change.
Code A deals with stop and search. It has been amended to cover the new provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which allow stops and searches in anticipation of violence and stops and searches to prevent acts of terrorism. These are covered in Sections 60 and 81 respectively. Neither power requires reasonable suspicion before being exercised, and in that respect they are different from the existing stop and search power under Section 1 of PACE. The code has been amended to reflect this.
The revised code includes guidance to the effect that the period of authorisation and the locality in which searches may take place should be the minimum for the purposes of averting violence or preventing acts of terrorism. The officer authorising use of the powers must give his authorisation in writing at the time or as soon as practicable afterwards. The authorisation must specify the locality where powers may be exercised and the period of time for which they are to remain in force.
As with all searches, an officer who has carried out the search under these new powers must make a written record of the search using the national search record form. Among other details this requires noting the ethnic origin of the person searched.
Code B deals with search of premises and seizure of property. The changes to this code are minimal, and are mostly concerned with clarifying the present law. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the new paragraph at 1.3B on page 12. This is intended to clarify the powers of trading standards officers (who are also affected by the codes) to enter premises—such as a shop—without informing the owner, when making routine inspections. This is necessary following a decision in the courts in a case involving Dudley Council which questioned the power of trading standards officers to operate in this way on the basis of the existing code.
Code C deals with the questioning of suspects and their treatment in police custody. It has been extensively amended to reflect a number of changes proposed by the Royal Commission and stemming from legislation. First, come appropriate adults. These are the people who must be brought in to represent the interests of juveniles or mentally disordered suspects. Their role is described in paragraph 1.7 on page 21 and in Annex E on page 55. The Royal Commission recommended that their role should be clarified. We have had a working party, including outside interests, sitting since last summer, and a number of provisions strengthening the role of appropriate adults have been included in Code C as well as in other codes.
The right of access to legal advice is an essential part of a fair criminal justice process. It is dealt with in section 6 of the code at page 29 onwards. Following recommendations of the Royal Commission this section has been strengthened to ensure that no suspect can be unaware of his continuing right to free legal advice while in a police station. This is not a change of policy, but the requirements to inform a suspect and to record that the information has been given to him have been elaborated.
Next I would mention a matter which has already been discussed at length in this House: the new caution to be administered following the provisions on inferences from silence in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The new form of words is set out at paragraph 10.4 of Code C on page 37. It now reads:
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence".
These words follow extensive consultation with the police, the judiciary and others over the past few months. We believe that they strike the right balance between legal accuracy and brevity. We believe that the caution will be easy for the police to remember and easy for suspects to understand. The caution is repeated again at paragraph 16.2 on page 46 when a person is charged. The wording is very slightly different to reflect the fact that once charged a person cannot be questioned further.
The 1994 Act also provides for inferences to be drawn from the failure of the accused to account for incriminating objects, substances or marks found on his person, or his presence at a particular place, and he must be warned of the consequences of not providing an explanation when asked to do so. Paragraph 10.5B on page 38 of the codes sets out what a police officer must

1277
explain to the suspect in order to satisfy the requirements of the law. The exact wording will vary according to the circumstances, and a standard caution would accordingly not be appropriate here.
I will now turn to a very different matter. Annex A of Code C on page 49 contains a much more detailed provision on strip searches specifying the safeguards which must be applied. This has been an area of confusion and controversy in the past, and I will explain a little more what we have done.
At present a strip search is defined as any search which involves the removal of more than outer clothing. This is too simplistic. The revised Annex A therefore refines this to distinguish between an ordinary strip search such as one involving the removal of a pullover or shirt and one which involves the exposure of intimate parts of the body. For the latter we have introduced further safeguards, including the need for an appropriate adult to be present when juveniles or mentally disordered offenders are subject to a search of this kind. The provision on intimate searches has not been changed except to reflect the fact that following the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 a search of the mouth is no longer an intimate search. Otherwise they will continue normally to be carried out by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse.
I shall now turn to Code D which deals with identification. We have accepted the Royal Commission's proposal that the police should keep a record of the first description of a suspect given to them by a witness. This is set out at paragraph 2.0 on page 62. This is an important safeguard to ensure that witnesses are not "coached" towards a particular description. We have extended the principle to ensure that a suspect's solicitor is made aware when the police have published photographs or films of a wanted suspect in the local media, and given the opportunity to view the material.
We have also made changes to identification procedures to reduce the scope for abuse by suspects in response to concern expressed to us by witnesses and the police. In recent years some suspects have taken advantage of their right to demand an identification parade by altering their appearance when the parade takes place. Examples from recent cases have been of suspects who have dyed their hair, grown beards, shaved off moustaches, or altered the length of their hair. The result is that the identification parade has to be cancelled and re-set for another date so that new participants can be found. That is expensive and wasteful. But more importantly, it delays the investigation and alienates witnesses. Witnesses often have to take time off work to attend a parade and may not be prepared to participate further. All delays assist the defence, since the memories of witnesses fade with every delay.
We have therefore given the police a new power at paragraph 4.2(iv) on page 67 to take a photograph of a suspect in police detention if he is suspected of involvement in a criminal offence and there is identification evidence in relation to that offence. A photograph may also be taken of him when he attends the parade. The suspect will be told that if he should significantly alter his appearance between the taking of
1278
the photograph and any attempt to hold an identification procedure, this change of appearance may be given in evidence if the case comes to trial.
The code also includes new guidance on the group identification procedure in a new annex on page 79. Group identification is where a suspect is placed in a crowd of people in a public place and is often requested by a suspect in preference to an identification parade. The absence of past guidance has meant that difficulties have arisen both in the carrying out of the procedure and the evidential status of the identification made as a result of the process. We hope that the new annex will overcome this.
Changes have also been made to Section D on page 70 onwards which deals with identification by body samples. These changes result from the 1994 Act which amended PACE to allow for the more widespread taking of samples for DNA profiling purposes.
This brings me finally to Code E which regulates the tape recording of interviews. Only one change of substance has been made, and that is to remove four paragraphs in Section 5 which set down the procedures which the police had to adopt to make a written record of an interview. We considered this both excessively prescriptive and unnecessary.
At present these paragraphs require that the interviewing officer himself must prepare a written summary of the interview. This rules out, for example, the use of civilian tape transcripts. The Audit Commission and independent consultants engaged by the Home Office have suggested that considerable savings could be made by more flexible approaches. We plan to undertake pilot studies to consider alternative approaches and the proposed change will allow the studies to be undertaken. It will be a requirement for all written summaries to be prepared in accordance with national guidelines that have been approved by the Secretary of State. This will ensure a standard framework of quality and consistency between forces, but also flexibility in adopting more cost-effective approaches.
I have described the main changes that are being made to the codes. We believe they ensure that the codes continue to be relevant to the changing legal and operational background in which the police must operate. They also continue to provide strong legal safeguards for citizens against arbitrary or oppressive use of police powers. If approved by Parliament the revised codes will come into force on 10th April 1995. They will be published in the same format as before—a small paperback book. Copies will be given to every police officer and will be available for the use of suspects in all police stations. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th January be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having introduced the order. I thank her particularly for the detail in which she explained it. That

1279
may sound unusual in the sense that very often we want shorter ministerial speeches. When I contrast the Minister's speech today with the very much shorter and more scrappy introduction which the order received in the Committee on Statutory Instruments in another place only two days ago, we have seen an introduction today which shows respect for the House. I am grateful to the Minister for having treated us seriously.
As the Minister rightly said, the order reflects the changes which were brought about primarily in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I have to take it for granted that the order accurately reflects the provisions of the Act. I have to accept that because of the degree of consultation which has taken place and because I know that those who are much more expert in this subject have gone through the new codes very carefully and, so far as I am aware, have not found discrepancies between them and the Act. I am simply not capable of carrying out the concordance which would be necessary between a 91-page series of codes of practice and a very complex piece of legislation.
Having said that, the House will not forget that in the course of consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill we opposed very many parts of it. Many of the fears which we had about the effect of the Act on the relationship between police and public under the codes are now brought to fruition by the publication of the order and the new codes. However, I do not believe that it would be for the benefit of the House if we were to repeat all the objections that we had to the Bill at that time. For one thing, it would take many hours, and for another we accept that having secured the approval of Parliament for the Act it is proper for the Government to give effect to it in the codes of practice.
I have only one particular point to make about the codes themselves; it concerns the caution. I listened carefully to the Minister as she read it—not only to the words, which are printed on pages 37, 46 and 87 of the codes, but also to her tone of voice and the way in which she read it. None of that can appear in Hansard, but I ask the House to consider very carefully whether this is a comprehensible series of words and sentences:
"You do not have to say anything".
That is fair enough. The caution goes on,
"But it may harm your defence".
Will everyone understand "harm your defence" and that a defence is your argument of what you say happened and what you are going to put forward? Will everyone understand that "harm" is something which can do damage to your argument? The caution continues:"If you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court".
In normal speech we do not include a phrase such as "when questioned" in the middle of a sentence without any punctuation and when it is out of the normal order of everyday speech. I suggest that that sentence is not in demotic English and will not be readily understood by a very large number of people who will hear it read to them. The next part of the caution is all right, namely,
"Anything you do say may be given in evidence".
1280
I realise that at 37 words the caution is an improvement on the 80 or so words which, we understand, the Home Secretary drafted himself as an earlier version, although we have not returned to the 17 words which were the caution before the abolition of the protection of the right of silence provisions in the Criminal Justice Act.
I beg the Government to look again at the wording of the caution and to undertake serious research. It is possible to undertake research into how people—not necessarily those with university degrees or PhDs—actually understand the wording. Oddly enough, the version which states,
"If you do not mention now",
is easier to understand than the version which states,
"you do not mention when questioned".
On the basis that this is an accurate reflection of the changes required by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and that our objections to it are recorded and need not be repeated, I have very few further things to say about the order.
I wish, however, to refer to monitoring and particularly the monitoring of the new stop and search powers. Who is to carry out the monitoring of these powers? Is it to be the responsibility of the police authority or Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and, if neither of those, who? Stop and search powers have been a matter of great controversy over a period of years. We have gone back to a time before the abolition of the "sus" laws. The implementation of the powers could be extremely dangerous. Unless the exercise of those powers, which we so strongly deplored when the Bill came before us, is properly monitored, there is a serious risk of miscarriage of justice and the misuse of police powers.
What about breaches of the codes? How are they to be dealt with? Is it simply a matter of disciplinary procedures within the police force or are breaches of the codes to be drawn to the attention of the courts? How is the general public to know about breaches of the codes which have been identified?
Finally there is the implementation of the codes. I see that they are due to be implemented on 10th April this year. I do not object to every attempt by the Government to secure early implementation, but that is a very short period in which to train every police officer in the land in these new and extremely complicated powers. I know that it has been made easier by the retention of the same paragraph numbers, but there are 91 pages. Will the Minister tell us what training is planned, and whether she is convinced and fully satisfied that the period between now and 10th April is adequate for the training so that when the new codes come into force they will be up and running from the first day?
With those few remarks, I repeat that we do not intend to oppose the order.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I propose to raise just three questions on this issue. I want to come first to the question of the mentally ill. An increasing number of people are being arrested by the police because of the failure to deal with the mentally ill in the community. Care in the community in many parts of

1281
this country is a poor joke. As a result, the police experience more and more problems in that area. That being so, the question of the "appropriate adult" procedure is a matter of considerable importance.
As the Minister will be aware, there was a recommendation on that issue by the Royal Commission. The Government have set up a working party consisting of representatives of the police and some of the mental health organisations. I welcome that, but will the Minister say when the report will be available. I assume that it will be published in its entirety. Perhaps she could help us with that matter.
There is then the issue of the transcription of tape recordings of interviews made within a police station. When the arrangements were introduced, it was assumed by many in the police service that that responsibility would be taken on by the CPS. In fact, that has not proved to be the case. Thousands upon thousands of police hours are spent dealing with the transcription problem. It is not a sensible way of using scarce police resources. Again, there is a working party looking at the question of whether clerical staff rather than police officers can be used. That is an entirely sensible idea. When will we have the results of that working party? The problem needs to be tackled with considerable urgency. The misapplication of resources causes serious concern in the police service, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that point.
Thirdly, there is the highly sensitive issue of the stop-and-search powers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I understand that a research project is to be conducted in that area, and I welcome that. I should be interested to know who will be conducting that research. Will it be done internally by the police research group, within the Home Office, or by someone outside? When will we know the results of that research? Again, will the report be published in its entirety?
Those are important issues, and I should be grateful for the Minister's assistance in finding out what are the answers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have responded to the order. I respect the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the purpose of today is to ensure that the order is accurate and consistent with the changes and the new Act. The noble Lord rightly makes the point that the Opposition did not agree with the Act in the first place, but that is not the purpose of today.
Perhaps I may refer to some of the points raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned breaches of the code. My understanding is that under PACE breaches could be cited in disciplinary proceedings and could even lead to evidence being ruled inadmissible in the courts. I have a feeling that the noble Lord's question went further than that and that he was asking how such breaches would be dealt with. I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to write to him, particularly on the practical issues of how breaches will be identified and dealt with.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, but I had a further point. How is the
1282
public to know about the extent and nature of breaches of the code once they have been identified? If the Minister could include that in her letter, it would be even more helpful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was right in detecting that there was rather more in the noble Lord's question than I had responded to. I shall certainly write to him on that point. I understand what the noble Lord said about the wording of the caution. In fact, I spent some time querying the very point that the noble Lord queried. All I can say is that the wording was the result of extensive consultation, especially with the senior judiciary. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the words have to balance simplicity, to enable people to understand them, and a rather complex provision. The words of the caution will be monitored, and I shall be able to report back at some later stage on just how well the caution is being understood. If it is not, it may be something to which we will have to return.
A point was made on the stop-and-search provisions. When I presented the order to the House I said that there is a requirement in Code A that the ethnic origin of those who are stopped should be recorded. Statistics will be published, and they will be monitored carefully to address any potential problems of racial bias in the use of that power.
A Home Office circular will be issued to chief police officers at an early date—well in advance of the proposed implementation date—outlining the changes which have been made. It will provide also for revised standard forms—for example, a notice to detained persons, national search records and so forth—and they are being produced in consultation with the ACPO. An important point about training was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Training requirements of police officers are a matter for individual chief officers. Individual forces have been undertaking training since the codes were laid, and a series of articles by ACPO on the new provisions is, I understand, to be published in the Police Review.
The subject of the mentally ill was mentioned. I referred to that in my opening. The introduction of the provision for an adult to be present will be important. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked a number of questions. I am sure that I shall not refer to them all, but I shall write to him, especially with regard to the report. We have accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and have set up a working group, as the noble Lord knows. It consists of representatives from government, the police, MENCAP, MIND and NACRO to look at the whole area. It is expected that the group will issue its findings later this year. That is a matter for the group itself, but I shall keep the noble Lord informed about it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is it right that the report will be published in its entirety?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we shall publish its findings. I shall look at Hansard tomorrow to see whether there are any detailed points to which I have not referred. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
5.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 deals primarily with amendments to the existing legislation relating to the operation of local government in Northern Ireland. The reasons for promoting the amendments are varied. Some will strengthen the powers and responsibilities of district councils, some will remove ambiguity from existing provisions and some will bring the legislation in Northern Ireland into line with the equivalent provisions in Great Britain.
While I do not propose to comment on each individual article, I will draw your Lordships' attention to a number of provisions. Article 3 deals with vacation of office because of non-attendance at council meetings. The existing legislation is somewhat defective in two respects. First, it is silent as to when the period of absence commences. Secondly, it is ambiguous about the types of meeting which constitute a meeting of the council. The new order now provides that the period commences from the date of the last meeting attended and clearly specifies which meetings count towards attendance.
Article 4 deals with the appointment and qualifications of council officers and proposes two changes to the existing legislation. The department is relaxing its approval role in respect of the terms and conditions of service for a clerk of a council and certain other officers. This is considered appropriate in view of the role and influence now exercised by the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland on staffing matters in councils and the existence of fair employment and equal opportunity legislation.
The department also proposes to change the procedure whereby it designates posts, qualifications and how vacancies are advertised. By being able to "determine" on these matters, rather than having to "prescribe" by regulation, the department would have at its disposal a more appropriate administrative procedure to enable it to respond quickly to councils' proposals.
Article 10 relates to entertainments licences. Northern Ireland, like Great Britain, suffers from rave parties where drugs are peddled. Local residents are caused annoyance and distress by these events, which go on late into the night or into the early hours of the morning. District councils have asked for stronger measures to combat unwanted rave parties. The current maximum penalty for breaching the licensing regulations is a £5,000 fine. This is not considered to be a sufficient deterrent to promoters of these very lucrative events. The amendment would allow the maximum penalty to be increased to a £20,000 fine and/or six months' imprisonment for certain types of offence.
Finally, Article 11 relates to street names. Under legislation made in 1949, councils in Northern Ireland may erect street nameplates only in English. In December 1992, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave a commitment to remove this prohibition so that councils could, for example, erect a nameplate in Irish in addition to the one in English. This is in line with the Government's policy of encouraging greater appreciation of cultural identity in Northern Ireland. The order gives effect to this commitment. However, before deciding to erect the second nameplate, a council must have regard to any views expressed by the occupiers of premises in the street concerned.
These are straightforward amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before th House on 9th February be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are meeting when the hopes of so many people are fixed on the prospect of a brighter future. However, we still need to carry out our task of scrutiny and questioning. In respect of all the orders on the Order Paper tonight, I recognise the burden that the Minister has had during the past weeks and I am content for her to write in answer to specific questions that I have not had the opportunity to discuss with her in the usual way. I have one or two short questions relating to this order.
As regards Article 4, I am puzzled about why the words "may be prescribed" are to be substituted by "the department may determine". A more important question relates to Article 8, which deals with public appeals. If public appeals are to be the subject of contributions of public funds, what is the intention? For example, will it cover the use of public money for banners, posters and demonstrations, as is said to have happened previously? Will it cover public donations for demonstrations against the framework document? If not —and I assume that the answer must be no—will there be operative effective guidelines or limits?
I should be grateful for an explanation about the thinking and purpose behind Article 7. We on this side of the House welcome the philosophy behind Article 11. It empowers a public authority to provide bilingual street signs where that is thought appropriate. There is no clear indication as to how the views of residents are to be ascertained and we would welcome guidance on that matter. Generally, it appears to be a fulfilment of our obligations to encourage regional and minority languages. I am extremely pleased to hear that the Government's policy is to give a general encouragement to the Irish language. I bear in mind that past encouragement of the Welsh language, although it has been rather niggardly, has been most welcome.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kindness in indicating that we have in Northern Ireland been busy in the past few weeks. I must pay tribute to my colleagues who have been exceptionally busy and, we hope, to good effect. I

1285
am grateful for the noble Lord's recognition of that. I shall endeavour to answer his questions but I shall be happy to write to him if he considers that necessary.
For the sake of simplification, we are changing to determining rather than prescribing. It is easier to designate officers or qualifications than to prescribe them by making regulations. Discussions can then take place between government and council officials and we believe that they will be able to move more quickly.
In order to avoid the fear that the noble Lord indicated, contributions to public appeals are being restricted to persons or bodies specified in the order. It will assist councils when dealing with the many requests for contributions they receive. It also brings councils in Northern Ireland into line with legislation in Great Britain.
The possibility of prohibiting political contributions was examined but had to be rejected because of the diverse meaning that could be attached to "political". As in the Local Government Act 1972, an appeal may be made by the Lord Mayor of London, the chairman of a principal council or by a committee of which any of those persons is a member. That makes it possible for substantial contributions to be made to charities, usually made by somebody taking office for the period of a year.
It is considered that councils using their local knowledge can best decide how to have regard to the views of occupiers when considering whether to erect a second nameplate. We believe that to impose requirements as to how a council should undertake that task could prove unduly restrictive and bureaucratic and is best dealt with in relation to specific local circumstances.
I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord on these matters. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 now before your Lordships is to remove the present limit of £35,000 on the amount of compensation that can be awarded by the Fair Employment Tribunal in cases of religious or political discrimination.
Fair employment issues in Northern Ireland have been high on the Government's agenda for many years. Discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of an individual's religious belief or political opinion was outlawed as far back as 1976. That legislation was considerably strengthened in 1989. The order represents a further enhancement of that law. It will help to ensure
1286
that all those—whether Protestant or Catholic—who are victims of discrimination will receive adequate and proper compensation for the injury they suffer.
In addition, to establishing the Fair Employment Commission as a successor to the Fair Employment Agency, the 1989 Fair Employment Act also established a new independent judicial body—the Fair Employment Tribunal—to hear and determine individual allegations of unlawful discrimination. The tribunal operates on broadly similar lines to the industrial tribunals in the United Kingdom.
When the 1989 Act was passed, industrial tribunals had power to award compensation (for example, in cases of sex discrimination or unfair dismissal) of up to £8,500. However, because of the seriousness with which religious discrimination was regarded, the Fair Employment Tribunal was given power at that time to award up to £30,000 compensation. That amount was raised to £35,000 in March 1994 to take account of inflation. However, in light of the European Court of Justice decision in relation to the case of Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority, it is now necessary to remove that limit completely.
The applicant in that particular case had successfully taken her claim of sex discrimination to the industrial tribunal in Great Britain. In awarding maximum compensation the tribunal noted that Ms. Marshall would have been awarded much more had there not been a limit on the amount the tribunal could award.
Ms. Marshall decided to pursue that matter through the European Court of Justice which delivered its judgment on 2nd August 1993. The court ruled that victims of unlawful sex discrimination were entitled to full compensation. It also ruled that the ceiling on compensation and the exclusion of the possibility of awarding interest under UK law were both incompatible with the EC Equal Treatment Directive. The Government accepted that new principle. They moved quickly to abolish the compensation limit under sex discrimination legislation, in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That prompted a re-assessment of the situation relating to compensation in other areas of anti-discrimination law. It was concluded that there was no valid distinction between different types of discrimination and that the new principle of abolishing compensation limits for all discrimination cases should apply. The order will abolish the compensation limit in cases of religious and political discrimination in Northern Ireland.
In addition, the order will give the Fair Employment Tribunal power to include interest on awards. Details of how such interest will be calculated are to be set out in subordinate legislation.
This is a short and straightforward order, but it is necessary for Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved. — (Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is an extremely welcome order. The issue of unfair

1287
discrimination at work has been a running sore for too long in Northern Ireland and although there have been improvements, it still continues.
It is of particular interest to those who supported the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, not too long ago, that the Government were vigorous in their non-acceptance of the principles behind it, and yet, on this occasion, there has been a glowing commendation from the Minister in relation to the virtue and value of the work of the European Court. I am sure that that will be transmitted by those on this side of the House to the Minister who did not accept the principles of the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
The removal of limitations on amount is absolutely critical as is the power to award interest. That has been the case in personal injury cases, as is well known. In our view, it is of particular importance because discrimination at work is not merely discrimination in terms of earning capacity since for most, if not all of us, work is not simply a means of earning money but is a central part and amenity of life. Therefore, although repentance has been a little dilatory, repentance is always welcome and therefore we support the order.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this order is obviously very welcome to those of us on these Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked me to convey his appreciation for the Government's change of heart on this matter. He put a great deal of work into this issue and he has been vindicated. The result is extremely welcome.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, your Lordships have given the order generous recognition. In Northern Ireland, we try to do things well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the Minister admitting that on this side of the Irish Sea, things are not done well in the area of discrimination?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I fear that I must disappoint the noble Baroness. I am merely saying that in our areas of responsibility, we try to do things well. We assume that the standards are as excellent elsewhere.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it is very important to continue to work in the area of fair employment. This order is very relevant to that and I am grateful for the support that it has received. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
5.47 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this order I shall speak also to the draft Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995. Both orders were laid before this House on 12th January.
The Children (Northern Ireland) Order will provide Northern Ireland with a framework of childcare law which is broadly in line with that provided in England and Wales under the Children Act 1989. The consequential amendments order, which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, amends a number of enactments applying solely to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom as a whole as a result of changes introduced by the Children Act.
The new legislation will bring together most of the public and private law relating to children in Northern Ireland within a single statute. Its essential purpose is to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. It will have a major impact on a very wide range of services and on a large number of statutory and voluntary agencies in the delivery of those services. I will not attempt to describe all of the provisions in detail.
The order has been the subject of widespread consultation. However, your Lordships may find it useful if I comment briefly on the principles upon which it is based.
The foremost principle is that the welfare of the child is paramount. The order recognises parents as the best people to bring up their children and will establish that help must be provided both by health and social services boards and trusts for children in need and their families. In that regard, the new legislation will also give special recognition to the needs of disabled children, to the importance of working in partnership with parents and to the need for partnership between the voluntary and statutory agencies in the provision of help. It will also introduce the important concept of parental responsibility and will provide that parents will continue to have parental responsibility for their children, even if they are taken into care.
The order will ensure that, should it become necessary for the courts to become involved in issues regarding a child's future, the welfare of the child must remain the paramount consideration. It makes clear that courts should not make orders unless such a course is in the best interests of the child. Moreover, courts will be required to have regard to the particular needs of the child and to recognise that delay in proceedings is likely to be prejudicial to his or her welfare. They will also be required to have regard to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child and to help give effect to that.
The order will provide for the appointment, in most care and care-related proceedings, of a guardian ad litem. The guardian will be an independent social worker who will report to the court on what would be best for the child. In all family proceedings, courts will also be provided with a new flexible range of powers which will replace the current access and custody orders and which will govern such matters as the contact the child is to have with other persons and the arrangements as to the person with whom the child is to live.
There are, unfortunately, circumstances where children must be protected from danger and the order will provide powers for the courts to make emergency protection orders and child assessment orders. It will also provide for children to be taken into police protection in an emergency. Whenever children must be

1289
looked after away from home, whether as a result of a court order or under voluntary arrangements, the children order will provide that their welfare is safeguarded and promoted. The Department of Health and Social Services will be provided with wide regulation-making powers which will ensure that accommodation provided by health and social services boards and trusts, and that provided by voluntary and other children's homes, is of a high standard and subject to regular inspection. Extensive provision is also made, through detailed registration and inspection procedures, to secure the welfare of children looked after away from home for part of the day by those providing childminding and day-care services.
As I have noted, the draft children order has been the subject of extensive consultation. It was the subject of a debate in the Northern Ireland Committee in February last year and of subsequent discussions between myself and members of the committee with representatives of voluntary childcare organisations. I believe that I can safely say that anyone who wished to come and talk about such an important order was most certainly not refused the opportunity to do so.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the changes which have been made following that consultation. The first relates to the registration requirements for those providing day care and childminding services. The requirement to register has been extended to those providing services for children under the age of 12. Again, in relation to childminding, the order will now require that only those providing such services for reward will be required to register. Further, in the light of concerns that it would be impracticable to require all those providing supervised activities to register as providers of day care, the order will now enable the Department of Health and Social Services to exempt certain supervised activities from registration. However, I can assure noble Lords that that will only be done with the greatest of care.
A change has also been made with regard to the powers and duties of health and social services boards and trusts to provide accommodation for children. The effect of that will be to ensure that all accommodation provided must be in a proper care setting. Some changes have also been made with regard to children's homes. First, in the light of concerns that homes accommodating fewer than four children would not have been required to register under the provisions set out in the proposal, a change has been made which will ensure that all children's homes must be registered regardless of the number of children accommodated. Secondly, it has been decided that, as the imposition of registration and inspection fees would place a burden on voluntary children's homes, the provision which would have enabled fees to be imposed on voluntary organisations has been dropped from the draft order. The provisions for fees to be imposed on those providing childminding and day-care services have also been dropped.
Other substantive changes include a change to the jurisdictional arrangements under which appeals from magistrates' courts will lie to the Country Court rather
1290
than the High Court. Additional provisions are also included to allow for the establishment of separate care units within training school complexes.
It was widely commented upon during consultation that no provision had been made for an annual report on the legislation. I am pleased to confirm that the order now includes such a requirement.
I am very hopeful that the greatest beneficiaries of peace will be our children, not only as the future generations but in the present. As the ceasefire removes stress from the whole community we must hope that children will be listened to more and protected. But the vulnerable will continue to need the protection offered by the orders. I hope that they will receive widespread support. They will, I believe, ensure that the children of Northern Ireland receive the care and upbringing that they deserve and which is their right. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are some questions which are quite serious —both general and particular—about this very bulky item of legislation. There are 185 articles, 261 pages and no fewer than 10 schedules, giving an enormous range of opportunity for altering the provisions for childcare. I know that several Members of your Lordships' House have particularly detailed questions to ask. Therefore, I shall confine myself to more general matters.
It seems to us to be rather disappointing that it has taken all this time after the Children Act 1989 covering England and Wales (which, by and large, has been a great success) for matters affecting Northern Ireland to be dealt with. One of the greatest successes of the Children Act has been the informed, concentrated training of designated judges. If I may say so, that has been a great success for the Lord Chancellor's Department and one which is very widely recognised. However, is it intended to introduce equivalent training, and funding for such training, for the judges and others who have to administer the new regime in Northern Ireland? That is a critical question and I should be most grateful if the Minister could assist in that respect.
Where is the identified extra funding to come from for such a wide ranging item of legislation containing all the articles to which I referred? I have in mind family support services, children with disabilities, child protection services, aftercare provision and court service provision. Further, will there be the provision of independent legal representation for children involved in parental disputes beyond the present provision of the guardian ad litem?
From these Benches, I should like to pay particular tribute to the Children Order Group which has carried out so much detailed work in the area. When I look at the order and the present absence of any reassurance about funding, I must say that I am concerned about the lack of a common strategy to deal with social services, education and housing services thus enabling them to work together. We have the experience of what has happened for some years now in England and Wales.

1291
That experience demonstrates irrefutably, I believe, that there has been a very substantial increase in local authority budgetary requirements to deal with the new provisions. Will that funding be made available in the Northern Ireland context?
I have with me a few statistics which are deeply significant. For example, 27 per cent. of the population is under 18 in Northern Ireland and 19 per cent. of families are lone-parent families. That means that there are 95,000 children. Moreover, there are 62,000 households with dependent children who rely on income support. It is notorious, I believe, that Northern Ireland has the lowest provision of pre-school places in the United Kingdom. These are all serious questions about which, as I said earlier, many in your Lordships' House are deeply concerned, and on which they would welcome specific reassurance from the Minister either this evening or in writing.
We are extremely glad to see the distinct improvement which the Minister mentioned; namely, the provision of the annual report, because our belief is that such an annual report is quite invaluable. It is a useful discipline within the 12-month period and it is an exceptionally valuable source of information at the end of the period. As the Minister has said, over the past 25 years children have suffered more than anyone in Northern Ireland. I believe that we in your Lordships' House certainly recognise the enormous stresses, strains and pressures put on childcare professionals in such circumstances over such a long period of time—professionals working in all disciplines to do with children.
Therefore there are serious concerns, not on any partisan basis, about what the future will hold. The magic wand will simply not do in the context of an order as detailed as this. I have one final question to ask, recognising that others have many more detailed questions. Why is it that social services are administered by trusts in Northern Ireland and are not so administered elsewhere in the United Kingdom? There is a feeling in Northern Ireland that sometimes the people there are used as guinea-pigs. Is there not a sensible case for having a single body in Northern Ireland to have overall responsibility for childcare in Northern Ireland?
I recognise, of course, that there is a significant democratic deficit in Northern Ireland for historic reasons that everyone recognises, but there is a strong feeling—which I believe to be legitimately based—that one should not have trusts, with all their deficiencies too numerous to specify, dealing with matters as important as the care of children by social services. We shall not, of course, vote against this order or anything of that kind, but there are these questions which I repeat do not derive from a partisan approach but derive from an approach which is motivated by serious concerns.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we also welcome these new regulations on the care of children. It is, I believe, the case that in Northern Ireland there is a higher proportion of children living in poverty or suffering from disabilities than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Therefore provision of this kind is especially
1292
necessary and in many ways—perhaps to some extent we can understand this—it is overdue. But nonetheless it is extremely necessary. We welcome the fact that provision is now being made.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I, too, think that this is a big subject which cannot perhaps be suitably dealt with in a discussion on a regulation. I believe that many of us would like the opportunity to discuss it more fully on some other occasion. I see the noble Baroness nodding her head. I am sure she will be willing to give us that opportunity. There are several questions that I wish to raise with her.
In the account that she gave us of the plans it was plain that considerable emphasis was being put on the provision of residential care and on the standards to be provided in residential care. But I understand that there is within the overall schemes provision for family support—the attempt to build up care for children in their families by giving assistance to the family. I would not claim to be at all expert on this subject, but as I understand it most people would agree that if the child can be supported within its own family that is much to be preferred to support given in any kind of institution. However, where there is considerable poverty, where there is disability and where there has been turmoil, distress and the psychological disturbance which is inevitable in many families in Northern Ireland, it will not be easy to do that. The kind of support that families will need will inevitably be extensive and expensive.
Those who have talked to us about the hoped-for developments in Northern Ireland for family support have raised the whole question of funding. We all know that giving care inside the family is not cheap if it is done properly. It involves, for example, the provision—and the noble Baroness referred to this—of day care services. It requires a great deal of support and the provision of services to enable the families we are talking about who live with the degree of deprivation we are talking about, to cope and to be able to give the proper upbringing and support and care to those children who are so greatly in need of it. As we understand it, a considerable amount of money will be needed. Over a period of five years as much as an additional £45 million a year will be needed if the schemes are to be properly run.
I also wish to ask the noble Baroness how these schemes are to be controlled. What kind of plan is there for the development of a strategy to ensure that these new schemes are put into operation properly and are monitored so that we know that the desired results are being obtained? As the noble Baroness knows so much better than I—and I dare say other people in your Lordships' House—in Northern Ireland a remarkable amount of work has been done by voluntary organisations. Their contribution to the work that has gone on in Northern Ireland has been quite outstanding and very extensive. Will the noble Baroness assure us that in the planning and development of care for children and the implementation of all the schemes that they have in mind, the voluntary organisations will not merely be consulted but will be given an opportunity to take an active part in the development of those schemes? However good they may be officials cannot have the day-to-day intimate knowledge of what is involved in

1293
dealing with problems of this kind. The knowledge and experience of people who have long worked in these voluntary organisations surely needs to be used at the time of formulating policy and in the follow-up of the implementation of that policy, not just in a consultative capacity. They should be given the opportunity to take an active part in the formulation of the plans, the monitoring of the plans and the revision of the plans.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister for presenting this order to the House today. It gives me particular pleasure to speak in this debate. Although I am half a Scot, half English and not Irish, nevertheless I have been delighted to be invited to the Province of Northern Ireland on four different occasions. I have met social workers in the Province and members of the voluntary organisations. I pay tribute to the work which they have done throughout these difficult years and to the high standard of that work.
I was interested to hear my noble friend the Minister say, first, that the welfare of the child is paramount and, secondly, that children are the responsibility first of parents. We must never forget that. The English Children Act 1989 lays down that all those responsible for the well-being of children should co-operate and work alongside one another. I wish to pay tribute to the Children Act 1989, remembering that when that Act was being thought about everyone in the country was consulted by the Department of Health. Meetings were called with social workers, probation officers, magistrates, doctors, lawyers and judges. That Act was well thought out and deep consultation took place at all levels so that when the Act was brought before your Lordships' House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I dare to suggest that it went through easily without much acrimonious discussion, or rather disagreement, because there is rarely much acrimonious discussion in your Lordships' House as we are so polite.
I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her place because when the regulations and guidance for the Education Bill were issued, she and her civil servants consulted widely with the people involved in dealing with all handicapped children. I welcome the fact that she paid tribute to those people working in the field who helped to produce those regulations.
I should like to ask the Minister whether the position will be the same in Northern Ireland under the order. Will there be close contact between civil servants and others who are interested in the order? I had the privilege of meeting senior civil servants, as well as social workers, voluntary organisations, members of the Bar and judges. The success of the order will depend on their close co-operation.
Can my noble friend say whether senior civil servants will hold discussions and co-operate with social workers, voluntary organisations, lawyers and judges in formulating the regulations and guidance? I am given to understand that the guidelines produced for England are being looked at in the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, touched on the question of resources. I say with the utmost diffidence that there
1294
have been difficulties in England and Wales with the implementation of the 1989 Act due to lack of resources. I know that everyone is talking about lack of resources in every area in this country at present, and I admit that we have to cut back on public expenditure. However, I contend that if, as Lord Williams of Mostyn said, there are insufficient resources to implement the order as it should be implemented, we shall cause more trouble and lower expectations. In the end, having the right resources will be cost effective in this area. That should be recognised. Therefore, I plead with the Minister to look at the whole question of resources very carefully.
I am given to understand that estimates have been produced by civil servants and also by social workers and the voluntary organisations. I underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. The voluntary organisations play an important part, and they are having great difficulty in raising money—as we all are. They have particular difficulties and I hope that their financial situation will be taken into account.
On the subject of monitoring and the annual report, can my noble friend the Minister say who will be responsible for producing the annual report? Will it be brought before this House? Will it be a public report? Will it be considered only in Northern Ireland, or will it be brought before the House?
Training is very important. I do not understand fully the question of the financial help that will be provided for the training of social workers in the Province. However, that is a matter which also has to be taken into account. We on this side of the water wish this order well. We believe that children, parents and particularly families in Northern Ireland require and deserve the best service that we can give them. I support the order.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I apologise for not having been present when the noble Baroness presented the order. I was otherwise detained.
I rise for only a few minutes to support fully the plea which has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for the provision of adequate resources to implement the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, as I entered the Chamber, that perhaps this House—and indeed the House at the other end of the building—is not the best centre to debate an order such as this. This order replaces the 1968 order. I recall vividly when that order was debated in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I suggest that the Northern Ireland Parliament, as it was then constructed, with Members who represented local communities and were close to the ground and aware of the needs of the Northern Ireland community, was far more in touch with the needs which gave rise to the 1968 order.
Everyone will recognise that over the past 25 years children and young people in Northern Ireland have been sadly affected by all forms of terrorism. There cannot be a higher priority for this House, or anywhere else, than to provide for the welfare of children in Northern Ireland. We all hope that the document which

1295
was produced yesterday and the signs of peace that are emerging in Northern Ireland will produce a peace dividend and that money will not have to be spent on the security forces and on barriers on roads. If surplus money is retrieved as a result of non-provision for those aspects of security, it could not be better spent than on the provision of welfare services for young people in Northern Ireland.
I hope that in the implementation of the order the Government will pay due regard to how children in Northern Ireland have suffered over the past 25 years, and take whatever steps are necessary to make certain that those children who will be the beneficiaries of the order will not have to suffer in the same way as young people have suffered in the past.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very important debate on the Children (Northern Ireland) Order. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt—who painted a picture of the situation in Northern Ireland as no one else could—said, there are special needs. We are determined to meet those needs.
I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that already we have been able to benefit from some of the limited reduction in spending on security by working with the long-term unemployed and directing some money towards educational buildings. I hope that there will be much more money available which we can redirect. We have the commitment of the Prime Minister that that money can be used in Northern Ireland.
As both the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, the number of children who are particularly disadvantaged and vulnerable is higher in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in Great Britain. That means that we must ensure the excellence of the programmes of support that we provide.
It was questioned why it had taken so long to bring the order forward. I have sympathy with that comment; but I point out that we have tried to ensure that we took on board the views of everyone concerned. The original consultation period was the usual one of three months. Owing to requests for more time, that was extended. In addition to the public consultation, the draft order was also the subject of debate in the Northern Ireland Grand Committee in February last year. That committee meeting resulted in many changes, which again went to consultation, and, as I said earlier this evening, were incorporated into the draft order. I hope that it will be recognised that the delay has been beneficial.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised the question of pre-school support in Northern Ireland. One of the major areas of pre-school support in Northern Ireland is child minding. That is why we were especially concerned with ensuring that support would be available through the withdrawal of fees. He will, I know, be pleased to hear that an early years programme, which was announced by the Minister for Health and the Minister for Education earlier this year, brought forth another £1 million for the programme working in that area.
1296
I had the great good fortune to be Minister for Health in Northern Ireland for the first term of my appointment there. I must say that I had some pangs on withdrawal from the portfolio. However, that appointment left me absolutely convinced that Northern Ireland is not a guinea pig as regards integrated health and social services; rather it is a leader. It is interesting that several areas in England are now studying the practice. It allows greater exchange of views and, I believe, strengthens the safety net in which people find themselves from time to time because the whole team works together. Having seen the commitment of trusts in Northern Ireland, I would argue, although perhaps on another occasion, about the deficiencies to which the noble Lord referred.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned, family support is absolutely crucial. The great advantage of family support is that in many instances it can be in the format of preventive care so that we avoid the heavy cost involved in circumstances where we have not been able to help. Family support will be a major plank of our policy.
I am also delighted to tell the noble Baroness that we have already put in place, with funds, programmes for stress counselling in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that, with the pressures of the ceasefire removed, the stresses have not gone away; they are different.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether we shall train the judiciary in the way that has been implemented in Great Britain. At an early stage officials in Northern Ireland identified a need for a co-ordinated training programme to be implemented prior to the order coming into operation. Training will be made available, with the co-operation of a Judicial Studies Board, to members of the judiciary, a juvenile lay panel, and court staff who will be involved in applications under the order. Training of the lay panel has already commenced. There will be funds. In the 1995–96 budgets existing funds of up to £2 million will, in part, cover the new legislation training. The start-up of the guardian ad litem service also requires funds.
All noble Lords were concerned about the resource implications and the resource availabilities for the children order. The Government recognise the considerable implications for resources that the order will involve. The order will replace existing legislative framework and note needs to be taken of the resources already deployed, which will need to be redirected, and of the development of childcare services already in hand.
Nevertheless, although the figures vary between groups, it is recognised that additional resources will need to be deployed. They will be phased in. We cannot run with the order before we walk. It would be wrong to do so. Equally, it would be wrong for me to stand here and indicate that there are bottomless pits. Everyone in your Lordships' House knows that there are no bottomless pits of resources. However, I reassure noble Lords that we believe that it is one of the most important areas for the future of Northern Ireland.

1297
I join with all noble Lords who paid tribute to the voluntary groups in Northern Ireland. I believe that one of the reasons that we are able to deliver such a high standard of care and support in areas of need is because of the great strength of the voluntary groups. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful', pointed out, they are always short of funds. Nevertheless, I doubt that there is a more generous nation than the people of Northern Ireland in contributing to those voluntary groups.
Perhaps I may assure your Lordships that officials recognise not only the value of consultation with voluntary groups and others involved in child care but also the absolute need to involve them. There is need to learn from their skills and to bring them on board. The order will not benefit children unless there is partnership and teamwork; and we most certainly recognise that factor.
The question of monitoring was raised. The management executive in Northern Ireland, assisted by the social services inspectorate, will monitor the implementation of the order, in particular Article 18 which requires boards and trusts to support families in need. The outcome will be reported in the annual report. The requirement is that the Department of Health and Social Services shall consult with the Lord Chancellor, the Department of Education and the Department of Finance and Personnel, before the report comes to publication. I am unable to ascertain whether it will be brought to the House. However, I shall find out and write to my noble friend.
The department is also funding a new research centre with Queen's University in Belfast specifically to undertake evaluation and research following commencement of the order.
1298
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there will be steps to provide legal representation in disputes between parents; and in the more difficult cases the Official Solicitor remains available to protect the interests of the child in the High Court.
I thank noble Lords for the support for the order and the recognition of why it is so important to Northern Ireland. It gives me great pleasure to commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1995
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th January be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
6.27 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past six o'clock.